[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18036-18046]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1950, FOREIGN RELATIONS 
             AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 316

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1950) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to 
     authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act 
     and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security 
     assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     International Relations. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     International Relations now printed in the bill modified by 
     the amendments recommended by the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Energy and Commerce also printed in the bill. 
     That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to 
     that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc 
     described in section 2. Each amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report (except as specified in 
     section 3), may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as specified in the report, shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules or against amendments en bloc described in 
     section 2 are waived.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on International Relations or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     considered. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this

[[Page 18037]]

     section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
     Relations or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 3. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
     Committee on International Relations or a designee 
     prospectively announces from the floor a request to that 
     effect.
       Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 316 is a structured rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. The Committee on Rules worked well 
into last evening in order to ensure a rule that is fair, that grants 
opportunity to this Congress to debate the major issue of the day in 
this field. In fact, out of the 75 or so amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules, 42, 42 were made in order by this rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations. The rule provides for a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1950 was introduced by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), along with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman). The legislation authorizes $9.6 billion in fiscal year 2004 
and $9.5 billion in 2005 to address the need of the State Department 
and their executive operations. The legislation includes significant 
language and funding to ensure international security through important 
assistance programs and activities.
  To highlight the need for this critical legislation, Mr. Speaker, we 
really need to look only 90 miles south of Florida to see the evils of 
an oppressive dictatorship. The regime there in Cuba is the only 
dictatorship in the western hemisphere, and it works to subvert the 
message of freedom not only on the island of Cuba but elsewhere in the 
world. As we have seen this week, there are reports that the Cuban 
dictatorship is jamming U.S.-based broadcasting to Iran. This 
demonstrates the need, once again, to reinforce our message of freedom 
to the entire world.

                              {time}  1045

  I think the world has recognized, at least recently since the very 
brutal crackdown in March of this year by the Cuban regime, where many 
of the country's most well-known and many of the most courageous 
prodemocracy activists were thrown in dungeons, that the nature of the 
Cuban regime is one that must be condemned and certainly that it must 
be isolated.
  This legislation includes an increase of funding at $15 million for 
democracy-building programs while authorizing countless other programs 
such as continued radio and television capabilities to make sure that 
the message of freedom reaches the people of Cuba. I would like to 
commend the chairman and ranking member for recognizing the needs for 
international broadcasts not only for Cuba but for many other places in 
the world that are still under tyranny.
  While I think it is essential to address dictatorships such as the 
one in Cuba, many other people are also fighting for essential and 
inalienable rights.
  For years designated terrorist organizations in Colombia, for 
example, have plagued efforts by the people of that country to live in 
a peaceful democracy. I think proactive action must be taken to ensure 
that armed rebels in Colombia such as the FARC and the ELN are not 
continued to be allowed to disrupt peace with impunity.
  H.R. 1950 provides funding to further secure, among other things, Mr. 
Speaker, United States embassies throughout the world in order to 
maintain a strong diplomatic presence for the United States abroad.
  We made in order, and later today the House will be considering, an 
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos) to authorize the 
Millennium Challenge Account, a very important initiative of President 
Bush's. This historic expansion of foreign assistance will serve to 
bring economic security and some basic tenets of transparency to 
countries throughout the world. That Millennium Challenge Account will 
be administered by a government entity held responsible for results and 
benefiting from the flexibility to provide innovative solutions to the 
problems of poverty and oppression.
  The main goal of that account will be to assure that U.S. foreign aid 
is targeted towards transparency and breaking down corruption where 
U.S. foreign aid goes to.
  Funding for this important program is phased in under this 
legislation, beginning with $1.3 billion next fiscal year and 
continuing with $3 billion in fiscal 2005 and $5 billion in 2006. By 
the last fiscal year, this challenge account will be financially able 
to assist all those countries currently counted by the World Bank as 
what it terms lower-middle-income countries.
  I am proud that the Committee on Rules did its job to provide a full 
and fair discussion through 42 amendments, Mr. Speaker, so we should 
let the debate begin.
  This is a good bill, H.R. 1950, and this rule is fair, and it 
provides for much debate on many important issues. Through this 
legislation, the House will continue its important work to fund 
important State Department actions while, I believe, beginning the 
journey to relieve burdens on those across the globe that need 
assistance.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
chairman, again, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
ranking member, for their great leadership. As I said yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules, for me, it is an honor to be able to serve in this 
legislative body with both of them.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is a place of great creativity. 
At times, rules reported by the committee bend, stretch, and outright 
waive the rules of the House in order to ensure passage of legislation. 
Many times, substantive amendments that deserve to be debated are 
denied a vote.
  Late last night, the Committee on Rules met to report the rule for 
H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This is a complex, 
omnibus bill that brings together no less than seven important pieces 
of legislation. Specifically, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
includes the State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 
and 2005, the Global Internet Freedom Act of 2003, the Missile Threat

[[Page 18038]]

