[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7776-7822]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1646.

                              {time}  1100


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1646, the Department 
of State's authorization for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
  The distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Lantos), the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and I 
introduced the bill, which was favorably reported to the House by voice 
vote.
  I want to emphasize this is not a foreign aid bill. That subject will 
be discussed at a later time.
  Standing at the edge of a new century, it is appropriate to pause and 
wonder what lies ahead for us, our descendents, and our country. For 
the United States, the century just past was one of unprecedented 
American triumph. So great was our prominence,

[[Page 7777]]

so expansive our fortune, that it has been called the ``American 
century.''
  For many others around the world, however, the experience of that 
same period of time was quite different. Universally hailed at its 
beginning as an era of peace and progress, the 20th century proved to 
be the bloodiest and most savage in human history.
  Tens of millions perished; scores of cities were obliterated, 
continents were more thoroughly ravaged by modern warfare than any 
other long-ago barbarian could have dreamed. In our present-day 
complacency, it is easy to forget how razor thin were the margins by 
which our civilization survived, how close the enemies of the West came 
to winning.
  So although it is right for us to be hopeful about the next century, 
we would do well to be mindful of these different experiences and to 
remember we are guaranteed nothing.
  But neither are we at the mercy of chance. In large part, our fate 
will be determined by our own actions, both wise and foolish. Although 
we might wish by some simple stratagem to guarantee our success and 
safety, easy answers promise only to lull us into a deadly sleep.
  The only certain advantage we can possess in meeting the future is to 
steel ourselves as best we can to meet its inevitable surprises. As the 
saying goes, fortune favors the well prepared.
  If the United States were to advance confidently into the future, we 
require a sober foreign policy that rests upon a solid foundation, one 
whose prescriptions are rooted in reality. On that score, there is much 
to be done.
  One area in particular that I intend to emphasize is the need to 
shift our policies away from an excessive focus on short-term problems 
and recast them towards the achievement of long-term goals. But that is 
a different task than that which engages us here today. First, we must 
start with laying a strong foundation. That process begins with this 
bill.
  The President's budget request for the main State Department 
operating accounts identifies new priorities which support the U.S. 
State Department and its foreign policy platform. Notably, the budget 
increases focus on the Administration of Foreign Affairs accounts, 
which reflect a 19 percent increase over the current fiscal year.
  I note the accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the 
President's request. Among the bill's principal features: The bill 
authorizes funds requested by the Bush administration to enhance 
embassy security, undertake reform of workplace rules and make long-
overdue improvements to the Department's less than state-of-the-art 
computer systems.
  It clears the way for the transfer and sale of four Kidd-class 
destroyers to Taiwan, announced late last month by President Bush, a 
decision hailed by Members of both parties.
  The bill also designates Taiwan as the equivalent of a non-NATO ally, 
a designation which, among other things, permits it to purchase surplus 
U.S. military equipment.
  It creates a special envoy post for Sudan to work for a peaceful 
settlement of a conflict that has been marked by enormous human rights 
abuses, persecution of Christian and other minorities, and the deaths 
of an estimated 4 million people.
  It increases funding for activities of the broadcast services of 
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, Radio Marti, and 
Radio Free Asia to nations including Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea 
and Vietnam, whose government-run and controlled media routinely 
suppress the democratic aspirations of their people.
  It significantly reduces the U.S. share of dues paid annually to the 
United Nations. Our assessed rate for the U.N. regular budget is cut 
from 25 percent to 22 percent, while the U.S. share of peacekeeping 
operations will drop from about 32 percent to 28 percent, effective 
January 1, 2001.
  Further reductions in peacekeeping will take place on a sliding 
scale, reaching about 27.5 percent in July of this year and falling 
further to near 25 percent by 2006. As part of the agreement to reduce 
the percentage of the U.N. budget paid by the United States, the U.S. 
is obliged to pay an arrearage of $582 million primarily for 
peacekeeping operations. I should note these latter funds were 
appropriated last year.
  It includes a provision from the Contract With America which amends 
the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to ensure that no agreement 
deploying U.S. troops is effective without the approval of Congress.
  In sum, the bill provides ample safeguard that the U.N. and its 
specialized agencies will stay on their present course of management, 
budget, and personnel reforms.
  Now, these are some of the key aspects of this bill. Let me conclude 
by emphasizing one in particular; namely, that of security. The most 
important concerns the security of our people and diplomatic facilities 
around the world.
  The State Department states that last year alone, there were over 50 
significant incidents involving violence or intrusion at our diplomatic 
facilities. As the technologies of destruction available to the world's 
terrorists continue to grow, we cannot stand idly by, waiting for our 
self-declared enemies to finalize preparations for their next attack 
which is certain to happen somewhere.
  The men and women of the Department of State and other agencies, 
serving their country far away from home in difficult and often 
dangerous conditions, deserve the fullest protection we can provide 
them and their families. We owe them at least that and much more.
  For that reason, as well as many others I have laid before you, I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1646 so that we may get on with the 
great task of preparing our foreign policy for the new century.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1646, the foreign 
relations authorization bill for fiscal year 2002 and 2003, as it was 
reported by our committee.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud to be a cosponsor 
with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), my good friend.
  I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the bill fully funds the 
administration's requests for the Department of State, including 
funding for upgrading embassy security and improving conditions for the 
men and women who serve our Nation in far-flung corners of the world.
  The diplomatic profession has always been a difficult and dangerous 
one, but in recent decades the level and nature of threats facing our 
men and women overseas in the Diplomatic Corps has grown exponentially. 
The bombing of our embassy in Beirut in the 1980s and, more recently, 
the tragic bombings in Africa are only the latest and most dramatic 
examples of the threat and challenges facing our diplomats abroad.
  The sad and disturbing fact is that Americans serving in our 
Diplomatic Corps face the same day-in and day-out threats to their 
safety as those men and women who serve our Nation in the military. In 
fact, since the end of World War II, more American Ambassadors have 
been killed in the line of duty than generals and admirals.
  We have done an excellent job in equipping our military with the best 
and latest technology and equipment. As a result, Mr. Chairman, our 
military is the best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force in the 
world. But, unfortunately, we have not done the same for the men and 
women who serve on the front lines of diplomacy.
  As Secretary Powell noted at his confirmation hearing, diplomacy is 
our first line of defense. We must ensure that this line of defense is 
as strong and as well equipped as our military defense.
  We need to upgrade the technology and the security of our embassies. 
Our bill contains authorities and resources Secretary Powell has 
requested to help him do just that.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that Secretary Powell would have 
been more ambitious in his request. Given

[[Page 7778]]

his high standing in the Congress and in the country, I believe 
Congress would have supported a bolder request, but as he said in his 
hearing before our committee, there is always next year; which is why I 
am pleased that the bill provides flexibility for fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a few important provisions contained in this 
bill that I would like to highlight. First, this legislation goes a 
long way towards paying our past dues to the United Nations. Despite 
last week's deplorable vote on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, I 
still strongly support payment of these arrears.
  The United Nations is an indispensable partner in our dealings around 
the globe, and we must not lose sight of that fact. However, I, along 
with the rest of my colleagues and with the bulk of the American 
people, am outraged by the vote last week that put the Sudan on the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission and took the United States off.
  The United States has been the champion of human rights long before 
there was a U.N. Human Rights Commission or even a United Nations. We 
shall continue to champion human rights and chastise the abusers of 
those rights, regardless of our membership on any commission.
  However, it is incomprehensible that any commission on human rights 
could include in its membership the worst abusers of human rights in 
the world. Last week's vote makes a mockery of the commission.

                              {time}  1115

  The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I will introduce an 
amendment that will add a new condition on paying U.N. arrears. The 
United States will not pay off all of its arrears to the U.N. until the 
United States once again becomes a member of the U.N. Commission on 
Human Rights.
  Turning to some other important provisions, this bill contains a 
significant provision introduced by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) that overturns the President's Mexico City policy. We will 
hear much about this provision from my colleagues as they argue that it 
funds abortions. While I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, 
this provision has nothing to do with abortion. No U.S. Government 
money has gone towards funding abortion since 1973. It has been illegal 
since that year, and this bill does not change that.
  Simply put, the provision of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) ensures that no foreign nongovernmental organization is denied our 
funding solely on the basis of health and medical services that it 
provides through non-U.S. government funds and that no foreign NGOs are 
restricted in using non-U.S. government funds for advocacy.
  Our provision merely tries to safeguard that nongovernmental 
organizations in developing countries have the same rights to free 
speech that our Constitution guarantees to every American citizen and 
every American organization. I hope that in the spirited debate that is 
soon to follow, Members will keep this fact in mind.
  Some other important elements of this bill include two provisions 
strengthening our relationship and commitment to Taiwan and the sense 
of the Congress provision urging U.S. reengagement with the Kyoto 
process regarding global climate change.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to work with the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in our successful effort to include the provision 
in the bill to have the United States rejoin UNESCO, the United Nations 
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  When UNESCO was founded half a century ago, its slogan was, ``Since 
wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the 
defenses of peace must first be constructed.'' This is as true today as 
it was the day UNESCO came into being. I earnestly hope that my 
colleagues will support our rejoining UNESCO which is so much in the 
American interest.
  I also find it ironic that, while we are complaining of having been 
removed from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, we voluntarily remove 
ourselves from UNESCO where all we need to do is express our desire to 
rejoin.
  This is a very good bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a bipartisan bill. 
Virtually every element of this bill has the support of some 
Republicans and some Democrats. This is in large part due to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and I want 
publicly to salute him for having conducted our hearings and the 
activities of the committee in a singularly fair and bipartisan 
fashion. I want to thank him for the open and collegial way in which he 
has brought this bill through the committee to this floor.
  I hope my colleagues in the House will support the bill in the same 
bipartisan manner in which it was passed by our committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his overly 
generous comments. I can only respond by saying praise from Caesar is 
praise indeed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the pending Foreign Relations Authorization Act crafted so ably by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his 
extraordinary leadership as chairman of the committee. I think we are 
off to a good start, and I commend him and thank him for his great 
leadership.
  H.R. 1646, Mr. Chairman, authorizes a myriad of critical State 
Department functions, funding for international organizations, freedom 
broadcasting, democracy initiatives, public diplomacy, cultural and 
educational exchanges, refugee protection, and funding and conditions 
on such funding for the United Nations.
  This legislation builds on our achievements in the last Congress 
regarding these issues and is especially important in strengthening 
security for our missions abroad. In light of the significant increase 
in threats to our personnel and embassies overseas, Congress has a 
sacred duty to ensure that every imaginable step be taken to make 
posting abroad as risk-free as humanly possible. This bill is a 
faithful attempt to achieve that goal.
  Finally, the bill contains several disparate provisions from 
authorizing the transfer of naval vessels to Taiwan, Poland, Brazil, 
and Turkey; to the establishment of special envoys within the State 
Department to Tibet and Sudan; to promoting police reform & peace in 
Northern Ireland.
  After general debate, Mr. Chairman, the House will consider several 
amendments; and today it is my understanding we will only be getting to 
the U.N. amendments, so I would like to address some of those briefly.
  First, let me urge my colleagues to strongly support a modest 
compromise amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to condition the 
release of the third and final arrearage payment of $244 million, which 
would be released next year, on the U.S. reclaiming its seat on the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission.
  Tragically, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, created to be a 
watchdog for human rights, has become seriously flawed and compromised. 
The membership includes some of the most egregious violators of human 
rights, including countries like China, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, 
and Sudan.
  This rogue's gallery of torturers, persecutors, and bullies exploit 
the commission process to avoid scrutiny and to deflect criticism of 
their barbarism. In Geneva, the home of the Commission, and in foreign 
capitals, they aggressively lobby and intimidate nations to effectively 
silence and paralyze any actions against them; and it works.
  The U.S. resolution, for example, condemning China for its pervasive 
violations of human rights, lost from a no action vote just a few weeks 
ago. It is no coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that Jiang Zemin made a 
blitzkrieg tour of

[[Page 7779]]

Latin American nations who just happened to be on the commission 
immediately prior to the vote to shore up his vote count. In the end, 
money, contracts, and fear prevailed; and China again got off scot-free 
from scrutiny and exposure for its abusing its own citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, permitting dictatorships on the commission, the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission, which Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner, 
has called the conscience of humanity, is an outrage. Dictators like 
China and Cuba, they are not the conscience of humanity. That is an 
oxymoron, and they do not belong there.
  It is time we demanded sweeping reform of the commission itself. At 
the absolute minimum, and this is reflected in section 603 of the bill, 
human rights monitors should have unfettered access to any country, 
including its prisons, who serve on the commission.
  Next, I would like to urge Members to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) because of the profoundly serious 
detrimental consequences the international criminal court would have on 
U.S. service men and women, especially our peacekeepers, and on elected 
and public officials.
  Known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 120 
delegations voted to establish the tribunal in July of 1998. The Rome 
Statute is comprised of 128 articles. Those who oppose it included the 
Clinton administration and six other nations, and there was some 21 
countries that abstained.
  Core crimes with expansive definitions include genocide, crimes 
against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The problem is, Mr. 
Chairman, there are serious questions as to how the definitions of 
these crimes will play out.
  For example, the definition of war crimes includes extensive 
destruction and appropriation of property. What is that? The term 
aggression, Mr. Chairman, is still in the process of being defined.
  Then there is the issue of the independence of the prosecutor. Our 
delegation in Rome had sought a check and a balance that would have 
vested final authority in the U.N. Security Council. They lost. A more 
nuanced and problematic two-tier approach was adopted that confers 
considerable powers to the prosecutor to self-initiate prosecution.
  There are problems of constitutionality. As Members know, both 
Federal laws and treaties entered into and ratified are subordinate to 
the U.S. Constitution. While the accused enjoy some U.S.-style rights, 
there are no protections from unreasonable searches, and there are no 
requirements for a trial by jury.
  As we have seen at the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, 
there is considerable chance that rogue nations will have influence, 
and I would submit undue influence, in both prosecutions and 
convictions and in the meting out of sentences, thus subjecting U.S. 
military personnel and public officials to criminal prosecution that a 
reasonable person might not think to be a war crime or aggression.
  Last July, I asked Ambassador Scheffer, who was our lead negotiator 
at Rome, and Undersecretary Slocombe if past U.S. military actions from 
the bombing in Tokyo to Dresden to Hiroshima to Nagasaki or any action 
in Korea or Vietnam might be construed as an actionable offense. He 
pointed out that the United States, looking back, would have a good 
defense if such cases, if my hypothetical case had been tried. Then he 
underscored that our concern is with politically motivated 
prosecutions.
  I do not want to put our military men and women, our peacekeepers in 
harm's way. While this may be a well-intentioned court, it certainly 
has some very serious flaws. I think the amendment by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) helps to rectify that, at least in terms of our 
participation.
  Let me say that I take a back seat to no one for pushing for ad hoc 
tribunals. When the Rwandan as well as the Yugoslavia tribunal were in 
their infant stages, I offered the amendments in the committee to boost 
the funding; but it needs to be done on an ad hoc basis. And I do 
believe it needs to be done in a way that is more likely to lead to 
prosecution of serious war criminals and not these kinds of 
prosecutions that would be frivolous and unjust.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that H.R. 1646 includes the Smith/
King amendment regarding human rights and the peace process in Northern 
Ireland.
  As adopted by the Committee, our amendment, now Section 203, updates 
and modifies a provision Mr. King and I authored two years ago to ban 
Federal funds from being used to support training or exchange programs 
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the Royal Ulster 
Constabulary (RUC, Northern Ireland's police force). Specifically, we 
are intent on ensuring that RUC members who are believed to have 
committed or condoned human rights violations, including any role in 
the murder of human rights attorneys Patrick Finucane or Rosemary 
Nelson, are ``vetted out'' or prohibited from any program sponsored or 
subsidized by the U.S. government. We hope that by example, those 
working on police reform in Northern Ireland will similarly isolate and 
``vet out'' RUC members who condone human rights abuses. Section 203 of 
this new bill reinforces the ban on the funding--until the President 
certifies that human rights standards and vetting procedures are 
integrated into the program--and requires a report, within 60 days of 
enactment, on the scope of previous training programs.
  Section 203 also requires a second report that outlines the extent to 
which the British government has implemented the 175 recommendations 
listed in the Patten Commission report on policing reforms in Northern 
Ireland including those recommendations that emphasize the integration 
of respect for human rights and emphasize efforts to recruit Catholics 
for the new police force. As you know, the RUC has proportionally far 
fewer Catholics than the population of Northern Ireland and the 
imbalance has underscored the RUC's inability to achieve confidence in 
all communities who are signatories to the peace process. The required 
report will also provide information on the integration of members of 
the Garda Siochana (the national police force of the Republic of 
Ireland) or other experienced police force applicants into the senior 
ranks of the RUC by both the British and Irish governments, as 
envisioned by the Patten report. As part of the Good Friday Agreement, 
the implementation of the full Patten report is critical to a just and 
lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Section 203 requires that the report also 
include information on the status of the murder investigations of 
defense attorneys Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane and the murder 
of Robert Hamill. In April 1999, the House of Representatives passed by 
resolution (H. Res. 128) condemning the murder of Rosemary Nelson, who 
had testified before the International Relations Subcommittee on Human 
Rights on the status of police reform in Northern Ireland. The House is 
also on record calling for independent, RUC-free judicial inquiries 
into the Finucane and Nelson murders. To date, the British government 
has rebuffed the call, that has also been supported by numerous human 
rights organizations around the globe. The mandated report is designed 
to provide Congress with up-to-date information on these matters so 
that we can continue to effectively promote accountability and justice 
for these victims and their families.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important 
legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking 
member, in particular, and my colleagues on the committee for making it 
possible to include in the bill various provisions that I have 
sponsored.
  The bill includes a resolution I introduced in committee on the Kyoto 
Protocol that expresses the sense of the Congress that, first, global 
warming is a serious problem, and the United States must take 
responsible action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other 
greenhouse gases from all sectors; and, second, that the United States 
continue to participate in ongoing international negotiations with the 
objective of completing the rules and guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol 
consistent with U.S. interest and respecting the integrity of the 
Protocol.
  On another matter, last Thursday, the GAO reported that, despite 
years of

[[Page 7780]]

effort from the Congress, the State Department has failed to make any 
significant progress in the recruitment and promotion of qualified 
minorities to senior management positions. I am glad to have developed 
language in this bill to ensure that the Department moves forward in 
its recruitment and promotion to senior most ranks of minorities. I 
have been working on this, this is my 9th year now, and I am glad to 
see the bill provides $2 million to increase minority recruitment into 
the Department and requires that a data-bank track its results. I urge 
the President and Secretary Powell to make sure that we obtain results 
at the State Department in minority recruiting and promotion.
  This bill also provides the National Endowment for Democracy with a 
modest increase for the first time in years. This vital and cost-
effective organization promotes internationally our fundamental 
American values, democracy and human rights. Promoting these values 
overseas is in our national interest since democracies make peaceful 
allies and good trading partners and neither support terrorism nor 
proliferate dangerous weapons. By leading many efforts on the struggle 
for freedom worldwide, the NED enjoys strong bipartisan support as it 
advances our national security.
  Finally, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on the IAEA. 
Iran does not need a nuclear power plant or U.S. money to conduct a 
nuclear power plant and create a nuclear threat for that part of the 
world and for our country.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1646, and I 
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  This legislation would authorize $8.2 billion for the State 
Department and among other important items provides for the enhancement 
of embassy security, significantly reduces the U.S. share of dues paid 
annually to the United Nations, and states that Congress maintain its 
commitment to relocate the United States Embassy in Israel to 
Jerusalem.

                              {time}  1130

  In addition, the measure increases funding for U.S. broadcast 
services and requires the United States to oppose nations seeking 
membership on the United Nations Human Rights Commission that fail to 
permit monitoring of human rights in their own territory.
  In particular, I would like to highlight a provision of this bill 
that authorizes $15 million for the Middle East Radio Network. I thank 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership and guidance 
in securing this funding and commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Wexler) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for their 
efforts on behalf of this bipartisan provision.
  Currently, Voice of America Arabic only reaches about 2 percent of 
the population in this region, far behind the British Broadcasting 
Company and other major international networks. The Middle East Radio 
Network initiative will serve to broaden the opportunity for open 
discussion and individual freedom to a region where antidemocratic 
rhetoric is strong.
  This measure will authorize the resources for Middle East Radio 
Network programming that will be a combination of news, music, talk, 
and interaction with listeners. Featuring reliable news and discussion 
of issues relevant to the audience, the Middle East Radio Network will 
appeal to young adults and to news seekers of all ages. Constant 
program themes will be individual choice and respect for others.
  The MRN is a worthwhile program to promote Jeffersonian ideals and 
democratic principles. I would again like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his support on this issue and Kristen Gilley of 
the committee staff for her assistance in drafting this provision.
  Unfortunately, I remain concerned about several provisions in the 
bill that were approved during the committee markup for this 
legislation. Specifically, I opposed the Lee amendment overturning the 
Mexico City policy that prohibits the use of American tax dollars to 
fund foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion 
overseas. Under no circumstances should American taxpayers underwrite 
abortion activities in foreign countries.
  In addition, I remain opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and UNESCO 
provisions, and I urge my colleagues to support elimination of these 
provisions from the bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to mention to my good friend from Virginia that not one dime of 
American taxpayer funds are devoted to abortion purposes abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to join my colleagues in 
strong support of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I 
certainly commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of 
our Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership and cooperation which 
resulted in this exceptionally bipartisan legislation.
  The bill contains an uncontested provision urging the administration 
to continue negotiation of the Kyoto Treaty on the global warming, 
despite President Bush's recent announcement to the contrary. Our 
colleagues understand that the American people view global climate 
change as a serious environmental challenge that must be addressed.
  With only 4 percent of the world's population, our Nation accounts 
for almost 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the 
atmosphere, one of the main causes of global warming. Mr. Speaker, as 
the world's per capita leader in fossil fuel emissions, our Nation has 
a moral responsibility and duty to lead global efforts to address 
climate warming.
  What is needed are binding commitments from all nations of the world 
to remedy the problem of global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol is the 
means by which a fair and equitable solution to this serious and 
environmental problem can be achieved.
  I also want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for 
including a provision expressing the sense of the Congress concerning 
the human rights problems of West Papua New Guinea, and especially also 
for the continuous funding of the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, foreign policy issues now matter even more on 
Chicagoland's Main Street. The Seattle paper said it when the 
stocktickers will now read ``The Chicago-based Boeing Company.'' On 
behalf of the people of the northern suburbs, I want to welcome the 
Boeing headquarters to our community. This move will make Chicago home 
to the Nation's number two exporter, Motorola, and now America's number 
one exporter, Boeing. Chicago, Illinois, America's export capital.
  This move is a coup for the mayor of Chicago, our Governor and 
Speaker Hastert. It is a testament to our infrastructure investments in 
road, rail, and aviation. To win these battles in the future, we must 
continue such investments. Exporting jobs are the highest paid in 
America, and exports soften the blow of a recession and lead our way to 
economic growth. And Chicago is a toddling town tonight.
  I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this important 
foreign policy bill to the Congress. I would like to thank specifically 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his support for 
international broadcasting and specifically for Radio Free Asia.
  RFA, like its predecessor, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty, 
provides a critical service to the people living under oppression. 
Currently, RFA

[[Page 7781]]

broadcasts to seven Asian countries in nine languages. This bill 
includes an extension of an increased authorization, which the 
broadcasting board of governors received last year as part of the China 
Permanent Normal Trade relations bill. This increased funding for Radio 
Free Asia and Voice of America is desperately needed to combat the 
jamming practices of the Chinese Government.
  During this time, when the U.S. is at a critical juncture with China, 
it is essential that various avenues are available to bring democracy 
to China and freedom to the Tibetan people and stability to the region. 
Radio Free Asia provides that very important link, a voice of 
democracy, freedom, and truth.
  Radio Free Asia was the first to broadcast the Tiananmen Papers 
inside China, and it recently linked a Tibetan inside Tibet with the 
Dalai Lama's private secretary in Darmsala to discuss Commentary 
Tibetan Buddhism and provided critical news and information to the 
Chinese during the recent plane incident.
  I look forward to RFA's continued service to create an even greater 
audience to bring democracy and freedom to Asia. I strongly support 
this bill. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and especially congratulate 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on funding for Radio Free 
Asia.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of the committee, and my 
friend and colleague.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1646, 
as it passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. I want to 
thank our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and 
especially our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), for their leadership. But I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Hyde-Smith amendment, which will be offered next week, to strike our 
bipartisan pro-family planning language incorporated in the bill during 
our committee hearing.
  This amendment added the text of H.R. 755, the bipartisan Lowey-
Greenwood-Pelosi-Shays Global Democracy Promotion Act. Now, the Hyde-
Smith amendment will eliminate vital family-planning funds. This is for 
family-planning services. This amendment will eliminate this totally as 
it relates to our nongovernmental organizations that use their own 
privately raised funds for their own health care and counseling 
services.
  And I want to remind my colleagues once again that per the 1973 Helms 
amendment, no United States funds, that is zero, no United States 
taxpayer funds go to fund abortions overseas. So we must defeat the 
Hyde-Smith amendment next week to ensure that women overseas have 
access to vital health care services that they need, and also which 
amounts to really the same health care services women in our own 
country are entitled to. Family-planning services are essential for the 
prevention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including 
HIV and AIDS, which kills 7,000 people a day.
  I also support this bill because it includes a bipartisan measure 
urging the United States to complete the Kyoto process and address the 
problems of global warming. I am proud to stand with my colleagues, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega), in recognizing these dangers and in crafting the 
bipartisan global climate change amendment.
  This amendment is so important. It incorporates many of the 
provisions of the language of my resolution, H.R. 117, the Carbon 
Dioxide Emissions and Global Climate Change Act. It is very important 
in terms of our leadership in the world with regard to the reduction of 
greenhouse gases. As passed by the committee, this bill helps create a 
more forward-thinking foreign policy that truly advances our values, 
protects human rights, preserves the environment, and promotes peace.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the State 
Department authorization bill. Under the terms of this bill, we will 
rejoin the Kyoto Treaty negotiation on global warming, as we should; we 
will pay our dues to the United Nations, as we should; we will rejoin 
UNESCO, as we should; and we will lift the gag rule on international 
family planning, as we should.
  I would like to point out two additional things that I sponsored in 
the committee. With the bipartisan support of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the leadership of our ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), these measures were included in 
the bill.
  First, requiring the State Department to conduct a 5-year strategic 
study of our arms control and nonproliferation program; and, secondly, 
for the Bush administration to undertake a policy review of our 
relations with China. Both of these are needed with the talk of 
unilateral deployment of a national missile defense and the unilateral 
reductions in the number of warheads. It is time for us to have a 5-
year strategic plan developed and publicized, and I ask for approval of 
this bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and colleague.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill. I 
wish to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), for their leadership. It has some important measures that will 
improve the United States' standing in the international community.
  The bill incorporates the Lee language, which successfully repeals 
the antiwoman, antidemocratic global gag rule. And the bill contains a 
provision which would urge the administration to continue negotiations 
on the Kyoto Treaty. Finally, the bill authorizes the release of the 
second and third installments of a 3-year $926 million schedule of back 
payment of U.S. dues to the United Nations.
  I am very concerned about the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, which 
will deny the U.N. its rightful U.S. dues. We made a deal with the 
U.N., and now we want to go back on our word because the U.N. voted us 
off the Human Rights Commission. This really is not logical. The U.N. 
did not remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission, the action 
was made by the 54 member states of the U.N. Economic and Social 
Council. And to quote the Los Angeles Times, ``It is hard to conceive 
of anything more foolish than making a payment of a legitimate debt 
conditional on action by a subsidiary of the U.N. body.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, a 
``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. HYDE. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. Let me just respond very briefly. I thought we 
would be having this debate next week, but the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-
Oberstar amendment has been mentioned several times and a response is 
warranted.
  Unfortunately, the underlying language that was adopted in committee 
would reverse the Bush-Mexico City policy. As a matter of historical 
record, I have been offering the pro-life language since 1984. We have 
never won, not once, in the Committee on International Relations; but 
this House in every instance has overturned what the committee had done 
in every instance as well. So I think that is important to point out, 
that at the end of

[[Page 7782]]

the process, the House votes to uphold the Mexico City Policy.
  It is simply inaccurate, to say we do not pay for abortions, when we 
fund abortion organizations overseas. It is a bookkeeping ploy to fund 
organizations that fund abortions. We are not fooled. The issue comes 
down to this: how important are the unborn children? Are they important 
or are they not?

                              {time}  1145

  If we are talking about discrimination or some other issue, we would 
say that we want to have conditions that would not give money to the 
organization if it discriminates, even if the nongovernmental 
organization did something that was laudable, like feeding the hungry. 
If they practiced discrimination as well, we would simply say thanks, 
but no thanks; we will find another nongovernmental organization.
  The Mexico City policy works this way, and has worked well. During 
the Reagan and Bush years, when we had this policy in effect for about 
9 years, 350 nongovernmental organizations that provide family 
planning, including 57 international Planned Parenthood affiliates, 
accepted the pro-life safeguards and provided family planning. We 
established a wall of separation between family planning and abortion.
  Abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is not family planning. We 
have $425 million currently being used for family planning. That would 
not be reduced by even one penny, as a result of the Mexico City 
policy. Every dime will go to NGOs and programs that provide family 
planning, but not abortion. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members next week would vote for the 
Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I salute the work that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
have done in moving forward this critical framework for how the 
Department of State is going to operate. I do appreciate the words that 
we heard from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. I think there is 
going to be a lot of potential progress, and it is embodied in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two things that I would refer to in the 
context here. Number one, I am very pleased with the language that has 
been added to encourage the United States to participate in the 
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I think it is absolutely critical 
that the United States not abrogate its leadership in issues of the 
global environment and climate change. I am one of those people who 
does not sit back, and I am saying that global warming is a problem for 
the planet. I think the Federal Government should take steps to 
mitigate the impact of global climate change. Our planet has already 
warmed by over a degree in the last 100 years. Sea level has risen 
between 4 and 8 inches. The problems are predicted to be much, much 
worse.
  Mr. Chairman, today more than 50 percent of our Nation's population 
lives within 30 miles of the coast. If we have increased raising of sea 
level, increased dramatic climate incidents, heavy rainfall, these are 
things that are going to be more and more serious for all of our 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress can help in many ways, keeping this language 
in the resolution, and then by stepping forward to do simple, 
commonsense things to reduce the consumption of energy. A simple one-
half mile per gallon improvement in vehicle mileage would be the energy 
equivalent of what we would drill in ANWR, and would not only protect 
energy but protect the climate.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we keep this language in, and I strongly 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, the programs and budget contained within the State 
Department impact the lives of thousands of federal employees, millions 
of American citizens both at home and abroad, and the diplomatic 
relations between the United States and the rest of the world. Few 
other federal agencies that Congress works with have such an impact on 
our nation's economy, security, and livability.
  I have a great interest in bringing about common-sense practices in 
the planning and management of our overseas buildings infrastructure. I 
am impressed with the business-like approach being taken by General 
Chuck Williams (US Army Corps of Engineers, Ret.), Chief Operating 
Officer for the State Department's Office of Foreign Building 
Operations and I look forward to working with him on some needed 
reforms. He has instigated a long-range planning process which will 
allow us to gain greater value for our investment of resources.
  There are some statutory changes that need to be made in order to 
best assure that our 260 diplomatic missions located in some 130 
countries have appropriate facilities to achieve our foreign policy 
objectives. We must provide all 20,000 employees at our missions with 
safe, secure, and functional facilities. I want to begin a dialogue on 
this topic to prepare to make needed changes.
  General Williams has done yeoman's work in the short time since he 
was appointed March 12 and we are just getting started in bringing 
about these practical reforms. I am working with my colleagues to 
incorporate needed language into the conference report on this bill. 
The language that is needed in the conference report on this bill 
should accomplish the following:
  (1) Allow the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations to be a stand-
alone organization within the State Department as Secretary Powell has 
proposed, (2) Transfer the office into a results-based organization, 
and (3) Create a rent or capital surcharge program to require agencies 
to share in the cost of secure overseas facilities for their personnel.
  Congress can play a constructive role in solving some of these 
problems. We can begin to make planning drive the funding and thereby 
help the State Department best do its job.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a couple of points 
that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) raised.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first mention the purpose of family planning. 
Family planning's purpose is to allow information to be distributed to 
women with regard to pregnancy prevention. Family planning information, 
family planning education, family planning counseling, prevents 
abortions. Women in developing countries oftentimes are living off of 
very minimal resources and do not have a lot of money, and they only 
have maybe one or two health clinics within a radius of 500 or 600 
miles. They need to learn how to space their children.
  That is what this amendment incorporated in the committee is about. 
It is about preventing abortions through the use of family planning 
methods which provide information to women with regard to the spacing 
of their children and information with regard to how to prevent 
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to very briefly make some short 
comments with respect to the Hyde-Lantos amendment that will be coming 
up later on.
  First of all, I think it is very important that the United States 
speak loudly and clearly that nations such as Sudan and Libya and China 
that are on the human rights committee, that this is an outrageous and 
hypocritic designation and vote, when some of the biggest violators of 
human rights are on this commission. The United States needs to use its 
diplomacy, and it needs to use as leverage its position in the world to 
make a very strong statement in opposition to this.
  However, we cannot oversimplify why we did not get on the commission. 
I think there are a variety of reasons for that. One, I think it is 
some reflection around the world of this so-called new foreign policy 
that the Bush administration has called aggressive unilateralism. 
Whether that be disagreement with our reluctance to be involved with 
AIDS or the Kyoto Protocol or the missile shield policy coming from the 
United States, other countries are having some reaction to this.