Reduction Act of 2003, the International Free Media Act of 2003, the 
United States International Leadership Act of 2003, the Defense Trade 
and Security Assistance Reform Act of 2003, and the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.
  H.R. 1950, as reported by the Committee on International Relations, 
is a bipartisan bill that authorizes funding for foreign military aid 
and training programs, programs that reduce the threat of missile 
proliferation, international broadcasting activities, U.S. 
contributions to international organizations and multilateral financial 
institution, and for economic development and humanitarian foreign 
assistance programs.
  Like most other major bills, there are serious points of contention. 
Several controversial provisions have been included; others have been 
deleted. This rule has made consideration of H.R. 1950 more complex and 
more contentious than it needs to be.
  The Republican leadership, as it has done in the past, ordered the 
Committee on Rules to deny consideration of many of these contentious 
issues in order to protect their members from having to take a tough 
vote; but before I explain the problems with the rule, let me say that 
I am pleased that the Hyde-Lantos amendment creating the Millennium 
Challenge Account and reauthorizing the Peace Corps was made in order. 
With the adoption of the Hyde-Lantos amendment, this bill will contain 
one of the most important and ambitious foreign policy initiatives 
undertaken by the United States to help lift countries out of poverty.
  The Millennium Challenge Account is intended to reward poor countries 
that demonstrate a commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, 
and promoting economic freedom. It is supported by the administration 
and by the many nongovernmental development and humanitarian 
organizations engaged in antipoverty programs around the world.
  The Millennium Challenge Account focuses on assistance to low-income 
countries, has a strong emphasis on the role of women in the design and 
implementation of these programs, and gives careful attention to 
coordinating MCA programs with our existing development priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I was relieved to hear from the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), the ranking member, that the funding for the Millennium 
Challenge Account programs will come from additional foreign aid 
funding and that it will not rob funds from existing economic 
development, humanitarian, and food assistance accounts.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking 
member, for their leadership on establishing the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation and its programs. I believe the Committee on International 
Relations improved the President's initial proposal. Economic growth 
and prosperity lift people out of poverty and help prevent the chaos 
created from conflict, misery, and hopelessness. It is in the national 
security interests of the United States to see these new programs fully 
funded and implemented once they are established by the passage of H.R. 
1950.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to watch the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), the ranking member, work together. They truly understand the 
meaning of the word bipartisanship, and their commitment to this ideal 
should be a model for this Congress.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership does not share 
the same view as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, there are real policy differences that are part of this 
bill. For example, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) offered an 
amendment in the Committee on International Relations increasing 
funding for the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA. Many anti-
choice Members in this body opposed this provision.
  Instead of using the rule to unfairly strike this provision from the 
bill, the Committee on Rules made the Smith amendment in order. Mr. 
Speaker, this is democracy. This is how the legislative process is 
designed to work. Every Member will be able to vote their conscience 
and vote up or down on whether or not to strike the Crowley amendment 
from the bill; and while I will oppose this amendment very strongly and 
very passionately to strike the Crowley amendment, every Member 
deserves the option to vote their conscience.
  Unfortunately, this is a rare break from the way the Republicans 
traditionally run this body; but rest assured that they have returned 
to form with the rest of this bill.
  Seventy-five amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and 
42 amendments were made in order, but numbers do not tell the whole 
truth. This rule must also be judged by the amendments that are not in 
the rule, by the important issues we have prohibited from debating.
  More than 20 very important Democratic amendments were denied the 
opportunity to be debated and voted on by this body. In one case, an 
amendment adopted by one committee and stripped from the bill by 
another was denied the opportunity to be considered. The Republican 
majority refused to make in order the following amendments. I am just 
going to name a few of them:
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that 
would have provided assistance to Afghan women;
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to 
promote environmental sustainability by requiring environmental impact 
assessments for millennium challenge projects;
  An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) that 
urges U.S. leadership by participating in negotiations on climate 
change to reduce greenhouse gases;
  An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) requesting 
an IG investigation into the Niger uranium intelligence documents that 
led to the President's use of this misinformation in making the case 
for war in Iraq;
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that 
would have provided funding for removal of land mines and agriculture 
redevelopment of former mine fields;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) to 
designate Poland as a participant in the visa waiver program;
  An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) urging 
the administration to conclude a comprehensive migration agreement with 
Mexico; and
  An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) 
urging the President to engage in an open dialogue with the Government 
of Poland to achieve a final settlement for those Jews, homosexuals, 
European Roma, and other individuals and groups who had their private 
property seized by the Nazis during World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, these amendments were all offered in good faith, and 
they deserve the right to be debated and voted by the Members of this 
body. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership 
would deny us the chance to vote on these amendments and instead hide 
behind arithmetic to argue that they are being fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Every week, pursuant to an idea of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), he and I rise on this floor to speak about the brave men and 
women who are languishing in prisons in totalitarian Cuba, an island 
that has been oppressed for 44 years by a totalitarian dictator. So 
each week I spend a

[[Page 18039]]

few minutes at least bringing forth specific cases to remind our 
colleagues and all those who will listen about the horrors taking place 
just 90 miles from the shores of the United States.
  This week, I would like to speak about Rafael Ibarra. Rafael Ibarra 
heads the 30th of November Democratic Party, an island-wide opposition 
movement to the Castro tyranny. In 1994, he was sentenced to 20 years 
in prison and is currently at the prison known as Combinado del Este, 
after having spent 3 years in an isolation cell in the province of 
Camaguey, in an area of Camaguey in Cuba, hundreds of miles from his 
family.
  In 1997, his wife at the time, Maritza Lugo, also a highly respected 
prodemocracy activist, was arrested as well and sentenced to 2 years, 
leaving their two daughters without parents. On multiple occasions 
after 1999, Maritza would continue to be arrested and harassed by the 
regime. Even when Maritza and Rafael were both in prison at the same 
time, the dictator sought to evict their two girls from their small 
farmhouse which had become a gathering point for human rights and 
prodemocracy meetings.
  Rafael Ibarra was one of the political prisoners who recently signed 
the Cuban flag painted on a pillow case and sent it to the United 
Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
  Maritza and her two daughters, at Rafael's request, fled Cuba as 
refugees in 2002 to the United States so that the girls could be able 
to live in freedom.
  Next year, Mr. Speaker, will mark 10 years that Rafael has been 
imprisoned, much of that time in solitary confinement. While other 
fathers have been able to watch their daughters grow and guide them as 
they become young adults, Rafael has been confined in Castro's gulag 
for daring to dream and to work on behalf of a democratic Cuba.
  Our thoughts and our prayers are with him, as is our solidarity and 
our profound admiration, and we demand once again the liberation of 
Rafael Ibarra and all of Cuba's political prisoners.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules; and I wish to thank him 
for his courtesy in being here this morning.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart), for his stellar management of it, as well as my friend, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The Committee on Rules, as was said by both gentlemen, worked into 
the night to fashion this rule, and it will allow for the consideration 
of a wide range of very important issues. As was further pointed out by 
both of my colleagues, 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to 
us were made in order. We have 23 Republican amendments, 13 Democratic 
amendments, and six bipartisan amendments in that package, which will, 
I believe, allow us to consider many, many different issues of this 
important piece of legislation.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), Mr. Speaker, raised 
a number of important issues on amendments that, quite frankly, have 
not been made in order; and, obviously, everyone understands that we 
have to have some kind of constraint on the amendment process as we 
proceed with 75 amendments, many of which are duplicative. And so we 
have to put some kind of structure in order. That is the raison d'etre 
for the Committee on Rules, in fact.
  So as he addressed those issues, I was thinking that many of those 
are important and need to be looked at, obviously focusing on 
environmental issues, focusing on the issue of the transfer of uranium. 
These are all questions that should be addressed. I agree with him that 
they should be addressed, but I would argue that this institution is 
effectively and very responsibly taking them on. Today, for example, on 
the issue of the Schiff amendment, we have the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence here in the House, very ably chaired by the 
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), and in the Senate our colleague Pat Roberts is working on 
this issue; and obviously that is going to be an issue of discussion 
there and I believe will be responsibly addressing that question.
  On other issues which the administration can very effectively 
address, I know that they are committed to improved environmental 
quality and other issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) brought forward as well.
  I want to, Mr. Speaker, talk about a number of very important 
measures in this legislation which I am particularly supportive of, and 
I want to talk about a couple of amendments that I am going to be 
dealing with. First, I had the privilege of cochairing, along with our 
former colleague Lee Hamilton, who was in fact the predecessor of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), having served as chairman of what 
was called then the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. Hamilton and I cochaired a task force that was put together by 
the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, and the particular 
charge was to look at the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations. 
We obviously know, leading up to U.N. resolution 1441, before the war 
with Iraq, and the challenge of trying to put together a multinational 
coalition in dealing with the liberation of Iraq and the war on 
terrorism and a wide range of other international challenges that we 
face, that there has been a question out there about the U.S. 
leadership role. So this task force, I believe, came forward with some 
very, very first-rate recommendations, and I am happy that we have been 
able to include those recommendations as part of this bill.
  I introduced, along with the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations, our very able colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the package that is basically described as the 
International Leadership Act; and it will, I believe, take us down the 
road towards improving the role of the United States in the United 
Nations.
  Now, many of the recommendations that are there are designed to deal 
with challenges like the fact, and this is unbelievable, the United 
States of America's being removed from the Human Rights Commission 
within the United Nations and one of the most repressive anti-human 
rights entities on the face of the Earth, Libya, being given the 
opportunity to preside over that structure looking at human rights. 
Well, obviously, there is something wrong with this picture, Mr. 
Speaker; and I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that.
  We need to do what we can to encourage self-determination, political 
pluralism, and the rule of law worldwide; and I believe that those are 
goals that the United States and most nations that are members of the 
United Nations share. But, unfortunately, we have not had the kind of 
success in doing that that we would like, so it is for that reason that 
we have in this legislation the U.S. International Leadership Act, 
which will do things like encourage the establishment of a democracy 
caucus. It will encourage the United States to engage even more 
actively than we already do under the very able leadership of our 
first-rate ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. We will 
be involved in a lot of things that, frankly, are modeled after the 
work here in the United States Congress, which I hope can be utilized 
to enhance the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations.
  So I want to congratulate both my friends Lee Hamilton and the other 
great members who served on our task force, along with my colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and I want to say that this 
has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from our friends, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others. And so I look forward to 
discussing this further. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) will, but I wanted to raise that now at this juncture.