[[Page 7783]]

  Secondly, we were maybe surprised and flat-footed in negotiating and 
trying to get the votes on this commission. France, Austria, and Sweden 
all outworked us. We finished fourth. This is not the United Nations 
saying the United States can or cannot get off. We had to lobby 54 
other countries for this vote. We finished fourth. We did not lobby 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a balanced approach that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
have arrived at. It does not overdo and potentially exacerbate the 
problem. It is a somewhat measured step, but I think we have to work 
harder to build coalitions in the future.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Shortly we will be considering an amendment labeled the American 
Servicemembers Protection Act. It purports to protect American soldiers 
from the dangers they allegedly face from the International Criminal 
Court. In fact, it would do the opposite. The authors of the amendment 
make two claims about the International Criminal Court, and both are 
false.
  Mr. Chairman, the first is that the court does not guarantee due 
process. Clearly they have never read the treaty. It contains perhaps 
the most extensive list of due process rights ever codified: the 
presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, the right to remain 
silent, the right to confront one's accusers, the privilege against 
self-incrimination; and that is just to start.
  The critics also complain that the treaty does not provide for trial 
by jury. Well, under our Constitution, the right to a jury trial does 
not apply to military actions on foreign soil. And the last time I 
looked at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law that does apply 
to crimes by military personnel, it does not provide for trial by jury 
either.
  The second false claim is that the treaty places American soldiers at 
risk of prosecution abroad. Not only does it not do this, it helps 
prevent it from happening.
  Under the treaty, Americans charged with war crimes would be tried by 
our military courts, not the International Criminal Court. The court 
has no jurisdiction unless our government, the American Government, is 
unable or unwilling to prosecute. And that is the treaty's entire 
purpose. Not to replace national courts, but to ensure that crimes 
against humanity do not go unpunished when no legitimate justice system 
exists.
  These provisions were added to the treaty at American insistence, and 
rightly so. The truth is that our soldiers are at greater risk today 
without the treaty. Today they can be prosecuted by any nation for 
actions within its borders. The treaty corrects this by giving primary 
jurisdiction over American soldiers to American courts.
  Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to fear from this treaty and everything 
to gain, because we benefit from a world order that promotes stability, 
holds war criminals accountable, and it stems the rule of law. I hope 
that this amendment is rejected.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in protest of the gag 
rule and in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) that would incorporate into the Global Democracy Promotion 
Act her amendment that came out of committee on a bipartisan vote of 26 
to 22, that added to the Department of State authorization bill 
allowing discussions with regard to family planning.
  This is a strong signal that our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle realize that the gag rule is wrong-headed. If the gag rule was 
introduced in our country, it would unconstitutionally restrict free 
speech and limit the ability of men and women to plan their family. The 
Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment would impose on other countries 
what would be illegal here. I urge my colleagues to vote no next week 
on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the global gag rule places unjust restrictions on the 
way organizations outside the United States use their own money, 
effectively hampering their ability to provide information on family 
planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I request the rest of my remarks be added into the 
Record.
  We know that this policy of the Reagan, Bush, and now the second Bush 
administration has cost many lives and is a travesty that actually 
increases unintended pregnancies, illegal abortion, death, and 
disability.
  The Bush administration has claimed that the gag rule prevents 
taxpayer money from supporting abortions abroad. Don't be fooled. These 
activities have not been eligible for U.S. funds for decades. What has 
suffered are programs that provide women, men and young people with the 
information and services they need to reduce unplanned pregnancies and 
control their own lives. Programs such as HIV prevention, informational 
materials and medical referrals, condoms, emergency contraception, 
telephone hotlines, as well as career advice, skills training, Internet 
sites on reproductive health, and self esteem training to encourage 
abstinence.
  It is a principal position of policies of family planning groups such 
as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that abortion is 
not a method of family planning. These groups are committed to reducing 
the numbers of abortions worldwide by ensuring that contraception is 
widely and safely available. The Bush administration reinstated the gag 
rule this year to pay back its pro-life campaign supporters. As 
reflected in its other policies, this is hypocrisy masquerading as 
compassion.
  Real compassion means that we should not impose restrictions on women 
and men in other countries that disempower and undermine their efforts 
to extricate themselves from poverty. We know that the economic 
stability, and thus, the political stability of countries around the 
world increases when women and men are able to effectively plan their 
families. Let's show real compassion and real concern. Let's keep the 
Global Democracy Promotion Act and reject the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Chairman Hyde and 
the International Relations Committee to bring this legislation to the 
floor today. While the bill contains some language that remains to be 
debated and which is cause for concern, I rise in strong support of the 
provision calling for the creation of a special envoy post for Sudan.
  This position is critical in the work for a just peace to a civil war 
that has claimed over two million lives, has displaced an estimated 
four million from their homes, and threatens another two million with 
death due to famine.
  And while I applaud the International Relations Committee for 
including language calling for a special envoy to Sudan, I also today 
appeal to President Bush and Secretary Powell to be leaders of action, 
not just placaters of words. It is time for the administration to take 
action to appoint a high-profile special envoy who has the President's 
full backing and commitment to end the continuing atrocities in Sudan.
  More people have died in Sudan in the past 15 years--then have died 
in Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Bosnia combined. The most recent 
statistics available put the number of dead at 2.2 million. That's an 
additional 400,000 deaths since I spoke on this floor in June 1999 in 
support of a House resolution condemning the National Islamic Front 
(NIF) government and calling for a special envoy to end the suffering 
of innocent southern Sudanese people.
  Well, we got a special envoy then, but unfortunately President 
Clinton never proved he was serious about ending the suffering. In 
fairness, that special envoy was not empowered by nor did he have 
access to the President. So the suffering has gone on and on.
  It is time for a high-profile special envoy who has the backing of 
the President, Secretary of State, Congress and the will of the people 
to bring an end to the atrocities. It is time for the United States and 
the nations of the world to join together to end the genocide that is 
taking place in Sudan in the 21st century. One man concerned for the 
people of southern Sudan recently said, ``No one should be able to sit 
out a holocaust.''
  As many in Congress noted nearly two years ago, millions of people 
are still starving in southern Sudan, kept alive only by the brave 
efforts of international humanitarian organizations, like World Vision, 
Save the Children, UNICEF and others. The World Food

[[Page 7784]]

Program estimated last month that nearly 600,000 people in southern 
Sudan are in immediate danger of starving to death this summer alone 
and that 2.9 million are at risk of starvation and in need of 
assistance. The Khartoum government--which took power in a coup in 1989 
and has intensified the war ever since--is waging genocide against the 
people of southern Sudan who are fighting for religious freedom and 
self-determination. The government continues to use relief food as a 
weapon against the people in the south who are mostly Christians or 
animists.
  The word ``genocide'' is now the word used most commonly to describe 
what is taking place in Sudan. Since I spoke on this floor nearly two 
years ago in calling for a special envoy, the Committee on Conscience 
of the United States Holocaust Museum has issued a genocide warning for 
Sudan, Africa's largest country. In addition, the people of southern 
Sudan continue their familiarity with terms such as high-altitude 
bombings, abduction, slavery, famine, forced religious conversion and a 
new term that has appeared during the past 18 months, ``scorched 
earth.''
  Government planes use high-altitude bombing to demolish civilian 
targets such as hospitals and terrorize the population. Russian-made 
Antonov bombers randomly bomb civilians day and night. Sometimes, just 
the sound and sight of an Antonov approaching a village will send the 
innocent scurrying into hiding. I personally witnessed this form of 
terrorism this past January during my trip to southern Sudan.
  Videos of the aftermath of a government bombing of a marketplace were 
distributed to Congress this week. The video documents a savage attack 
that claimed innocent life. One Catholic Bishop asked me, why did the 
world stop the killing in Kosovo and not in Sudan: ``Is it because of 
our skin color?''
  We know that women and children from southern Sudan are being sold 
into slavery. They are kidnaped by slave raiders who sweep into 
destabilized regions following government attacks and capture women and 
children. It is clear that the government of Sudan tolerates, and even 
condones, these slave raids. Women and girls are used as concubines and 
domestic servants. Boys are used as farm hands, domestic servants and 
sometimes, sent to the front lines.
  Former District of Columbia delegate, the Reverend Walter Fauntroy, 
and Joe Madison, a syndicated radio personality here in Washington, 
recently returned from Sudan where they witnesses 21st century slavery 
first hand. They recently spoke of their trip before a Congressional 
Human Rights Caucus hearing. Joe Madison noted that when he arrived in 
a slave camp, where 2,931 slaves were redeemed during his visit, he 
thought the scene before his eyes could have been staged for the movie 
``Roots,'' except it was real. He and Delegate Fauntroy witnessed 
individual accounts of abuses many of the slaves suffered at the hands 
of their former slave masters.
  They spoke to a 13-year old boy, who had been a slave since he was 8 
and who had all his fingers cut off because he refused to clean a goat 
pen.
  They met a 20-year old woman who had been enslaved for five years and 
was forced to have sex with her own brother while 12 men watched and 
later raped her.
  They listened as another young woman explained how she had her throat 
cut and her breast burned because she refused to give up her baby to a 
slave master.
  And finally, Joe Madison was numbed by the story of a young mother 
whose baby's throat was slit by a slave raider. The raider then cut the 
tottler's head off. The mother, after being raped, was forced to carry 
the head of her child on the march north where she was ordered by her 
slave master to throw the child's head into a fire. She remained a 
slave for several years.
  Modern-day slavery in Sudan is just an airplane ride from the shores 
of America. There are real people with real stories and they are asking 
for our help. It would be easy for them to think that Americans don't 
care about what is happening to them. But, Americans do care.
  My office, as do many others in Congress, continues to hear from 
citizens from across our nation expressing their outrage at these 
atrocities and they demand that our government do something about them. 
I recently received 68 letters from students at Olivet Nazarene 
University in Bourbonnais, Illinois, about their concern for the plight 
of the Sudanese people. These students, like many other citizens around 
the world, are saying, enough is enough. Do something to stop the 
suffering of these innocent people.
  Slavery is only part of the problem in Sudan. Starvation is only part 
of the problem. Unfortunately, bombing of innocent men, women and 
children is only part of the problem.
  Now, a new term is becoming the norm in southern Sudan. ``Scorched 
earth.'' Oil has been discovered in vast amounts during the past two 
years. The Khartoum government has begun aerial and ground attacks in 
and around the oil fields in an effort to eliminate any living thing 
that happens to inhabit the area. Oil companies from around the world 
are lining up to pump this ``blood oil'' to benefit the stock 
portfolios of their investors. For those who follow the situation in 
Sudan, names and terms such as the Nuba mountains, Heglig and Unity oil 
fields, upper Nile region, helicopter gun-ships, oil road, 
displacement, scorched earth and death are routinely reported in news 
accounts of the ongoing atrocities against humanity. It is estimated 
that the Khartoum government is bringing in an additional $500 million 
a year from its new-found resource. Most of these additional funds are 
going to double the military spending in Sudan so that the suffering 
can increase on those living in the south.
  Nearly two years ago, I stated on this floor that, ``what is needed 
is a comprehensive, just and permanent solution to end the fighting--a 
solution which provides the people of Southern Sudan the ability to 
practice their faith as they choose and determine their future. All the 
people of Sudan are suffering at the hands of the NIF regime, but the 
people of southern Sudan have been the real losers.''
  Now, sadly to say, since those words were spoken in June 1999, 
another 400,000 innocent lives have been lost. A special envoy was 
created, in name only, but without the full support of President 
Clinton or his administration. My colleagues, I encourage you to speak 
out and encourage President Bush and his new administration to do 
whatever it takes to end the suffering in Sudan that has gone on far 
too long.
  Our nation has received many blessing over the past 225 years. Though 
things are not perfect, our citizens don't worry about their homes, 
schools or churches being bombed by their government. Our men, women 
and children are not sold into slavery or starved because of their 
religious beliefs. Our nation was founded on religious principles. Luke 
12:48 reminds us that to whom much is given, much is expected.
  The United States can and must do more to facilitate the negotiation 
of a just peace in Sudan. The innocent in southern Sudan and those in 
the world who support the principles of freedom; life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness, are counting on this administration to make a 
serious effort to bring peace to Sudan in 2001.
  Again, I thank Chairman Hyde and the committee for the work on this 
bill.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee 
language included in this bill. President Bush's gag rule is a 
destructive policy that threatens women's health around the world.
  This is not about abortion or protecting the tax money of the 
American people. This is about the fact that each year, more than 600 
thousand women die of pregnancy-related deaths that are preventable.
  This is about the fact that more than 150 million married women in 
developing nations want contraceptives, but have no access to them.
  This is about giving women an option, and some control over their 
lives. The Global Gag Rule does not prevent abortions. Instead, it 
forces women around the world to resort to life-threatening acts of 
desperation in the attempt to get rid of unwanted pregnancies.
  Mr. Chairman, I have met with family planning providers from across 
the world and they consider this aid to be the most important 
assistance they receive from the United States--especially the 
providers from the former Soviet Union and African nations. This is not 
about promoting abortion--it's about helping women and their families. 
Remember, foreign countries have been prohibited from using U.S. funds 
for abortions since 1973.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee language in 
this billl.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of 
letters between Chairman Stump and myself.

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Stump,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 
     1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Years 2002 and 2003. The bill, in the form reported by the 
     committee, contains language which falls within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of your Committee. Specifically, section 831, 
     relating to

[[Page 7785]]

     international counterproliferation education and training 
     activities and section 841, relating to the detail of 
     uniformed military officers as munitions license review 
     officers are provisions within your subject matter 
     jurisdiction.
       Due to the exigencies of time, I hereby request that your 
     Committee waive the opportunity to request a referral of the 
     bill. I will support appointment of conferees from your 
     Committee on these or other related matters within your 
     jurisdiction.
       I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                       Washington, DC May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Henry: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor 
     consideration of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the Committee 
     on Armed Services agrees to waive its right to consider this 
     legislation. H.R. 1646, as ordered reported by the Committee 
     on International Relations on May 2, 2001, contains subject 
     matter that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives. Both section 831, relating 
     to international counter-
     proliferation education and training activities, and section 
     841, relating to the detail of uniformed military officers as 
     munitions license review officers, are of jurisdictional and 
     substantive concern to this Committee.
       While the Committee on Armed Services will not seek 
     referral of the legislation, this Committee will continue to 
     work with you as the House considers H.R. 1646, and in any 
     subsequent conference with the Senate, to address these 
     concerns in a mutually satisfactory manner.
       The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the 
     understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the 
     provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered, 
     and that the Committee's right to the appointment of 
     conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Bob Stump,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1646

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

               TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

                    Subtitle A--Department of State

Sec. 101. Administration of foreign affairs.
Sec. 102. International commissions.
Sec. 103. United States educational and cultural programs.
Sec. 104. Contributions to international organizations.
Sec. 105. Contributions for international peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 106. Grants to the Asia Foundation.
Sec. 107. Voluntary contributions to international organizations.
Sec. 108. Migration and refugee assistance.

    Subtitle B--United States International Broadcasting Activities

Sec. 121. Authorizations of appropriations.

           Subtitle C--Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001

Sec. 131. Short title.
Sec. 132. Findings.
Sec. 133. Assistance for foreign nongovernmental organizations under 
              part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

    TITLE II--AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

              Subtitle A--Basic Authorities and Activities

Sec. 201. Continuation of reporting requirements.
Sec. 202. Continuation of other reports.
Sec. 203. Royal Ulster Constabulary training.
Sec. 204. Report concerning elimination of Colombian opium.
Sec. 205. Repeal of provision regarding housing for foreign 
              agricultural attache.
Sec. 206. Human rights monitoring.
Sec. 207. Correction of Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967.
Sec. 208. International litigation fund.
Sec. 209. Emergency evacuation services.
Sec. 210. Implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000.
Sec. 211. Report concerning the effect of Plan Colombia on Ecuador.
Sec. 212. Report concerning efforts to promote Israel's diplomatic 
              relations with other countries.
Sec. 213. Reports on activities in the Republic of Colombia.

                    Subtitle B--Consular Authorities

Sec. 231. Machine readable visas.
Sec. 232. Establishment of a consular branch office in Lhasa, Tibet.
Sec. 233. Establishment of a diplomatic or consular post in Equatorial 
              Guinea.
Sec. 234. Processing of visa applications.
Sec. 235. United States policy with respect to Jerusalem as the capital 
              of Israel.
Sec. 236. Denial of visas to supporters of Colombian illegal armed 
              groups.

                   Subtitle C--Migration and Refugees

Sec. 251. United States policy regarding the involuntary return of 
              refugees.
Sec. 252. Report on overseas refugee processing.

    TITLE III--ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Subtitle A--Organizational Matters

Sec. 301. Comprehensive workforce plan.
Sec. 302. ``Rightsizing'' overseas posts.
Sec. 303. Qualifications of certain officers of the Department of 
              State.
Sec. 304. United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
Sec. 305. United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues.

                     Subtitle B--Personnel Matters

Sec. 331. Report concerning retired members of the Foreign Service and 
              Civil Service who are registered agents of a government 
              of a foreign country.
Sec. 332. Tibetan language training.
Sec. 333. Dependents on family visitation travel.
Sec. 334. Thomas Jefferson Star.
Sec. 335. Health education and disease prevention programs.
Sec. 336. Training authorities.
Sec. 337. Foreign national retirement plans.
Sec. 338. Presidential rank awards.
Sec. 339. Emergency medical advance payments.
Sec. 340. Unaccompanied air baggage.
Sec. 341. Special agent authorities.
Sec. 342. Report concerning minority employment.
Sec. 343. Use of funds authorized for minority recruitment.

   TITLE IV--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS OF THE 
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Sec. 401. Extension of requirement for scholarships for Tibetans and 
              Burmese.
Sec. 402. Nonprofit entities for cultural programs.
Sec. 403. Fulbright-Hays authorities.
Sec. 404. Ethical issues in international health research.

      TITLE V--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES

Sec. 501. Eliminating staff positions for the Advisory Board for Cuba 
              Broadcasting.
Sec. 502. Reports on broadcasting personnel.
Sec. 503. Personal services contracting pilot program.
Sec. 504. Pay parity for senior executives of Radio Free Europe and 
              Radio Liberty.
Sec. 505. Repeal of ban on United States transmitter in Kuwait.

         TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS

Sec. 601. United Nations arrears payments and reform.
Sec. 602. Travel by advisory committee members to Great Lakes Fishery 
              Commission annual meeting.
Sec. 603. United States policy on composition of the United Nations 
              Human Rights Commission.
Sec. 604. United States membership in the International Organization 
              for Migration.
Sec. 605. Report relating to Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
              Europe.
Sec. 606. Reports to Congress on United Nations activities.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 701. Amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.
Sec. 702. Amendments to the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999.
Sec. 703. Amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act of 
              1998.
Sec. 704. Continuation of United States Advisory Commission on Public 
              Diplomacy.
Sec. 705. Participation of South Asia countries in international law 
              enforcment.

                Subtitle B--Sense of Congress Provisions

Sec. 731. Sense of Congress relating to HIV/AIDs and United Nations 
              peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 732. Sense of Congress relating to HIV/AIDS task force.

[[Page 7786]]

Sec. 733. Sense of Congress condemning the destruction of pre-Islamic 
              statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime.
Sec. 734. Sense of Congress relating to resolution of the Taiwan Strait 
              issue.
Sec. 735. Sense of Congress relating to arsenic contamination in 
              drinking water in Bangladesh.
Sec. 736. Sense of Congress relating to display of the American flag at 
              the American Institute in Taiwan.
Sec. 737. Sense of Congress regarding human rights violations in West 
              Papua and Aceh, including the murder of Jafar Siddiq 
              Hamzah, and escalating violence in Maluku and Central 
              Kalimantan.
Sec. 738. Sense of Congress supporting properly conducted elections in 
              Kosova during 2001.
Sec. 739. Sense of Congress relating to policy review of relations with 
              the People's Republic of China.
Sec. 740. Sense of Congress relating to broadcasting in the Macedonian 
              language by Radio Free Europe.
Sec. 741. Sense of Congress relating to Magen David Adom Society.
Sec. 742. Sense of Congress urging the return of portraits painted by 
              Dina Babbitt during her internment at Auschwitz that are 
              now in the possession of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State 
              Museum.
Sec. 743. Sense of Congress regarding Vietnamese refugee families.
Sec. 744. Sense of Congress relating to membership of the United States 
              in UNESCO.
Sec. 745. Sense of Congress relating to global warming.
Sec. 746. Sense of Congress regarding the ban on Sinn Fein ministers 
              from the North-South Ministerial Council in Northern 
              Ireland.

                    TITLE VIII--SECURITY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 801. Short title.

              Subtitle A--Military and Related Assistance

       Chapter 1--Foreign Military Sales and Related Authorities

Sec. 811. Quarterly report on price and availability estimates.
Sec. 812. Official reception and representation expenses.
Sec. 813. Treatment of Taiwan relating to transfers of defense articles 
              and services.
Sec. 814. United States policy with regard to Taiwan.

       Chapter 2--Excess Defense Article and Drawdown Authorities

Sec. 821. Excess defense articles for certain European and other 
              countries.
Sec. 822. Leases of defense articles for foreign countries and 
              international organizations.
Sec. 823. Priority with respect to transfer of excess defense articles.

       Chapter 3--Nonproliferation And Export Control Assistance

Sec. 831. International counterproliferation education and training.
Sec. 832. Annual report on the proliferation of missiles and essential 
              components of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
Sec. 833. Five-year international arms control and nonproliferation 
              strategy.

       Subtitle B--Strengthening the Munitions Licensing Process

Sec. 841. License officer staffing.
Sec. 842. Funding for database automation.
Sec. 843. Information management priorities.
Sec. 844. Improvements to the automated export system.
Sec. 845. Congressional notification of removal of items from the 
              munitions list.
Sec. 846. Congressional notification thresholds for allied countries.

            Subtitle C--Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels

Sec. 851. Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign 
              countries.

                  Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 861. Annual foreign military training reports.
Sec. 862. Report relating to international arms sales code of conduct.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of State.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of State.

               TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

                    Subtitle A--Department of State

     SEC. 101. ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

       The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of State under ``Administration of Foreign 
     Affairs'' to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, 
     and responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of 
     the United States and for other purposes authorized by law, 
     including public diplomacy activities and the diplomatic 
     security program:
       (1) Diplomatic and consular programs.--
       (A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'' of the Department of State, 
     $3,705,140,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (B) Limitations.--
       (i) Worldwide security upgrades.--Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $487,735,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for 
     worldwide security upgrades.
       (ii) Bureau of democracy, human rights, and labor.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), 
     $16,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $20,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for 
     salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
     Rights, and Labor.
       (iii) Recruitment of minority groups.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $2,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for the 
     recruitment of members of minority groups for careers in the 
     Foreign Service and international affairs.
       (iv) Mobile library for united states interests section in 
     cuba.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     subparagraph (A), $70,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     $70,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be 
     appropriated only for the establishment and operation of a 
     mobile library at the United States Interests Section in Cuba 
     primarily for use by dissidents and democracy activists in 
     Cuba.
       (2) Capital investment fund.--For ``Capital Investment 
     Fund'' of the Department of State, $210,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (3) Embassy security, construction and maintenance.--In 
     addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     for ``Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'' by 
     section 604 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 
     2001 (section 604 of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into 
     law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; appendix G; 
     113 Stat. 1501A-470), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     for ``Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'', 
     $475,046,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (4) Representation allowances.--For ``Representation 
     Allowances'', $9,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     $9,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
       (5) Emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service.--
     For ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'', 
     $15,500,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $15,500,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (6) Office of the inspector general.--For ``Office of the 
     Inspector General'', $29,264,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (7) Payment to the american institute in taiwan.--For 
     ``Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan'', $17,044,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary 
     for the fiscal year 2003.
       (8) Protection of foreign missions and officials.--
       (A) Amounts authorized to be appropriated.--For 
     ``Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials'', $10,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003.
       (B) Availability of funds.--Each amount appropriated 
     pursuant to this paragraph is authorized to remain available 
     through September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the amount was appropriated.
       (9) Repatriation loans.--For ``Repatriation Loans'', 
     $1,219,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $1,219,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2003, for administrative expenses.

     SEC. 102. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS.

       The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated 
     under ``International Commissions'' for the Department of 
     State to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, and 
     responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the 
     United States and for other purposes authorized by law:
       (1) International boundary and water commission, united 
     states and mexico.--For ``International Boundary and Water 
     Commission, United States and Mexico''--
       (A) for ``Salaries and Expenses'', $7,452,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2003; and
       (B) for ``Construction'', $25,654,000 for the fiscal year 
     2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 
     2003.
       (2) International boundary commission, united states and 
     canada.--For ``International Boundary Commission, United 
     States and Canada'', $989,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (3) International joint commission.--For ``International 
     Joint Commission'', $7,282,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (4) International fisheries commissions.--For 
     ``International Fisheries Commissions'', $19,780,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2003.

     SEC. 103. UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS.

       The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of State to

[[Page 7787]]

     carry out international activities and educational and 
     cultural exchange programs under the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Reorganization 
     Plan Number 2 of 1977, the Center for Cultural and Technical 
     Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, the Dante B. 
     Fascell North-South Center Act of 1991, and the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, and to carry out other 
     authorities in law consistent with such purposes:
       (1) Educational and cultural exchange programs.--
       (A) Fulbright academic exchange programs.--
       (i) In general.--For the ``Fulbright Academic Exchange 
     Programs'' (other than programs described in subparagraph 
     (B)), $125,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (ii) New century scholars initiative--hiv/aids.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), up to 
     $1,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and up to $1,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be available only for 
     HIV/AIDS research and mitigation strategies under the Health 
     Issues in a Border-Less World academic program of the New 
     Century Scholars Initiative.
       (iii) Tibetan exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year 
     2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to 
     be available for ``Ngawang Choephel Exchange Programs'' 
     (formerly known as educational and cultural exchanges with 
     Tibet) under section 103(a) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and 
     Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-319).
       (B) Other educational and cultural exchange programs.--
       (i) In general.--For other educational and cultural 
     exchange programs authorized by law, $117,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (ii) South pacific exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to 
     be appropriated under clause (i), $750,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2002 and $750,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are 
     authorized to be available for ``South Pacific Exchanges''.
       (iii) East timorese scholarships.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 
     are authorized to be available for ``East Timorese 
     Scholarships''.
       (iv) African exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year 
     2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to 
     be available only for ``Educational and Cultural Exchanges 
     with Sub-Saharan Africa''.
       (v) Israel-arab peace partners program.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $750,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2002 and $750,000 for the fiscal year 2003 
     are authorized to be available only for people-to-people 
     activities (with a focus on young people) to support the 
     Middle East peace process involving participants from Israel, 
     the Palestinian Authority, Arab countries, and the United 
     States, to be known as the ``Israel-Arab Peace Partners 
     Program''.
       (vi) Sudanese scholarships.--Of the amounts authorized to 
     be appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are 
     authorized to be available only for scholarships for students 
     from southern Sudan for secondary or postsecondary education 
     in the United States, to be known as ``Sudanese 
     Scholarships''.
       (2) National endowment for democracy.--For the ``National 
     Endowment for Democracy'', $36,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2002 and $40,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
       (3) Reagan-fascell democracy fellows.--For a fellowship 
     program, to be known as the ``Reagan-Fascell Democracy 
     Fellows'', for democracy activists and scholars from around 
     the world at the International Forum for Democratic Studies 
     in Washington, D.C., to study, write, and exchange views with 
     other activists and scholars and with Americans, $1,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $1,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003.
       (4) Dante b. fascell north-south center.--For ``Dante B. 
     Fascell North-South Center'' $4,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2002 and $4,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
       (5) Center for cultural and technical interchange between 
     east and west.--For the ``Center for Cultural and Technical 
     Interchange between East and West'', $13,500,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and $13,500,000 for the fiscal year 2003.

     SEC. 104. CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     under the heading ``Contributions to International 
     Organizations'' $944,067,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003 for 
     the Department of State to carry out the authorities, 
     functions, duties, and responsibilities in the conduct of the 
     foreign affairs of the United States with respect to 
     international organizations and to carry out other 
     authorities in law consistent with such purposes.
       (2) UNESCO.--
       (A) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
     paragraph (1), $59,800,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     $59,800,000 for the fiscal year 2003 is authorized to be 
     appropriated only for payment of assessed contributions of 
     the United States to the United Nations Educational, 
     Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
       (B) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for the fiscal year 2002, $5,500,000 is 
     authorized to be appropriated only for payments to the UNESCO 
     Working Capital Fund.
       (b) Availability of Funds for Civil Budget of NATO.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated under the heading 
     ``Contributions to International Organizations'' for fiscal 
     year 2002 and for each fiscal year thereafter such sums as 
     may be necessary are authorized for the United States 
     assessment for the civil budget of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization.
       (c) Prohibition on Funding Other Framework Treaty-Based 
     Organizations.--None of the funds made available for the 
     2002-2003 biennium budget under subsection (a) for United 
     States contributions to the regular budget of the United 
     Nations shall be available for the United States 
     proportionate share of any other framework treaty-based 
     organization, including the Framework Convention on Global 
     Climate Change, the International Seabed Authority, and the 
     International Criminal Court.
       (d) Foreign Currency Exchange Rates.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a), 
     there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to offset 
     adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated under this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation and expenditure 
     only to the extent that the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget determines and certifies to Congress 
     that such amounts are necessary due to such fluctuations.
       (e) Refund of Excess Contributions.--The United States 
     shall continue to insist that the United Nations and its 
     specialized and affiliated agencies shall credit or refund to 
     each member of the agency concerned its proportionate share 
     of the amount by which the total contributions to the agency 
     exceed the expenditures of the regular assessed budgets of 
     these agencies.

     SEC. 105. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       There are authorized to be appropriated under the heading 
     ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'' 
     $844,139,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for the fiscal year 2003 for the Department of 
     State to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, and 
     responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the 
     United States with respect to international peacekeeping 
     activities and to carry out other authorities in law 
     consistent with such purposes.

     SEC. 106. GRANTS TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION.

       Section 404 of the Asia Foundation Act (title IV of Public 
     Law 98-164; 22 U.S.C. 4403) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 404. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of State $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 for grants to The Asia 
     Foundation pursuant to this title.''.

     SEC. 107. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of State for 
     ``Voluntary Contributions to International Organizations'', 
     $186,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (b) Limitations on Authorizations of Appropriations.--
       (1) World food program.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2002 and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are 
     authorized to be appropriated only for a United States 
     contribution to the World Food Program.
       (2) United nations voluntary fund for victims of torture.--
     Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
     (a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $5,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only 
     for a United States contribution to the United Nations 
     Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
       (3) Organization of american states.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a), $240,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $240,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for a United 
     States contribution to the Organization of American States 
     for the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of 
     Expression in the Western Hemisphere, solely for the purpose 
     of conducting investigations, including field visits, to 
     establish a network of nongovernmental organizations, and to 
     hold hemispheric conferences, of which $6,000 for each fiscal 
     year is authorized to be appropriated only for the 
     investigation and dissemination of information on violations 
     of freedom of expression by the Government of Cuba, $6,000 
     for each fiscal year is authorized to be appropriated only 
     for the investigation and dissemination of information on 
     violations of freedom of expression by the Government of 
     Peru, $6,000 for each fiscal year is authorized to be 
     appropriated only for the investigation and dissemination of 
     information on violations of freedom of expression by the 
     Government of Colombia, and $6,000 for each fiscal year is 
     authorized to be appropriated only for the investigation and 
     dissemination of information on violations of freedom of 
     expression by the Government of Haiti.

[[Page 7788]]

       (c) Restrictions on United States Voluntary Contributions 
     to United Nations Development Program.--
       (1) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under 
     subsection (a) for each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for 
     United States voluntary contributions to the United Nations 
     Development Program an amount equal to the amount the United 
     Nations Development Program will spend in Burma during each 
     fiscal year shall be withheld unless during such fiscal year 
     the Secretary of State submits to the appropriate 
     congressional committees the certification described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is a certification by the Secretary of State 
     that all programs and activities of the United Nations 
     Development Program (including United Nations Development 
     Program--Administered Funds) in Burma--
       (A) are focused on eliminating human suffering and 
     addressing the needs of the poor;
       (B) are undertaken only through international or private 
     voluntary organizations that have been deemed independent of 
     the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) (formerly 
     known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council 
     (SLORC)), after consultation with the leadership of the 
     National League for Democracy and the leadership of the 
     National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma;
       (C) provide no financial, political, or military benefit to 
     the SPDC; and
       (D) are carried out only after consultation with the 
     leadership of the National League for Democracy and the 
     leadership of the National Coalition Government of the Union 
     of Burma.
       (d) UNICEF.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $120,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 for a United States 
     voluntary contribution to UNICEF.
       (e) Organizations and Programs That Support Coercive 
     Abortion or Involuntary Sterilization.--None of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available to any organization or program which, as determined 
     by the President of the United States, supports, or 
     participates in the management of, a program of coercive 
     abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       (f) Availability of Funds.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (a) are authorized to remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 108. MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Department of State for 
     ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'' for authorized 
     activities, $817,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and 
     $817,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Tibetan refugees in india and nepal.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $2,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003 are authorized to be available for humanitarian 
     assistance, including food, medicine, clothing, and medical 
     and vocational training, to Tibetan refugees in India and 
     Nepal who have fled Chinese-occupied Tibet.
       (B) Refugees resettling in israel.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $60,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2002 and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     2003 are authorized to be available only for assistance for 
     refugees resettling in Israel from other countries.
       (C) Humanitarian assistance for displaced burmese.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), 
     $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be available for 
     humanitarian assistance (including food, medicine, clothing, 
     and medical and vocational training) to persons displaced as 
     a result of civil conflict in Burma, including persons still 
     within Burma.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant to 
     this section are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

    Subtitle B--United States International Broadcasting Activities

     SEC. 121. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the United States International 
     Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, 
     and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and to carry out 
     other authorities in law consistent with such purposes:
       (1) International broadcasting operations.--
       (A) In general.--For ``International Broadcasting 
     Operations'', $428,234,000 for the fiscal year 2002, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (B) Limitations.--
       (i) Transmission facilities in belize.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (A), 
     $750,000 for the fiscal year 2002 is authorized to be 
     appropriated only for enhancements to and costs of 
     transmission from the facilities in Belize.
       (ii) Radio free asia.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subparagraph (A), $30,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2002 and $30,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are 
     authorized to be appropriated only for ``Radio Free Asia''.
       (2) Broadcasting capital improvements.--For ``Broadcasting 
     Capital Improvements'', $16,900,000 for the fiscal year 2002 
     and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
       (3) Broadcasting to cuba.--For ``Broadcasting to Cuba'', 
     $25,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $25,000,000 for the 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (b) Continuation of Additional Authorization for 
     Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China and 
     Neighboring Countries.--Section 701 of Public Law 106-286 (22 
     U.S.C. 7001) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2001'' and inserting 
     ``2002''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``2001 and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``2001, 2002, and 2003''.
       (c) Additional Authorization of Appropriations for Middle 
     East Radio Network of Voice of America.--In addition to such 
     amounts as are made available for the Middle East Radio 
     Network of Voice of America pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations under subsection (a), there is authorized to 
     be appropriated $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 for the 
     Middle East Radio Network of Voice of America.

           Subtitle C--Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001

     SEC. 131. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Global Democracy Promotion 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 132. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is a fundamental principle of American medical 
     ethics and practice that health care providers should, at all 
     times, deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to 
     subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient 
     relationship would be intolerable in the United States and is 
     an unjustifiable intrusion into the practices of health care 
     providers when attempted in other countries.
       (2) Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. The 
     ability to exercise the right to free speech, which includes 
     the ``right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
     petition the government for a redress of grievances'' is 
     essential to a thriving democracy and is protected under the 
     United States Constitution.
       (3) The promotion of democracy is a principal goal of 
     United States foreign policy and critical to achieving 
     sustainable development. It is enhanced through the 
     encouragement of democratic institutions and the promotion of 
     an independent and politically active civil society in 
     developing countries.
       (4) Limiting eligibility for United States development and 
     humanitarian assistance upon the willingness of a foreign 
     nongovernmental organization to forgo its right to use its 
     own funds to address, within the democratic process, a 
     particular issue affecting the citizens of its own country 
     directly undermines a key goal of United States foreign 
     policy and would violate the United States Constitution if 
     applied to United States-based organizations.
       (5) Similarly, limiting the eligibility for United States 
     assistance on a foreign nongovernmental organization's 
     willingness to forgo its right to provide, with its own 
     funds, medical services that are legal in its own country and 
     would be legal if provided in the United States constitutes 
     unjustifiable interference with the ability of independent 
     organizations to serve the critical health needs of their 
     fellow citizens and demonstrates a disregard and disrespect 
     for the laws of sovereign nations as well as for the laws of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 133. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL 
                   ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART I OF THE FOREIGN 
                   ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or 
     policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized 
     under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
       (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on 
     the basis of health or medical services including counseling 
     and referral services, provided by such organizations with 
     non-United States Government funds if such services do not 
     violate the laws of the country in which they are being 
     provided and would not violate United States Federal law if 
     provided in the United States; and
       (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the 
     use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and 
     lobbying activities other than those that apply to United 
     States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance 
     under part I of such Act.

    TITLE II--AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

              Subtitle A--Basic Authorities and Activities

     SEC. 201. CONTINUATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reports on Claims by United States Firms Against the 
     Government of Saudi Arabia.--Section 2801(b)(1) of the 
     Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as 
     enacted by division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 
     105-277) is amended by striking ``seventh'' and inserting 
     ``eleventh''.
       (b) Reports on Determinations Under Title IV of the 
     Libertad Act.--Section 2802(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform 
     and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of 
     the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 2001,'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 2003,''.
       (c) Relations With Vietnam.--Section 2805 of the Foreign 
     Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by 
     division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2001,'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2003,''.