[[Page 18040]]


  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), be allowed to continue 
controlling the time for our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Without objection, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) now controls the majority's time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there 
are a couple of other issues that are very, very important that need to 
be addressed here. One of them has to do with the challenge we have 
been dealing with in California, and it has to do with the issue of 
extradition.
  Very tragically, last year a constituent of my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), happened to be near the area 
that I represent, Irwindale, California. He was with the Los Angeles 
Sheriff's Department and he was, unfortunately, killed. His murder was 
reportedly by a Mexican national, who, after murdering Deputy Sheriff 
David March, shooting him point-blank, fled to Mexico. We have been 
dealing with the challenge of trying to extradite this man who we 
believe is responsible for this murder back to the United States so 
that he can face justice here.
  We know that there is a challenge within the Mexican constitution. 
They prevent extradition to countries that have a death penalty. And 
while I happen to personally be a proponent of the death penalty, we 
know that is a hotly debated issue here in the United States. But for 
that reason, because of the prospect of this individual facing the 
death penalty, he has not been extradited; and, in fact, the request 
has not formally been made for his extradition.
  But there is another decision the Mexican Government made, and it had 
to do with the Supreme Court in December of 2001. They came down with a 
ruling that said that life imprisonment is, in fact, cruel and unusual 
punishment, and that has played a role in hindering the opportunity for 
this individual to be extradited back to the United States to face 
justice.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has an amendment, which I 
will be strongly supporting, that basically calls on both countries to 
try and bring about a resolution to work this issue out. I have to say, 
Mr. Speaker, that I have been working closely with the very able 
Mexican ambassador to the United States on this issue; and I am 
convinced that within the leadership of Mexico, President Fox and other 
leaders obviously want justice. And so the McKeon amendment simply 
encourages a resolution to that which I hope will take place in the 
near future.
  Having spent time talking with family members of Sheriff March and 
others in Los Angeles who have spent a lot of time focusing on this 
issue, it is very clear that justice is a priority. And I want to say 
that I hope that with passage of the McKeon amendment it will help us 
in our attempt to deal with this question.
  I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be offering an 
amendment here which will deal with the overall issue of migration. I 
know there was a lot of discussion in the Committee on International 
Relations on this. I know the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 
worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and others; and I am 
joining, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), with whom I am privileged to serve as cochairman of the 
U.S.-Mexico Caucus, which was established at the encouragement of 
Ambassador Bremer, and our goal has been to focus on the overall issue 
of trade between Mexico and the United States and the fact that we have 
seen tremendous benefits that have come about because of the passage of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  In fact, we have seen trade between our two countries move from 1993, 
prepassage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, at about $83 
billion, to around $230 billion. So virtually a tripling of the trade 
between our two countries. So the U.S.-Mexico Caucus has been charged 
with looking at the real benefits and ways that we can actually enhance 
the relationship between our two countries.
  So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have joined as 
coauthors of an amendment which will deal with the overall issue of 
migration and encourage action on that, and I am hoping that we will be 
able to enhance the level of bipartisan support we have for this 
measure. It does, in fact, rectify something that I believe should not 
have been in the measure that was reported out of the Committee on 
International Relations with the United States basically calling on the 
Mexican Government to privatize Pemex, which is the oil company in 
Mexico.
  We all recognize that there are problems within the operations of 
Pemex. In fact, I have yet to talk to a Mexican who has said to me 
anything other than that there are problems with Pemex. But I do not 
believe it is correct for the United States Congress to basically 
provide as a contingency for dealing with our very important migration 
policy, which Secretary Powell and this administration obviously want 
to address in a very responsible way, I do not believe that that should 
in any way be contingent upon our seeing Mexico deal with their 
challenge with Pemex. We want them to do that, but we obviously are not 
going to tie our goal of dealing with migration to a resolution to 
that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. It is a balanced rule 
that, as I said, allows 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to 
us to be considered. This legislation has some problems with it. I will 
admit it is not perfect. And I know there are some in the 
administration who have raised understandable concerns about a number 
of issues. But I believe that we can work very positively towards 
dealing with a number of those with the amendment process that has been 
put into place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time remains 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) has 22\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time to speak on this rule.
  One of the pleasures of serving on the Committee on International 
Relations is the spirit of bipartisanship that is exhibited by our 
committee chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); our ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the give and 
take on the committee to deal with issues that truly should be 
bipartisan in nature that deal with international affairs of our 
country.
  I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules speak to 
the need for international leadership and some concerns he had in the 
United Nations. Well, I am sad that the rule that is before us today 
does not permit us to debate one of the most significant issues of 
international leadership that the United States should be involved 
with, and that deals with global warming.

                              {time}  1115

  It is sad that the Committee on Rules would not permit the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to reinstate his amendment that passed 
with a bipartisan vote on our committee on perhaps the single most 
important environmental issue of our day, global warming.
  I know that some of the consultants from the Republican establishment 
are talking about talking differently about the environment. We are not 
supposed to talk about global warming. It is climate change. We are 
supposed to have

[[Page 18041]]

questions about whether or not it is occurring. The fact is that the 
consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is 
happening, it is impacted by human activity, and the United States is 
missing in action.
  One can disagree with the approach of the administration turning its 
back on Kyoto and not providing an alternative. I am less concerned 
about what they are doing with Kyoto than the fact that we are not 
engaging the international community. I hope the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will speak on this rule. It is critical.
  The American public understands that the climate is changing. Global 
warming is impacting all of us. I do not think it is any accident that 
there were 562 tornadoes in the month of May, more than any month in 
record; that in India's pre-monsoon season, we are seeing a spike in 
temperature, leading to hundreds and hundreds of deaths; that the 
hottest 10 years in recorded history have occurred since 1990. We as 
Congress need to embrace this debate. We should not be afraid of it.
  I am sad that the Committee on Energy and Commerce stripped this 
language from the bill. That is the right of their committee 
leadership, but we ought to have the right on the floor of this Chamber 
to deal with the single most important environmental issue of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this rule be rejected, but I 
strongly hope that this is the last time that Congress is going to be 
missing in action on the issue on global climate change, that we will 
have free and open and forthright debate. The American public deserves 
it, not just on this bill but on each environmental issue that follows 
to deal with this matter.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the distinguished chair of our 
Democratic Caucus. He had four amendments brought before the Committee 
on Rules, and three were not made in order.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  I am outraged that particularly two amendments which I sponsored and 
which passed with bipartisan support in the Committee on International 
Relations will be stripped from this bill by legislative tricks 
designed to protect Republicans so the American public cannot see their 
anti-Mexican and anti-environmental beliefs. Let me emphasize that 
these amendments passed the Committee on International Relations.
  With their treatment of my Mexican migration amendment, Republicans 
have once again shown the real feelings of their party towards 
Hispanics. My amendment simply called on the United States to stop 
waiting and to support the President's own commitment in September, 
2001, to ensure that migration is ``safe, orderly, legal and 
dignified.''
  While we waited, 19 migrants from Mexico and Central American, 
including women and children, died this May from asphyxiation and heat 
stroke in a truck crammed with people. Over the past 5 years, more than 
2,000 migrants have died crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. This is not 
a story of numbers and statistics. This is a story of real human beings 
literally dying.
  As the President mentioned, it is in the economic and national 
security interests of this country to conclude, not to begin, we have 
been debating this and the administration has been negotiating this for 
2 years, to conclude a migration agreement with Mexico.
  My amendment recognized that Mexican immigrants make an invaluable 
contribution to this country, as immigrants have done throughout the 
history of the United States. Mexicans pick the fruit and vegetables 
that end up on our tables. They work in the service industry on the 
East and West Coast, they pluck chickens in Arkansas, and let us not 
forget that some who died in the war in Iraq were originally 
undocumented immigrants.
  However, my amendment was gutted by the Ballenger amendment, which 
should be called the Halliburton amendment since it cynically links 
migration policy to oil. In fact, it says that any migration accord 
between our countries should also include an accord to open Petroleos 
Mexicanos, or PEMEX, to investment by U.S. oil companies. What, in 
God's name, does that have to do with migration policy?
  But guess what? The Republicans finally figured out that their 
amendment was a huge error and made in order an amendment to strike the 
Ballenger provision and replace it with a watered-down version of my 
original amendment.
  Imagine the reaction of the Republican leadership, not to speak of 
the diplomatic consequences faced by this administration, when it 
realized that my simple amendment using the President's language to 
advocate for a conclusion of a migration accord with Mexico was 
hijacked by Republican extremists and turned into a ``migration for 
Mexican oil'' agreement.
  The callousness of that so-called Republican compassion equated U.S.-
Mexico migration policy with U.S. access to Mexican oil, and 
Republicans were unable to spin their way out of this outrage but 
instead quickly provided another amendment that did away with this 
embarrassment but provided no further incentive to conclude, not 
convene, but conclude a migration accord.
  Now I would like to turn to my amendment on global climate change and 
tell a similar story about an amendment that passed the Committee on 
International Relations in a bipartisan vote and was removed from this 
bill by bipartisan tricks designed to hide the Republicans anti-
environmental stance on global climate change.
  My global climate change amendment simply says that the United States 
should take the lead in the world in the fight against global warming, 
not Kyoto, not anything else, a lead in the world against global 
climate warming. This is not a new idea. This is an amendment which 
previously passed in the House. Both sides of Congress have supported 
it. This very amendment unanimously passed the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, this year. And last week it 
was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce so it could be 
stripped from the bill. The real goal is to save Republicans from 
taking a public stand on global climate change.
  What is the Republican leadership afraid of when it thwarts the 
bipartisan will of the Committee on International Relations or of any 
committee? Only through its procedural, back-door dealings was it able 
to reverse a decision made by this committee; and by doing so, it has 
staked out its opposition to the majority will of the committee, the 
American people and the world community.
  In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is 
supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If 
Members disagree with my amendments, that is fine. Then stand up and 
vote against them, but do not sneak them out of the bill. The American 
people should be able to find out where Members of this House stand on 
global climate change, stand on concluding a Mexican migration 
agreement. The truth is that Republicans are so embarrassed by their 
own policies they will not let these two provisions remain in the bill 
or even allow a vote on the floor, the marketplace of ideas, the 
greatest democratic institution in the world. That is fundamentally 
shameful. Therefore, this undemocratic rule, this unfair rule should be 
voted against, and I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so so we 
will have an opportunity to vote on global climate change in a real 
amendment or resolution on Mexican migration accord.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has offered a very strong statement, much 
of which I agree with. I believe that it is very important for us to 
vigorously pursue our goal of putting into place a comprehensive 
migration accord, and I think it is the right thing to do.
  I will admit that I do not believe it was the correct thing for that