[[Page 7789]]

       (d) Reports on Ballistic Missile Cooperation With Russia.--
     Section 2705(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by 
     striking ``and January 1, 2001,'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2001, January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 202. CONTINUATION OF OTHER REPORTS.

       (a) Semiannual Reports on United States Support for 
     Membership or Participation of Taiwan in International 
     Organizations.--Section 704(a) of the Admiral James W. Nance 
     and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Years 2000 and 2001 (section 704(a) of division A of H.R. 
     3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 
     106-113, appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-460) is amended by 
     striking ``and 2001,'' and inserting ``, 2001, 2002, and 
     2003,''.
       (b) Report on Terrorist Activity in Which United States 
     Citizens Were Killed and Related Matters.--Section 805(a) of 
     the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (section 805(a) 
     of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat. 
     1501A-470) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001,'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2003,''.

     SEC. 203. ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY TRAINING.

       (a) Report on Past Training Programs.--Section 405(b) of 
     the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 
     Stat. 1501A-447) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (1) by striking ``The President'' and inserting ``Not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the 
     President''; and
       (2) by striking ``during fiscal years 1994 through 1999'' 
     and inserting ``during each of the fiscal years 1994 through 
     2000''.
       (b) Report on Related Matters.--Section 405 of the Admiral 
     James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Report on Related Matters.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the President 
     shall report on the following:
       ``(1) The extent to which the Government of the United 
     Kingdom has implemented the recommendations relating to the 
     175 policing reforms contained in the Patten Commission 
     report issued on September 9, 1999, including a description 
     of the progress of the integration of human rights, as well 
     as recruitment procedures aimed at increasing Catholic 
     representation, in the new Northern Ireland police force.
       ``(2) The status of the investigations into the murders of 
     Patrick Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, and Robert Hamill, 
     including the extent to which progress has been made on 
     recommendations for independent judicial inquiries into these 
     murders.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 405 of the Admiral 
     James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, as amended by 
     subsections (a) and (b), is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``the report required by subsection (b)'' 
     and inserting ``the reports required by subsections (b) and 
     (c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (c)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(1)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2) (as redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``2001'' and inserting 
     ``2003''; and
       (B) by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.

     SEC. 204. REPORT CONCERNING ELIMINATION OF COLOMBIAN OPIUM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a growing heroin crisis in the United States 
     resulting from increasingly cheap, pure, and deadly heroin 
     flooding into this country, much of it from Colombia.
       (2) Interdicting heroin entering the United States is 
     difficult, in part because it can be trafficked in such small 
     quantities.
       (3) Destruction of opium, from which heroin is derived, at 
     its source in Colombia is traditionally one of the best 
     strategies to combat the heroin crisis according to Federal 
     law enforcement officials.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, 
     through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement, shall submit to the Congress a report which 
     outlines a comprehensive strategy to address the crisis of 
     heroin in the United States due to opium originating from 
     Colombia including destruction of opium at its source.

     SEC. 205. REPEAL OF PROVISION REGARDING HOUSING FOR FOREIGN 
                   AGRICULTURAL ATTACHE.

       Section 738 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 
     1549A-34) is repealed.

     SEC. 206. HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING.

       Funds authorized to be appropriated for the Bureau of 
     Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor pursuant to section 
     101(1)(B)(ii) are authorized to be available to fund 
     positions at United States posts abroad that are primarily 
     responsible for following human rights developments in 
     foreign countries and that are assigned at the recommendation 
     of such bureau in conjunction with the relevant regional 
     bureau.

     SEC. 207. CORRECTION OF FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967.

       Section 7(a)(3) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 
     (22 U.S.C. 1977(A)(3)) is amended by striking ``Secretary of 
     Commerce'' and inserting ``Secretary of State''.

     SEC. 208. INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION FUND.

       Section 38 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2710) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Retention of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--To reimburse the expenses of the United 
     States Government in preparing or prosecuting a claim against 
     a foreign government or other foreign entity, the Secretary 
     of State shall retain 1.5 percent of any amount between 
     $100,000 and $5,000,000, and one percent of any amount over 
     $5,000,000, received per claim under chapter 34 of the Act of 
     February 27, 1896 (22 U.S.C. 2668a; 29 Stat. 32).
       ``(2) Treatment.--Amounts retained under the authority of 
     paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the fund under 
     subsection (d).''.

     SEC. 209. EMERGENCY EVACUATION SERVICES.

       Section 4(b)(2)(A) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(A)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) the evacuation when their lives are endangered by 
     war, civil unrest, or natural disaster of (i) United States 
     Government employees and their dependents, and (ii) private 
     United States citizens or third-country nationals, on a 
     reimbursable basis to the extent feasible, with such 
     reimbursements to be credited to the applicable Department of 
     State appropriation and to remain available until expended. 
     No reimbursement shall be required which is greater than the 
     amount the person evacuated would have been charged for a 
     commercial air fare at the lowest rate available immediately 
     prior to the onset of the war, civil unrest, or natural 
     disaster giving rise to the evacuation;''.

     SEC. 210. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 
                   2000.

       The Secretary of State, acting through the Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, shall consult with 
     the appropriate congressional committees on a regular basis 
     on the implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-279; 42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.).

     SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF PLAN COLOMBIA ON 
                   ECUADOR.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a growing alarm concerning the spillover 
     effect of Plan Colombia on Ecuador, a frontline state. The 
     northern region of Ecuador, including the Sucumbios province, 
     is an area of particular concern. It faces the Colombian 
     Putumayo zone, where there is no presence of military or law 
     enforcement personnel.
       (2) Activities relating to the implementation of Plan 
     Colombia have resulted in incursions on Ecuadorian territory 
     by drug traffickers and guerrilla and paramilitary groups 
     from Colombia and a concomitant increase in the levels of 
     violence and delinquency. Recent kidnappings of American and 
     other foreign nationals, as well as discoveries of 
     clandestine cocaine laboratories, are especially troublesome.
       (3) Ecuador is receiving an influx of Colombian refugees 
     and its own indigenous communities have been displaced from 
     their ancestral villages.
       (4) Ecuador has demonstrated its moral and political 
     commitment in the fight against drugs. The agreement signed 
     in November 1999 with the United States to establish a 
     forward operating location in Manta is a clear sign of this 
     active stance.
       (5) Ecuador is implementing a comprehensive program aimed 
     at reinforcing its security mechanisms in the northern 
     border, as well as converting the area into a buffer zone of 
     peace and development.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, 
     through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement, shall submit to Congress a report which outlines 
     a comprehensive strategy to address the spillover effect of 
     Plan Colombia on Ecuador.

     SEC. 212. REPORT CONCERNING EFFORTS TO PROMOTE ISRAEL'S 
                   DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Israel is a friend and ally of the United States whose 
     security is vital to regional stability and United States 
     interests.
       (2) Israel currently maintains diplomatic relations with 
     162 countries. Approximately 25 countries do not have any 
     diplomatic relations with Israel and another 4 countries have 
     only limited relations.
       (3) The government of Israel has been actively seeking to 
     establish formal relations with a number of countries.
       (4) The United States should assist its ally, Israel, in 
     its efforts to establish diplomatic relations.
       (5) After 52 years of existence, Israel deserves to be 
     treated as an equal nation by its neighbors and the world 
     community.
       (b) Report Concerning United States Efforts to Promote 
     Israel's Diplomatic Relations With Other Countries.--Not 
     later than

[[Page 7790]]

     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a 
     report which includes the following information (in 
     classified or unclassified form, as appropriate) to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives:
       (1) Actions taken by representatives of the United States 
     to encourage other countries to establish full diplomatic 
     relations with Israel.
       (2) Specific responses solicited and received by the 
     Secretary of State from countries that do not maintain full 
     diplomatic relations with Israel with respect to the status 
     of negotiations to enter into diplomatic relations with 
     Israel.
       (3) Other measures being undertaken, and measures that will 
     be undertaken, by the United States to ensure and promote 
     Israel's full participation in the world diplomatic 
     community.

     SEC. 213. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA.

       (a) Report on Reform Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the status of activities 
     funded or authorized, in whole or in part, by the Department 
     of State in the Republic of Colombia to promote alternative 
     development, recovery and resettlement of internally 
     displaced persons, judicial reform, the peace process, and 
     human rights.
       (2) Contents.--Each such report shall contain the 
     following:
       (A) A summary of activities described in paragraph (1) 
     during the previous 180-day period.
       (B) An estimated timetable for the conduct of such 
     activities in the subsequent 180-day period.
       (C) An explanation of any delays in meeting timetables 
     contained in previous reports submitted in accordance with 
     this subsection.
       (D) An assessment of steps to be taken to correct any 
     delays in meeting such timetables.
       (b) Report on Certain Counternarcotics Activities.--
       (1) Declaration of policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to encourage the transfer of counternarcotics 
     activities carried out in the Republic of Colombia by United 
     States businesses that have entered into agreements with the 
     Department of State to conduct such activities, to Colombian 
     nationals, in particular personnel of the Colombian 
     antinarcotics police, when properly qualified personnel are 
     available.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than March 1 of each 
     year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     activities of United States businesses that have entered into 
     agreements with the Department of State to carry out 
     counternarcotics activities in the Republic of Colombia.
       (3) Contents.--Each such report shall contain the 
     following:
       (A) The name of each United States business described in 
     paragraph (2) and description of the counternarcotics 
     activities carried out by the business in Colombia.
       (B) The total value of all payments by the Department of 
     State to each such business for such activities.
       (C) A written statement justifying the decision by the 
     Department of State to enter into an agreement with each such 
     business for such activities.
       (D) An assessment of the risks to personal safety and 
     potential involvement in hostilities incurred by employees of 
     each such business as a result of their activities in 
     Colombia.
       (E) A plan to provide for the transfer of the 
     counternarcotics activities carried out by such United States 
     businesses to Colombian nationals, in particular personnel of 
     the Colombian antinarcotics police.
       (4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``United 
     States business'' means any corporation, partnership, or 
     other organization that employs 3 or more individuals and is 
     organized under the laws of the United States.

                    Subtitle B--Consular Authorities

     SEC. 231. MACHINE READABLE VISAS.

       Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (8 U.S.C. 1351 note) is amended in 
     the first sentence of paragraph (3)--
       (1) by striking ``2001, and 2002,'' and inserting ``2001, 
     2002, and 2003,''; and
       (2) by striking ``and $316,715,000 for fiscal year 2002'' 
     and inserting ``$414,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2003,''.

     SEC. 232. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSULAR BRANCH OFFICE IN LHASA, 
                   TIBET.

       The Secretary of State shall make best efforts to establish 
     a branch office in Lhasa, Tibet, of the United States 
     Consulate General in Chengdu, People's Republic of China, to 
     monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in 
     Tibet.

     SEC. 233. ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR POST IN 
                   EQUATORIAL GUINEA.

       The Secretary of State shall establish a diplomatic or 
     consular post in Equatorial Guinea.

     SEC. 234. PROCESSING OF VISA APPLICATIONS.

       It shall be the policy of the Department of State to 
     process immigrant visa applications of immediate relatives of 
     United States citizens and nonimmigrant K-1 visa applications 
     of fiances of United States citizens within 30 days of the 
     receipt of all necessary documents from the applicant and the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the case of an 
     immigrant visa application where the sponsor of such 
     applicant is a relative other than an immediate relative, it 
     should be the policy of the Department of State to process 
     such an application within 60 days of the receipt of all 
     necessary documents from the applicant and the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service.

     SEC. 235. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO JERUSALEM AS 
                   THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

       (a) Congressional Statement of Policy.--The Congress 
     maintains its commitment to relocating the United States 
     Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and urges the President, 
     pursuant to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-45; 109 Stat. 398), to immediately begin the process of 
     relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
       (b) Limitation on Use of Funds for Consulate in 
     Jerusalem.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act may be expended for the operation of a United 
     States consulate or diplomatic facility in Jerusalem unless 
     such consulate or diplomatic facility is under the 
     supervision of the United States Ambassador to Israel.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds for Publications.--None of 
     the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be 
     available for the publication of any official government 
     document which lists countries and their capital cities 
     unless the publication identifies Jerusalem as the capital of 
     Israel.
       (d) Record of Place of Birth as Israel for Passport 
     Purposes.--For purposes of the registration of birth, 
     certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a 
     United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the 
     Secretary of State shall, upon the request of the citizen or 
     the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as 
     Israel.

     SEC. 236. DENIAL OF VISAS TO SUPPORTERS OF COLOMBIAN ILLEGAL 
                   ARMED GROUPS.

       (a) Denial of Visas to Persons Supporting Colombian 
     Insurgent and Paramilitary Groups.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), the Secretary of State shall not issue a visa to any 
     alien who the Secretary determines, based on credible 
     evidence--
       (1) has willfully provided direct or indirect support to 
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), or the United Self-Defense 
     Forces of Colombia (AUC); or
       (2) has willfully conspired to allow, facilitate, or 
     promote the illegal activities of any group listed in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of State determines and certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, on a case-by-case 
     basis, that issuance of a visa to the alien is necessary to 
     support the peace process in Colombia, for urgent 
     humanitarian reasons, for significant public benefit, or to 
     further the national security interests of the United States.

                   Subtitle C--Migration and Refugees

     SEC. 251. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE INVOLUNTARY 
                   RETURN OF REFUGEES.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this 
     Act or by section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee 
     Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)) shall be available 
     to effect the involuntary return by the United States of any 
     person to a country in which the person has a well-founded 
     fear of persecution on account of race, religion, 
     nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
     political opinion, except on grounds recognized as precluding 
     protection as a refugee under the United Nations Convention 
     Relating to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951, and the 
     Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of January 31, 
     1967, subject to the reservations contained in the United 
     States Senate Resolution of Ratification.
       (b) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--None of the funds 
     made available by this Act or by section 2(c) of the 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 
     2601(c)) shall be available to effect the involuntary return 
     of any person to any country unless the Secretary of State 
     first notifies the appropriate congressional committees, 
     except that in the case of an emergency involving a threat to 
     human life the Secretary of State shall notify the 
     appropriate congressional committees as soon as practicable.
       (c) Involuntary Return Defined.--As used in this section, 
     the term ``to effect the involuntary return'' means to 
     require, by means of physical force or circumstances 
     amounting to a threat thereof, a person to return to a 
     country against the person's will, regardless of whether the 
     person is physically present in the United States and 
     regardless of whether the United States acts directly or 
     through an agent.

     SEC. 252. REPORT ON OVERSEAS REFUGEE PROCESSING.

       (a) Report on Overseas Refuge Processing.--Not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on overseas processing of refugees for 
     admission to the United States.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include the following 
     detailed information:
       (1) United States procedures for the identification of 
     refugees who are particularly vulnerable or whose individual 
     circumstances otherwise suggest an urgent need for 
     resettlement, including the extent to which the Department 
     now insists on referral by the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees as a prerequisite to consideration 
     of such refugees for resettlement in the United States, 
     together with a plan for

[[Page 7791]]

     the expanded use of alternatives to such referral, including 
     the use of field-based nongovernmental organizations to 
     identify refugees in urgent need of resettlement.
       (2) The extent to which the Department makes use in 
     overseas refugee processing of the designation of groups of 
     refugees who are of special concern to the United States, 
     together with the reasons for any decline in such use over 
     the last 10 years and a plan for making more generous use of 
     such categories in the future.
       (3) The extent to which the United States currently 
     provides opportunities for resettlement in the United States 
     of individuals who are close family members of citizens or 
     lawful residents of the United States, together with the 
     reasons for any decline in the extent of such provision over 
     the last 10 years and a plan for expansion of such 
     opportunities in the future.
       (4) The extent to which opportunities for resettlement in 
     the United States are currently provided to ``urban 
     refugees'' and others who do not currently reside in refugee 
     camps, together with a plan for increasing such 
     opportunities, particularly for refugees who are in urgent 
     need of resettlement, who are members of refugee groups of 
     special interest to the United States, or who are close 
     family members of United States citizens or lawful residents.
       (5) The Department's assessment of the feasibility and 
     desirability of modifying the Department's current list of 
     refugee priorities to create an additional category for 
     refugees whose need for resettlement is based on a long 
     period of residence in a refugee camp with no immediate 
     prospect of safe and voluntary repatriation to their country 
     of origin or last permanent residence.
       (6) The extent to which the Department uses private 
     voluntary agencies to assist in the identification of 
     refugees for admission to the United States, including the 
     Department's assessment of the advantages and disadvantages 
     of private voluntary agencies, the reasons for any decline in 
     the Department's use of voluntary agencies over the last 10 
     years, and a plan for the expanded use of such agencies.
       (7) The extent to which the per capita reception and 
     placement grant to voluntary agencies assisting in 
     resettlement of refugees has kept up over the last 10 years 
     with the cost to such agencies of providing such services.
       (8) An estimate of the cost of each change in current 
     practice or procedure discussed in the report, together with 
     an estimate of any increase in the annual refugee admissions 
     ceiling that would be necessary to implement each change.

    TITLE III--ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Subtitle A--Organizational Matters

     SEC. 301. COMPREHENSIVE WORKFORCE PLAN.

       (a) Workforce Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     comprehensive workforce plan for the Department of State for 
     the fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The plan shall consider 
     personnel needs in both the civil service and the Foreign 
     Service and expected domestic and overseas personnel 
     allocations. The workforce plan should set forth the detailed 
     mission of the Department, the definition of work to be done 
     and cyclical personnel needs based on expected retirements 
     and the time required to hire, train, and deploy new 
     personnel.
       (b) Domestic Staffing Model.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 
     shall compile and submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a domestic staffing model for the Department of 
     State.

     SEC. 302. ``RIGHTSIZING'' OVERSEAS POSTS.

       (a) ``Rightsizing'' at the Department of State.--
       (1) The Secretary of State shall establish a task force 
     within the Department of State on the issue of 
     ``rightsizing'' overseas posts.
       (2) Preliminary report.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report which outlines the status, plans, and activities of 
     the task force. In addition to such other information as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate, the report shall include the 
     following:
       (A) The objectives of the task force.
       (B) Measures for achieving the objectives under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) The official of the Department with primary 
     responsibility for the issue of ``rightsizing''.
       (D) The plans of the Department for the reallocation of 
     staff and resources based on changing needs at overseas posts 
     and in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.
       (3) Periodic reports.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months 
     thereafter during the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report reviewing the activities 
     and progress of the task force established under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Interagency Working Group.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall establish 
     an interagency working group on the issue of ``rightsizing'' 
     the overseas presence of the United States Government.
       (2) Preliminary report.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report which outlines the status, plans, and activities of 
     the interagency working group. In addition to such other 
     information as the Secretary considers appropriate, the 
     report shall include the following:
       (A) The objectives of the working group.
       (B) Measures for achieving the objectives under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) The official of each agency with primary responsibility 
     for the issue of ``rightsizing''.
       (3) Periodic reports.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months 
     thereafter during the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report reviewing the activities 
     and progress of the working group established under paragraph 
     (1).

     SEC. 303. QUALIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

       Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (f) and (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) Qualifications of Certain Officers of the Department 
     of State.--
       ``(1) Officer having primary responsibility for personnel 
     management.--The officer of the Department of State with 
     primary responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State 
     with respect to matters relating to personnel in the 
     Department of State, or that officer's principal deputy, 
     shall have substantial professional qualifications in the 
     field of human resource policy and management.
       ``(2) Officer having primary responsibility for diplomatic 
     security.--The officer of the Department of State with 
     primary responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State 
     with respect to diplomatic security, or that officer's 
     principal deputy, shall have substantial professional 
     qualifications in the fields of (A) management, and (B) 
     Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or security.
       ``(3) Officer having primary responsibility for 
     international narcotics and law enforcement.--The officer of 
     the Department of State with primary responsibility for 
     assisting the Secretary of State with respect to 
     international narcotics and law enforcement, or that 
     officer's principal deputy, shall have substantial 
     professional qualifications in the fields of management and 
     Federal law enforcement.''.

     SEC. 304. UNITED STATES SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR TIBETAN 
                   ISSUES.

       (a) United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.--
     There shall be within the Department of State a United States 
     Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary of State shall consult 
     with the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives prior to the designation of the special 
     coordinator.
       (c) Central Objective.--The central objective of the 
     special coordinator is to promote substantive dialogue 
     between the Government of the People's Republic of China and 
     the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
       (d) Duties and Responsibilities.--The special coordinator 
     shall--
       (1) coordinate United States Government policies, programs, 
     and projects concerning Tibet;
       (2) vigorously promote the policy of seeking to protect the 
     distinct religious, cultural, linguistic, and national 
     identity of Tibet, and pressing for improved respect for 
     human rights;
       (3) maintain close contact with religious, cultural, and 
     political leaders of the Tibetan people, including regular 
     travel to Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China, 
     and to Tibetan refugee settlements in India and Nepal;
       (4) consult with Congress on policies relevant to Tibet and 
     the future and welfare of the Tibetan people;
       (5) make efforts to establish contacts in the foreign 
     ministries of other countries to pursue a negotiated solution 
     for Tibet; and
       (6) take all appropriate steps to ensure adequate 
     resources, staff, and bureaucratic support to fulfill the 
     duties and responsibilities of the special coordinator.

     SEC. 305. UNITED STATES SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SUDAN ISSUES.

       Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (f) (as added by section 303 of this Act) the 
     following new subsection (g):
       ``(g) United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be within the Department of 
     State a United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues who 
     shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate.
       ``(2) Duties.--In addition to such duties as the President 
     and Secretary of State shall prescribe, the envoy shall work 
     for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sudan and an end 
     to abuses of human rights, including religious freedom, in 
     Sudan.''.

                     Subtitle B--Personnel Matters

     SEC. 331. REPORT CONCERNING RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN 
                   SERVICE AND CIVIL SERVICE WHO ARE REGISTERED 
                   AGENTS OF A GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

       The Secretary of State shall submit, annually, a report to 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
     Senate which lists members of the Foreign Service and

[[Page 7792]]

     the civil service who have retired, have been issued an 
     identification which authorizes access to facilities of the 
     Department of State, and are registered under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 as an agent of a government 
     of a foreign country. The report shall specify each 
     individual and the governments represented by that 
     individual.

     SEC. 332. TIBETAN LANGUAGE TRAINING.

       The Secretary of State shall ensure that Tibetan language 
     training is available to Foreign Service officers, and that 
     every effort is made to ensure that a Tibetan-speaking 
     Foreign Service officer is assigned to the consulate in China 
     responsible for tracking developments in Tibet.

     SEC. 333. DEPENDENTS ON FAMILY VISITATION TRAVEL.

       (a) In General.--Section 901(8) of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(8)) is amended by striking 
     ``Service'' and inserting ``Service, and members of his or 
     her family,''.
       (b) Promulgation of Guidance.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate guidance for the implementation of the amendment 
     made by subsection (a) to ensure its implementation in a 
     manner which does not substantially increase the total amount 
     of travel expenses paid or reimbursed by the Department for 
     travel under section 901 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date on which guidance for 
     implementation of such amendment is issued by the Secretary.

     SEC. 334. THOMAS JEFFERSON STAR.

       Section 36A of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 
     of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708a) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``FOREIGN SERVICE'' 
     and inserting ``THOMAS JEFFERSON''; and
       (2) by striking ``Foreign Service star'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Thomas Jefferson Star''.

     SEC. 335. HEALTH EDUCATION AND DISEASE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       Section 904(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 
     U.S.C. 4084(b)) is amended by striking ``families, and (3)'' 
     and inserting ``families, (3) health education and disease 
     prevention programs for all employees, and (4)''.

     SEC. 336. TRAINING AUTHORITIES.

       Section 2205(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted in division G of Public 
     Law 105-277) is amended by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 337. FOREIGN NATIONAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

       Section 408(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 
     U.S.C. 3968(a)(1)) is amended in the third sentence by 
     striking ``(C)'' and all that follows through ``covered 
     employees.'' and inserting ``(C) payments by the Government 
     and employees to (i) a trust or other fund in a financial 
     institution in order to finance future benefits for 
     employees, including provision for retention in the fund of 
     accumulated interest and dividends for the benefit of covered 
     employees; or (ii) a Foreign Service National Savings Fund 
     established in the Treasury of the United States, which (I) 
     shall be administered by the Secretary of State, at whose 
     direction the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest amounts 
     not required for the current needs of the fund; and (II) 
     shall be public monies, which are authorized to be 
     appropriated and remain available without fiscal year 
     limitation to pay benefits, to be invested in public debt 
     obligations bearing interest at rates determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury taking into consideration current 
     average market yields on outstanding marketable obligations 
     of the United States of comparable maturity, and to pay 
     administrative expenses.''.

     SEC. 338. PRESIDENTIAL RANK AWARDS.

       (a) Comparable to Payments to Meritorious Executives and 
     Distinguished Executives.--Section 405(b)(3) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3965(b)(3)) is amended by 
     striking the second sentence and inserting ``Payments under 
     this paragraph to a member of the Senior Foreign Service may 
     not exceed, in any fiscal year, the percentage of base pay 
     established under section 4507(e)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, for a Meritorious Executive, except that 
     payments of the percentage of the base pay established under 
     section 4507(e)(2) of title 5, United States, Code, for 
     Distinguished Executives may be made in any fiscal year to up 
     to 1 percent of the members of the Senior Foreign Service.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect October 1, 2001.

     SEC. 339. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ADVANCE PAYMENTS.

       Section 5927(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) to an employee compensated pursuant to section 408 of 
     the Foreign Service Act of 1980, who--
       ``(A) pursuant to government authorization is located 
     outside the country of employment; and
       ``(B) requires medical treatment outside the country of 
     employment in circumstances specified by the President in 
     regulations.''.

     SEC. 340. UNACCOMPANIED AIR BAGGAGE.

       Section 5924(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``At the option of the employee, in lieu of the 
     transportation of the baggage of a dependent child from the 
     dependent's school, the costs incurred to store the baggage 
     at or in the vicinity of the school during the dependent's 
     annual trip between the school and the employee's duty 
     station may be paid or reimbursed to the employee. The amount 
     of the payment or reimbursement may not exceed the cost that 
     the government would incur to transport the baggage.''.

     SEC. 341. SPECIAL AGENT AUTHORITIES.

       Section 37(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 
     of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)) is amended in paragraph (3)(F) by 
     inserting ``or President-elect'' after ``President''.

     SEC. 342. REPORT CONCERNING MINORITY EMPLOYMENT.

       During each of the years 2002 and 2003, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a comprehensive report to the Congress 
     concerning the status of employment of members of minority 
     groups at the Department of State, including the Civil 
     Service, the Foreign Service, and State Department employees 
     serving abroad. The report shall include the following data 
     (reported in terms of real numbers and percentages and not as 
     ratios):
       (1) For the last preceding Foreign Service examination and 
     promotion cycles for which such information is available--
       (A) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups taking the written Foreign Service examination;
       (B) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups successfully completing and passing the written 
     Foreign Service examination;
       (C) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups successfully completing and passing the oral Foreign 
     Service examination;
       (D) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups entering the junior officers class of the Foreign 
     Service;
       (E) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups who are Foreign Service officers at each grade; and
       (F) the numbers of and percentages of members of all 
     minority groups promoted at each grade of the Foreign Service 
     Officer Corps.
       (2) For the last preceding year for Civil Service 
     employment at the Department of State for which such 
     information is available--
       (A) numbers and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups entering the Civil Service;
       (B) the number and percentages of members of all minority 
     groups who are civil service employees at each grade of the 
     Civil Service; and
       (C) the number of and percentages of members of all 
     minority groups promoted at each grade of the Civil Service.

     SEC. 343. USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR MINORITY RECRUITMENT.

       (a) Conduct of Recruitment Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     minority recruitment under section 101(1)(B)(iii) shall be 
     used only for activities directly related to minority 
     recruitment, such as recruitment materials designed to target 
     members of minority groups and the travel expenses of 
     recruitment trips to colleges, universities, and other 
     institutions or locations.
       (2) Limitation.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     minority recruitment under section 101(1)(B)(iii) may not be 
     used to pay salaries of employees of the Department of State.
       (b) Recruitment Activities at Academic Institutions.--The 
     Secretary of State shall expand the recruitment efforts of 
     the Department of State to include not less than 25 percent 
     of the part B institutions (as defined under section 322 of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965) in the United States and 
     not less than 25 percent of the Hispanic-serving institutions 
     (as defined in section 502(a)(5) of such Act) in the United 
     States.
       (c) Evaluation of Recruitment Efforts.--The Secretary of 
     State shall establish a database relating to efforts to 
     recruit members of minority groups into the Foreign Service 
     and the Civil Service and shall report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees annually on the evaluation of 
     efforts to recruit such individuals, including an analysis of 
     the information collected in the database created under this 
     subsection. For each of the years 2002 and 2003, such a 
     report may be part of the report required under section 342.

   TITLE IV--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS OF THE 
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

     SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR SCHOLARSHIPS FOR 
                   TIBETANS AND BURMESE.

       Section 103(b)(1) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other 
     Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319; 
     22 U.S.C. 2151 note) is amended by striking ``for the fiscal 
     year 2000'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2002 
     and 2003''.

     SEC. 402. NONPROFIT ENTITIES FOR CULTURAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) It is in the national interest of the United States to 
     promote mutual understanding between the people of the United 
     States and other nations.
       (2) Among the means to be used in achieving this objective 
     are a wide range of international educational and cultural 
     exchange programs, including the J. William Fulbright 
     Educational Exchange Program and the International Visitors 
     Program.
       (3) Cultural diplomacy, especially the presentation abroad 
     of the finest of America's creative, visual and performing 
     arts, is an especially effective means of advancing the 
     United States national interest.
       (4) The financial support available for international 
     cultural and scholarly exchanges has declined by 
     approximately 10 per cent in recent years.
       (5) Funds appropriated for the purpose of ensuring that the 
     excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United 
     States are presented to foreign audiences by, and in 
     cooperation

[[Page 7793]]

     with, our diplomatic and consular representatives have 
     declined dramatically.
       (6) One of the ways to deepen and expand cultural and 
     educational exchange programs is through the establishment of 
     nonprofit entities to encourage the participation and 
     financial support of corporations and other private sector 
     contributors.
       (7) The United States private sector should be encouraged 
     to cooperate closely with the Secretary of State and 
     representatives of the Department to expand and spread 
     appreciation of United States cultural and artistic 
     accomplishments.
       (b) Authority To Establish Nonprofit Entities.--Section 105 
     of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2255) is amended by striking subsection (g) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities for Cultural Programming.--
       ``(1) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide for 
     the establishment of private nonprofit entities to assist in 
     carrying out the purposes of this subsection. Any such entity 
     shall not be considered an agency or instrumentality of the 
     United States Government and employees of such an entity 
     shall not be considered employees of the United States 
     Government for any purpose.
       ``(2) An entity established pursuant to the authority of 
     paragraph (1) may carry out the following:
       ``(A) Encourage participation and support by United States 
     corporations and other elements of the private sector for 
     cultural, arts, and educational exchange programs which will 
     enhance international appreciation of America's cultural and 
     artistic accomplishments.
       ``(B) Solicit and receive contributions from the private 
     sector to support cultural, arts, and educational exchange 
     programs.
       ``(C) Provide grants and other assistance for such 
     programs.
       ``(3) The Secretary of State is authorized to make such 
     arrangements as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     any entity established pursuant to paragraph (1) including 
     the following:
       ``(A) The solicitation and receipt of funds for an entity.
       ``(B) Designation of a program in recognition of such 
     contributions.
       ``(C) Appointment of members of the board of directors or 
     other body established to administer an entity, including the 
     appointment of employees of the United States Government as 
     ex officio nonvoting members of such a board or other 
     administrative body.
       ``(D) Making recommendations with respect to specific 
     artistic and cultural programs to be carried out by the 
     entity.
       ``(4) For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not to exceed 
     $500,000 of funds available to the Department of State are 
     authorized to be made available for each fiscal year for 
     administrative and other costs for the establishment of 
     entities pursuant to paragraph (1). An entity established 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) is authorized to invest amounts 
     made available to the entity by the Department of State, and 
     such amounts, as well as interest or earnings on such 
     amounts, may be used by the entity to carry out its purposes.
       ``(5) Each entity established pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall submit an annual report on the sources and amount of 
     funds and other resources received and the programs funded by 
     the entity to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(6) The financial transactions of each entity established 
     under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year shall be the subject 
     of an independent audit. A report of each such audit shall be 
     made available to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. 403. FULBRIGHT-HAYS AUTHORITIES.

       Section 112(d) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2460(d) is amended by 
     striking ``operating under the authority of this Act and 
     consistent with'' and inserting ``which operate under the 
     authority of this Act or promote''.

     SEC. 404. ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make available funds 
     for public diplomacy and international exchanges, including, 
     as appropriate, funds for international visitor programs and 
     scholarships available under the United States Information 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and other similar statutes, 
     to provide opportunities to researchers in developing 
     countries to obtain scholarships and otherwise participate in 
     activities related to ethical issues in human subject 
     research, as described in subsection (b).
       (b) Ethical Issues in Human Subject Research.--For purposes 
     of subsection (a), ``activities related to ethical issues in 
     human subject research'' include courses of study, 
     conferences, and fora on development of and compliance with 
     international ethical standards for clinical trials involving 
     human subjects, particularly with respect to responsibilities 
     of researchers to individuals and local communities 
     participating in such trials, and on management and 
     monitoring of such trials based on such international ethical 
     standards.

      TITLE V--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 501. ELIMINATING STAFF POSITIONS FOR THE ADVISORY BOARD 
                   FOR CUBA BROADCASTING.

       (a) Eliminating Position of Staff Director.--
       (1) Section 245 of the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 1465c note) is amended by striking subsection (d).
       (2) Any funds made available through the elimination of the 
     position under the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall be 
     made available for broadcasting to Cuba.
       (b) Prohibiting Paid Staff Positions.--The Advisory Board 
     for Cuba Broadcasting is not authorized to employ 
     administrative or support staff who are compensated by the 
     Advisory Board.

     SEC. 502. REPORTS ON BROADCASTING PERSONNEL.

       Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and every 6 months thereafter during the fiscal 
     years 2002 and 2003, the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report regarding high-level personnel of the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors and efforts to diversify the workforce. 
     Each report shall include the following information, reported 
     separately, for the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio 
     Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia:
       (1) A list of all personnel positions at and above the GS-
     13 pay level.
       (2) The number and percentage of women and members of 
     minority groups in positions under paragraph (1).
       (3) The increase or decrease in the representation of women 
     and members of minority groups in positions under paragraph 
     (1) from previous years.
       (4) The recruitment budget for each broadcasting entity and 
     the aggregate budget.
       (5) Information concerning the recruitment efforts of the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors relating to women and members 
     of minority groups, including the percentage of the 
     recruitment budget utilized for such efforts.

     SEC. 503. PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTING PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the International 
     Broadcasting Bureau is authorized to establish a pilot 
     program for the purpose of hiring United States citizens or 
     aliens as personal services contractors, without regard to 
     civil service and classification laws, for service in the 
     United States as broadcasters, producers, and writers in the 
     International Broadcasting Bureau to respond to new or 
     emerging broadcasting needs or to augment broadcast services.
       (b) Limitation on Authority.--The Director is authorized to 
     use such pilot program authority subject to the following 
     limitations:
       (1) The Director shall determine that existing personnel 
     resources are insufficient and the need is of limited or 
     unknown duration.
       (2) The Director shall approve each contract for a personal 
     services contractor.
       (3) The length of any personal services contract may not 
     exceed 2 years, unless the Director finds that exceptional 
     circumstances justify an extension of not more than 1 
     additional year.
       (4) Not more than 50 United States citizens or aliens shall 
     be employed at any time as personal services contractors 
     under the pilot program.
       (c) Termination of Authority.--The authority to award 
     personal services contracts under the pilot program 
     authorized by this section shall terminate on December 31, 
     2005. A contract entered into prior to the termination date 
     under this subsection may remain in effect for a period not 
     to exceed 6 months after such termination date.