[[Page 18042]]

Ballenger amendment to have been included in the legislation, and that 
is one of the reasons that in the role that I play on the Committee on 
Rules we chose to take and make the following amendment in order which 
I believe very responsibly deals with our shared goal and the goal 
that, as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States 
has on this.
  The amendment reads as follows, ``(1) that the United States and 
Mexico should as soon as is practicable commence negotiations in an 
attempt to reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as 
possible and which addresses the key issues of concern for both 
nations; and (2) that as part of any migration agreement between the 
United States and Mexico, the issues of extradition of violent 
criminals and law enforcement cooperation between the two nations be 
addressed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have raised these issues of concern on the issue of 
extradition, and I have been working with my California colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), on this issue dealing with a 
particular case in California. I do believe, as the gentleman said, the 
President does want to responsibly move ahead with this.
  On the second issue of global warming, I have no doubt that this 
administration is very committed to dealing with that. We made a 
determination when 75 amendments had been submitted to us that we would 
include 42 of them, so there has been nothing secretive about this 
process. It is very open. We, in fact, are discussing it right now on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would be here lauding and applauding 
your initiative on the Mexico migration agreement if in fact you would 
have a single but very powerful difference in your wording; and that 
is, instead of, after 2 years of significant talks and negotiations, 
speaking about a commencement, that we would be talking about a 
conclusion. Then I would be here supporting your amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope we bring about an 
expeditious conclusion to this. Obviously, that is our goal. Secretary 
Powell has indicated his support of our amendment, and we know full 
well that he wants to deal with this.
  I want to say this issue of immigration is something that we can 
address in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues to realize that 
as we proceed to work to pass this rule and move ahead with this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, control of one's reproductive autonomy is 
a fundamental human right. But the basic right is meaningless without 
the knowledge and means to exercise reproductive autonomy. The United 
Nations Population Fund, known as UNFPA, works with governments and 
nongovernmental organizations in over 140 countries, supporting 
programs that help men, women, and young people to plan their families, 
undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely, avoid sexually transmitted 
disease, including HIV/AIDS, and to combat violence against women.
  Each of these principled goals is embraced by the United States and 
many countries around the world. In fact, as we have heard throughout 
the Presidential trip to Africa, the President has committed $15 
billion to fight the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the African continent.
  The Committee on International Relations recently adopted an 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which would 
facilitate U.S. contributions to the United Nations Family Planning 
Fund. The Crowley provision clarifies current law which bars U.S. funds 
from any international organization the President determines ``supports 
or participates in the management'' of forced abortion or 
sterilization. Crowley's proposal provides strict safeguards against 
the use of any kind of coercion in U.S.-funded family planning 
programs; second, clarifies the current law to enable U.S. funding to 
be used to help to end coercion in China; and provides badly needed 
maternal health and other services in poor countries.