     SEC. 504. PAY PARITY FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVES OF RADIO FREE 
                   EUROPE AND RADIO LIBERTY.

       Section 308(h)(1) of the United States International 
     Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6207(h)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding the limitations under subparagraph 
     (A), grant funds provided under this section may be used by 
     RFE/RL, Incorporated to pay up to 2 employees employed in 
     Washington, D.C. salary or other compensation not to exceed 
     the rate of pay payable for level III of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States 
     Code.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(B),'' and inserting 
     ``(B) or (C),''.

     SEC. 505. REPEAL OF BAN ON UNITED STATES TRANSMITTER IN 
                   KUWAIT.

       The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 226; and
       (2) by striking the item relating to section 226 in the 
     table of sections.

         TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS

     SEC 601. UNITED NATIONS ARREARS PAYMENTS AND REFORM.

       (a) Additional Restrictions on Release of Arrearage 
     Payments Relating to United States Sovereignty.--In addition 
     to the satisfaction of all other preconditions applicable to 
     the obligation and expenditure of funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 911(a)(2) of the United Nations 
     Reform Act of 1999, such funds may not be obligated or 
     expended until the Secretary of State certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that the following 
     conditions are satisfied:
       (1) Supremacy of the united states constitution.--No action 
     has been taken by the United Nations or any of its 
     specialized or affiliated agencies that requires the United 
     States to violate the United States Constitution or any law 
     of the United States.

[[Page 7794]]

       (2) No united nations sovereignty.--Neither the United 
     Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies--
       (A) has exercised sovereignty over the United States; or
       (B) has taken any steps that require the United States to 
     cede sovereignty.
       (3) No united nations taxation.--
       (A) No legal authority.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (D), neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or 
     affiliated agencies has the authority under United States law 
     to impose taxes or fees on United States nationals.
       (B) No taxes or fees.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (D), a tax or fee has not been imposed on any United States 
     national by the United Nations or any of its specialized or 
     affiliated agencies.
       (C) No taxation proposals.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (D), neither the United Nations nor any of its 
     specialized or affiliated agencies has, on or after October 
     1, 1996, officially approved any formal effort to develop, 
     advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition 
     of a tax or fee on any United States national in order to 
     raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency.
       (D) Exception.--This paragraph does not apply to--
       (i) fees for publications or other kinds of fees that are 
     not tantamount to a tax on United States citizens;
       (ii) the World Intellectual Property Organization; or
       (iii) the staff assessment costs of the United Nations and 
     its specialized or affiliated agencies.
       (4) No standing army.--The United Nations has not, on or 
     after October 1, 1996, budgeted any funds for, nor taken any 
     official steps to develop, create, or establish any special 
     agreement under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter to 
     make available to the United Nations, on its call, the armed 
     forces of any member of the United Nations.
       (5) No interest fees.--The United Nations has not, on or 
     after October 1, 1996, levied interest penalties against the 
     United States or any interest on arrearages on the annual 
     assessment of the United States, and neither the United 
     Nations nor its specialized agencies have, on or after 
     October 1, 1996, amended their financial regulations or taken 
     any other action that would permit interest penalties to be 
     levied against the United States or otherwise charge the 
     United States any interest on arrearages on its annual 
     assessment.
       (6) United states real property rights.--Neither the United 
     Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies has 
     exercised authority or control over any United States 
     national park, wildlife preserve, monument, or real property, 
     nor has the United Nations nor any of its specialized or 
     affiliated agencies implemented plans, regulations, programs, 
     or agreements that exercise control or authority over the 
     private real property of United States citizens located in 
     the United States without the approval of the property owner.
       (7) Termination of borrowing authority.--
       (A) Prohibition on authorization of external borrowing.--On 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act, neither the 
     United Nations nor any specialized agency of the United 
     Nations has amended its financial regulations to permit 
     external borrowing.
       (B) Prohibition of united states payment of interest 
     costs.--The United States has not, on or after October 1, 
     1984, paid its share of any interest costs made known to or 
     identified by the United States Government for loans 
     incurred, on or after October 1, 1984, by the United Nations 
     or any specialized agency of the United Nations through 
     external borrowing.
       (b) Amendments to the United Nations Reform Act of 1999.--
     The United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (title IX of division A 
     of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of 
     Public Law 106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-475) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Section 912(c) is amended by striking ``section 911'' 
     and inserting ``section 911(a)(3)''.
       (2) Section 931(b) is amended by--
       (A) striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (3) Section 941(a)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``also'';
       (B) by striking ``in subsection (b)(4)'' both places it 
     appears; and
       (C) by striking ``satisfied, if the other conditions in 
     subsection (b) are satisfied'' and inserting ``satisfied''.
       (4) Section 941(b)(3) is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``New budget 
     procedures'' and inserting ``Budget practices'';
       (B) by striking ``has established and'';
       (C) by striking ``procedures'' and inserting ``practices''; 
     and
       (D) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``require'' 
     both places it appears and inserting in both places ``result 
     in''.
       (5) Section 941(b)(9) is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``New budget 
     procedures'' and inserting ``Budget practices'';
       (B) by striking ``Each designated specialized agency has 
     established procedures to--'' and inserting ``The practices 
     of each designated specialized agency--''; and
       (C) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) by striking 
     ``require'' each of the 3 places it appears such 
     subparagraphs and inserting in the 3 places ``result in''.
       (c) Amendment to United Nations Participation Act.--Section 
     6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 
     287d) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6. AGREEMENTS WITH SECURITY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Any agreement described in subsection (b) that is 
     concluded by the President with the Security Council shall 
     not be effective unless approved by the Congress by 
     appropriate Act or joint resolution.
       ``(b) An agreement referred to in subsection (a) is an 
     agreement providing for the numbers and types of United 
     States Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general 
     locations, or the nature of facilities and assistance, 
     including rights of passage, to be made available to the 
     Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international 
     peace and security in accordance with Article 43 of the 
     Charter of the United Nations.
       ``(c) Except as provided in section 7, nothing in this 
     section may be construed as an authorization to the President 
     by the Congress to make available United States Armed Forces, 
     facilities, or assistance to the Security Council.''.
       (d) Amendment to Public Law 103-236.--Section 404(b)(2) of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.C. 287e note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``for any fiscal year after fiscal year 
     1995'' and inserting ``for--
       ``(A) fiscal years 1996 through 2001, and any fiscal year 
     after fiscal year 2003''; and
       (2) by striking ``operation.'' and inserting ``operation; 
     and
       ``(B) fiscal years 2002 and 2003 shall not be available for 
     the payment of the United States assessed contribution for a 
     United Nations peacekeeping operation in an amount which is 
     greater than 28.15 percent of the total of all assessed 
     contributions for that operation.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 92-544.--The last 
     sentence of the paragraph headed ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations'' in Public Law 92-544 (22 U.S.C. 
     287e note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Appropriations are authorized'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to section 404(b)(2) of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 
     (Public Law 103-236, 22 U.S.C. 287e note), as amended, 
     appropriations are authorized''; and
       (2) by striking ``(other than United Nations peacekeeping 
     operations) conducted'' and inserting ``conducted by or under 
     the auspices of the United Nations or''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 105-277.--The 
     undesignated paragraph under the heading ``arrearage 
     payments'' in title IV of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (as enacted into law by section 
     101(b) of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; 112 Stat. 
     2681-96) is amended by striking ``member, and the share of 
     the budget for each assessed United Nations peacekeeping 
     operation does not exceed 25 percent for any single United 
     Nations member.'' and inserting ``member.''.
       (g) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 106-113.--The 
     undesignated paragraph under the heading ``arrearage 
     payments'' in title IV of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(1) of division B of Public Law 106-113; appendix A; 
     113 Stat. 1501A-42) is amended--
       (1) in the first proviso, by striking ``the share of the 
     total of all assessed contributions for any designated 
     specialized agency of the United Nations does not exceed 22 
     percent for any single member of the agency, and''; and
       (2) by inserting immediately after the first proviso 
     ``Provided further, That, none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under this heading for payment of 
     arrearages may be obligated or expended with respect to a 
     designated specialized agency of the United Nations until 
     such time as the share of the total of all assessed 
     contributions for that designated specialized agency does not 
     exceed 22 percent for any member of the agency:''.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 602. TRAVEL BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO GREAT LAKES 
                   FISHERY COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING.

       Section 4(c) of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956 (70 
     Stat. 242; 16 U.S.C. 933(c)) is amended in the second 
     sentence--
       (1) by striking ``five'' and inserting ``ten''; and
       (2) by striking ``each'' and inserting ``the annual''.

     SEC. 603. UNITED STATES POLICY ON COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED 
                   NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United Nations Human Rights Commission is an 
     important organ of the United Nations that plays a 
     significant role in monitoring international human rights 
     developments and can make an important contribution to 
     advancing human rights around the world.
       (2) The membership of the Commission, however, continues to 
     include countries that are themselves human rights violators.
       (3) Countries that are on the Commission have a special 
     duty to ensure that they are prepared to allow human rights 
     monitors into their own country to investigate allegations of 
     human rights violations.
       (b) United States Policy on Membership of the Commission.--
     The President, acting

[[Page 7795]]

     through the Secretary of State, the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations, and other appropriate 
     United States Government officials, shall use the voice and 
     vote of the United States at the United Nations to oppose 
     membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 
     for any country that does not provide a standing invitation 
     to allow the following persons to monitor human rights in the 
     territory of such country:
       (1) Designated United Nations human rights investigators 
     and rapporteurs.
       (2) Representatives from nongovernmental organizations that 
     focus on human rights.

     SEC. 604. UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION.

       (a) Continuation of Membership.--The President is 
     authorized to continue membership for the United States in 
     the International Organization for Migration in accordance 
     with the constitution of such organization approved in 
     Venice, Italy, on October 19, 1953, as amended in Geneva, 
     Switzerland, on November 24, 1998, upon entry into force of 
     such amendments.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     assisting in the movement of refugees and migrants, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such amounts as may be 
     necessary from time to time for payment by the United States 
     of its contributions to the International Organization for 
     Migration and all necessary salaries and expenses incidental 
     to United States participation in such organization.

     SEC. 605. REPORT RELATING TO COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND 
                   COOPERATION IN EUROPE.

       Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a 
     Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe'' (Public 
     Law 94-304; 22 U.S.C. 3005) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 5. In order to assist the Commission in carrying out 
     its duties, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Commission an annual report discussing the overall United 
     States policy objectives that are advanced through meetings 
     of decision-making bodies of the Organization on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the OSCE implementation review 
     process, and other activities of the OSCE. The report shall 
     also include a summary of specific United States policy 
     objectives with respect to participating states where there 
     is a particular concern relating to the implementation of 
     Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
     commitments or where an OSCE presence exists. Such summary 
     shall address the role played by Organization on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe institutions, mechanisms, or field 
     activities in achieving United States policy objectives. Each 
     annual report shall cover the period January 1 through 
     December 31, shall be submitted not more than 90 days after 
     the end of the reporting period, and shall be posted on the 
     website of the Department of State.''.

     SEC. 606. REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Amendments to United Nations Participation Act.--
     Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 
     287b) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Annual Report on Financial Contributions.--Not later 
     than July 1 of each year, the Secretary of State shall submit 
     a report to the designated congressional committees on the 
     extent and disposition of all financial contributions made by 
     the United States during the preceding year to international 
     organizations in which the United States participates as a 
     member.'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(5) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Annual report.--The President shall submit an annual 
     report to the designated congressional committees on all 
     assistance provided by the United States during the preceding 
     calendar year to the United Nations to support peacekeeping 
     operations. Each such report shall describe the assistance 
     provided for each such operation, listed by category of 
     assistance.''; and
       (4) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2 of Public Law 81-806 (22 U.S.C. 262a) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Section 409 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) is amended 
     by striking subsection (d).

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 701. AMENDMENTS TO THE IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT OF 
                   2000.

       (a) Reports on Proliferation to Iran.--Section 2 of the 
     Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-178; 114 
     Stat. 39; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (d) the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Content of Reports.--Each report under subsection (a) 
     shall contain, with respect to each foreign person identified 
     in such report, a brief description of the type and quantity 
     of the goods, services, or technology transferred by that 
     person to Iran, the circumstances surrounding the transfer, 
     the usefulness of the transfer to Iranian weapons programs, 
     and the probable awareness or lack thereof of the transfer on 
     the part of the government with primary jurisdiction over the 
     person.''.
       (b) Determination Exempting Foreign Persons From Certain 
     Measures Under the Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``systems'' and inserting ``systems, or 
     conventional weapons''.

     SEC. 702. AMENDMENTS TO THE NORTH KOREA THREAT REDUCTION ACT 
                   OF 1999.

       Section 822(a) of the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 
     1999 (subtitle B of title VIII of division A of H.R. 3427, as 
     enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 
     appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-472) is amended by striking 
     ``such agreement,'' both places it appears and inserting in 
     both places ``such agreement (or that are controlled under 
     the Export Trigger List of the Nuclear Suppliers Group),''.

     SEC. 703. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 
                   ACT OF 1998.

       (a) Repeal of Termination of Commission.--The International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.) is 
     amended by striking section 209.
       (b) Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of 
     such Act (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is amended by inserting ``for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003'' after 
     ``$3,000,000''.
       (c) Election of Chair of Commission.--Section 201(d) of 
     such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(d)) is amended by striking ``in each 
     calendar'' and inserting ``after May 30 of each''.
       (d) Procurement of Nongovernmental Services.--Section 
     208(c)(1) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 6435a(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``authority other than that allowed under this 
     title'' and inserting ``authority, in excess of $75,000 
     annually, except as otherwise provided in this title''.
       (e) Donation of Services.--Section 208(d)(1) of such Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 6435a(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``services 
     or'' both places it appears.
       (f) Establishment of Staggered Terms of Members of 
     Commission.--Section 201(c) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(c)) 
     is amended by adding after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Establishment of staggered terms.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), members of the Commission appointed to serve 
     on the Commission during the period May 15, 2003, through May 
     14, 2005, shall be appointed to terms in accordance with the 
     provisions of this paragraph. Of the 3 members of the 
     Commission appointed by the President under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B)(i), 2 shall be appointed to a one-year term and 1 
     shall be appointed to a two-year term. Of the 3 members of 
     the Commission appointed by the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), 1 of the appointments 
     made upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of 
     the political party that is not the political party of the 
     President shall be appointed to a one-year term, and the 
     other 2 appointments under such clause shall be two-year 
     terms. Of the 3 members of the Commission appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B)(iii), 1 of the appointments made upon the 
     recommendation of the leader in the House of the political 
     party that is not the political party of the President shall 
     be to a one-year term, and the other 2 appointments under 
     such clause shall be two-year terms. The term of each member 
     of the Commission appointed to a one-year term shall be 
     considered to have begun on May 15, 2003, and shall end on 
     May 14, 2004, regardless of the date of the appointment to 
     the Commission. Each vacancy which occurs upon the expiration 
     of the term of a member appointed to a one-year term shall be 
     filled by the appointment of a successor to a two-year 
     term.''.
       (g) Vacancies.--Section 201(g) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     6431(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A 
     member may serve after the expiration of that member's term 
     until a successor has taken office. Any member appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term 
     for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be 
     appointed only for the remainder of that term.''.

     SEC. 704. CONTINUATION OF UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION 
                   ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY.

       (a) Authority To Continue Commission.--Section 1334 of the 
     Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as 
     enacted in division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999: Public Law 
     105-277) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2005''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 404(c) of the Admiral James W. Nance 
     and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Years 2000 and 2001 (section 404(c) of division A of H.R. 
     3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 
     106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-446) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 705. PARTICIPATION OF SOUTH ASIA COUNTRIES IN 
                   INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCMENT.

       The Secretary of State shall ensure, where practicable, 
     that appropriate government officials from countries in the 
     South Asia region shall be eligible to attend courses at the 
     International Law Enforcement Academy located in Bangkok, 
     Thailand, and Budapest, Hungary, consistent with other 
     provisions of law, with the goal of enhancing regional 
     cooperation in the fight against transnational crime.

                Subtitle B--Sense of Congress Provisions

     SEC. 731. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS AND UNITED 
                   NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the President should 
     direct the Secretary of State and the United States 
     Representative to the United Nations to urge the United 
     Nations to adopt an HIV/AIDS mitigation strategy as a 
     component of United Nations peacekeeping operations.

[[Page 7796]]



     SEC. 732. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS TASK FORCE.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State 
     should establish an international HIV/AIDS intervention, 
     mitigation, and coordination task force to coordinate 
     activities on international HIV/AIDS programs administered by 
     agencies of the Federal Government and to work with 
     international public and private entities working to combat 
     the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

     SEC. 733. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING THE DESTRUCTION OF 
                   PRE-ISLAMIC STATUES IN AFGHANISTAN BY THE 
                   TALIBAN REGIME.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Many of the oldest and most significant Buddhist 
     statues in the world are in Afghanistan, which, at the time 
     that many of the statues were carved, was one of the most 
     cosmopolitan regions in the world and hosted merchants, 
     travelers, and artists from China, India, central Asia, and 
     the Roman Empire.
       (2) Such statues are part of the common heritage of 
     mankind, which must be preserved for future generations.
       (3) On February 26, 2001, the leader of the Taliban regime, 
     Mullah Mohammad Omar, ordered the destruction of all pre-
     Islamic statues in Afghanistan, among them a pair of 1,600-
     year-old, 100-foot-tall statues of Buddha that are carved out 
     of a mountainside.
       (4) The religion of Islam and Buddhist statues have 
     coexisted in Afghanistan as part of the unique historical and 
     cultural heritage of that nation for more than 1,100 years.
       (5) The destruction of the pre-Islamic statues contradicts 
     the basic tenet of the Islamic religion that other religions 
     should be tolerated.
       (6) People of all faiths and nationalities have condemned 
     the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan, including 
     Muslim communities around the world.
       (7) The destruction of the statues violates the United 
     Nations Convention Concerning the Protection of the World 
     Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was ratified by 
     Afghanistan on March 20, 1979.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
       (1) joins with people and governments around the world in 
     condemning the destruction of pre-Islamic statues in 
     Afghanistan by the Taliban regime;
       (2) urges the Taliban regime to stop destroying such 
     statues; and
       (3) calls upon the Taliban regime to grant international 
     organizations immediate access to Afghanistan to survey the 
     damage and facilitate international efforts to preserve and 
     safeguard the remaining statues.

     SEC. 734. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO RESOLUTION OF THE 
                   TAIWAN STRAIT ISSUE.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Taiwan is a mature 
     democracy that fully respects human rights and it is the 
     policy of the United States that any resolution of the Taiwan 
     Strait issue must be peaceful and include the assent of the 
     people of Taiwan.

     SEC. 735. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO ARSENIC CONTAMINATION 
                   IN DRINKING WATER IN BANGLADESH.

       (a) Findings.--In the early 1970s, the United Nations 
     Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the Bangladeshi Department of 
     Public Health Engineering, in an attempt to bring clean 
     drinking water to the people of Bangladesh, installed tube 
     wells to access shallow aquifers. This was done to provide an 
     alternative to contaminated surface water sources. However, 
     at the time the wells were installed, arsenic was not 
     recognized as a problem in water supplies and standard water 
     testing procedures did not include arsenic tests. Naturally 
     occurring inorganic arsenic contamination of water in those 
     tube-wells was confirmed in 1993 in the Nawabganj district in 
     Bangladesh. The health effects of ingesting arsenic-
     contaminated drinking water appear slowly. This makes 
     preventative measures, including drawing arsenic out of the 
     existing tube well and finding alternate sources of water, 
     critical to preventing future contamination in large numbers 
     of the Bangladeshi population. Health effects of exposure to 
     arsenic in both adults and children include skin lesions, 
     skin cancer, and mortality from internal cancers.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Secretary of State should work 
     with appropriate United States Government agencies, national 
     laboratories, universities in the United States, the 
     Government of Bangladesh, international financial 
     institutions and organizations, and international donors to 
     identify a long term solution to the arsenic-contaminated 
     drinking water problem.
       (c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of State should 
     report to the Congress on proposals to bring about arsenic-
     free drinking water to Bangladeshis and to facilitate 
     treatment for those who have already been affected by 
     arsenic-contaminated drinking water in Bangladesh.

     SEC. 736. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO DISPLAY OF THE 
                   AMERICAN FLAG AT THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN 
                   TAIWAN.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the chancery of the 
     American Institute in Taiwan and the residence of the 
     director of the American Institute in Taiwan should publicly 
     display the flag of the United States in the same manner as 
     United States embassies, consulates, and official residences 
     throughout the world.

     SEC. 737. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 
                   IN WEST PAPUA AND ACEH, INCLUDING THE MURDER OF 
                   JAFAR SIDDIQ HAMZAH, AND ESCALATING VIOLENCE IN 
                   MALUKU AND CENTRAL KALIMANTAN.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Human rights violations by elements of the Indonesian 
     Government continue to worsen in West Papua (Irian Jaya) and 
     Aceh, while other areas including the Moluccas (Maluku) and 
     Central Kalimantan have experienced outbreaks of violence by 
     militia forces and other organized groups.
       (2) Seven West Papuans were shot dead by Indonesian 
     security forces following a flag-raising ceremony in the town 
     of Merauke on December 2, 2000, and in a separate incident 
     four others were reportedly killed by Indonesian security 
     forces after a West Papuan flag was raised in Tiom on 
     December 18, 2000.
       (3) Indonesian police have attacked peaceful West Papuan 
     civilians, including students in their dormitories at 
     Cenderawasih University on December 6, 2000. This attack 
     resulted in the beating and arrests of some 100 students as 
     well as the deaths of three students, including one in police 
     custody in the capital city of Jayapura.
       (4) To escape Indonesian security forces, hundreds of 
     peaceful West Papuans have sought safety in refugee camps 
     across the border in the neighboring state of Papua New 
     Guinea (PNG).
       (5) The Indonesian armed forces have announced that they 
     are initiating ``limited military operations'' in Aceh, where 
     the Exxon-Mobil gas company has suspended operations due to 
     security concerns.
       (6) On September 7, 2000, the body of Acehnese human rights 
     lawyer Jafar Siddiq Hamzah, who had been missing for a month, 
     was identified along with four other badly decomposed bodies, 
     whose faces were bashed in and whose hands and feet were 
     bound with barbed wire, in a forested area outside of Medan, 
     in North Sumatra.
       (7) Hamzah, a permanent resident of the United States who 
     resided in Queens, New York, was last seen alive on August 5, 
     2000, in Medan, after which he failed to keep an appointment 
     and his family lost all contact with him.
       (8) As the founder and director of the International Forum 
     on Aceh, which works for peace and human rights in Aceh, 
     Hamzah was an important voice of moderation and an 
     internationally known representative of his people who made 
     irreplaceable contributions to peace and respect for human 
     rights in his homeland.



       (9) The Indonesian government has failed to release the 
     results of Jafar Siddiq Hamzah's autopsy report, and the 
     inaccessibility of the report has delayed the investigation 
     which could lead to bringing the murderers to justice.
       (10) There is supporting documentation from the United 
     States Department of State and other reliable sources that 
     Indonesian military and police forces have committed 
     widespread acts of torture, rape, disappearance and extra-
     judicial executions against West Papuan and Acehnese 
     civilians.
       (11) In Maluku, where Muslim and Christian peoples lived in 
     peace and respected with each other for decades, thousands 
     have been killed and tens of thousands displaced during 
     outbreaks of violence over the past three years.
       (12) Militia forces known as the Laskar Jihad have arrived 
     from Java and other islands outside Maluku to inflame hatred 
     and perpetrate violence against Christians, and to create 
     religious intolerance among the people of Maluku, and the 
     Laskar Jihad has been openly encouraged by some Indonesian 
     leaders including Amien Rais, Chair of the People's 
     Consultative Assembly.
       (13) Muslim and Christian leaders alike have called for the 
     arrest of militia leaders in Maluku and asking for 
     international assistance in ending this devastating conflict.
       (14) The most recent instance of widespread violence in 
     Indonesia has broken out on the island of Kalimantan 
     (Borneo), in the province of Central Kalimantan, where 
     indigenous Dayaks brutally attacked migrant Madurese, killing 
     hundreds and causing thousands of others to flee.
       (15) The people of the island of Madura who were resettled 
     in Kalimantan under the auspices of the Soeharto government's 
     transmigration program, which served to strengthen the 
     political control of the regime, have become scapegoats for 
     official government policy, while the Dayaks have suffered 
     from this policy and from official exploitation of the 
     natural resources of their homeland.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
       (1) expresses its deep concern over ongoing human rights 
     violations committed by Indonesian military and police forces 
     against civilians in West Papua and Aceh, as well as over 
     violence by militias and others in Maluku, Central 
     Kalimantan, and elsewhere in Indonesia;
       (2) calls upon the United States Department of State to 
     publicly protest the reemergence of political imprisonment in 
     Indonesia and to take necessary steps to release, immediately 
     and unconditionally, all political prisoners, including Rev. 
     Obed Komba, Rev. Yudas Meage, Yafet Yelemaken, Murjono Murib 
     and Amelia Yigibalom of West Papua, and Muhammad Nazar of 
     Aceh, all adopted by Amnesty International as Prisoners of 
     Conscience, and student demonstrators Matius Rumbrapuk, Laon 
     Wenda, Jenderal Achmad Yani, Joseph Wenda and Hans Gobay of 
     West Papua;
       (3) calls upon the Department of State to support and 
     encourage the Government of Indonesia to engage in peaceful 
     dialogue with respected West Papuan community leaders and 
     other members of West Papuan civil society, as prescribed by 
     the 1999 Terms of Reference for the National Dialogue on 
     Irian Jaya, and to urge the Governor of West Papua to create 
     an

[[Page 7797]]

     environment conducive to the peaceful repatriation of West 
     Papuan refugees and ``illegal border crossers'' who now 
     reside in Papua New Guinea;
       (4) calls upon the United States Government to press the 
     Government of Indonesia to permit access to West Papua and 
     Aceh, including the project areas of the United States-owned 
     Freeport mine and Exxon-Mobil facilities, by independent 
     human rights and environmental monitors, including the United 
     Nations special rapporteurs on torture and extra-judicial 
     execution, as well as by humanitarian nongovernmental 
     organizations;
       (5) calls upon the United States Government to press for 
     the withdrawal of nonorganic troops from West Papua and Aceh, 
     and an overall reduction of force numbers in those areas, 
     particularly along the PNG border;
       (6) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to release the 
     autopsy report of Jafar Siddiq Hamzah immediately, to conduct 
     a thorough, open, and transparent investigation of the murder 
     of Hamzah and the four others with whom he was found, to 
     offer full access and support to independent investigators 
     and forensics experts brought in to examine these cases, and 
     to ensure that the perpetrators of these atrocities are 
     brought to justice through open and fair trials;
       (7) condemns the recent atrocities in Central Kalimantan 
     the failure of Indonesian police and other security forces to 
     intervene to stop these atrocities, as well as the underlying 
     social and economic conditions caused by systematic 
     transmigration programs, imported labor, and inequitable and 
     destructive exploitation of local natural resources that have 
     worsened the poverty and discrimination which were 
     contributing factors in their commission;
       (8) condemns comparable Indonesian Government policies in 
     Maluku and the failure of Indonesian police and other 
     security forces in and around Ambon to halt sectarian 
     violence, including the operations of the Laskar Jihad 
     militia;
       (9) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to take decisive 
     action to halt sectarian violence in Maluku and to arrest 
     those guilty of violence, including Laskar Jihad militia 
     leaders and armed forces officers guilty of complicity in 
     their operations against civilians, and to make significant 
     progress towards rehabilitation and reestablishment of local 
     communities displaced by the violence and rebuild the 
     physical infrastructure of the communities;
       (10) calls upon the Department of State to support United 
     Nations and other international delegations and monitoring 
     efforts by international and nongovernmental agencies in West 
     Papua, Aceh, Maluku, Central Kalimantan, West Timor, and 
     other areas of Indonesia in order to deter further human 
     rights violations, and to encourage and support international 
     and nongovernmental agencies in efforts to help the people of 
     Indonesia rebuild and rehabilitate communities torn by 
     violence, particularly by assisting in the return of 
     internally displaced peoples and in efforts at reconciliation 
     within and among communities;
       (11) calls upon the Department of State to ensure that all 
     appropriate information regarding current conditions in the 
     West Papua, Aceh, Maluku, Kalimantan, and elsewhere in 
     Indonesia is included in the Annual Country Reports on Human 
     Rights Practices and the Annual Report on International 
     Religious Freedom;
       (12) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to devote 
     official attention, in an atmosphere of openness and 
     transparency and oversight, to investigations into the 
     numerous cases of disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and 
     other serious human rights violations in West Papua, Aceh, 
     Maluku, Central Kalimantan, elsewhere in Indonesia, and 
     occupied East Timor; and
       (13) calls upon the United States Government to continue to 
     insist upon vigorous investigation into all such violations, 
     and upon trials according to international standards for 
     military and police officers, militia leaders, and others 
     accused of such violations.

     SEC. 738. SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING PROPERLY CONDUCTED 
                   ELECTIONS IN KOSOVA DURING 2001.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic 
     perpetrated a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the 
     ethnic Albanian population of Kosova, resulting in thousands 
     of deaths and rapes and the displacement of nearly 1 million 
     people.
       (2) Prior to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, 
     Kosova was a separate political and legal entity with a 
     separate and distinct financial sector, police force, 
     government, education system, judiciary, and health care 
     system.
       (3) During that time, the people of Kosova successfully 
     administered the province.
       (4) During the Milosevic era, Kosovar citizens demonstrated 
     again their ability to govern themselves by creating parallel 
     governmental and social institutions.
       (5) Local elections held in Kosova in 2000 were considered 
     free and fair by international observers.
       (6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 
     authorizes the United Nations Mission in Kosova to provide 
     for transitional administration while establishing and 
     overseeing the development of democratic and self-governing 
     institutions, including the holding of elections, to ensure 
     conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants 
     of Kosova.
       (7) The United Nations Mission in Kosova and the 
     Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe should 
     ensure that the conditions for properly conducted elections 
     in Kosova are in place prior to the election.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the United Nations Mission in Kosova should hold 
     properly conducted elections throughout Kosova during the 
     year 2001;
       (2) the only way to maintain a true and lasting peace in 
     the region is through the creation of democratic Kosovar 
     institutions with real governing authority and 
     responsibility, and Kosova-wide jurisdiction;
       (3) all persons, regardless of ethnicity, are encouraged to 
     participate in elections throughout Kosova; and
       (4) the United States should work with the United Nations 
     Mission in Kosova and the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe to ensure that the transition to 
     Kosovar self-government under the terms and conditions of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 proceeds 
     peacefully, successfully, expeditiously, and in a spirit of 
     ethnic inclusiveness.

     SEC. 739. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO POLICY REVIEW OF 
                   RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President of the United States and his advisors 
     should be commended for their success and the diplomatic 
     skill with which they negotiated the safe return of the 24 
     American crew members of the United States Navy 
     reconnaissance aircraft that made an emergency landing on the 
     Chinese island of Hainan on April 1, 2001; and
       (2) the United States Government should conduct a policy 
     review of the nature of its relations with the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China in light of recent events.

     SEC. 740. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO BROADCASTING IN THE 
                   MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE BY RADIO FREE EUROPE.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Broadcasting Board 
     of Governors should initiate surrogate broadcasting by Radio 
     Free Europe in the Macedonian language to Macedonian-speaking 
     areas of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

     SEC. 741. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO MAGEN DAVID ADOM 
                   SOCIETY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is the mission of the International Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent Movement to prevent and alleviate human 
     suffering wherever it may be found, without discrimination.
       (2) The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
     is a worldwide institution in which all national Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent societies have equal status.
       (3) The Magen David Adom Society is the national 
     humanitarian society in the state of Israel.
       (4) The Magen David Adom Society follows all the principles 
     of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       (5) Since the founding of the Magen David Adom Society in 
     1930, the American Red Cross has regarded it as a sister 
     national society and close working ties have been established 
     between the two societies.
       (6) The Magen David Adom Society has used the Red Shield of 
     David as its humanitarian emblem since its founding in 1930 
     for the same purposes that other national Red Cross and Red 
     Crescent societies use their respective emblems.
       (7) Since 1949 Magen David Adom has been refused admission 
     into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
     and has been relegated to observer status without a vote 
     because it has used the Red Shield of David.
       (8) Magen David Adom is the only humanitarian organization 
     equivalent to a national Red Cross or Red Crescent society in 
     a sovereign nation that is denied membership into the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       (9) The American Red Cross has consistently advocated 
     recognition and membership of the Magen David Adom Society in 
     the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       (10) The House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 464 on 
     May 3, 2000, and the Senate adopted S. Res. 343 on October 
     18, 2000, expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives and the sense of the Senate, respectively, 
     that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
     should recognize and admit to full membership Israel's Magen 
     David Adom Society with its emblem, the Red Shield of David.
       (11) The Secretary of State testified before the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate on March 14, 2001, and stated 
     that admission of Magen David Adom into the International Red 
     Cross movement is a priority.
       (12) The United States provided $119,230,000 for the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross in fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the International Committee of the Red Cross should 
     immediately recognize the Magen David Adom Society;
       (2) the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 
     should grant full membership to the Magen David Adom Society 
     immediately following recognition by the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross of the Magen David Adom Society as 
     a full member of the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross;
       (3) the Red Shield of David should be accorded the same 
     protections under international law as the Red Cross and the 
     Red Crescent; and
       (4) the United States should continue to press for full 
     membership for the Magen David Adom in the International Red 
     Cross Movement.

[[Page 7798]]



     SEC. 742. SENSE OF CONGRESS URGING THE RETURN OF PORTRAITS 
                   PAINTED BY DINA BABBITT DURING HER INTERNMENT 
                   AT AUSCHWITZ THAT ARE NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF 
                   THE AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU STATE MUSEUM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Dina Babbitt (formerly known as Dinah Gottliebova), a 
     United States citizen now in her late 70's, has requested the 
     return of watercolor portraits she painted while suffering a 
     year-and-a-half-long internment at the Auschwitz death camp 
     during World War II.
       (2) Dina Babbitt was ordered to paint the portraits by the 
     infamous war criminal Dr. Josef Mengele.
       (3) Dina Babbitt's life, and her mother's life, were spared 
     only because she painted portraits of doomed inmates of 
     Auschwitz-Birkenau, under orders from Dr. Josef Mengele.
       (4) These paintings are currently in the possession of the 
     Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.
       (5) Dina Babbitt is unquestionably the rightful owner of 
     the artwork, since the paintings were produced by her own 
     talented hands as she endured the unspeakable conditions that 
     existed at the Auschwitz death camp.
       (6) The artwork is not available for the public to view at 
     the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and therefore this unique 
     and important body of work is essentially lost to history.
       (7) This continued injustice can be righted through 
     cooperation between agencies of the United States and Poland.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
       (1) recognizes the moral right of Dina Babbitt to obtain 
     the artwork she created, and recognizes her courage in the 
     face of the evils perpetrated by the Nazi command of the 
     Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, including the atrocities 
     committed by Dr. Josef Mengele;
       (2) urges the President to make all efforts necessary to 
     retrieve the seven watercolor portraits Dina Babbitt painted, 
     while suffering a year-and-a-half-long internment at the 
     Auschwitz death camp, and return them to her;
       (3) urges the Secretary of State to make immediate 
     diplomatic efforts to facilitate the transfer of the seven 
     original watercolors painted by Dina Babbitt from the 
     Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to Dina Babbitt, their 
     rightful owner;
       (4) urges the Government of Poland to immediately 
     facilitate the return to Dina Babbitt of the artwork painted 
     by her that is now in the possession of the Auschwitz-
     Birkenau State Museum; and
       (5) urges the officials of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State 
     Museum to transfer the seven original paintings to Dina 
     Babbitt as expeditiously as possible.

     SEC. 743. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING VIETNAMESE REFUGEE 
                   FAMILIES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Vietnamese refugees 
     who served substantial sentences in re-education camps due to 
     their wartime associations with the United States and who, 
     subsequently, were resettled in the United States should be 
     permitted to include their unmarried sons and daughters as 
     family members for purposes of such resettlement.

     SEC. 744. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES IN UNESCO.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
     Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was created in 1946 with the 
     support of the United States as an integral part of the 
     United Nations systems, designed to promote international 
     cooperation and exchanges in the fields of education, 
     science, culture, and communication with the larger purpose 
     of constructing the defense of peace against intolerance and 
     incitement to war.
       (2) In 1984, the United States withdrew from membership in 
     UNESCO over serious questions of internal management and 
     political polarization.
       (3) Since the United States withdrew from the organization, 
     UNESCO addressed such criticisms by electing new leadership, 
     tightening financial controls, cutting budget and staff, 
     restoring recognition of intellectual property rights, and 
     supporting the principle of a free and independent 
     international press.
       (4) In 1993, the General Accounting Office, after 
     conducting an extensive review of UNESCO's progress in 
     implementing changes, concluded that the organization's 
     member states, the Director General of UNESCO, managers and 
     employee associations demonstrated a commitment to management 
     reform through their actions.
       (5) On September 28, 2000, former Secretary of State George 
     P. Schultz, who implemented the withdrawal of the United 
     States from UNESCO with a letter to the organization's 
     Director General in 1984, indicated his support for the 
     United States renewal of membership in UNESCO.
       (6) The participation of the United States in UNESCO 
     programs offers a means for furthering the foreign policy 
     interests of the United States through the promotion of 
     cultural understanding and the spread of knowledge critical 
     to strengthening civil society.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the President should take all necessary steps to renew 
     the membership and participation of the United States in the 
     United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
     Organization (UNESCO).

     SEC. 745. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO GLOBAL WARMING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Global climate change poses a significant threat to 
     national security, the American economy, public health and 
     welfare, and the global environment.
       (2) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
     has found that most of the observed warming over the last 
     fifty years is attributable to human activities, including 
     fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide emissions.
       (3) The IPCC has stated that global average surface 
     temperatures have risen since 1861.
       (4) The IPCC has stated that in the last forty years, the 
     global average sea level has risen, ocean heat content has 
     increased, and snow cover and ice extent have decreased which 
     threatens to inundate low-lying Pacific island nations and 
     coastal regions throughout the world.
       (5) The Environmental Protection Agency predicts that 
     global warming will harm United States citizens by altering 
     crop yields, causing sea levels to rise, and increasing the 
     spread of tropical infectious diseases.
       (6) Industrial nations are the largest producers today of 
     fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide emissions.
       (7) The United States has ratified the United Nations 
     Framework on Climate Change which states, in part, ``the 
     Parties to the Convention are to implement policies with the 
     aim of returning . . . to their 1990 levels anthropogenic 
     emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases''.
       (8) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
     Change further states that ``developed country Parties should 
     take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse 
     effects thereof''.
       (9) Action by the United States to reduce emissions, taken 
     in concert with other industrialized nations, will promote 
     action by developing countries to reduce their own emissions.
       (10) A growing number of major American businesses are 
     expressing a need to know how governments worldwide will 
     respond to the threat of global warming.
       (11) More efficient technologies and renewable energy 
     sources will mitigate global warming and will make the United 
     States economy more productive and create hundreds of 
     thousands of jobs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the United States should demonstrate international 
     leadership and responsibility in mitigating the health, 
     environmental, and economic threats posed by global warming 
     by--
       (1) taking responsible action to ensure significant and 
     meaningful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and 
     other greenhouse gases from all sectors; and
       (2) continuing to participate in international negotiations 
     with the objective of completing the rules and guidelines for 
     the Kyoto Protocol in a manner that is consistent with the 
     interests of the United States and that ensures the 
     environmental integrity of the protocol.

     SEC. 746. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE BAN ON SINN FEIN 
                   MINISTERS FROM THE NORTH-SOUTH MINISTERIAL 
                   COUNCIL IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Good Friday Agreement established the North-South 
     Ministerial Council to bring together those with executive 
     responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of 
     Ireland to discuss matters of mutual interest on a cross-
     border and all-island basis.
       (2) The Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour 
     Party, Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party comprise 
     the Northern Ireland executive.
       (3) First Minister David Trimble continues to ban Sinn Fein 
     Ministers Martin McGuiness and Bairbre de Brun from attending 
     North-South Ministerial Council meetings.
       (4) On January 30, 2001, the Belfast High Court ruled First 
     Minister Trimble had acted illegally in preventing the Sinn 
     Fein Ministers from attending the North-South Ministerial 
     Council meetings.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress calls upon First 
     Minister David Trimble to adhere to the terms of the Good 
     Friday Agreement and lift the ban on the participation of 
     Sinn Fein Ministers on the North-South Ministerial Council.

                    TITLE VIII--SECURITY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Security Assistance Act of 
     2001''.

              Subtitle A--Military and Related Assistance

       CHAPTER 1--FOREIGN MILITARY SALES AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

     SEC. 811. QUARTERLY REPORT ON PRICE AND AVAILABILITY 
                   ESTIMATES.

       Chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 28. QUARTERLY REPORT ON PRICE AND AVAILABILITY 
                   ESTIMATES.

       ``(a) Quarterly Report.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     end of each calendar quarter, the President shall transmit to 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a report that contains the information described in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Information.--The information described in this 
     subsection is the following:
       ``(1)(A) Each price and availability estimate provided by 
     the United States Government during such calendar quarter to 
     a foreign country

[[Page 7799]]

     with respect to a possible sale under this Act of major 
     defense articles having a cost of $7,000,000 or more, or of 
     any other defense articles or services having a cost of 
     $25,000,000 or more.
       ``(B) The name of each foreign country to which an estimate 
     described in subparagraph (A) was provided, the defense 
     articles or services involved, the quantity of the articles 
     or services involved, and the price estimate.
       ``(2)(A) Each request received by the United States 
     Government from a foreign country during such calendar 
     quarter for the issuance of a letter of offer to sell defense 
     articles or defense services if the proposed sale does not 
     include a price and availability estimate (as described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)).
       ``(B) The name of each foreign country that makes a request 
     described in subparagraph (A), the date of the request, the 
     defense articles or services involved, the quantity of the 
     articles or services involved, and the price and availability 
     terms requested.''.

     SEC. 812. OFFICIAL RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.

       Section 43(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2792(c)) is amended by striking ``$72,500'' and inserting 
     ``$86,500''.

     SEC. 813. TREATMENT OF TAIWAN RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF 
                   DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the transfer or potential transfer of defense articles or 
     defense services under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2751 et seq.), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151 et seq.), or any other provision of law, Taiwan shall be 
     treated as the equivalent of a major non-NATO ally.

     SEC. 814. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH REGARD TO TAIWAN.

       (a) Consultation With Congress.--Not later than 30 days 
     prior to consultations with Taiwan described in subsection 
     (b), the President shall consult, on a classified basis, with 
     Congress regarding the following matters with respect to the 
     availability of defense articles and services for Taiwan:
       (1) The request by Taiwan to the United States for the 
     purchase of defense articles and defense services.
       (2) The President's assessment of the legitimate defense 
     needs of Taiwan taking into account Taiwan's request 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (3) The decisionmaking process used by the President to 
     consider such request.
       (b) Consultation With Taiwan.--At least once every calendar 
     year, the President, or the President's designee, shall 
     consult with representatives of the armed forces of Taiwan, 
     at not less than the level of Vice Chief of the General 
     Staff, concerning the nature and quantity of defense articles 
     and services to be made available to Taiwan in accordance 
     with section 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 
     3302(b)). Such consultations shall take place in Washington, 
     D.C.

       CHAPTER 2--EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLE AND DRAWDOWN AUTHORITIES

     SEC. 821. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CERTAIN EUROPEAN AND 
                   OTHER COUNTRIES.

       (a) Central and Southern European Countries.--Section 105 
     of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1427) is amended by striking 
     ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002, and 2003''.
       (b) Certain Other Countries.--Notwithstanding section 
     516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j(e)), during each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be expended 
     for crating, packing, handling, and transportation of excess 
     defense articles transferred under the authority of section 
     516 of such Act to Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, the 
     Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, 
     Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, the Philippines, Slovakia, and 
     Uzbekistan.
       (c) Content of Congressional Notification.--Each 
     notification required to be submitted under section 516(f) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(f)) with 
     respect to a proposed transfer of a defense article described 
     in subsection (b) shall include an estimate of the amount of 
     funds to be expended under such subsection with respect to 
     that transfer.

     SEC. 822. LEASES OF DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES 
                   AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 61(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2796(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) Each lease agreement'' and inserting 
     ``(b)(1) Each lease agreement''; and
       (2) by striking ``of not to exceed five years'' and 
     inserting ``which may not exceed (A) five years, and (B) a 
     specified period of time required to complete major 
     refurbishment work of the leased articles to be performed 
     prior to the delivery of the leased articles,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `major refurbishment 
     work' means work for which the period of performance is six 
     months or more.''.

     SEC. 823. PRIORITY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE 
                   ARTICLES.

       Section 516(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2321j(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``and to major 
     non-NATO allies on such southern and southeastern flank'' and 
     inserting ``, to major non-NATO allies on such southern and 
     southeastern flank, and to the Philippines''.

       CHAPTER 3--NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 831. INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-
                   PROLIFERATION EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       Chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2349bb et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 584 and 585 as sections 585 
     and 586, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 583 the following:

     ``SEC. 584. INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-PROLIFERATION EDUCATION AND 
                   TRAINING.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The President is authorized to 
     furnish, on such terms and conditions consistent with this 
     chapter (but whenever feasible on a reimbursable basis), 
     education and training to foreign governmental and military 
     personnel for the purpose of enhancing the nonproliferation 
     and export control capabilities of such personnel through 
     their attendance in special courses of instruction in the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Administration of Courses.--The Secretary of State 
     shall have overall responsibility for the development and 
     conduct of international nonproliferation education and 
     training programs, but may rely upon any of the following 
     agencies to recommend personnel for the education and 
     training, and to administer specific courses of instruction:
       ``(1) The Department of Defense (including national weapons 
     laboratories under contract with the Department).
       ``(2) The Department of Energy (including national weapons 
     laboratories under contract with the Department).
       ``(3) The Department of Commerce.
       ``(4) The intelligence community (as defined in section 
     3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     401a(4))).
       ``(5) The United States Customs Service.
       ``(6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(c) Purposes.--Education and training activities 
     conducted under this section shall be--
       ``(1) of a technical nature, emphasizing techniques for 
     detecting, deterring, monitoring, interdicting, and 
     countering proliferation;
       ``(2) designed to encourage effective and mutually 
     beneficial relations and increased understanding between the 
     United States and friendly countries; and
       ``(3) designed to improve the ability of friendly countries 
     to utilize their resources, including defense articles and 
     defense services obtained by them from the United States, 
     with maximum effectiveness, thereby contributing to greater 
     self-reliance by such countries.''.

     SEC. 832. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE PROLIFERATION OF MISSILES AND 
                   ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, 
                   AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall transmit to the 
     designated congressional committees an annual report on the 
     transfer by any country of weapons, technology, components, 
     or materials that can be used to deliver, manufacture 
     (including research and experimentation), or weaponize 
     nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (hereinafter in this 
     section referred to as ``NBC weapons'') to any country other 
     than a country referred to in subsection (c) that is seeking 
     to possess or otherwise acquire such weapons, technology, or 
     materials, or other system that the Secretary of State or 
     Secretary of Defense has reason to believe could be used to 
     develop, acquire, or deliver NBC weapons.
       (2) Deadline for initial report.--The first such report 
     shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and on April 1 of each year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--Each such report shall 
     include, but not be limited to--
       (1) the transfer of all aircraft, cruise missiles, 
     artillery weapons, unguided rockets and multiple rocket 
     systems, and related bombs, shells, warheads and other 
     weaponization technology and materials that the Secretary of 
     State or the Secretary of Defense has reason to believe may 
     be intended for the delivery of NBC weapons;
       (2) international transfers of MTCR equipment or technology 
     to any country that is seeking to acquire such equipment or 
     any other system that the Secretary of State or the Secretary 
     of Defense has reason to believe may be used to deliver NBC 
     weapons; and
       (3) the transfer of technology, test equipment, radioactive 
     materials, feedstocks and cultures, and all other specialized 
     materials that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of 
     Defense has reason to believe could be used to manufacture 
     NBC weapons.
       (c) Content of Report.--Each such report shall include the 
     following with respect to preceding calendar year:
       (1) The status of missile, aircraft, and other NBC weapons 
     delivery and weaponization programs in any such country, 
     including efforts by such country or by any subnational group 
     to acquire MTCR-controlled equipment, NBC-capable aircraft, 
     or any other weapon or major weapon component which may be 
     utilized in the delivery of NBC weapons, whose primary use is 
     the delivery of NBC weapons, or that the Secretary of State 
     or the Secretary of Defense has reason to believe could be 
     used to deliver NBC weapons.
       (2) The status of NBC weapons development, acquisition, 
     manufacture, stockpiling, and deployment programs in any such 
     country, including efforts by such country or by any 
     subnational group to acquire essential test equipment, 
     manufacturing equipment and technology, weaponization 
     equipment and technology, and radioactive material, 
     feedstocks or components of feedstocks, and biological 
     cultures and toxins.
       (3) A description of assistance provided by any person or 
     government, after the date of the

[[Page 7800]]

     enactment of this Act, to any such country or subnational 
     group in the acquisition or development of--
       (A) NBC weapons;
       (B) missile systems, as defined in the MTCR or that the 
     Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense has reason to 
     believe may be used to deliver NBC weapons; and
       (C) aircraft and other delivery systems and weapons that 
     the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense has reason 
     to believe could be used to deliver NBC weapons.
       (4) A listing of those persons and countries which continue 
     to provide such equipment or technology described in 
     paragraph (3) to any country or subnational group as of the 
     date of submission of the report, including the extent to 
     which foreign persons and countries were found to have 
     knowingly and materially assisted such programs.
       (5) A description of the use of, or substantial 
     preparations to use, the equipment of technology described in 
     paragraph (3) by any foreign country or subnational group.
       (6) A description of the diplomatic measures that the 
     United States, and that other adherents to the MTCR and other 
     arrangements affecting the acquisition and delivery of NBC 
     weapons, have made with respect to activities and private 
     persons and governments suspected of violating the MTCR and 
     such other arrangements.
       (7) An analysis of the effectiveness of the regulatory and 
     enforcement regimes of the United States and other countries 
     that adhere to the MTCR and other arrangements affecting the 
     acquisition and delivery of NBC weapons in controlling the 
     export of MTCR and other NBC weapons and delivery system 
     equipment or technology.
       (8) A summary of advisory opinions issued under section 
     11B(b)(4) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2401b(b)(4)) and under section 73(d) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(d)).
       (9) An explanation of United States policy regarding the 
     transfer of MTCR equipment or technology to foreign missile 
     programs, including programs involving launches of space 
     vehicles.
       (10) A description of each transfer by any person or 
     government during the preceding 12-month period which is 
     subject to sanctions under the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
     Proliferation Act of 1992 (title XVI of Public Law 102-484).
       (d) Exclusions.--The countries excluded under subsection 
     (a) are Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, 
     Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, 
     Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 
     Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
       (e) Classification of Report.--The Secretary of State shall 
     make every effort to submit all of the information required 
     by this section in unclassified form. Whenever the Secretary 
     submits any such information in classified form, the 
     Secretary shall submit such classified information in an 
     addendum and shall also submit concurrently a detailed 
     summary, in unclassified form, of that classified 
     information.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Designated congressional committees.--The term 
     ``designated congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committees on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Missile; mtcr; mtcr equipment or technology.--The terms 
     ``missile'', ``MTCR'', and ``MTCR equipment or technology'' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 74 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c).
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any United States or 
     foreign individual, partnership, corporation, or other form 
     of association, or any of its successor entities, parents, or 
     subsidiaries.
       (4) Weaponize; weaponization.--The term ``weaponize'' or 
     ``weaponization'' means to incorporate into, or the 
     incorporation into, usable ordnance or other militarily 
     useful means of delivery.
       (g) Repeals.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (A) Section 1097 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2751 note).
       (B) Section 308 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons 
     Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 5606).
       (C) Section 1607(a) of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation 
     Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-484).
       (D) Paragraph (d) of section 585 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of title I of division A 
     of Public Law 104-208).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 585 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (b), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (B) in paragraph (c), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period.

     SEC. 833. FIVE-YEAR INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL AND 
                   NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a five-year 
     international arms control and nonproliferation strategy. The 
     strategy shall contain the following:
       (1) A five-year plan for the reduction of existing nuclear, 
     chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and 
     for controlling the proliferation of these weapons.
       (2) Identification of the goals and objectives of the 
     United States with respect to arms control and 
     nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their 
     delivery systems.
       (3) A description of the programs, projects, and activities 
     of the Department of State intended to accomplish goals and 
     objectives described in paragraph (2).

       Subtitle B--Strengthening the Munitions Licensing Process

     SEC. 841. LICENSE OFFICER STAFFING.

       (a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under the appropriations account entitled ``Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'' for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not less 
     than $10,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal 
     year for the Office of Defense Trade Controls of the 
     Department of State for salaries and expenses.
       (b) Assignment of License Review Officers.--Effective 
     January 1, 2002, the Secretary of State shall assign to the 
     Office of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State a 
     sufficient number of license review officers to ensure that 
     the average weekly caseload for each officer does not exceed 
     40.
       (c) Detailees.--Given the priority placed on expedited 
     license reviews in recent years by the Department of Defense, 
     the Secretary of Defense should ensure that 10 military 
     officers are continuously detailed to the Office of Defense 
     Trade Controls of the Department of State on a 
     nonreimbursable basis.

     SEC. 842. FUNDING FOR DATABASE AUTOMATION.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under the 
     appropriations account entitled ``Capital Investment Fund'' 
     for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not less than $4,000,000 
     shall be made available each such fiscal year for the Office 
     of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State for the 
     modernization of information management systems.

     SEC. 843. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES.

       (a) Objective.--The Secretary of State shall establish a 
     secure, Internet-based system for the filing and review of 
     applications for export of Munitions List items.
       (b) Establishment of a Mainframe.--Of the amounts made 
     available pursuant to section 842, not less than $3,000,000 
     each such fiscal year shall be made available to fully 
     automate the Defense Trade Application System, and to ensure 
     that the system--
       (1) is an electronic system for the filing and review of 
     Munitions List license applications;
       (2) is secure, with modules available through the Internet; 
     and
       (3) is capable of exchanging data with--
       (A) the Foreign Disclosure and Technology Information 
     System and the USXPORTS systems of the Department of Defense;
       (B) the Export Control System of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency; and
       (C) the Proliferation Information Network System of the 
     Department of Energy.
       (c) Munitions List Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Munitions List'' means the United States Munitions List of 
     defense articles and defense services controlled under 
     section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).

     SEC. 844. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AUTOMATED EXPORT SYSTEM.

       (a) Mandatory Filing.--The Secretary of Commerce, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, shall publish regulations in the Federal 
     Register to require, upon the effective date of those 
     regulations, the mandatory filing through the Automated 
     Export System for the remainder of exports that were not 
     covered by regulations issued pursuant to section 1252(b) of 
     the Security Assistance Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1501A-506), as 
     enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113.
       (b) Requirement for Information Sharing.--The Secretary of 
     State shall conclude an information sharing arrangement with 
     the heads of United States Customs Service and the Census 
     Bureau to adjust the Automated Export System to parallel 
     information currently collected by the Department of State.
       (c) Secretary of Treasury Functions.--Section 303 of title 
     13, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, other than 
     by mail,''.
       (d) Filing Export Information, Delayed Filings, Penalties 
     for Failure To File.--Section 304 of title 13, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``the penal sum of 
     $1,000'' and inserting ``a penal sum of $10,000''; and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``a penalty not to 
     exceed $100 for each day's delinquency beyond the prescribed 
     period, but not more than $1,000, shall be exacted'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary of Commerce (and officers and 
     employees of the Department of Commerce designated by the 
     Secretary) may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 
     for each day's delinquency beyond the prescribed period, but 
     not more than $10,000 per violation'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Any person, other that a person described in 
     subsection (a), required to submit export information, shall 
     file such information in accordance with any rule, 
     regulation, or order issued

[[Page 7801]]

     pursuant to this chapter. In the event any such information 
     or reports are not filed within such prescribed period, the 
     Secretary of Commerce (and officers and employees of the 
     Department of Commerce designated by the Secretary) may 
     impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each day's 
     delinquency beyond the prescribed period, but not more than 
     $10,000 per violation.''.
       (e) Additional Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 305 of title 13, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 305. Penalties for unlawful export information 
       activities

       ``(a) Criminal Penalties.--(1) Any person who knowingly 
     fails to file or knowingly submits false or misleading export 
     information through the Shippers Export Declaration (SED) (or 
     any successor document) or the Automated Export System (AES) 
     shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 per 
     violation or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(2) Any person who knowingly reports any information on 
     or uses the SED or the AES to further any illegal activity 
     shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 per 
     violation or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(3) Any person who is convicted under this subsection 
     shall, in addition to any other penalty, forfeit to the 
     United States--
       ``(A) any of that person's interest in, security of, claim 
     against, or property or contractual rights of any kind in the 
     goods or tangible items that were the subject of the 
     violation;
       ``(B) any of that person's interest in, security of, claim 
     against, or property or contractual rights of any kind in 
     tangible property that was used in the export or attempt to 
     export that was the subject of the violation; and
       ``(C) any of that person's property constituting, or 
     derived from, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as 
     a result of the violation.
       ``(b) Civil Penalties.--The Secretary (and officers and 
     employees of the Department of Commerce specifically 
     designated by the Secretary) may impose a civil penalty not 
     to exceed $10,000 per violation on any person violating the 
     provisions of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order 
     issued thereunder, except as provided in section 304. Such 
     penalty may be in addition to any other penalty imposed by 
     law.
       ``(c) Civil Penalty Procedure.--(1) When a civil penalty is 
     sought for a violation of this section or of section 304, the 
     charged party is entitled to receive a formal complaint 
     specifying the charges and, at his or her request, to contest 
     the charges in a hearing before an administrative law judge. 
     Any such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with 
     sections 556 and 557 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) If any person fails to pay a civil penalty imposed 
     under this chapter, the Secretary may ask the Attorney 
     General to commence a civil action in an appropriate district 
     court of the United States to recover the amount imposed 
     (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of 
     the final order). No such action may be commenced more than 5 
     years after the order imposing the civil penalty becomes 
     final. In such action, the validity, amount, and 
     appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.
       ``(3) The Secretary may remit or mitigate any penalties 
     imposed under paragraph (1) if, in his or her opinion--
       ``(A) the penalties were incurred without willful 
     negligence or fraud; or
       ``(B) other circumstances exist that justify a remission or 
     mitigation.
       ``(4) If, pursuant to section 306, the Secretary delegates 
     functions under this section to another agency, the 
     provisions of law of that agency relating to penalty 
     assessment, remission or mitigation of such penalties, 
     collection of such penalties, and limitations of actions and 
     compromise of claims, shall apply.
       ``(5) Any amount paid in satisfaction of a civil penalty 
     imposed under this section or section 304 shall be deposited 
     into the general fund of the Treasury and credited as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--(1) The Secretary of Commerce may 
     designate officers or employees of the Office of Export 
     Enforcement to conduct investigations pursuant to this 
     chapter. In conducting such investigations, those officers or 
     employees may, to the extent necessary or appropriate to the 
     enforcement of this chapter, exercise such authorities as are 
     conferred upon them by other laws of the United States, 
     subject to policies and procedures approved by the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(2) The Commissioner of Customs may designate officers or 
     employees of the Customs Service to enforce the provisions of 
     this chapter, or to conduct investigations pursuant to this 
     chapter.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement 
     of this section.
       ``(f) Exemption.--The criminal fines provided for in this 
     section are exempt from the provisions of section 3571 of 
     title 18, United States Code.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 9 of title 13, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 305 and 
     inserting the following:

``305. Penalties for unlawful export information activities.''.

     SEC. 845. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM 
                   THE MUNITIONS LIST.

       Section 38(f)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2778(f)(1)) is amended by striking the third sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The President may not remove any 
     item from the Munitions List until 30 days after the date on 
     which the President has provided notice of the proposed 
     removal to the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate in accordance with the procedures 
     applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 
     634A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Such notice 
     shall describe the nature of any controls to be imposed on 
     that item under any other provision of law.''.

     SEC. 846. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION THRESHOLDS FOR ALLIED 
                   COUNTRIES.

       The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (3)(A) of section 3(d), by adding 
     after ``at $50,000,000 or more'' each place it appears the 
     following: ``(or, in the case of a transfer to a country 
     which is a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or New Zealand, any 
     major defense equipment valued (in terms of its original 
     acquisition cost) at $25,000,000 or more, or of defense 
     articles or defense services valued (in terms of its original 
     acquisition cost) at $100,000,000 or more)'';
       (2) in section 36(b)(1), by adding after ``for $14,000,000 
     or more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of a letter of 
     offer to sell to a country which is a member country of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, 
     Japan, or New Zealand, any major defense equipment under this 
     Act for $25,000,000 or more, any defense articles or services 
     for $100,000,000 or more, or any design and construction 
     services for $300,000,000 or more)'';
       (3) in section 36(b)(5)(C), by adding after ``or 
     $200,000,000 or more in the case of design or construction 
     services'' the following: ``(or, in the case of a letter of 
     offer to sell to a country which is a member country of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, 
     Japan, or New Zealand, any major defense equipment for 
     $25,000,000 or more, any defense articles or services for 
     $100,000,000 or more, or any design and construction services 
     for $300,000,000 or more)'';
       (4) in section 36(c)(1), by adding after ``$50,000,000 or 
     more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of an application by 
     a person (other than with regard to a sale under section 21 
     or section 22 of this Act) for a license for the export to a 
     country which is a member country of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or New 
     Zealand, of any major defense equipment sold under a contract 
     in the amount of $25,000,000 or more or of defense articles 
     or defense services sold under a contract in the amount of 
     $100,000,000 or more)''; and
       (5) in section 63(a), by adding after ``$50,000,000 or 
     more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of such an agreement 
     with a country which is a member country of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or 
     New Zealand, (i) major defense equipment valued (in terms of 
     its replacement cost less any depreciation in its value) at 
     $25,000,000 or more, or (ii) defense articles valued (in 
     terms of their replacement cost less any depreciation in 
     their value) at $100,000,000 or more)''.

            Subtitle C--Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels

     SEC. 851. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Authority To Transfer.--
       (1) Brazil.--The President is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Brazil the ``Newport'' class tank landing ship 
     Peoria (LST 1183). Such transfer shall be on a sale basis 
     under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2761).
       (2) Poland.--The President is authorized to transfer to the 
     Government of Poland the ``Oliver Hazard Perry'' class guided 
     missile frigate Wadsworth (FFG 9). Such transfer shall be on 
     a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
       (3) Taiwan.--The President is authorized to transfer to the 
     Taipai Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the 
     United States (which is the Taiwan instrumentality designated 
     pursuant to section 10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act) the 
     ``Kidd'' class guided missile destroyers Kidd (DDG 993), 
     Callaghan (DDG 994), Scott (DDG 995), and Chandler (DDG 996). 
     Such transfers shall be on a sales basis under section 21 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
       (4) Turkey.--The President is authorized to transfer to the 
     ``Oliver Hazard Perry'' class guided missile frigates Estocin 
     (FFG 15) and Samuel Eliot Morrison (FFG 13). Each such 
     transfer shall be on a sale basis under section 21 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761). The President is 
     further authorized to transfer to the Government of Turkey 
     the ``Knox'' class frigates Capadanno (FF 1093), Thomas C. 
     Hart (FF 1092), Donald B. Beary (FF 1085), McCandless (FF 
     1084), Reasoner (FF 1063), and Bowen (FF 1079). The transfer 
     of these 6 ``Knox'' class frigates shall be on a grant basis 
     under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2321j).
       (b) Grants Not Counted in Annual Total of Transferred 
     Excess Defense Articles.--The value of a vessel transferred 
     to another country on a grant basis under section 516 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) pursuant to 
     authority provided by subsection (a) shall not be counted for 
     the purposes of subsection (g) of that section in the 
     aggregate value of excess defense articles transferred to 
     countries under that section in any fiscal year.

[[Page 7802]]

       (c) Costs of Transfers.--Notwithstanding section 516(e)(1) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j(e)(1)), any expense incurred by the United States in 
     connection with a transfer authorized to be made on a grant 
     basis under subsection (a) shall be charged to the recipient.
       (d) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
     To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall 
     require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under 
     this section, that the country to which the vessel is 
     transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel 
     as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of 
     that country, performed at a United States Navy shipyard or 
     other shipyard located in the United States.
       (e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided under 
     subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                  Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 861. ANNUAL FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING REPORTS.

       Section 656(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2416) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Not later than January 31 of each year,'' 
     and inserting ``Upon written request by the chairman or 
     ranking member of the Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``of a country specified in the request'' 
     after ``personnel''.

     SEC. 862. REPORT RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF 
                   CONDUCT.

       Section 1262(c) of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
     Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
     2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 
     106-113; 113 Stat 1501A-508) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``commencement of the negotiations under 
     subsection (a),'' and inserting ``date of the enactment of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 
     and 2003,''; and
       (B) by striking ``during these negotiations.'' and 
     inserting ``to begin negotiations and any progress made to 
     conclude an agreement during negotiations.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment is in order except those 
printed in House Report 107-62. Except as specified in section 2 of 
House Resolution 138, each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
consideration any amendment printed in the report out of the order 
printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the majority leader or his 
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.

                              {time}  1200


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeLay

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DeLay:
       Page 90, after line 8, add the following:

          Subtitle B--American Servicemembers' Protection Act

     SEC. 631. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``American 
     Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 632. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic 
     Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an 
     International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted 
     the ``Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.'' The 
     vote on whether to proceed with the Statute was 120 in favor 
     to 7 against, with 21 countries abstaining. The United States 
     voted against final adoption of the Rome Statute.
       (2) As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome 
     Statute and 30 had ratified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of 
     the Rome Statute, the Statute will enter into force on the 
     first day of the month after the 60th day following the date 
     on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying 
     the Statute.
       (3) Since adoption of the Rome Statute, a Preparatory 
     Commission for the International Criminal Court has met 
     regularly to draft documents to implement the Rome Statute, 
     including Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Elements of 
     Crimes, and a definition of the Crime of Aggression.
       (4) During testimony before the Congress following the 
     adoption of the Rome Statute, the lead United States 
     negotiator, Ambassador David Scheffer stated that the United 
     States could not sign the Rome Statute because certain 
     critical negotiating objectives of the United States had not 
     been achieved. As a result, he stated: ``We are left with 
     consequences that do not serve the cause of international 
     justice.''
       (5) Ambassador Scheffer went on to tell the Congress that: 
     ``Multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country 
     that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the Court's 
     jurisdiction even if the country of the individual 
     peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty 
     purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States 
     armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably 
     prosecuted by the international court even if the United 
     States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is 
     this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty 
     law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use 
     its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in 
     multinational operations, including humanitarian 
     interventions to save civilian lives. Other contributors to 
     peacekeeping operations will be similarly exposed.''.
       (6) Notwithstanding these concerns, President Clinton 
     directed that the United States sign the Rome Statute on 
     December 31, 2000. In a statement issued that day, he stated 
     that in view of the unremedied deficiencies of the Rome 
     Statute, ``I will not, and do not recommend that my successor 
     submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until 
     our fundamental concerns are satisfied''.
       (7) Any American prosecuted by the International Criminal 
     Court will, under the Rome Statute, be denied procedural 
     protections to which all Americans are entitled under the 
     Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, such as the 
     right to trial by jury.
       (8) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     deserve the full protection of the United States Constitution 
     wherever they are stationed or deployed around the world to 
     protect the vital national interests of the United States. 
     The United States Government has an obligation to protect the 
     members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible, 
     against criminal prosecutions carried out by United Nations 
     officials under procedures that deny them their 
     constitutional rights.
       (9) In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States to the risk of international criminal 
     prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the 
     President and other senior elected and appointed officials of 
     the United States Government may be prosecuted by the 
     International Criminal Court. Particularly if the Preparatory 
     Commission agrees on a definition of the Crime of Aggression 
     over United States objections, senior United States officials 
     may be at risk of criminal prosecution for national security 
     decisions involving such matters as responding to acts of 
     terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction, and deterring aggression. No less than members 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States, senior officials of 
     the United States Government deserve the full protection of 
     the United States Constitution with respect to official 
     actions taken by them to protect the national interests of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 633. WAIVER AND TERMINATION OF PROHIBITIONS OF THIS ACT.

       (a) Authority To Initially Waive Sections 635 and 637.--The 
     President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and 
     requirements of sections 635 and 637 for a single period of 
     one year. Such a waiver may be issued only if the President 
     at least 15 days in advance of exercising such authority--
       (1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of 
     the intention to exercise such authority; and
       (2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the International Criminal Court has entered 
     into a binding agreement that--
       (A) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking 
     to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with 
     respect to actions undertaken by them in an official 
     capacity:
       (i) covered United States persons;
       (ii) covered allied persons; and
       (iii) individuals who were covered United States persons or 
     covered allied persons; and
       (B) ensures that no person described in subparagraph (A) 
     will be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or 
     on behalf of the International Criminal Court.
       (b) Authority To Extend Waiver of Sections 635 and 637.--
     The President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and 
     requirements of sections 635 and 637 for successive periods 
     of one year each upon the expiration of a previous waiver 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or this subsection. Such a waiver 
     may be issued only if the President at least fifteen days in 
     advance of exercising such authority--
       (1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of 
     the intention to exercise such authority; and
       (2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the International Criminal Court--
       (A) remains party to, and has continued to abide by, a 
     binding agreement that--

[[Page 7803]]

       (i) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking 
     to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with 
     respect to actions undertaken by them in an official 
     capacity:

       (I) covered United States persons;
       (II) covered allied persons; and
       (III) individuals who were covered United States persons or 
     covered allied persons; and

       (ii) ensures that no person described in clause (i) will be 
     arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf 
     of the International Criminal Court; and
       (B) has taken no steps to arrest, detain, prosecute, or 
     imprison any person described in clause (i) of subparagraph 
     (A).
       (c) Authority To Waive Sections 634 and 636 With Respect to 
     an Investigation or Prosecution of a Named Individual.--The 
     President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and 
     requirements of sections 634 and 636 to the degree they would 
     prevent United States cooperation with an investigation or 
     prosecution of a named individual by the International 
     Criminal Court. Such a waiver may be issued only if the 
     President at least 15 days in advance of exercising such 
     authority--
       (1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of 
     the intention to exercise such authority; and
       (2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that--
       (A) a waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the 
     prohibitions and requirements of sections 635 and 637 is in 
     effect;
       (B) there is reason to believe that the named individual 
     committed the crime or crimes that are the subject of the 
     International Criminal Court's investigation or prosecution;
       (C) it is in the national interest of the United States for 
     the International Criminal Court's investigation or 
     prosecution of the named individual to proceed; and
       (D) in investigating events related to actions by the named 
     individual, none of the following persons will be 
     investigated, arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned 
     by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court with 
     respect to actions undertaken by them in an official 
     capacity:
       (i) Covered United States persons.
       (ii) Covered allied persons.
       (iii) Individuals who were covered United States persons or 
     covered allied persons.
       (d) Termination of Waiver Pursuant to Subsection (c).--Any 
     waiver or waivers exercised pursuant to subsection (c) of the 
     prohibitions and requirements of sections 634 and 636 shall 
     terminate at any time that a waiver pursuant to subsection 
     (a) or (b) of the prohibitions and requirements of sections 
     635 and 637 expires and is not extended pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       (e) Termination of Prohibitions of This Act.--The 
     prohibitions and requirements of sections 634, 635, 636, and 
     637 shall cease to apply, and the authority of section 638 
     shall terminate, if the United States becomes a party to the 
     International Criminal Court pursuant to a treaty made under 
     article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 634. PROHIBITION ON COOPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   CRIMINAL COURT.