                              {time}  1130

  This language is necessary because Congress authorized U.S. funds for 
UNFPA, but the President refused to release them. Just last year, the 
President blocked $34 million for UNFPA activities around the world. 
The opposition to this funding is premised on the false notion that 
UNFPA supports coercive abortions in places like China. UNFPA does not 
provide abortion services anywhere in the world. Not one penny of UNFPA 
funding is used to promote abortion. Unfortunately, this fallacy 
diverts attention from the real issues and blurs underlying opposition 
to comprehensive family planning. All UNFPA activities are based solely 
on voluntary participation. UNFPA rejects coercion in any form in its 
activities and works to end the coercive practices of others.
  The Chinese Government's so-called one-child policy unofficially 
involves some coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization 
practices. The United States and United Nations do not tolerate these 
practices. We stand on the side of human rights and work to put an end 
to these abuses. The U.N. population fund program in China was 
developed with the express purpose of moving China away from coercion 
and toward delivery of voluntary reproductive health services to its 
people, just as it did in India in the early 1990s.
  UNFPA has operated in 32 Chinese counties and the government of China 
has agreed in each one of these counties it would lift all birth quotas 
and recruitment targets; improve the delivery of voluntary family 
planning information and services; eliminate the use of coercive 
measures; allow independent confirmation that targets and quotas have 
been lifted; allow independent investigation of any reports of coercion 
and suspension of the UNFPA program in any county where violations have 
occurred; and allow regular independent monitoring to ensure compliance 
with the principles of informed choice and voluntary participation.
  This is a remarkable achievement. No Main Street human rights 
organization has ever accused UNFPA of being complicit in China's human 
rights violations. In fact, in May 2002 President Bush sent a three-
member State Department team to China to investigate claims against the 
work there. The team found ``no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly 
supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive 
abortion in the People's Republic of China.'' The team recommended that 
the $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to 
UNFPA.
  Cutting off funding harms millions of women and children in the 
poorest nations on Earth and does nothing to help women in China. The 
officials of UNFPA estimate that the loss of the $34 million would 
prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced 
abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal 
illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths. Just this 
morning, The New York Times published an editorial strongly supporting 
the Crowley language and strongly opposing efforts to remove that 
language.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the editorial for the Record. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support the efforts of UNFPA to provide the 
meaningful exercise of fundamental human rights. And I vehemently 
oppose any efforts to defund UNFPA which would result in harm to the 
health of women, men, and children around the world. Please vote 
against the Smith amendment which would strip the Crowley language.

                [From the New York Times, July 15, 2003]

                      Population--Control Politics

       The House of Representatives faces a crucial vote today 
     affecting the health of

[[Page 18043]]

     women in 140 poor countries. Through the authorization of the 
     State Department budget, the House can restore tens of 
     millions of dollars in vital American aid for the United 
     Nations Population Fund or, for a second year in a row, cut 
     it off in the mistaken belief that the fund colludes with 
     coerced abortions in China.
       The Population Fund is the largest agency in the world 
     focused on women's reproductive health. There was a brief, 
     unremarked ceremony yesterday in the Afghan capital, Kabul, 
     that illustrates what the fund does. With help from the fund, 
     the Khair Khana Hospital, once filthy and overcrowded, was 
     reopened with a large staff, modern equipment and the 
     possibility of helping Afghan women with complicated 
     pregnancies deliver their babies safely.
       The Population Fund helps women give birth safely. It 
     fights such debilitations as obstetric fistula, a hideous and 
     difficult complication in pregnancy. Indeed, it is just the 
     kind of organization and work the United States should be 
     supporting. Instead, conservative Republicans stripped the 
     fund of American support last year because of false 
     accusations that the U.N. Population Fund has either stood by 
     or helped with coerced abortions in China.
       Today's vote on the State Department budget includes a 
     restoration of the organization's funds, thanks to an 
     amendment by Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York 
     Democrat from Queens. Opponents, who mistakenly believe--or 
     cynically advertise--that they are protecting Chinese women 
     and unborn babies, want to kill the amendment.
       The opponents, led by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey 
     Republican, unfairly describe the Population Fund as an 
     organization with a ``long history of complicity in human 
     rights violations'' engaged in an ``attack on women 
     overseas.'' These are irresponsible, unsubstantiated 
     accusations. They have helped persuade numerous members of 
     Congress that it is wiser to deny the organization American 
     support.
       The fact is that Population Fund performs no abortions and 
     is working to end coerced abortion in China. An American 
     investigating team sent by the administration last year found 
     ``no evidence'' that the fund ``has supported or participated 
     in the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization in China.'' In previous years, 
     Congress has supported the fund with the stipulation that no 
     American money be spent in China. That is unnecessary, but if 
     that is what it takes to get the fund the $50 million it 
     deserves from Congress this year, it is a compromise that 
     should be explored.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), who had a very important amendment last 
night that was not made in order.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this 
time. I wish to speak today on three amendments before the Committee on 
Rules, two of which were approved for the debate today and one which 
was not. I want to thank the Chair of the Committee on Rules for his 
work in supporting an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) that would urge reconsideration of Mexico's extradition policy 
which currently precludes the extradition of Mexican nationals to face 
charges in the United States that may carry life imprisonment or the 
death penalty.
  The addition by the Mexico Supreme Court of the life imprisonment 
clause fundamentally means that, for the most serious crimes in the 
United States, we are unable to extradite those who flee south of the 
border to seek refuge. That is not in our interest. It is certainly not 
in the interest of the people of Mexico to have fugitives from justice 
free south of our border.
  Second, I want to thank the committee for their approval of an 
amendment that I offered calling attention to the problem that we have 
had in our nonproliferation efforts to obtain the assistance of Russian 
scientists, to bring Russian scientists into the United States for the 
purpose of improving our nonproliferation joint efforts. These have met 
obstacles, in part understandable as a result of September 11, but we 
cannot allow the September 11 visa changes to get in the way of our 
broad security interests by bringing these scientists in who are 
working on nonproliferation itself.
  But most significantly, I want to comment about the one that got away 
and that was an amendment that I had offered calling for an 
investigation into the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium 
from Niger, the claim that made it into the State of the Union address. 
There is a request on the Senate side, it is a bipartisan request, that 
the Inspector General of the CIA and the Inspector General of the State 
Department work together on an independent investigation of how that 
claim rose to the level of the State of the Union, now something the 
White House says was not substantiated and did not belong in that 
address.
  This is, I think, critical for three reasons. First, the Congress 
made the most important decision it can undertake, the decision to 
authorize the use of force on the basis of our intelligence. Second, in 
the ongoing war on terrorism, it is essential that we have good 
intelligence if we are to prevent another September 11. If we have a 
problem with our intelligence agencies, we have got to find out about 
it and now. Finally, our standing, our credibility around the world, 
the willingness of other nations to cooperate with the U.S. in the war 
on terrorism will be dependent on whether they feel they can rely on 
what we represent to them about our intelligence and the quality of our 
intelligence.
  As this is perhaps the most graphic example of intelligence gone 
awry, it is something that merits our most serious investigation and 
attention. I recognize that the intelligence committees in the Senate 
and the House are working on this issue, and they are doing good work. 
However, as the Senate concluded on a bipartisan basis, this 
investigation by the two IGs does not detract from what the Senate 
committee or the House committees are undertaking, but in fact supplies 
that information to both committees. This is complementary to the work 
that is already going on and I think it is essential.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I congratulate my 
friend on his statement and I believe that we clearly do have the 
shared goal of trying to address that concern that was raised from the 
State of the Union message. The reason that we did not make the 
amendment in order was very simply that we do believe that the work 
that is being done by both the Intelligence Committee in the House and 
the Intelligence Committee in the Senate will effectively address this. 
I know that the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee 
in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, has already had a lengthy 
discussion as I heard on the radio this morning with the Director of 
Central Intelligence, George Tenet; and I know that this is an issue 
that will be addressed in their committee tomorrow. I believe that we 
will be seeing attention focused on it within our Intelligence 
Committee. I know that, in a bipartisan way, concern has been addressed 
from members of the Intelligence Committee that the establishment of 
this could in fact play a role in undermining them. That was the reason 
that we did not make the amendment in order.
  But I want to say to my friend that I do believe that since the ratio 
was 2 to 1, I hope that my friend will come down in support of the rule 
based on that. Two amendments he liked, one he did not; so I hope that 
he will join with us in supporting the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I went to Oslo, Norway, and met with 
Palestinian women and women from the Knesset in Israel. The 
overwhelming impact was the positive input and collaboration that came 
about by women being involved in the peacekeeping process. I am 
disappointed that the Committee on Rules in its wisdom could not have 
been more generous to be able to include language that would have 
encouraged the utilization of women in international peacekeeping 
matters around the world. We have seen the impact, the difference. We 
know that women understand the loss of life and the enormity of the 
impact