       (a) Construction.--The provisions of this section--
       (1) apply only to cooperation with the International 
     Criminal Court and shall not be construed to apply to 
     cooperation with an ad hoc international criminal tribunal 
     established by the United Nations Security Council before or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act to investigate 
     and prosecute war crimes committed in a specific country or 
     during a specific conflict; and
       (2) shall not be construed to prohibit--
       (A) any action permitted under section 638;
       (B) any other action taken by members of the Armed Forces 
     of the United States outside the territory of the United 
     States while engaged in military operations involving the 
     threat or use of force when necessary to protect such 
     personnel from harm or to ensure the success of such 
     operations; or
       (C) communication by the United States to the International 
     Criminal Court of its policy with respect to a particular 
     matter.
       (b) Prohibition on Responding to Requests for 
     Cooperation.--No agency or entity of the United States 
     Government or of any State or local government, including any 
     court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in 
     response to a request for cooperation submitted by the 
     International Criminal Court pursuant to Part 9 of the Rome 
     Statute.
       (c) Prohibition on Specific Forms of Cooperation and 
     Assistance.--No agency or entity of the United States 
     Government or of any State or local government, including any 
     court, may provide financial support or other cooperation, 
     support, or assistance to the International Criminal Court, 
     including by undertaking any action described in the 
     following articles of the Rome Statute with the purpose or 
     intent of cooperating with, or otherwise providing support or 
     assistance to, the International Criminal Court:
       (1) Article 89 (relating to arrest, extradition, and 
     transit of suspects).
       (2) Article 92 (relating to provisional arrest of 
     suspects).
       (3) Article 93 (relating to seizure of property, asset 
     forfeiture, execution of searches and seizures, service of 
     warrants and other judicial process, taking of evidence, and 
     similar matters).
       (d) Restriction on Assistance Pursuant to Mutual Legal 
     Assistance Treaties.--The United States shall exercise its 
     rights to limit the use of assistance provided under all 
     treaties and executive agreements for mutual legal assistance 
     in criminal matters, multilateral conventions with legal 
     assistance provisions, and extradition treaties, to which the 
     United States is a party, and in connection with the 
     execution or issuance of any letter rogatory, to prevent the 
     transfer to, or other use by, the International Criminal 
     Court of any assistance provided by the United States under 
     such treaties and letters rogatory.
       (e) Prohibition on Investigative Activities of Agents.--No 
     agent of the International Criminal Court may conduct, in the 
     United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United States, any investigative activity relating to a 
     preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution, or other 
     proceeding at the International Criminal Court.

     SEC. 635. RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN 
                   CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) Policy.--Effective beginning on the date on which the 
     Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the 
     Rome Statute, the President should use the voice and vote of 
     the United States in the United Nations Security Council to 
     ensure that each resolution of the Security Council 
     authorizing any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of 
     the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement 
     operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United 
     Nations permanently exempts, at a minimum, members of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States participating in such 
     operation from criminal prosecution by the International 
     Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such personnel in 
     connection with the operation.
       (b) Restriction.--Members of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States may not participate in any peacekeeping operation 
     under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or 
     peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter 
     of the United Nations, the creation of which is authorized by 
     the United Nations Security Council on or after the date that 
     the Rome Statute enters into effect pursuant to Article 126 
     of the Rome Statute, unless the President has submitted to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a certification 
     described in subsection (c) with respect to such operation.
       (c) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     subsection (b) is a certification by the President that 
     members of the Armed Forces of the United States are able to 
     participate in the peacekeeping or peace enforcement 
     operation without risk of criminal prosecution by the 
     International Criminal Court because--
       (1) in authorizing the operation, the United Nations 
     Security Council permanently exempted, at a minimum, members 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States participating in the 
     operation from criminal prosecution by the International 
     Criminal Court for actions undertaken by them in connection 
     with the operation;
       (2) each country in which members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States participating in the operation will be 
     present is either not a party to the International Criminal 
     Court and has not invoked the jurisdiction of the 
     International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 12 of the 
     Rome Statute, or has entered into an agreement in accordance 
     with Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the 
     International Criminal Court from proceeding against members 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States present in that 
     country; or
       (3) the United States has taken other appropriate steps to 
     guarantee that members of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States participating in the operation will not be prosecuted 
     by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by 
     such personnel in connection with the operation.

     SEC. 636. PROHIBITION ON DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF 
                   CERTAIN CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY 
                   INFORMATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL 
                   COURT.

       (a) Direct Transfer.--Not later than the date on which the 
     Rome Statute enters into force, the President shall ensure 
     that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent the 
     transfer of classified national security information to the 
     International Criminal Court.
       (b) Indirect Transfer.--Not later than the date on which 
     the Rome Statute enters into force, the President shall 
     ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent 
     the transfer of classified national security information 
     relevant to matters under consideration by the International 
     Criminal Court to the United Nations and to the government of 
     any country that is a party to the International Criminal 
     Court unless the United Nations or that government, as the 
     case may be, has provided written assurances that such 
     information will not be made available to the International 
     Criminal Court.
       (c) Construction.--The provisions of this section shall not 
     be construed to prohibit any action permitted under section 
     638.

[[Page 7804]]



     SEC. 637. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
                   PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

       (a) Prohibition of Military Assistance.--Subject to 
     subsections (b) and (c), no United States military assistance 
     may be provided to the government of a country that is a 
     party to the International Criminal Court.
       (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition of 
     subsection (a) with respect to a particular country--
       (1) for one or more periods not exceeding one year each, if 
     the President determines and reports to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that it is vital to the national 
     interest of the United States to waive such prohibition; and
       (2) permanently, if the President determines and reports to 
     the appropriate congressional committees that such country 
     has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant 
     to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the 
     International Criminal Court from proceeding against United 
     States personnel present in such country.
       (c) Exemption.--The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to the government of--
       (1) a NATO member country;
       (2) a major non-NATO ally (including, inter alia, 
     Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and 
     New Zealand); or
       (3) Taiwan.

     SEC. 638. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS 
                   HELD CAPTIVE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all 
     means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release 
     from captivity of any person described in subsection (b) who 
     is being detained or imprisoned against that person's will by 
     or on behalf of the International Criminal Court.
       (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of 
     subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
       (1) Covered United States persons.
       (2) Covered allied persons.
       (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions 
     taken while the individual was a covered United States person 
     or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered 
     allied person, upon the request of such government.
       (c) Authorization of Legal Assistance.--When any person 
     described in subsection (b) is arrested, detained, 
     prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the 
     International Criminal Court, the authority under subsection 
     (a) may be used--
       (1) for the provision of legal representation and other 
     legal assistance to that person (including, in the case of a 
     person entitled to assistance under section 1037 of title 10, 
     United States Code, representation and other assistance in 
     the manner provided in that section); and
       (2) for the provision of exculpatory evidence on behalf of 
     that person.
       (d) Bribes and Other Inducements Not Authorized.--
     Subsection (a) does not authorize the payment of bribes or 
     the provision of other incentives to induce the release from 
     captivity of a person described in subsection (b).

     SEC. 639. ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS.

       (a) Report on Alliance Command Arrangements.--Not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to each military alliance to 
     which the United States is party--
       (1) describing the degree to which members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States may, in the context of military 
     operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance, be 
     placed under the command or operational control of foreign 
     military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     International Criminal Court because they are nationals of a 
     party to the International Criminal Court; and
       (2) evaluating the degree to which members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States engaged in military operations 
     undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance may be exposed to 
     greater risks as a result of being placed under the command 
     or operational control of foreign military officers subject 
     to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
       (b) Description of Measures To Achieve Enhanced Protection 
     for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States.--Not 
     later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall transmit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a description of modifications to 
     command and operational control arrangements within military 
     alliances to which the United States is a party that could be 
     made in order to reduce any risks to members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States identified pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (c) Submission in Classified Form.--The report under 
     subsection (a), and the description of measures under 
     subsection (b), or appropriate parts thereof, may be 
     submitted in classified form.

     SEC. 640. WITHHOLDINGS.

       Funds withheld from the United States share of assessments 
     to the United Nations or any other international organization 
     during any fiscal year pursuant to section 705 of the Admiral 
     James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by 
     section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-
     460), are authorized to be transferred to the Embassy 
     Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the 
     Department of State.

     SEC. 641. NONDELEGATION.

       The authorities vested in the President by sections 633, 
     635(c), and 637(b) may not be delegated by the President 
     pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or 
     any other provision of law.

     SEC. 642. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act and in sections 705 and 706 of the 
     Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
       (2) Classified national security information.--The term 
     ``classified national security information'' means 
     information that is classified or classifiable under 
     Executive Order 12958 or a successor Executive order.
       (3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied 
     persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed 
     officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf 
     of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO 
     ally (including, inter alia, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, 
     the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so 
     long as that government is not a party to the International 
     Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons 
     working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of 
     the International Criminal Court.
       (4) Covered united states persons.--The term ``covered 
     United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States, elected or appointed officials of the 
     United States Government, and other persons employed by or 
     working on behalf of the United States Government, for so 
     long as the United States is not a party to the International 
     Criminal Court.
       (5) Extradition.--The terms ``extradition'' and 
     ``extradite'' include both ``extradition'' and ``surrender'' 
     as those terms are defined in article 102 of the Rome 
     Statute.
       (6) International criminal court.--The term ``International 
     Criminal Court'' means the court established by the Rome 
     Statute.
       (7) Major non-nato ally.--The term ``major non-NATO ally'' 
     means a country that has been so designated in accordance 
     with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (8) Party to the international criminal court.--The term 
     ``party to the International Criminal Court'' means a 
     government that has deposited an instrument of ratification, 
     acceptance, approval, or accession to the Rome Statute, and 
     has not withdrawn from the Rome Statute pursuant to Article 
     127 thereof.
       (9) Peacekeeping operation under chapter vi of the charter 
     of the united nations or peace enforcement operation under 
     chapter vii of the charter of the united nations.--The term 
     ``peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of 
     the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under 
     chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations'' means any 
     military operation to maintain or restore international peace 
     and security that--
       (A) is authorized by the United Nations Security Council 
     under chapter VI or VII of the charter of the United Nations; 
     and
       (B) is paid for from assessed contributions of United 
     Nations members that are made available for peacekeeping or 
     peace enforcement activities.
       (10) Rome statute.--The term ``Rome Statute'' means the 
     Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by 
     the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries 
     on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 
     July 17, 1998.
       (11) Support.--The term ``support'' means assistance of any 
     kind, including financial support, material support, 
     services, intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation, 
     the training or detail of personnel, and the arrest or 
     detention of individuals.
       (12) United states military assistance.--The term ``United 
     States military assistance'' means--
       (A) assistance provided under chapters 2 through 6 of part 
     II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et 
     seq.);
       (B) defense articles or defense services furnished with the 
     financial assistance of the United States Government, 
     including through loans and guarantees; or
       (C) military training or education activities provided by 
     any agency or entity of the United States Government.

     Such term does not include activities reportable under title 
     V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et 
     seq.).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman

[[Page 7805]]

from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, when the United States sends its Armed Forces into 
harm's way, we do it to defend freedom and to maintain our commitment 
to the principles enumerated by our founding documents. It would be an 
irony of the cruelest sort if the men and women of America sent out to 
defend the spirit of our Constitution were denied its protections.
  We ask a lot of our Armed Forces. We should not ask them to sacrifice 
their constitutional rights merely to serve as pawns for an 
International Criminal Court that may pursue political vendettas at the 
expense of the individual American soldiers. If the Congress allowed 
such a thing to happen, we would not only be abdicating our duty to the 
Nation, we would be abandoning the sacred covenant between Congress and 
our men and women in uniform.
  The birth of this rogue court forces Members to choose between 
appeasing international bureaucrats and defending the rights of our 
servicemembers. The choice is stark, defined and, I think, unavoidable. 
There is no middle ground here. Members can side with the United 
Nations or defend our military.
  Last week, we were reminded how fickle the U.N. can be when a cabal 
of human rights abusing nations were voted onto the Human Rights 
Commission and the United States was booted off. Now these same people 
may become the highest authority on international law. But make no 
mistake, unlike the Commission on Human Rights whose power is mainly 
rhetorical, the ICC poses a real threat to our Nation's military. We 
simply cannot allow American soldiers to fall under the jurisdiction of 
the ICC.
  Under its terms, Americans could be brought before the court and 
tried without important rights. They could be denied a jury trial. They 
could be denied cross-examination of hostile witnesses. Americans could 
even be forced to give self-incriminating testimony. This amendment 
will make it clear that the United States cannot support a court that 
places our citizens in the hands of U.N. bureaucrats. It will erect 
essential legal barriers to protect Americans, and it will strengthen 
our ability to demand changes to the court.
  Last year, I received a letter supporting this amendment signed by 12 
of the most respected foreign policy advisers to every President from 
Nixon to President Clinton. This amendment is supported by the VFW, the 
Fleet Reservists, the Noncommissioned Officers and the Reserve 
Officers, just to name a few.
  Mr. Chairman, we must remain cautious and watchful stewards of our 
American sovereignty. Many nations have many reasons to erode our 
rights. Members should not fail our first principles by allowing an 
unaccountable international entity to trample core American freedoms. 
Support this amendment and stop that from happening.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I 
ask all of my colleagues to oppose it as well. Clearly there is not a 
single Member of this House on either side who is not fully, 
enthusiastically and without any reservation and qualification in favor 
of protecting our military personnel serving abroad. That is clearly 
not the issue that this amendment raises. As my friend and colleague 
from Massachusetts so eloquently and precisely outlined, there is no 
chance of American military personnel being tried by the International 
Criminal Court. That court, once it comes into being on a permanent 
basis, is not designed to deal with servicemen and servicewomen 
performing peacekeeping or other duties overseas. The International 
Criminal Court is designed to deal with international criminals.
  At the end of World War II, the United States led the way in 
obtaining international justice by helping to establish the Nuremberg 
trials and playing the key role in the Nuremberg Tribunal. At the 
moment, international criminals who perpetrated the most outrageous 
violations of human rights, including mass rape and mass murder, are 
before an ad hoc International Criminal Court which deals with events 
in the former Yugoslavia during the early 1990s.
  In dealing with this legislation, Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel 
wrote to the committee in part as follows:

       Fifty years ago the United States led the world in the 
     prosecution of Nazi leaders for the atrocities of World War 
     II. The triumph of Nuremberg was not only that individuals 
     were held accountable for their crimes but that they were 
     tried in a court of law supported by the community of 
     nations.

  A vote for this amendment would mean our acceptance of the impunity 
of the world's worst atrocities. The memory of the victims of past 
genocide and war crimes compels us to take this issue, the issue of an 
International Criminal Court, seriously.
  Now, it is important to note that the proposals discussed in Rome 
were not perfect. We were proposing modifications and amendments. And I 
think it is critical we remain engaged in that process. But to flat out 
oppose the creation of an International Criminal Court is not worthy of 
this body.
  I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) so accurately and effectively indicated a 
few minutes ago, that our servicemen and women will be tried by 
military courts of our own if they engage in transgressions. The notion 
that international criminal courts are designed to punish U.S. 
servicemen is one that escapes me and many of my colleagues.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which is unquestionably 
well intended but is widely off the mark. We are talking about 
international war criminals such as the ones in Bosnia, such as the 
ones in Kosovo, such as the ones during the Second World War in Germany 
and not American servicemen and women doing their duty.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the former chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I rise 
in strong support of this amendment. I commend the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) for bringing this important amendment to the floor. It 
would protect American military and government personnel from 
prosecution by an international criminal court operating outside United 
States sovereignty.
  America's men and women in uniform are our best and brightest. They 
risk their lives every day all around the world in defense of our 
country's freedom and values. They should not be subjected to the risk 
of prosecution by an international body that operates on procedures 
inconsistent with the United States Constitution. This amendment would 
prevent this from happening.
  Last November, 12 former high-ranking United States Government 
officials, including former Secretaries of State, Defense and Directors 
of Central Intelligence, supported legislation similar to this 
amendment that would extend protection from international prosecution 
to our military personnel.
  During his confirmation process, Secretary Rumsfeld warned that 
without such protection, U.S. personnel could be exposed to politically 
motivated prosecution.
  Even former President Clinton, who signed the treaty last December, 
conceded that it contained significant flaws and refused to recommend 
its ratification by the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give our military service 
personnel the legal protection they deserve, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

[[Page 7806]]


  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to 
have this opportunity to talk with the gentleman from California and 
with my colleagues about the International Criminal Court. As a 
survivor of the Holocaust, he is a steadfast reminder to all of us that 
these kinds of war crimes are right in front of us every single day.
  It is amazing to me that we would be standing in the well of this 
House talking about this issue, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Delay), when we have Rwanda, Burundi, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, 
Cambodia, East Timor, Saddam Hussein, all of these places that need 
international criminal courts that do not have them. We are the leaders 
in the world in terms of human rights. We ought to be the leaders when 
it comes to the International Criminal Court.
  This amendment is a farce. I wish I could say as gently as the 
gentleman from California that the gentleman was well intentioned. This 
amendment is a lie, because this amendment makes you think that you are 
going to keep American servicemembers from being prosecuted when that 
is a lie. Right now if a servicemember under the American flag commits 
a war crime, they are tried by our own military court. If the DeLay 
amendment passes, they are going to be tried by the country in which 
they commit that crime. Who do we want trying our servicemember? Do we 
want some Saddam Hussein trying our servicemember if we do not sign 
this treaty? Do we want them to be the ones to try our servicemember? I 
do not.
  I would be able to go to bat with the gentleman from Texas in front 
of anybody on this issue because the facts are that if we pass the 
DeLay amendment, we are actually going to end up doing what the 
gentleman from Texas purports he does not want us to do. That is, if we 
do not sign this treaty, our servicemembers are tried by other 
countries internationally because that is the law of the International 
Criminal Court.
  Today's amendment, based on ``the American Servicemembers Protection 
Act'' sounds great--of course we all want to protect American 
servicemembers. As a former member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
have spent many days in markups and debates over bills to support our 
Armed Forces. But if we scratch below the surface, this amendment is 
not about protecting our military, it is about risking our current 
position of global leadership on human rights abroad. It will thwart 
the efforts of one of the most important international bodies that is 
about to come to fruition, the International Criminal Court.
  Since coming to Congress I have been highly supportive of an I.C.C., 
and I strongly believe in its principal which is that human rights 
abusers, who commit crimes against humanity or genocide, should be 
brought to justice. But even if you do not support an I.C.C., or feel 
that the Rome Statute needs complete revision, as I respectfully 
understand the gentleman from Texas does, you should oppose this 
amendment. It is crucial that we recognize, as the leaders of the free 
world, that the only way to achieve a Court that we can live with, is 
to stay engaged in the continuing negotiations over the scope, purpose, 
and construction of it. A permanent international criminal court which 
can bring future perpetrators of war crimes to full and complete 
justice is in our interests.
  President Clinton recognized the importance of this effort and that 
is why he signed the Rome Statute in December; bringing us into the 
company of 139 other nations including 17 NATO allies who have signed 
the Rome Treaty.
  When 139 nations have signed this treaty and many have indicated that 
they are close to ratification, why would we alienate ourselves from 
this many of our global partners. This amendment would simply assure 
that the members of the ICC will feel free to ignore our concerns.
  I would also like to address the concerns about our Armed Forces or 
politically motivated prosecutions by the Court. There is no doubt that 
under the Rome Statute American soldiers who are accused of war crimes 
will never be impacted because we have a thorough system of military 
justice in our own Country that would prevent the need for any further 
review. The ICC won't take this power away, it cannot.
  In closing, I want to insure that everyone in this chamber 
understands the message that we will send to the international 
community if we pass this amendment.
  To quote, from Elie Wiesel, famous human rights advocate who opposed 
the bill that this amendment is based on:

       A vote for this legislation would signal U.S. acceptance of 
     impunity for the world's worst atrocities. For the memory of 
     the victims of past genocide and war crimes, I urge you to 
     use your positions . . . to see that this legislation is not 
     passed.

  Mr. Wiesel is right--let us think about the implications and the 
signal we will send--oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), chairman emeritus of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the American 
Service-
members' Protection Act, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority whip. The proposal of an 
international criminal court has some appeal to some members of our 
international community, but the international criminal court that is 
now being considered by the U.N. is the wrong sort of a court. It will 
be the equivalent of a world-ranging independent prosecutor without any 
responsible constraints. The world criminal court could threaten 
American servicemembers, government officials, and the servicemembers 
and officials of our allies, including Israel. The Arab League has 
already indicated it will make Israel the first target of this court.
  The DeLay amendment would help slow down the process of the 
acceptance of this court and would keep American authorities from 
cooperating with it. We need to send a strong message that we do not 
accept this court as presently constituted. The passage of the DeLay 
amendment and its enactment into law would accomplish that task.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, prior to coming to Congress I founded the Institute on 
the Holocaust and the Law, which studied how the laws and courts were 
used to oppress people rather than to protect them. So I fully 
understand the concerns of the supporters of this amendment that the 
International Criminal Court not be used to illegitimately prosecute 
U.S. forces abroad. The law should never be used to perpetuate 
injustice.
  All of us demand that U.S. forces abroad not be subject to 
illegitimate prosecution. But the strongest safeguards already exist in 
the International Criminal Court against such possibilities. That is 
why this amendment should be defeated today. One of our Nation's 
proudest moments as the world emerged from the darkness of the 
Holocaust was to help create the International Military Tribunal at 
Nuremberg to use the law to achieve justice.
  Last week, Mr. Chairman, Elie Wiesel said of a similar amendment, 
which the gentleman from California has already quoted, that it ``would 
erase the legacy of U.S. leadership by ensuring that the U.S. will 
never again join the community of nations to hold accountable those who 
commit war crimes and genocide.''
  Protecting our military personnel is our utmost responsibility. 
Bringing war criminals to justice is our legacy. Participating fully in 
the International Criminal Court, Mr. Chairman, allows us to do both.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the American 
Servicemembers' Protection Act as an amendment to H.R. 1646. The 
International Criminal Court is the wrong

[[Page 7807]]

solution to a real and pressing problem and would affect a revolution 
in international law. The ICC would transform the current international 
system based on equal independent self-governing states to a system 
where the ultimate power to judge the legality of state action is 
vested in a new and unaccountable bureaucracy. The ICC would be 
fundamentally inconsistent with the most basic principles of 
sovereignty.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to emphasize the potential threat the 
ICC poses to many of our allies, specifically Israel, our only 
Democratic ally in the Middle East.
  When the most recent violence broke out last fall, Israel's enemies 
sought to use the threat of U.N. prosecution to pressure the Jewish 
state. Under the broad and unclear jurisdiction of the ICC, any action 
undertaken by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza could be subject to 
review and interpreted as a war crime. The ICC serves as a danger to 
the security of Israel because of some members of the international 
community's stated opposition to the legitimacy of that state.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.
  The creation of a permanent, supranational court with the independent 
power to judge and punish elected leaders represents a decisive break 
with fundamental American ideals of self-government and sovereignty. It 
would constitute the transference of authority to judge the actions of 
U.S. officials, away from Americans to an unelected and unaccountable 
international bureaucracy.
  Certain United Nations' members have a long history of anti-Israeli 
rhetoric and activity. In October of 2000, for example, the U.N. 
Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel for supposedly causing the 
recent violence in the Middle East, going so far as to accuse it of 
``war crimes'' and ``crimes against humanity.'' It is possible, perhaps 
likely, that these same countries would use the ICC to further their 
own anti-Israel agenda.
  I strongly urge the passage of the American Servicemembers' 
Protection Act amendment to protect the notion of National sovereignty 
in America and around the world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLay amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, let me just read a statement: ``As it currently stands, the 
Rome Treaty could expose service members and the government officials 
of nonparty states to criminal liability based on politically-motivated 
charges brought by other states that object to the nonparty state's 
international policies.''
  Mr. Chairman, that statement was made last year by Secretary of 
Defense Cohen on behalf of the Clinton administration. I think Members 
do not fully realize that this process has gone on for years. We have 
held hearings in the full International Relations Committee on this. 
There are serious flaws. Just as we saw with the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission, rogue states are now in charge of and acting as the 
``conscience of humanity,'' to quote the chief of that commission. We 
are talking about the Sudan and China, and countries like Cuba. They 
now will sit with the black robes on and will judge our peacekeepers.
  I support ad hoc tribunals, but this grant of authority in the Rome 
Treaty goes far beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good 
friend, Tom DeLay. I was an original cosponsor of the American 
Servicemen's Protection Act introduced by Mr. Tom DeLay in the last 
Congress. This important amendment would prohibit U.S. cooperation with 
the International Criminal Court (including restrictions on U.S. 
military participation in UN peacekeeping operations and the transfer 
of U.S. classified national security information, and the provision of 
U.S. military assistance, to the Court). The amendment also authorizes 
the President to use all means necessary to bring about the release of 
U.S. military personnel and certain other persons held captive by or on 
behalf of the Court.
  I am reminded of the raging debate which occurred at the OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly meeting last year regarding the International 
Criminal Court. Our European allies were lambasting the United States, 
among others, for not supporting the Rome Statute of the ICC. The final 
text of the OSCE PA resolution in fact called on ``all member States to 
ratify the Rome Statute of the future International Criminal Court 
without delay.'' Members of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE PA (which I 
led) expounded on the provisions which were most problematic. In the 
waning days of the Clinton administration, he did sign the Rome 
Statute. I would warn the Bush administration about the serious 
pitfalls of the ICC, and I would encourage the President to not seek 
ratification of the Treaty.
  At the end of World War II, many people urged the creation of a 
permanent and independent international war crimes tribunal as a 
mechanism to deter future violations and to punish those responsible 
for committing systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity, and 
genocide. It was envisioned as a permanent court in The Hague with the 
authority to prosecute suspected perpetrators of war crimes. The 
statute that ultimately emerged from the Rome negotiations in 1998, 
however, includes provisions which I believe would create unacceptable 
risks for the United States.
  The subject matter jurisdiction of the Court includes crimes against 
humanity, war crimes, genocide, and ``aggression.'' But during the 
negotiations on the treaty, negotiators were unable to agree on a 
definition of ``aggression.'' This is particularly significant because 
the Nuremberg Tribunal used the term ``war of aggression'' in its 
charges against Nazi Germany, not the term ``aggression.'' In fact, 
acts of aggression by states already fall within the mandate of the 
U.N. Security Council and it is completely unclear what will be 
considered acts of aggression by individuals. States that have already 
ratified this treaty have bought a pig in a poke.
  The jurisdiction of the ICC can extend to citizens of states which 
are not party to the Treaty. This is particularly troublesome when you 
consider the possibility of U.S. military personnel stationed in a 
country party to the ICC--or serving on a UN peacekeeping mission--
being subject to the investigation and prosecution of the ICC even 
though the U.S. has not, and hopefully will not, become a party to the 
Treaty. This, in fact, is the provision to which the amendment being 
offered by Mr. DeLay is directed.
  Article 120 of the Statute forbids reservations to the ICC Treaty. 
Thus, the United States or any other country would have to either 
accept or reject the treaty in its entirety. In light of the problems I 
have alluded to, I believe that rejecting the ICC in its entirety is 
the only reasonable course open to the United States at this time.
  During the negotiations on the ICC Treaty, the effort by the United 
States to limit the application of the Court's jurisdiction over non-
States Parties was squelched by the successful passage of a non-action 
vote requested by Norway. The United States also sought to curb the 
broad powers of the Court to prosecute the military personnel of UN 
Members States which are not party to the ICC Treaty but we were 
rebuffed.
   Mr. Chairman, let's consider for a moment the potential effects of 
the International Criminal Court should 60 States ratify the Treaty and 
should the ICC have the force of international law. Some supporters of 
the ICC have belittled concern that the United States--or other 
countries, for that matter--might find itself the target of politically 
driven prosecutions. But consider, for a moment, the reaction in some 
quarters to the use of force by NATO against Serbia in 1999. Serbia is 
suing eight NATO countries before the International Court of Justice 
right now for their participation in the NATO campaign; there are also 
charges by Serbian citizens that have been brought against 15 NATO 
countries before the European Court of Justice. More troubling are the 
accusations that were leveled by a group of lawyers from several 
countries who sought to have some 60 government officials from NATO 
countries, including NATO's Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, 
charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former 
Yugoslavia. The accusations included ``willful killing, willfully 
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive 
destruction of property, not justified by military necessity, and 
carried out unlawfully and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or 
other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering.''

  Human rights organizations raised concerns about NATO's attack on TV 
and radio transmission facilities, dropping cluster bombs and 
destroying power plants inside Serbia. Others argued that NATO's rules 
of engagement, which called for pilots to fly high out of range of 
Serbian missiles, endangered civilians and were thus ``clearly 
prohibited under international humanitarian law.'' Ironically, many of

[[Page 7808]]

the same groups that had urged intervention to stop and prevent further 
atrocities in Kosovo quickly denounced NATO for its action. While I 
respect human rights groups that have raised legitimate questions about 
the conduct of the campaign, some NATO critics have clearly revealed a 
knee-jerk anti-American sentiment in their accusations. For the record, 
the Chief Prosecutor of the Yugoslav Tribunal considered the materials 
submitted to her regarding NATO actions and declined to pursue charges 
against any NATO officials.

  Inevitably, if the U.S. assumes a leadership role in maintaining 
peace and security and promoting human rights around the globe, the 
enemies of peace, security and human rights will continue to seek ways 
to undermine our efforts. Unfortunately, the current ICC statute does 
not provide sufficient safe-guards against the initiation of 
politically motivated prosecutions.
  The concerns raised by the United States regarding the Rome Statute 
are well-founded and I urge my colleagues to support fully the 
amendment offered by Mr. DeLay. This will help provide a modicum of 
protection for our men and women in uniform who may be serving on the 
territory of a country which has ratified the Treaty.

                    The International Criminal Court


  hearings before the committee on international relations, house of 
 representatives, one hundred sixth congress, second session, july 25 
                              and 26, 2000

     Selected Excerpts--Page 37
       Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The concept of a permanent 
     International Criminal Court charged with prosecuting the 
     gravest of crimes against humanity is not a new one. The idea 
     was proposed and dismissed after the conclusion of the 
     Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crime Tribunals that followed World 
     War II.
       In recent years the idea has gained new momentum, driven 
     largely by memories of the horrific crimes committed in 
     Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I share the ideals of many 
     ICC supporters. If we could construct an entity that would 
     impartially prosecute only genocidal tyrants and war 
     criminals I would support it without hesitation, but we do 
     not inhabit an ideal world. The difficulty is in devising a 
     system that will prosecute Pol Pot, but not President 
     Clinton, that will indict Ratko Mladic but not Norman 
     Schwartzkopf.
       I am concerned that the Rome Statute of the International 
     Criminal Court fails to accomplish that goal and that it is 
     susceptible to serious abuse and manipulation.
       As it took form, the draft statute ballooned from an 
     instrument focused on well-established war crimes into an 
     encyclopedia of still-emerging human rights law. The 
     resulting statute is a 30,000 word document that covers 77 
     pages. It contains sweeping language that leaves many 
     elements of vaguely defined crimes up to the imagination of 
     international lawyers.
       For example, according to article VI the crime of genocide 
     includes, ``causing serious mental harm'' to members of a, 
     ``national, ethnic, racial or religious group.''
       It is true that similar language is contained in the 
     Convention against Genocide, but the United States took a 
     reservation to the jurisdiction of the World Court over the 
     definition of genocide. This is not because we intend to 
     commit genocide, but because the United States was unwilling 
     to surrender its sovereignty to a body that might be 
     manipulated by hostile parties using the vague language of 
     the convention as an ideological hobbyhorse.
       Similarly, article V asserts ICC jurisdiction over the, 
     ``crime of aggression''--an offense that is not defined in 
     international law or even in the Rome Statute itself, a point 
     that I made repeatedly at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in 
     Bucharest earlier this month. In the context of domestic law, 
     such vagueness would be problematic. In the more combative 
     context of international law it is dangerous.
       In addition to the problems posed by its vague definitions, 
     the statute also claims a jurisdictional reach that is 
     without precedent. Once 60 countries have ratified it, the 
     statute claims ICC jurisdiction over any defendant who may 
     have committed a crime in a signatory state regardless of 
     whether the defendant's own state had ratified the treaty. By 
     claiming to bind the subjects of non-signatory states, this 
     self-executing, potentially universal jurisdiction directly 
     challenges traditional concepts of national sovereignty.
       Finally, the Rome Statute gives the ICC prosecutor a vast 
     amount of personal power with a minimum amount of oversight. 
     The statute drafters rejected a U.S. proposal that the 
     prosecutor only be allowed to proceed on cases referred 
     either by a sovereign state or by the U.N. Security Council. 
     Instead, the ICC prosecutor may initiate investigations and 
     prosecutions on his own authority without control or 
     oversight by any national or international party.
       Under article 44, the prosecutor may also accept any offer 
     of, ``gratis personnel offered by nongovernmental 
     organizations to assist with the work of any of the organs of 
     the Court.''
       I have long been a supporter of the important work 
     undertaken by International NGO's, particularly relating to 
     the protection of human rights and the provision of 
     humanitarian relief, but it is also true that there exist 
     hundreds of highly ideological NGO's who look to 
     international bodies to promote agendas that go far beyond 
     the domestic political consensus in their home countries. The 
     combination of the independent prosecutor's extreme 
     discretion with staff provided by well-funded extremist NGO's 
     could lead to serious problems and partisanship by the ICC. 
     These are but a few of the problems that I have with the 
     present form of the Rome Statute.
       I readily acknowledge that many, probably most, ICC 
     supporters do not intend for the Court to be used as a club 
     for U.S.-bashing or as an engine or radical social 
     engineering, but once the ICC is established it will take on 
     a life of its own. Its activities will be restricted by the 
     language of the Rome Statute itself rather than by the best 
     intentions of its most responsible supporters, and I just 
     would say finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I take a back 
     seat to no one in promoting--in the past and present--both 
     the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal and the International War 
     Crimes Tribunal for the Balkans.
       When we were holding early hearings in our subcommittee as 
     well as on the Helsinki Commission I offered language and 
     amendments to boost the U.S. donation to those important 
     tribunals and so I take a back seat to no one, but this I 
     think has some very real problems that need to be addressed. 
     I yield back.
     Page 52
       Mr. Smith [presiding].
       Let me ask a few questions and then I will yield to my 
     friend, Mr. Berman, if he has any further questions.
       You mentioned checks and balances that exist within the 
     Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal. Do those same checks and 
     balances also exist in the Rome Statute?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Congressman, there are many more 
     checks and balances in the ICC statute, and I can go into 
     some of those. But the power of the prosecutor is much more 
     qualified within the ICC statute. The principle of 
     complementarity, which is nowhere found in the Yugoslav or 
     Rwanda Tribunal statutes is a central feature of this 
     particular Court.
       And, furthermore, this Court, the ICC, depends upon the 
     states parties to the Court to actually make very important 
     decisions relating to the Court, whereas, the Yugoslav and 
     Rwanda Tribunals look to no governments whatsoever for their 
     decisionmaking.
       Mr. Smith. Let me ask you what kind of checks and balances 
     there are. In terms of elected officials, our Founding 
     Fathers, I
     Page 53
     think, were right in vesting only limited power in each of 
     the three branches, being so distrustful, as they were, of 
     any single entity being given so much power. Power corrupts, 
     and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
       What happens if a prosecutor and/or judges were to run amok 
     and to engage in an ideological crusade against certain 
     individuals? I think we already have a shot across the bow 
     when lawyers brought action against NATO for alleged war 
     crimes, that our planes were flying too high, putting 
     additional civilians at risk, the choice of targets, which 
     they seem to disagree with. A war crime then potentially 
     could be in the eye of the beholder. Because, again, I do 
     think there is some true elasticity to these terms.
       Yes, Mrs. Del Ponte did not accept and did not proceed on 
     those charges, but some other prosecutor may not be so 
     favorably inclined. You might want to comment on that. 
     Looking back, if the Rome Statute were in effect during World 
     War II, for example, and we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and 
     Nagasaki, and we did the firebombing of Dresden and the other 
     German cities with a huge number of civilian casualties, 
     would that be construed as a war crime under the plain 
     meaning of the Rome Statute?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, Congressman, it is far too 
     speculative to try to get into that. Remember that during 
     World War II, the question is, were those actions violations 
     of codified or customary international law at that time?
       Mr. Smith. That is not the question I am asking.
       Ambassador Scheffer. No, I know.
       Mr. Smith. Fast-forward those military actions that this 
     country undertook with our Alliance.
       Ambassador Scheffer. It is entirely speculative to say we 
     would use exactly the same military tactics today as we did 
     during World War II. I would not speculate in that direction, 
     not at all. We are far more precise----
       Mr. Smith. But there is no doubt a reasonable man or woman 
     could use the Rome Statute in cases analogous to matters of 
     historical fact, where military decisions were made which 
     resulted in huge casualties. Thankfully, at least, the 
     consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the ending of the 
     war. But there is an argument that has been made ever since 
     as to the advisability of those actions.
       I think it is fair question. Past is prologue. We may be 
     faced with this in the future. We

[[Page 7809]]

     all know that NATO, in terms of its war doctrine, would rely 
     on superiority, at least during the Soviet days, rather than 
     quantity. Quality was what we would rely on. There is the 
     potential that a United States President, or a French 
     President, or a British Prime Minister may have to make a 
     decision some day to use nuclear weapons. It is not beyond 
     the realm of possibility and it is not highly speculative. 
     Those things have to be thought through.
       Since we have the historical record, I think it needs to be 
     plugged in to see whether or not this would have triggered a 
     war crimes prosecution.
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, we were careful in the drafting 
     of the statute, as well as the elements of crimes, to 
     establish very high barriers to actually launching 
     investigations and prosecuting the crimes. Not isolated 
     incidents, there has to be systematic widespread events. 
     There have to be plans and policies to directly assault 
     civilian populations. If military necessity dominates the 
     reasoning behind the use of any particular military force, 
     then that is in conformity with international law and it is 
     in conformity with the statute.
       But if you are asking me, speculate as to whether or not it 
     can conceivably be drawn that the United States takes a 
     particular type of military action without describing what 
     the intent was behind it, the plan or the policy behind it, I 
     can't answer questions like that because you have to go 
     through every step of the analysis before you can answer 
     whether or not this statute would actually apply to that 
     particular use of military force.
       Mr. Smith. Well, one of the more perverse outcomes would be 
     that our military strategists would be faced with factoring 
     in not just what is in the best interests of the United 
     States and our allies, and how are we more likely to achieve 
     a military end to a conflict. they would also have to factor 
     in whether or not such an action would violate the Rome 
     Statute.
       Let me also say, our nuclear doctrine rests on deterrence, 
     and if the Russians were to attack us or to launch, we would 
     destroy Russian cities. How would that fit into a Rome 
     Statute world?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Congressman, this statute, as I said, 
     specifically provides very high barriers that have to be met.
       Mr. Smith. But crimes of aggression aren't even defined 
     yet.
       Ambassador Scheffer. And it is contrary to U.S. Federal law 
     as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice to violate 
     the laws of war. So I would assume the plan or policy of the 
     United States would not be to violate the laws of war. If it 
     were the plan or policy to violate the laws of war, then we 
     have a lot to answer for. But if it is not the policy to 
     violate the laws of war, there should be symmetry between our 
     actions and what has been set forth in the statute, which we 
     agree with.
       We agree that the crimes set forth in the statute are 
     crimes under customary international law which we must adhere 
     to. We are not disagreeing with what is in the statute in 
     terms of the list of crimes, we agree with them They must be 
     complied with.
       Mr. Smith. And again, signing a document that still has not 
     defined crimes of aggression----
       Ambassador Scheffer. And by the way, I noticed that in your 
     opening statement. I did want to get back to you on that. The 
     whole process in the Preparatory Commission now is to try to 
     determine, can there be a definition for aggression? The 
     crime of aggression is not actionable under the statute 
     unless there has been an agreement among the states parties 
     to the statute at the 7-year review conference as to what is 
     the definition of that crime. So you can't--there is no way 
     to prosecute that crime until such a definition has been 
     arrived at. And we have a very significant coalition of 
     governments in total agreement with us as to how to proceed 
     in those talks to define the crime of aggression.
       Interestingly enough, under the statute, if one is a state 
     party to the statute, you have every right, if a new crime is 
     added to the statute, to completely exclude yourself from the 
     coverage of that crime.
     Page 55
       Mr. Smith. Mr. Slocombe, Secretary Slocombe, if you could 
     respond to the hypothetical posed earlier about not just our 
     deterrence strategy, which is based on the obliteration of 
     cities, unless something has changed there that I don't know 
     about, but also the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the 
     firebombing that took place in Germany. If the Rome Statute 
     were in effect, would that have precluded those actions?
       Mr. Slocombe. Mr. Smith, I think the way I would answer 
     that would be to say that, in our view, if the Rome Statute 
     were properly applied, American military personnel or the 
     political officers, the President and, I guess in those 
     cases, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy who 
     ordered operations could not properly be prosecuted under 
     them because they were legitimate. In the case of Hiroshima 
     and Nagasaki, and, indeed, in general, with respect to the 
     strategic bombing campaign against both Japan and Germany 
     with conventional weapons, I would maintain that, judged by 
     the context in which they occurred, they were not violations 
     of the law of war under any circumstances.
       So that, as a lawyer, the way I would answer the question 
     would be that the United States would have a good defense if 
     such cases were, in your case, hypothetically tried.
       What I am concerned about, what the United States is 
     concerned about, is that there could be a politically 
     motivated prosecution based on what would, in our view, be a 
     misinterpretation of the law of war, and, therefore, a 
     misinterpretation of the Rome Statute. And once one is in a 
     court, once you concede the principle of jurisdiction, there 
     are no guarantees as to the result.
       Mr. Smith. So it would be possible that a Hiroshima, 
     Nagasaki type action or the firebombing in Japan and in 
     Germany could be prosecuted in the future if such a thing 
     were----
       Mr. Slocombe. As we have said repeatedly, our concern in 
     respect of this statute, in respect of the Court, is 
     precisely the concern about politically motivated, in effect, 
     bad faith prosecutions. Exactly.
       Mr. Smith. But what about a good faith prosecution, by 
     someone who honestly believed that Hiroshima was a war crime? 
     I mean it is possible that it could happen?
       Mr. Slocombe. Well, there is no question that on its face, 
     the Court has jurisdiction over actual ``war crimes''. That 
     is what the statute says, that is what is intended. Our 
     concern, the United States military, through the United 
     States military justice system, prosecutes and prosecutes 
     vigorously well-founded allegations that American military 
     personnel have violated the law of war.
       We do not need the International Criminal Court to deal 
     with that problem. So that is a non-problem. Our concern is 
     not that there would be valid prosecutions of American 
     military personnel. Our concern, rather, is as I said, and as 
     we had said repeatedly, our concern is with politically 
     motivated prosecutions based not really on serious 
     allegations of war crimes, but on disagreement with U.S. or 
     other alliance policies, of which I think the rejected 
     allegations with respect to Kosovo are a good example.
       Mr. Smith. Could I ask, and ask you to provide it for the 
     record, that the Pentagon undertake an analysis as to whether 
     or not Rome would apply to World War II actions like I 
     mentioned before?
       Ambassador Scheffer, I think if these other issues were 
     ironed out, you probably would like to see us sign this. But 
     we have got to know what we are heading toward, and we need 
     to look back before we look forward. Such an analysis, if it 
     hasn't been done, really should be done.
       Mr. Slocombe. It has been done, that is the reason we 
     opposed the treaty.
       Mr. Smith. What has been done, a look back at past 
     conflicts?
       Mr. Slocombe. Well, I don't know that anyone did it in the 
     mind of saying Dresden could have been prosecuted, I think 
     they did it in the mind of saying you don't have to go back 
     to World War II or to the Vietnam War to say that there is a 
     very real danger that there could be politically motivated 
     prosecutions through the International Criminal Court, and 
     that is precisely the reason that not just the Department of 
     Defense, but the Administration voted against the text and 
     have refused to sign the treaty.
       Mr. Smith. And Ambassador Scheffer, you agree with that, 
     there could be politically motivated prosecutions?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Precisely.
       Mr. Smith. I'm sorry?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Yes. Yes.
       Mr. Smith. Do you, Ambassador Scheffer, personally think 
     that President Clinton made a mistake when he decided against 
     signing the treaty in 1998?
       Your mike is not on.
       Ambassador Scheffer. I'm sorry, Congressman. My answer to 
     your other questions was yes.
       Mr. Smith. OK. Thank you.
       Ambassador Scheffer. No, there was no mistake whatsoever. 
     In fact, the issue of signing was simply not the issue. In 
     Rome it was, do we agree with other governments to release 
     the text of the statute out of the Rome Conference in the 
     form that existed at the end of the conference? That was the 
     only issue there.
       It truly is a more responsible course to take not to 
     consider even the issue of signing until one sees the 
     totality of this treaty regime.
       Mr. Slocombe. If I could, Mr. Chairman, could I read a 
     sentence from a letter which Secretary Cohen, with the 
     concurrence of his colleagues in the senior levels of the 
     Administration, sent in support of Ambassador Scheffer's 
     effort, which responds exactly to your point? It reads, ``As 
     it currently stands, the Rome Treaty could expose service-
     members and Government officials of nonparty states to 
     criminal liability based on politically motivated charges 
     brought by other states that object to the nonparty states' 
     international policies.'' That is our position and that, in a 
     sentence, is the reason for our concerns.
       Mr. Smith. Let me ask a final question or two. Ambassador 
     Scheffer, how likely do you really think it is that you will 
     succeed in your efforts to get the ICC to forego criminal 
     jurisdiction over Americans and persons from other countries 
     that are not a party to

[[Page 7810]]

     the Rome Statute? And what happens if you fail? Obviously 
     there are a different set of diplomats and parliamentarians 
     that I was meeting with, but at the Bucharest Conference we 
     were all alone in our opposition. I was amazed in speaking 
     one-on-one during the course of the week in Bucharest at the 
     OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at how Pollyanna-ish some of the 
     views were of members who did not have a clue what was 
     contained in the statute but just said ``We want an ICC and 
     that is it.'' The British were probably more emphatic than 
     anyone, although they seem to have been informed and knew the 
     contents of the statute They were vigorously pushing for 
     rapid ratification, which is what the operative language was 
     that they were offering.
       The Germans offered it. We tried to weaken it with an 
     amendment and it was not acceptable, regrettably. It seems as 
     if, as Mr. Bereuter pointed out earlier, in terms of a 
     willingness to just cede sovereignty, the Europeans have no 
     problem with that, it seems. But obviously we do.
       What is the next step if they do not include us--or exclude 
     us, I should say--from jurisdiction? What would be the next 
     step?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there will be some--let 
     met just describe it as serious results if we cannot prevail 
     with a provision or a document that is satisfactory to us in 
     the Preparatory Commission talks.
       I think as Under Secretary Slocombe said earlier we are 
     going to have to take a very serious reassessment of this. I 
     think there is going to be a clearer assessment as to what we 
     can consider in terms of military contingencies for this 
     Government, but at the same time I would hope that that 
     assessment could, the fact that there would be such an 
     assessment would encourage a good number of governments, 
     particularly our allies, that they have far more to gain from 
     this process from the United States being a cooperative 
     partner in this Treaty, even as a nonparty, than they do to 
     isolate us by not taking into consideration the very specific 
     requirements that we have in the international community, so 
     all I can say is I hope I can succeed.
       I don't want to pretend to say that I have got an easy job 
     ahead of me. Right now the deck is stacked against me, but we 
     have to try. This is a step-by-step process. We have had to 
     exercise some patience in getting there, but every time we 
     have pursued our objectives since Rome to actually accomplish 
     what we need to accomplish, we have accomplished it, so I 
     want to go that final mile and see if we can accomplish this 
     objective.
       Mr. Smith. Again, what is the likelihood of doing it? I 
     mean Secretary Bolton and--
       Ambassador Scheffer. It could be 50-50 at this stage.
       Mr. Smith. Secretary Bolton and Eagleburger, former 
     Secretary of State, have made it clear that they thought we 
     lost the fight 2 years ago.
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as I said, we simply do not 
     share their vision of either having lost or waging this 
     campaign. I think you have to be in the trenches of it to 
     recognize that other governments truly do not want, at least 
     many other governments, truly do not want to see the United 
     States walk out of this process. They know how valuable we 
     can be in the long-run for this Court and therefore I would 
     hope that we could persuade them that a reasonable 
     accommodation within the Treaty regime of U.S. interests is 
     going to be to the betterment of the entire process and to 
     the Court itself.
       Mr. Smith. I would respectfully suggest that we did lose it 
     2 years ago. We are trying to fix it now, and I obviously 
     wish you success. We all would wish you success on that, but, 
     you know, you mentioned serious repercussions or serious 
     consequences. I think we are more likely to avoid that if we 
     are very specific in saying this or that happens. 
     Predictability I think is your friend now. Can you elaborate 
     on some of the consequences if we lose?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as we have already stated to our 
     colleagues in other governments in letters that the Secretary 
     of Defense has sent to his counterparts, we would have to re-
     evaluate our ability to participate in military contingencies 
     if we cannot prevail on that, and I think that is a fairly 
     powerful consequence.
       In addition to that, I think governments truly are having 
     to gauge what is the consequence if the United States cannot 
     be a good neighbor to this treaty. It will severely cripple 
     the operation of this Court if we cannot be a player in it.
       Mr. Smith. How would it affect peacekeeping in your view, 
     and Mr. Slocombe, you might want to add your views on 
     peacemaking as well?
       Ambassador Scheffer. I think it could have a very severe 
     impact on that. Walt?
       Mr. Slocombe. What the Secretary of Defense said in his 
     letter was unfortunately a negative result--that is, a 
     negative result with respect to the article 98 effort--could 
     have a major impact on our decision whether to participate in 
     certain types of military contingencies.
       That is what he said. I would not see that as an absolute 
     judgment that we will never send American troops overseas in 
     any situation, but it would have to be a factor we would have 
     to take into account.
       Mr. Smith. Just getting back to the legislation, and I know 
     in its current form you have made it clear you don't support 
     it, but can you not at least admit there is some value in 
     again broadcasting to the world that we are very serious and 
     that the Congress is very serious about there being very 
     negative consequences if this thing proceeds and we are 
     included, having not been made a party to it, having not 
     ceded or signed it?
       Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there is some value to 
     it and the mere existence of the legislation I think has sent 
     that signal very loudly and clearly.
       What I am saying is that actual adoption of this 
     legislation would then have the reverse effect on our ability 
     to actually negotiate our common objective.
       Mr. Smith. Let me just take that one step further. I mean 
     the President obviously would have the capability of vetoing 
     the bill if he thought it was not the right vehicle.
       But let me point out that the Congress also has 
     prerogatives, and we do fund peacekeeping. We obviously 
     provide the necessary and requisite moneys for our military. 
     It seems to me that we need to be very much a part of this 
     because the outcome could be a disaster going forward for the 
     world and for U.S. men and women in uniform who may be 
     deployed overseas.
       As I have read this, and I have read just about everything 
     I can get my hands on, I have grave concerns. I said at the 
     outset that no one has been more favorably inclined toward ad 
     hoc tribunals than I am. When we had the first hearings in 
     the Helsinki Commission on what became the Yugoslavian 
     Tribunal we were being told by its leader, the man that was 
     charged by the United Nations to take on the responsibility, 
     that it was designed to fail, that he had been given 
     insufficient resources, that it was nothing but fluff in 
     order to placate certain individuals in countries, but it 
     really was not a serious effort.
       Now if we go in the other extreme and all of a sudden pass 
     or enact something that potentially could prosecute the 
     President or our Secretary of State or Defense or Supreme 
     NATO Allied Commander, I think we have erred significantly as 
     well, and I don't think there has been enough vetting of this 
     issue.
       I think a very small group of people have decided this. As 
     I mentioned earlier, you know, I really want to take a look 
     at who the actual participants were. We have heard that NGO's 
     were filling the seats and taking on the responsibility of 
     negotiating rather than the respective governments, who were 
     kind of like brushed aside and the designated hitters were 
     making decisions. That is serious if that indeed turns out to 
     be the case. So I think there has been far less scrutiny 
     brought to this, and hopefully these hearings are the 
     beginning of even more focus by the Congress, but I thank you 
     for your testimony.
       Mr. Tancredo is here. Do you have any comments?
       Mr. Tancredo. No.
       Mr. Smith. I do thank you for your comments. We look 
     forward to working with you in the future.
       Ambassador Scheffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       Mr. Slocombe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, maybe either the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) or my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), could answer this question. And that is, if we 
do not sign this treaty, then we will not have primary jurisdiction 
over our soldiers; meaning if we do sign this treaty, our soldiers are 
under the jurisdiction of our courts; but if we pass the DeLay 
amendment our soldiers will be under the jurisdiction of another 
country and/or the ICC that the gentleman purports he does not want our 
soldiers to be subject to.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on the gentleman's time. I 
do not have the time. The gentleman has more time than we do.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on the gentleman's own 
time I will yield. It is his amendment. If he wants to answer the basic 
question.
  Mr. DeLAY. The gentlemen asked me a question. He controls the time. 
Would he like an answer?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I control the time and I am not going to 
yield. I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is

[[Page 7811]]

offering this amendment, to explain his amendment and explain to this 
House that what he is trying to do he actually does not do, because the 
very service member who he is purporting to protect actually will end 
up subject to other foreign nations' courts, and not our own, if we 
pass this DeLay amendment. I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) on his own time to explain why his amendment does exactly the 
opposite of what he purports it to do.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me take a shot at this. Since I am also 
a JAG officer and I have been in a theater of war, what the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is purporting I would say is false. 
When a war is fought, it is fought under the laws of war. There are 
also the Geneva Conventions. Our country has treaties with other 
countries. We have memorandums of understanding. We have exchanges of 
letters with regard to the jurisdiction and who can prosecute whom 
under what circumstance.
  I am going to support the DeLay amendment because I do not want our 
military to be tried by Iraq or some other nation out there. If we have 
a nation, take Germany, for example, and that military officer or an 
enlisted person commits a crime in the line of duty, we prosecute 
those; we take care of that. If they commit an offense in the civilian, 
outside the line of duty, they are prosecuted by Germany. That occurs 
out there.
  I think we need to pause and really think whether we want to subject 
our military to an international court.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the distinguished majority whip, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has given me this time, and I 
appreciate his efforts and his diligence in defending our men and women 
in uniform who, but for this amendment, might be subject to arbitrary 
and capricious actions of rogue nations bent on perverting the 
International Criminal Court.
  None other than President George Washington warned his posterity 
about certain relations with foreign governments that might put liberty 
at risk.
  The system of law that is likely to be practiced in the ICC is 
outside of our Constitution and our rule of law. It does violence to 
the very common law that is our inheritance. There is little doubt that 
the framers of the Constitution would reject this peculiar foreign 
legal system outright as a form of tyranny. The notion that our 
citizens, men and women in uniform, would be subject to the whims of a 
foreign court is anathema to the principles of the American founding.
  American citizens and their military personnel should never be 
subject to laws not created by the American people. The fear voiced by 
George Washington must control our debate today.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a terrible mistake to submit our 
military to this International Criminal Court. First of all, double 
jeopardy. If we read the Statute of Rome, it is left to a court to 
decide if our court martial was a genuine, honorable, honest effort. If 
they do not like it and one gets discharged, that person can be 
retried.
  The decision is made, ``The case is being investigated or prosecuted 
by a state which has jurisdiction over it unless the State is unwilling 
or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation.'' Who decides if it 
was a genuine investigation? A Chinese court?
  The same means by which we were excluded from the Human Rights 
Commission can exclude us from participation in this court, because one 
becomes a member by the votes of the member states.
  Now, the crime of aggression, maybe that is flying along the China 
coast in international waters; maybe that is the crime of aggression to 
some people. Why submit our people to this? It is alien.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to close.
  Mr. Chairman, no Member of this body is in favor of having American 
servicemen or servicewomen tried by an International Criminal Court. As 
we outlined earlier, our service people abroad are tried by our own 
military courts.
  We are in favor of establishing an International Criminal Court 
similar to the one at the end of the Second World War, the Nuremberg 
Tribunal, and similar to the one currently dealing with international 
criminals of the former Yugoslavia's bloodshed.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DeLay in expressing 
serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the 
International Criminal Court (ICC).
  Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, 
fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to 
prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being 
used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some 
reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DeLay because it singles 
out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction 
(thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if 
the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject 
to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over 
which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. 
Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to 
``rescue'' citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even 
if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain 
silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of 
legitimacy to the ICC.
  It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, 
HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations 
that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the 
International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of 
former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed 
otherwise.
  The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The 
International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International 
Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the 
ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide 
for its national defense.
  The term ``crimes of aggression'', as used in the treaty, is not 
specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate 
the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior 
United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal 
Court confirmation before engaging in military action--thereby putting 
United States military officers in jeopardy of an International 
Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty 
creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United 
States military personnel, could be brought before a court that 
bypasses the due process requirements of the United States 
Constitution.
  The people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a 
constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their 
elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no 
others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear 
before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without 
the rights and protections that the United States Constitution 
guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from 
double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, 
the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.
  Today's amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case 
with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens 
to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 
U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey 
v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government 
may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the 
United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize 
what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal 
Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths 
of

[[Page 7812]]

the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution 
clearly provides that ``[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a 
Congress of the United States,'' and vested powers cannot be 
transferred.
  Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the 
International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the 
legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the 
International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that 
would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the 
United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States 
Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of 
the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal 
government's authority to ``treaty away.''
  Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United 
States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States 
Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates 
the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and 
popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all 
nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify 
the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty 
should not be construed otherwise.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support 
of the amendment offered by my colleague, Majority Whip Tom DeLay. This 
amendment to H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is 
important if we are to overturn a last minute act by the previous 
Administration. By signing the U.S. onto the International Criminal 
Court just a few hours before leaving office, Mr. Clinton chose to 
subject U.S. troops and our military actions to second guessing by 
international judicial bureaucrats appointed by an international body.
  Mr. DeLay's amendment provides legal protections to ensure that 
American citizens, especially U.S. military personnel, are not 
prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken 
by them on behalf of the U.S. government. This amendment prohibits (1) 
U.S. cooperation with the Court except to free American citizens or 
those of our allies; and (2) providing classified information to the 
court. In addition, it requires that countries receiving U.S. military 
assistance (other than NATO, non-NATO allies and Taiwan) must exempt 
Americans from prosecution or arrest by the court on their soil. 
Finally, it requires that the U.N. Security Council exempt American 
military personnel engaged in assessed U.N. peacekeeping operations 
from prosecution by the Court.
  A brief look at recent actions by the United Nations demonstrates how 
foolish it would be to sign up to this treaty. The United Nations just 
recently removed the United States from the Human Rights Commission, 
and placed on the commission Cuba, China and Sudan. Cuba is run by a 
dictator who has no regard to human rights and imprisons people at his 
will. China oppresses religious freedom and detains individuals without 
due process. And, the government of Sudan has killed 2 million 
Christians over the past few years. Sudan also still engages in 
slavery. Those who are arguing that the United States should sign up to 
a treaty that allows these nation's to put American citizens and 
service members on trial, are putting these brave men and women in 
jeopardy.
  The United Nations conference ignored U.S. objections and endorsed a 
plan for establishing a permanent international criminal court. The 
American representatives at the negotiations on this treaty, under 
pressure from the Republicans in Congress, sought to obtain a guarantee 
that U.S. military service personnel and agents could never be held 
liable to this court. This was rejected. This represents a dangerous 
potential for usurping national autonomy, and I will continue to work 
to see that this proposal is fully rejected. Our Founding Fathers 
warned us about foreign entanglements. Certainly, ceding national 
autonomy falls into this category.
  I will continue to oppose any effort to permit the U.S. to join this 
``court.'' I am pleased that President Bush has expressed his 
objections, and the U.S. Senate has made it clear that it would reject 
this treaty. Mr. DeLay's amendment will be an important step in 
stopping this problematic agreement.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Delay 
amendment to H.R. 1646.
  The International Criminal Court (ICC) will be a permanent court to 
try individuals, not countries, for the most serious crimes of concern 
to the international community. These would be heinous crimes such as 
genocide and widespread systematic torture and rape.
  The horrendous crimes in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and far 
too many other countries have awakened the international community to 
the need to punish the criminals responsible for inhuman acts of 
violence. The same concerns that led to the trials at Nuremberg and 
Tokyo, the creation of ad hoc tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and 
Rwanda, and the existence of established international criminal law 
have made the ICC more feasible now.
  The Court will hear a case only when no national court is available 
or willing to hear it. In the case of the United States, our courts 
would decide whether to try a case or submit it to the ICC. In theory 
the ICC could try Americans. However, the ICC would only intervene when 
the U.S. chooses to relinquish its right to try a case. In practical 
terms, it is highly unlikely that the American judicial system would be 
unwilling or unavailable to try a case.
  Also, it is important to remember that Americans arrested abroad for 
committing a crime are already subject to prosecution by other 
countries. In the highly unlikely event of an American being arrested 
abroad for war crimes, in many cases a trial in the ICC would be fairer 
and the country might well agree to turn the accused over to the ICC.
  The U.S. Government has taken great pains to require that the accused 
receive a fair trial and be accorded the due process of law. The draft 
statute defines the rights of the accused in accordance with the rights 
guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
and the Declaration of Human Rights. They include the presumption of 
innocence, the right to counsel, the right to confront one's accusers, 
and the right to a speedy trial.
  I support the U.S. participation in the ICC as well as all efforts 
that seeks justice for the victims of genocide, torture, rape and 
systematic violence against civilian men, women and children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 107-62.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Page 76, after line 12, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly):

       (a) Additional Restriction on Release of Arrearage Payments 
     Relating to United States Membership on the United Nations 
     Commission on Human Rights and Use of Secret Ballots.--In 
     addition to the satisfaction of all other preconditions 
     applicable to the obligation and expenditure of funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 911(a)(3) of the 
     United Nations Reform Act of 1999, such funds may not be 
     obligated or expended until the Secretary of State certifies 
     to the appropriate congressional committees that--
       (1) the United States has obtained full membership on the 
     United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a term 
     commencing after May 3, 2001; and
       (2)(A) neither the United Nations nor any specialized 
     agency of the United Nations takes any action or exercises 
     any authority by any vote of the membership of the body by a 
     secret ballot which prevents the identification of each vote 
     with the member casting the ballot; or
       (B) a detailed analysis of voting within the United Nations 
     and specialized agencies of the United Nations has 
     demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State 
     that the use of secret ballots can serve the interests of the 
     United States and that analysis has been transmitted to the 
     appropriate congressional committees.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes 
of my time on this amendment to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) and that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 7813]]


  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires that the final tranche of 
arrearage payments to the United Nations and other designated agencies 
be contingent upon a certification by the Secretary of State that the 
United States has regained its seat on the United Nations Commission on 
Human Rights.
  I urge support for this amendment that expresses our strongest 
possible concern over the vote on May 4 by the 53 members of the U.N. 
Economic and Social Council to remove the U.S. from its seat on the 
Human Rights Commission, a seat I might add that we have held 
continuously since the Commission's inception in 1947.
  Let there be no mistake about the message being sent to the U.S. with 
this unprecedented action to remove our strong and uncompromising voice 
from the proceedings of this body. This is a deliberate attempt to 
punish the United States for its insistence that we tell the truth 
about human rights abuses, wherever they occur; including in those 
countries represented on the Commission such as China and Cuba.
  The U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, spoke for many other member 
states when he noted in a statement in the aftermath of this vote that 
the United States has played a leading role over the years in drafting 
landmark documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 
and has been a key member of the Commission. The U.S. made a major 
contribution to the work of the United Nations in the field of human 
rights.
  In response to this inexplicable and inexcusable decision, it is 
appropriate that the U.S. send its own message to U.N. member states, 
and particularly the members of the western European group. If allowed 
to stand, this decision threatens to turn the Human Rights Commission 
into just one more irrelevant international organization.
  If our voice is stilled, other countries will have even greater 
difficulty in speaking openly and plainly about rampant human rights 
abuses around the world.
  The adoption of this amendment will assist the administration in its 
efforts to take whatever steps are necessary over the next year to 
restore our voice and vote in this body.
  To those critics who say we are overreaching and overreacting, I 
would argue that to do anything less would be a repudiation of our own 
values and principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for human 
rights enshrined in the U.N. Charter and in our own Constitution.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I am so pleased to share 
its authorship with the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, and 
I find myself in agreement with the Bush administration on this issue. 
I agree that the United Nations has a poor record in some important 
areas. All we need to do is look at United Nations behavior in Rwanda 
and Srebrenica where it aided and abetted in the needless slaughter of 
1 million Rwandans and thousands of Bosniacs. Even that, however, is no 
reason to withhold paying back dues that the United States owes to the 
United Nations.
  How can we expect the United Nations to improve its performance or to 
respect us if we go back on our word and refuse to pay our bills?
  I know that Secretary of State Colin Powell would never agree with 
going back on our word to the world community, but that is exactly what 
this amendment will do.
  President Bush's spokesperson said yesterday, ``While the United 
States is disappointed with the results of the Human Rights Commission 
election, the President feels strongly that this issue should not be 
linked to the payment of our arrears to the U.N. and other 
international organizations.''
  However, it is important that while we talk today about human rights 
around the world and human rights abusers, and even human rights 
abusers who now sit on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, we 
must also talk about ourselves.

                              {time}  1230

  We cannot continually stand before the world community with finger 
pointed outward while never looking inward. And look inward we must. We 
must look at the way we treat others in our foreign policy, and we must 
look at the way we treat our own citizens right here in this country.
  Christopher Hitchens has written a powerful piece on Henry 
Kissinger's policies that resulted in deaths all over Asia, in Vietnam, 
in Indonesia, in East Timor. Hitchens also discusses U.S. policy in 
Chile. Problems created decades ago that we still suffer the 
repercussions of today.
  I have written tomes myself in disgust at Madeleine Albright's Africa 
policy, which had the U.S. join hands with hand choppers and rapists of 
little 12-year-old girls in Sierra Leone, purposely delayed U.S. 
response in the Rwanda genocide, and then rewarded those at the U.N. 
and inside our own government who turned a blind eye to what was 
happening in Africa's Great Lakes region.
  Africa is still suffering from what we did not do to help people who 
wanted to escape dictatorship and establish democracy and the rule of 
law. What other suffering will we create or ignore?
  But then I cannot talk about the U.S. position on human rights 
without discussing what is happening right here in America. What about 
the human rights of America's black men who are dying on the streets? 
What about the human rights of America's black people?
  On the streets of America, I see homelessness and poverty. Here in 
the Nation's Capital, I see black man after black man after black man 
sleeping on the streets. They sleep in makeshift cardboard beds, they 
sleep on sidewalk benches, over heating grates, and under bridges. 
Black women lie clad in newspapers during the night on the same block 
as the White House. They are discarded like trash on the streets of 
America.
  On the streets of America, I see racial profiling. The Justice 
Department admits that blacks are more likely than whites to be pulled 
over by police, imprisoned, and even put to death. Yet only 2 days ago 
a Cincinnati grand jury offered the equivalent of a holiday vacation 
for a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black 
man.
  Another black man last week was driving his fiance's 10- and 8-year-
old daughters to school. He was approached by a white policeman, who 
pulled his gun and shot him in the neck, killing him instantly as the 
two little girls ran screaming in horror down the street.
  The FBI said blacks and whites have about the same rate of drug use, 
yet while the majority of people arrested for drug abuse are white, the 
vast majority of those incarcerated are black.
  Government studies on health disparities confirm that blacks are less 
likely to receive surgery, transplants, even prescription drugs, than 
whites. A black baby boy born in Harlem today has less chance to reach 
the age of 5 than a baby born in Bangladesh.
  I serve in the Congress where the Congressional Black Caucus is 
shrinking, and yet sections of the Voting Rights Act will soon expire, 
and, quite frankly, after crippling Supreme Court decisions, there is 
not much left of affirmative action to mend.
  I believe this state of affairs is no accident. We are what we are 
because it was meant to be.
  In the FBI's own words, its counterintelligence program, then known 
as COINTELPRO, had as a goal to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit 
or otherwise neutralize the activities of black organizations and to 
prevent and, I quote, black ``leaders from gaining respectability.''
  We need only remember that Geronimo Pratt spent 27 years in prison 
for a crime that he did not commit.