[[Page 18044]]

of crises involving war against families. I look forward to working 
with the chairman and ranking member of the committees to engage in 
that process.
  I think it is also disappointing that we do not have language that 
speaks pointedly to the crisis in Liberia where thousands are dying and 
a million have already died, to encourage the White House to move more 
expeditiously as it relates to a peacekeeping/humanitarian organization 
there in Liberia. What is the hesitancy to wait on the 3 million that 
have died in the Congo or the 1 million that have died in Rwanda?
  I am also frustrated that we do not understand that a little island 
close to our shores, Haiti, is literally dying on the vine and that the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) was not made in 
order to provide assistance immediately to Haiti. It is certainly 
disappointing that we have not had an opportunity to meet with the 
President and to move forward the resources that are needed to help 
rebuild Haiti, a nation that engaged and helped us in the Revolutionary 
War. It is imperative that we begin to look at those issues.
  And then I would say that the Committee on Rules did itself an 
enormous disservice in not being able to attack head-on the credibility 
that this Nation now faces with respect to the reliance on our 
intelligence by the lack of accountability on the Niger reference, that 
Iraq was about to buy uranium from Niger and do it imminently, if you 
will, to suggest that we needed to have a preemptive attack against 
Iraq. I think it is ludicrous that this body would not put forward an 
amendment that would allow the truth to be told to the American people: 
who had the information about the purchase in Africa, why was the 
comment in the President's speech, why did he use the word 
``recently,'' and whose hands can be found on this information.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who chairs our Committee on Veterans Affairs' 
and has long worked on so many of these very important issues.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, later on today when this bill comes up for 
consideration, I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), will be offering 
an amendment to strike language that is in the underlying bill, the 
Crowley amendment, which was adopted very narrowly in committee. The 
Crowley amendment would fundamentally change the Kemp-Kasten amendment 
that has been in effect for 18 years. The Kemp-Kasten language is 
anticoercion language that says very simply that our country will not 
contribute money to any organization that supports or participates in 
the management of a coercive population control program. Under the 
Kemp-Kasten language last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell, after 
his due diligence, made a finding