[[Page 7814]]

  Twenty-six black men were executed in the year 2000. Some of them 
were probably innocent. And we started this year by executing a 
mentally retarded black woman.
  Now the Bush administration tells us that they are not going to 
participate in the United Nations Conference on Racism scheduled to 
take place in the Republic of South Africa in August of this year. I 
say shame on the Bush Administration for boycotting the United Nations 
Conference on Racism, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that my good friend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I had to offer this amendment to condition our 
U.N. arrears payment on the resumption of our membership on the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission.
  I think it is important to analyze what happened at the vote in 
Geneva carefully. There are three seats reserved for the western 
nations and there were four candidates. I predict that every single 
time this should happen in the future, we will be rejected, because we 
are the most articulate and principled and outspoken proponents of 
human rights.
  Austria does not irritate anybody. The Austrians are getting the 
votes, but the United States is not getting the votes, because we speak 
out on human rights violations in Cuba and China and Sudan and Libya 
and Syria and all over the world. And there are many more human rights 
violators, Mr. Chairman, than countries that honor human rights.
  So in a very fundamental and mechanical sense, the failure of our 
being on the Human Rights Commission as we speak is the result of the 
failure of our European friends to act together; and I hope that next 
year when this similar vote will take place, they will designate only 
two of their members, so the United States will be the third one and we 
will be voted again to serve on the Human Rights Commission of which we 
have been, since its inception, the single most important, most 
powerful, and most principled member.
  It is a separate issue, Mr. Chairman, that 14 members apparently who 
have given our Department of State written assurances that they will 
vote for us, taking advantage of the secret ballot, chose not to do so.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I are proposing 
a reasonable and moderate amendment. Our amendment calls for paying our 
current tranche which is due, almost $600 million, without any delay, 
and to make our last payment, over $200 million, contingent upon the 
United States being voted back on to the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
  Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to have a lengthy telephone 
conversation with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi 
Annan; and I explained to him the procedure, which he clearly 
understands. It is our intention to pay every dime we owe the United 
Nations, but we will simply not turn the other cheek as the Sudans and 
the Lybias of this world declare the United States unfit to serve on 
the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.
  One important provision of our legislation calls on our 
representative at the U.N. to insist that no nation may serve on the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission that does not allow on its territory 
international human rights monitors. When this provision prevails, the 
Cubas and the Chinas and the Sudans and the Lybias of this world will 
have no opportunity to serve on the Human Rights Commission.
  The Hyde-Lantos amendment is a reasonable response to an outrage that 
was perpetrated in Geneva. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, with great pleasure, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment. 
The failure of the U.N. to reelect our Nation to the Human Rights 
Commission is outrageous. Our Nation has been a member of the 
commission since 1946. Our Nation is being penalized obviously for 
speaking out for human rights abuses.
  This commission has become a refuge for despots and scoundrels, 
indicative of our Nation's inattention to this problem for the past 8 
years, regrettably allowing powerful nations such as China to dominate 
the commission.
  The Human Rights Commission has become a closely knit group of human 
rights abusers. The Chinese, Cuban, Libyan, and Syrian commission 
members have incarcerated thousands of political prisoners. It is 
hypocritical that Sudan, which practices slavery, is also a commission 
member.
  Denying our Nation membership while allowing those despotic 
governments to become members underscores that we have not effectively 
challenged those dictatorships.
  This is truly a sad day for democracy, for the rule of law, and for 
the United States. Accordingly, I strongly urge support for the Hyde-
Lantos-Sweeney amendment.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield such time as 
she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney amendment, which withholds U.S. payments to the United Nations 
in retaliation for the removal of the U.S. from the Human Rights 
Commission.
  Although I share the displeasure of the chair and ranking member of 
the Committee on International Relations on the loss of the United 
States' seat, payment of arrears to the U.N. should not be jeopardized 
in retribution.
  This action would be unfairly punitive. The United Nations does not 
nominate nor elect members to the commission. The 54 members of the 
U.N. Economic and Social Council elect members of the commission in a 
secret ballot. Payment of our long-standing debt to the U.N. should not 
be jeopardized, particularly at a time when the United Nations has met 
nearly every condition of the Helms-Biden agreement.
  A deal is a deal. The U.S. agreed to pay nearly $1 billion in debt to 
the U.N. if the U.N. met certain conditions. The United Nations has 
kept their end of the deal.
  We demanded that the U.N. reduce the amount the U.S. pays to the U.N. 
regular budget, and the U.N. did. We demanded that they reduce the 
amount the U.S. pays to the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and the U.N. did. 
We demanded they form an Office of Inspector General, and they did. We 
demanded they maintain a zero growth budget, and they did. We demanded 
that they did not charge us interest on the delinquent bills, and they 
have not charged interest.
  Now, after the United Nations has met all of our demands and it is 
our time to honor our commitment, we have new demands.
  It is not even logical. The United Nations did not remove the United 
States from the Human Rights Commission. That action was by the 54 
member states of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is not fair. 
To penalize the U.N. for the actions of individual member states 
violates every sense of fair play. It is like failing the whole class 
for the actions of one child.

                              {time}  1245

  My opponents here today will say that the U.S. deserves a seat on the 
commission, and it does. But the U.N. cannot put us back on the 
commission any more than they could prevent us from being taken off. So 
why penalize the U.N.?
  Also, it is not productive. Requiring new conditions for payment of a 
longstanding debt when a deal has already been made will not only not 
win us back a seat, but could very well jeopardize our relations with 
the very nations who we need to vote in favor of us to put us back on 
the commission.

[[Page 7815]]

  Secretary of State Colin Powell does not want additional conditions. 
President Bush does not want additional conditions. These are the 
people charged with implementing our Nation's foreign policy. Just 
yesterday, the President spokesperson said, and I quote, ``The whole 
question of arrears and payment to the United Nations, that is separate 
and apart from this current matter.''
  The Atlanta Constitution wrote a long statement, but I will just 
quote a short part: ``Unfortunately, Members of the House are 
threatening to `get back' by withholding U.N. dues. Seeking retribution 
against the world body is the wrong reaction from Congress or the 
administration. After all, it wasn't just U.S. detractors who 
participated in the coup, but also some of our allies: France, Sweden 
and Austria, who didn't cast enough votes to help the U.S. retain a 
seat.''
  The Los Angeles Times wrote on May 10, and I quote: ``Members of the 
House, angry that the United States last night lost its seat on the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission, want to withhold a further planned U.N. 
payment of $244 million unless the seat is restored next year. It's 
hard to conceive of anything more foolish than making payment of a 
legitimate debt conditional on an action by a subsidiary U.N. body that 
the U.N. doesn't even control.''
  The New York Times wrote on May 5: ``Such a response would ignore the 
underlying issues that caused the revolt and only worsen American 
relations with the United Nations. Payment of Washington's back dues is 
vital to maintaining American influence in the U.N.''
  And the San Francisco Chronicle's headline today says, ``U.S. Should 
Pay Its Dues.''
  It sort of reminds me of the old book, everything I learned in 
kindergarten is all I need to conduct my life in a reasonable way. We 
made a deal. They have held up to their end of the deal. It is wrong 
for us to turn around and change the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of the Bush administration 
urging that we live up to our end of the commitment and pay our dues at 
the United Nations. I oppose the Hyde-Lantos amendment and other 
conditions put on this requirement that we have agreed to.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and I would 
like to respond to some of these editorials.
  Some of us do not accept the sanctity of our Western European 
friends. They would stand on firmer moral ground if they would stand 
with the United States in our dealings with Iran or Iraq or Syria or 
other totalitarian states. Actions have consequences. The United States 
was fully prepared to make these payments, but the situation has 
changed with encouragement on the part of some of our ``friends.'' 
There is great glee that the United States was booted off the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission where unquestionably we were the most 
important, most valuable, most articulate, and most principal member 
for over half a century.
  And while I am very pleased to see my friend defending the Bush 
administration in this instance, I do not. I believe the Bush 
administration is dead wrong in saying that we should turn the other 
cheek. Actions have consequences. We had an arrogant and irresponsible 
action: booting the leading champion of human rights off the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I am 
proposing a modest response, a temporary withholding of a portion of 
our dues. Our U.N. fellow members have an option. If they would like to 
get this payment, they will vote the United States back on to the 
Commission. If they do not, it will cost them $244 million. And I urge 
France or Austria or anybody else to come up with that money, because 
certainly the United Nations needs those funds.
  I think it is important that we do not engage in blaming the United 
States first. We are the least responsible party for this action. The 
people who are responsible for this action are the Chinese, who went 
around trying to get votes against us by economic incentives and by 
threats; the Cubans, who did the same; and a number of our quote-
unquote ``friends,'' who shall remain nameless.
  Mr. Chairman, I proudly join my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) in this measure. This will teach countries a lesson: actions 
have consequences. They have taken an irresponsible action, and we are 
giving them an opportunity to rectify it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond as well to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and colleague, from 
the perspective that I am pleased to join the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) as a sponsor on 
this amendment.
  The notion that what we are doing here is somehow a violation of fair 
play is really quite foreign to me at this point. What we are doing in 
bringing this amendment forward is disallowing the Libyans, the 
Chinese, those in Sudan and those who throughout the world want to sit 
in judgment of human rights violations and sit in judgment by excluding 
and pushing the United States out from that conversation.
  This amendment is about fighting and protecting human rights 
throughout the world, Mr. Chairman. Secret ballots at the United 
Nations enable human rights violators and those who impede our ability 
to combat international narcotics and other important causes, they push 
us from that debate and that argument.
  So I am proud to come forward and offer this amendment, because after 
all, the greatest sense of leverage we have as a Nation is the fact 
that we contribute 25 percent for the activities at the United Nations. 
To not have the United States sitting on the Human Rights Commission is 
a travesty.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am outraged by what happened at the United Nations. I 
am as outraged as anyone. I am cochair of the U.N. Working Group, along 
with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman form Iowa (Mr. Leach). The 
U.N. certainly is not always right, and in this instance they are 
absolutely wrong and it is absolutely outrageous.
  But in trying to weigh what our reaction should be, I come down on 
the opposite side of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney), my good friends, because I do not believe that trying to 
blackmail nations into supporting us ever really works. I think that 
that is really not the way to go.
  I agree with everything the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
said, and I have more respect for him than almost anyone else in this 
body when it comes to these matters, and he was right on the money in 
everything he says; but I just think that our reaction ought to be 
different.
  There has been a buildup of anger at the United States because 
frankly, we have not been paying our dues. I know we are on track to do 
it now, but it was a long struggle; and it was many, many years before 
we went on track. There has been anti-U.N. rhetoric from this body and 
in other places, and there is some anger at the fact that we have not 
ratified at a convention on the rights of a child, banning land mines, 
the Kyoto Protocol and other treaties as well. That is not an excuse 
for the U.N., but the question is, how do we react? How do we react to 
this at all?
  I do not believe that these votes at the U.N. should be linked to the 
payment of arrears. We owe them money, and we ought to pay it. We ought 
to express our outrage. There are other ways to do it. I do not think 
that withholding the money is the right way to go.

[[Page 7816]]

  Jeanne Kirkpatrick, for whom I have enormous respect, said, frankly, 
somebody was not watching the store. We could point fingers at 
everybody and do a lot of fingerpointing all the way around, but that 
really does not have any beneficial effect. We have made our point 
known. The administration, the Bush administration, opposes this 
amendment. We have to now decide what the best way to go is. I just 
think that this may do us a lot of good in expressing our personal 
pique, but I think in the long run it is counterproductive.
  So I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the premise that the United 
States should participate in the United Nations and that if we want to 
maintain our leadership role that we ought to pay our dues. I must say, 
therefore, that I am ambivalent on the means used in this resolution, 
but I am not ambivalent at all on the sentiments and the point that it 
makes.
  I rise, therefore, in support of the intent of this resolution. I 
have not decided, frankly, how I am going to vote, but there ought to 
be 435 of us who, in the strongest possible terms, say that this was an 
act of a commission that knows that it is the United States day after 
day, week after week, month after month, in every forum in the world, 
the OSCE, the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I participate in on a 
year-round basis; the chairman of the committee has participated in 
that heavily, as has the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
former chairman; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  This was an act perpetrated, frankly, by the abusers of human rights, 
by those who would like to hide the abuses that exist in so many parts 
of this world; that would like to hide the shortcomings to 
international standards that so many nations demonstrate. That ought 
not to be left to stand. The exclusion of the United States from the 
Human Rights Commission, the one Nation that consistently raises the 
issue of human rights around the world, and yes, even in the United 
States.
  So I applaud the sponsors of this resolution for raising for the rest 
of the world and for our country how critically we view this issue.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hyde) for yielding the time to me.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. I want to thank 
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for bringing this to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I look around this Chamber and I see the Members of 
this body that have traveled the globe out of concern to speak up for 
human rights, to reach out a hand of comfort and support and 
encouragement for the beleaguered people across this globe repeatedly.
  Year in and year out, our Members from this Chamber make that trek to 
show that America knows and America cares. I look across this country 
and I see the heart of the American people that reaches out to all the 
world for freedom, dignity, justice, respect.
  I look across this Nation's history and I find a legacy of courage, 
commitment, sacrifice. This Nation has lent its heroes to the cause of 
liberty on behalf of the nations of all the world time and time again.
  Without this Nation's leadership, there would be no United Nations. 
Without this Nation's participation, the United Nations could not 
endure to this day. The United Nations expels this Nation, the greatest 
Nation in the history of the world, for the defense and protection of 
human rights from the very commission whose only sacred purpose is to 
be the guardian and the protector of human rights and in its stead 
places what can only be judged the world's worst perpetrator.
  The horrors of Sudan will break your heart, the slavery. Slavery, we 
thought perhaps that was gone from this globe; it should be gone. The 
religious persecution, the murders, the torture that happens in Sudan 
should be the object of investigation of this commission and should be 
the object of this commission's scorn, yet they put this nation, this 
unholy nation, on that commission.
  Yes. We should be outraged even more for that inclusion than for the 
exclusion of this great Nation. And Libya, scarcely any better.
  My colleagues say what should be our response? Our response should be 
that the taxpayers, the heroes of this great Nation who care so much, 
will not provide as a matter of patronage support to an institution 
that makes a mockery out of the concern for human rights and makes of 
itself a farce in that theater.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, we are here right today doing the right thing. And 
I implore my colleagues, if my colleagues believe in the cause of 
liberty, freedom, safety, security, respect and decency, vote yes for 
this amendment. Send the world a message, America cares and America 
dares to stand up for any lost soul, beleaguered and tortured in any 
part of the world at any time and even in the case of the most callous 
affront that I have seen from this United Nations in my lifetime.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, George Bush said it well when he said that we do not 
need to do this. A superpower pays its bills. A superpower leads by 
example. A superpower does not cry when it does not get its way and 
then go and take all the marbles. Already this tit-for-tat mentality 
has resulted in the Bush administration canceling administration 
appointments with visiting members of the European parliament.
  I met with them yesterday and I am sure that they enjoyed meeting 
with me but I am not the same as meeting with the administration on 
very, very important and critical issues that pertain to the 
relationship between the United States and Europe, that very 
relationship that we are talking about today.
  Those members of parliament are going to go back to Europe, and they 
are going to write a report that is critical of the United States. So, 
yet again, we are going to involve ourselves in this tit-for-tat 
mentality that has the potential of spiralling out of control into the 
absurd.
  The last thing we need is for Congress to add fuel to the fire. We 
need to pay our bills. We need to participate in the United Nations. We 
need to help change those things that need to be corrected, and we need 
to do it through diplomacy not by going back on our word.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
agree with the Bush administration that the last thing we need it do is 
withhold funds that the United Nations severely needs that will result 
in us going back on our word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for 
bringing up this important bill.
  I agree with my colleagues in the condemnation of what happened at 
the United Nations at the hands and behest of China, Cuba, and other 
abusers of human rights. It is remarkable that the values of Sudan are 
now replacing the values of the United States at the United Nations in 
the human rights matters; a country that has already killed 2 million 
of their own occupants; a country that sells children to slavery for as 
little as $23; a country that, of course, crucifies children as young 
as

[[Page 7817]]

12 years old, 13 years old, 14 years old that refused to convert to 
Islam; a country this year that is holding back food aid unless people 
convert to the religion of their choice.
  The only thing I find humorous are the excuses for expulsion of the 
United States, Kyoto, family planning, SDI. Come on, give me a break. 
This is all about the fact that the United States has dared to stand 
down China, dared to stand down Sudan, Libya, other human rights 
abusers.
  That is all it is about. That is why we are out and that why is why 
France, who has constantly played to Third World dictators and tyrants 
got the most votes. Maybe that is not politically correct to say. It is 
the truth though.
  Chris Matthews last week said in response to this that the U.S. 
practically invented human rights. I know that sounds arrogant maybe to 
some of our friends in Europe who were offended, and they are going to 
go back and write reports about how they are offended at the United 
States.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Economic 
and Social Council, ECOSOC, took an action again that raises grave 
doubts about what kind of organization it is.
  During the last 6 days, editorial writers all across this country 
been working overtime to try and explain away the outrageous vote to 
deprive the U.S. of its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. As 
always, they are saying that it was the Kyoto treatment or the criminal 
court or somehow if we just paid our arrearages a little faster the 
problem would be solved. These are bogus, false pretenses, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The real reason why we have been thrown off the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission is because they want to silence what is clearly the 
strongest voice on the Commission in favor of human rights. The U.S. 
has insisted that the Commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth 
about human rights violations the world over. Some of the other nations 
on the commission, such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Malaysia, Libya, 
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth--
especially at it pertains to human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N. 
should be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage 
in torture, extrajudicial killings, rape as an instrument of terror, 
forced abortions, sterilization, and other kinds of discriminations.
  I urge a yes vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress voted to resolve the dispute 
over so-called ``United Nations arrearages''. The agreement was simple: 
we would pay almost all of the disputed amount, provided the United 
Nations would agree to treat the United States more fairly when it came 
to dues, peacekeeping assessments, and other issues--and provided the 
UN would also take concrete steps to put its own house in order.
  Then the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) took an action 
that again raises grave doubts about what kind of an organization it 
is. During the last six days, Mr. Chairman, editorial writers have been 
working overtime trying to explain away the outrageous vote to deprive 
the United States of the seat it has held since 1947 on the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission. As always, the central theme of these editorials is 
to blame America first. If only we had ratified the Kyoto Convention, 
or the CEDAW agreement, or the International Criminal Court. Or if only 
we had paid those disputed arrearages a little quicker. If only we had 
not been so ``unilateral'' which is the most bogus of all. Then perhaps 
we would have stayed in the good graces of ECOSOC and kept our seat on 
the Human Rights Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, the editorial writers are even more wrong this time 
than they usually are. The vote to exclude the United States from the 
Commission was primarily a vote to silence the strongest voice on the 
Commission in favor of human rights. The United States has insisted 
that the commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth about human 
rights violations the world over. And some of the other nations on the 
Commission, such as China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Libya, Algeria, 
Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth.
  Mr. Chairman, not only did this year's Human Rights Commission 
members vote for a ``no-action motion'' that prevented the Commission 
from even debating the human rights record of the People's Republic of 
China. It also voted for a resolution on Sudan that did not even 
mention the word ``slavery,'' and for a resolution on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict that did not mention human rights violations 
committed by the Palestinian Authority. I was there in Geneva with 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart--we are resented for sadly 
raising true issues.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the Human Rights 
Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N. should 
be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage in 
torture, extrajudicial killing, rape as an instrument of terror, forced 
abortion, forced sterilization, and other forms of persecution on 
account of race, religion, or political opinion. If being in arrears 
can result in the loss of a vote in the General Assembly--which is the 
rule--surely barbaric behavior should disqualify a nation from the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission. Without these important reforms, the 
Commission will be in grave danger of becoming, as our colleague Mr. 
Diaz-Balart has observed, no more than a ``club of tyrannies.''
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 16, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 
     10 on page 17.
       Page 117, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 119.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, during committee consideration of this bill, an en bloc 
amendment was adopted authorizing the $67 million per year that it 
would cost the United States to rejoin UNESCO and added a sense of 
Congress provision that the President should renew the membership and 
participation of the U.S. in this organization.
  My amendment would strike these provisions from the bill. I am well 
aware that several of my colleagues have argued that this agency has 
reformed itself over the past 15 years, but serious arguments against 
rejoining UNESCO remains. I believe that UNESCO can best be described 
as an organization in search of a mission. Unfortunately when it does 
stumble upon the mission, it is almost always one that is quite 
perverse.
  As I mentioned just a minute ago, it would cost us some $67 million 
per year to get back in; and I question whether this is a wise use of 
resources.
  David Malone, the president of the International Peace Academy in New 
York and a former Canadian Foreign Ministry official, is not optimistic 
about the prospects for reform by the new Director General of UNESCO, 
Mr. Koichiro Matsura of Japan, ``the problem of UNESCO is that 
successive heads have turned it into a personal patronage machine, 
neglecting programs and bloating the staffing.'' Mr. Malone went on to 
say, ``we used to all know what the UNESCO objectives were. Now nobody 
knows what UNESCO does beyond the World Heritage sites, and whoever 
consults UNESCO now on science?''
  By the way, UNESCO is the organization that has charge of the man and

[[Page 7818]]

the biosphere sites, another one of those peculiar entities that this 
House, by the way, has struck down several times.
  An article from The New York Times from March of last year reported 
that the new director general plans to use millions of dollars of his 
organization's funds to help restore colonial Havana. It is not at all 
clear to me why we should be rejoining an organization which is 
promoting tourism in Cuba.
  According to an independent audit by the Canadian government, UNESCO 
rarely evaluates the cost effectiveness of its programs or sets 
specific objectives. It is an annual budget of close to $400 million. 
It continues to promote such things as the New World Information Order. 
This is the name of this organization, quote, ``Presenting and 
Revitalizing Our Intangible Heritage'' and ``Planet Society, a 
Worldwide Exchange Network for a New Art of Living on Earth.''
  One of the arguments of the proponents of rejoining UNESCO appears to 
be based on the principle that the U.S. should be a member of every 
major organization in the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, in light of our 
summary exclusion from U.N. Economic and Social Council, the 
International Narcotics and Drug Control Board and the Commission on 
Human Rights, now is the time to critically review our existing 
memberships in the United Nations organizations and not the time to 
rejoin another U.N. body at enormous expense.
  Finally, the U.S. government now gives $2 million to $3 million 
annually to UNESCO in voluntary contributions to cover projects we 
believe to be worthwhile. If we were to rejoin, we would be obliged to 
fund the good and the bad alike.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), whose action was strongly approved by 
members of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding time on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that UNESCO is the most important 
international body that has ever been created. I can say it is a 
credible international body. The United States chose to withdraw from 
UNESCO in the 1980s for a variety of reasons. Some stem from management 
styles; some stem from politicalization on several kinds of issues. But 
in each of these circumstances, there has been reform.
  We object to not being reelected to another U.N. body and we may be, 
in the eyes of some, poor losers.

                              {time}  1315

  But the fact of the matter is, in UNESCO, we are a poor winner. We 
have achieved the objectives we wanted. Not to return implies that, 
when the United States gets its way, we continue to put our head in the 
sand.
  It is interesting that Secretary of State George Shultz, who signed 
the withdrawal notice in the 1980s, now supports returning. There are 
188 member nations of UNESCO. While UNESCO does have a cost, for the 
United States to say we cannot afford our share is a bit awkward for 
the world's wealthiest country.
  I do acknowledge that there is a costliness of Paris. Having said 
that, France was our first ally. For the United States simply to be 
opposed to institutions in Paris is not a very credible circumstance.
  Finally, let me say education, science, culture are esoteric. On the 
other hand, they matter in the world. For the United States of America 
to argue we are better off with empty chair diplomacy is an error if 
not an oxymoron. Therefore, for very decent, credible reasons that 
apply to UNESCO itself but also have ramifications for our whole role 
in international organizations in the world today, it is very 
appropriate for the United States to resume a world leadership 
position. That is exactly what we should do.
  Therefore, with great respect, I hope this amendment would be turned 
back.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Tancredo 
amendment which would strike an ill-advised provision of the foreign 
relations authorization bill.
  It is regrettable that the authorization bill provides for the United 
States to rejoin UNESCO and set aside funds for that purpose from a 
strained international organization's budget. Whatever funding we give 
to UNESCO would have to come from other U.N. agencies such as the World 
Health Organization or the Food and Agriculture Organization. 
Furthermore, UNESCO continues to be plagued with poor management 
practices.
  The world has struggled on without American membership in UNESCO 
since 1984 without any noticeable effect. We do, however, participate 
on a voluntary basis in several UNESCO projects that directly benefit 
American institutions. If we were now to rejoin UNESCO, we would be 
putting ourselves in a position of being forced to bear a large portion 
of a budget in an institution where we would be constantly outvoted.
  This is just the sort of a situation that the recent fiasco 
surrounding our U.N. Human Rights Commission membership should warn us 
against being forced to bear costs all out of proportion to any 
influence we may have to bear.
  Hopefully, if the administration will consider and report on the best 
way to change our relationship to UNESCO, it would be helpful. But I am 
simply not prepared at this time to accept the provision reported by 
our committee.
  Accordingly, I urge support for the Tancredo amendment striking the 
UNESCO provision from the authorization bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, arguably the most respected Republican Secretary of 
State of recent decades is George Shultz. In 1984, Secretary Shultz 
recommended that we withdraw from the United Nations; and many of us, 
myself included, supported him because the UNESCO at that time was a 
corrupt anti-American organization. It has cleaned up its act. Our 
former Secretary of State, Republican George Shultz, and our former 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Democrat, are recommending now 
that we rejoin UNESCO.
  I find it almost ludicrous that we spent the previous hour debating 
the United States being voted off a U.N. body. Here we have an 
opportunity of joining a U.N. body, the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization. It is waiting for us with open arms.
  We are debating as to whether we should enter an organization which 
has over 180 members. The United States is conspicuous by its absence, 
and the lack of a United States voice on UNESCO is hurting our foreign 
policy and international interests.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject the amendment of the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to preserve the action taken in the 
Committee on International Relations, and usher in a new era of U.S. 
participation in UNESCO.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, section 104 would provide an 
enormous amount of money, $130 million over 2 years. That is more than 
half a billion dollars over 10 years, $60 million a year thereafter for 
the U.S. to become a part of UNESCO.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to strike 
this new commitment of funds is prudent, and I believe it deserves 
support of this body. It seems to me that, before we make this enormous 
financial commitment, should not we know the cost benefit of this open-
ended commitment? How vital is UNESCO vis-a-vis other commitments that 
we might make otherwise?

[[Page 7819]]

  We left, Mr. Chairman, in 1984, because of mismanagement, because of 
highly questionable policies especially in the realm of state control 
of the press.
  I would point out to my colleagues no recent hearings have been held 
on rejoining. What is it that we are buying into? We need, it seems to 
me, a generous amount of due diligence before any decision is made on 
this.
  I would just note parenthetically that, if we have a half a billion 
dollars over the next 10 years and it is in excess of that lying 
around, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have some 
very, very worthy projects in the area of health care that I would like 
to dedicate that money to before we start throwing money at UNESCO.
  So I would hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) would get the support of this body.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, whatever any American may have thought about UNESCO 
when the U.S. withdrew in 1984, today UNESCO is a different body. It 
has adopted a culture of reform that is improving management and 
streamlining personnel and putting the organization's finances in 
order. Today UNESCO is an efficient and effective advocate for free 
speech, for education and scientific collaboration worldwide. 
Membership in UNESCO would benefit every American.
  As the gentleman friend from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, 
even former Secretary Shultz, who presided over U.S. withdrawal, now 
has reversed his position, has indicated that the improvements call for 
reentry of U.S. into UNESCO.
  Now, as a scientist and a policy maker, I believe that UNESCO would 
lead, of course, to cultural enrichment but even more. CIA director 
George Tenet recently testified that some of the greatest threats to 
the U.S. from abroad come from official corruption, endemic poverty, 
mass illiteracy, environmental disruption, and the spread of infectious 
diseases. UNESCO addresses these emerging threats by promoting good 
government, universal education, sustainable development, and disease 
control.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this 
amendment. If one takes a look across this country, and people talk 
about reducing the debt, they talk about money for education, health 
care, but yet they want to put $1 billion into the United Nations. They 
want to spend $67 million a year for UNESCO.
  I mean, think about it. That money is going to take away from the 
World Health Fund. It is going to take away from the Children's Fund 
and things that are effective to a risky scheme like UNESCO that they 
say, quote, has changed. It has not.
  The authors of this amendment have thought it through very, very 
carefully. It is no wonder that there was never a balanced budget on 
this House floor for 40 years or people wanted to dump money into 
welfare without reform when the average was 16 years on welfare. We owe 
it to the American people to be the guardians of their tax dollars and 
the effectiveness of those dollars.
  Support the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in firm opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  When the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984, I believe we did 
so for the right reasons. Mismanagement and corruption characterized an 
organization best known for being a forum for American bashing.
  Today UNESCO is not the same as it was in 1984. This organization is 
making important contributions in the area of education and science 
around the world. The U.S. participation in such an organization can 
only strengthen its ability to carry out the fine work it performs 
every day. In fact, the United Kingdom, which also withdrew its support 
from UNESCO in step with the United States in 1984, had returned as a 
full member of this worthy organization.
  The recent decision by the Taliban government in Afghanistan to 
destroy the historical Buddhist statues demonstrates that the 
preservation and restoration of cultural treasures sometimes cannot be 
left solely in the hands of national governments. From preserving these 
statues to preserving Timbuktu, the role of UNESCO is still important 
today.
  During a week in which we lost two important seats on the United 
Nations commissions, it is important we send a message to the 
international community that the United States is ready and willing to 
participate whenever it is called to duty.
  Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just note in response to my colleagues 
discussion here that I do not believe the Taliban asked permission from 
UNESCO when they blew up those statues, and of course they never would.
  That is the whole point here. UNESCO is irrelevant in this whole 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my unqualified support for the 
Tancredo amendment. There are one or two organizations in the world we 
do not have to join and do not have to subsidize to survive, and one is 
certainly UNESCO.
  $65 million a year at least for 2 years takes money away from the 
World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, 
things that are useful, that do have an agenda, that works for the 
people.
  This money the State Department does not want, has not asked for it. 
If we go ahead with this, we are going to have to take it from 
something else. We withdrew in 1984, and we have gotten along famously 
since then without this heavy subsidization to an organization whose 
aims are amorphous at best.
  One of the things they do, I find this hard to believe, is they are 
engaged in a project of renovating downtown Havana. Now, that may be a 
wonderful thing if one lives in Havana, but I do not see why the 
taxpayers from my district should pay for something like that.
  The sense of taking money away because of the Human Rights Commission 
and thrusting it forward because someone thinks it is a good idea to 
belong to UNESCO does not make a lot of sense. I think we can save the 
$65 million. What a wonderful thing that would be.
  We do not need to join UNESCO. Let those other countries that like 
that sort of thing do it. So I would support the Tancredo amendment 
with great enthusiasm.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me applaud both the chairman 
and the ranking member for bringing this important legislation to the 
floor of the House.
  I think if one asks the American people, one will find out that the 
American people are concerned about world affairs; and to dismiss the 
myth, they are concerned and they want to be engaged.
  So I come to the floor of the House to, first of all, support the 
United Nations and offer the fact that we are engaged, we are in 
conversation, we are speaking to individuals in countries that we 
heretofore have opportunity.

[[Page 7820]]

  World peace is truly more viable than world war. I think it is 
important to support UNESCO. We need to understand what it does. It 
promotes free press. It promotes education. It only costs 25 cents per 
American. It allows us to promote the cultural values of these Nations 
and have the cultural exchange of these Nations.

                              {time}  1330

  And I believe that we should stand here today and acknowledge the 
importance of world affairs, the importance of America being engaged in 
world affairs, the importance of freedom, and the importance of the 
United Nations. And I hope as we do that, we will find that this Nation 
will get its seat on the Human Rights Commission and will lead out in 
world affairs in the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 1646, 
the State Authorization Bill. This amendment would strike language in 
the bill directing the President to rejoin the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and strike 
language authorizing payment of the U.S. assessed contribution to the 
organization.
  I strongly urge you to vote ``no'' on the Trancredo amendment. It 
fails to recognize the great progress UNESCO has achieved in reforming 
its management and mission. It fails to appreciate the significant 
benefits Americans would enjoy with U.S. membership in UNESCO. And it 
fails to seize the opportunity to exercise American leadership and 
further our national interests.
  When the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 under Secretary 
of State George Shultz, I fully supported the decision, as did many of 
our Democratic and Republican colleagues. At the time, UNESCO was 
chronically mismanaged and corrupt, and had become a forum for 
spreading anti-American propaganda and suppressing free speech.
  But since then, UNESCO has reinvented itself. Under the leadership of 
its new Director General, Koichiro Matsuura, UNESCO has adopted a 
culture of reform that has yielded concrete progress toward improving 
management, stamping out corruption, streamlining personnel, and 
putting the organization's financial house in order. Today, UNESCO is 
an efficient and effective champion of free speech, education and 
scientific collaboration worldwide.
  This dramatic progress has not gone unnoticed. In 1993, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) audited UNESCO and concluded that it had made 
``good progress' toward implementing improvements and ``demonstrated a 
commitment to management reform.'' And as a recent article appearing in 
the International Herald Tribune on the reverse side observes, UNESCO 
has overcome ideological divisions to forge a ``new spirit of 
activism'' that ``aims to spread knowledge and preserve diversity.'' In 
light of these changes at UNESCO, former Secretary of State Shultz, in 
a letter dated September 26 of last year, reversed his position and 
indicated his support for America's re-entry into UNESCO. Secretary 
Shultz was right to advocate U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 1984--and 
he is right to advocate U.S. reentry into UNESCO today.
  Membership in UNESCO is clearly in U.S. National interests. As the 
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recently testified, the 
greatest future threats to U.S. national security from abroad include 
instability caused by official corruption, endemic poverty, mass 
illiteracy, environmental disruptions, and the spread of infectious 
diseases. UNESCO addresses each of these emerging threats by promoting 
good government, universal education, sustainable development, and 
preventative disease control. U.S. membership in UNESCO will enable us 
to better combat the threats Americans face in the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to the Tancredo amendment 
tomorrow and support strengthening America's leadership role by 
rejoining UNESCO.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment.
  Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I fully supported 
the decision of the Reagan administration to withdraw the U.S. from 
UNESCO because of its anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli 
stance. Today, however, UNESCO has reformed itself, improved its 
management, stamped out corruption, and put UNESCO's financial house in 
order.
  UNESCO is no longer the proponent of anti-Western propaganda it once 
was. It no longer espouses anti-U.S., anti-Israeli, and anti-Western 
rhetoric. And we can see today that UNESCO is the U.N. agency for press 
freedom, setting up an uncensored newspaper and broadcasters in the 
former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Burundi. It is advancing human rights, 
core U.S. interests, such as economic development and trade, and 
American values in every country.
  It is a tiny fraction, the $59.8 million, of what the U.S. spends on 
military expenditures when instability abroad escalates into conflict 
and refugee migrations. This is the purpose for which the U.S. founded 
UNESCO with its allies in 1945, conflict prevention, and that is why I 
think we should not support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, let me say a word about the costs. The cost of rejoining this 
important international organization, that every other nation on the 
face of this planet is a member of, is 25 cents per person per year. So 
I cannot see the crocodile tears that the United States cannot afford 
25 cents to join a global organization dealing with education, science, 
and cultural affairs.
  I also think, Mr. Chairman, that it is irrational unilateralism to 
suddenly declare, despite the statements of the distinguished 
Republican former Secretary of State, George Shultz, that this is a 
worthless organization. George Shultz was our Secretary of State for 
the entire period almost of the Reagan administration. Everybody had 
great respect for him. Why do we suddenly think that he is not worthy 
of listening to? He is telling us rejoin UNESCO. That is the voice of 
the Secretary of State of the Reagan administration. Madeleine Albright 
is telling us the same thing.
  And all of us who have studied this organization are rejoicing in the 
fact it has corrected its ways. It is functioning in a professional 
fashion, and it is in America's national interest to have our voice 
heard within UNESCO. Please reject the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Tancredo amendment, which would strike language in the bill urging the 
administration to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization, and providing funding for that purpose. I 
commend the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach, for introducing the UNESCO 
provision into H.R. 1646 at the markup of the House International 
Relations Committee. I strongly agree with Mr. Leach that UNESCO has 
undergone substantial reforms and made important changes to address the 
management problems and anti-American bias that existed when the U.S. 
withdrew in 1984. The reforms have been independently confirmed by a 
GAO study in 1993.
  The 188-Member States of UNESCO pursue a common objective of 
contributing to peace and security internationally by promoting 
collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and 
communication. UNESCO's global agenda addresses threats on the U.S., 
such as environmental crises and infectious disease, and promotes 
democratic values such as freedom of speech and press, universal 
education and human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, now that UNESCO has been reformed, it is appropriate 
and in our national interest that the United States participate with 
this organization in pursuit of these worthy goals. I urge our 
colleagues to oppose the Tancredo amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those

[[Page 7821]]

amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following 
order: amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and 
amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeLay

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded voted on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282, 
noes 137, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               AYES--282

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--137

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cubin
     Diaz-Balart
     Emerson
     Hunter
     Latham
     Moakley
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sensenbrenner
     Stump
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. MANZULLO, PHELPS, SPRATT, SCHIFF, SMITH of Washington, Mrs. 
THURMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to clause 6 of 
rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed 
further proceedings.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 165, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--252

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves

[[Page 7822]]


     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--165

     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn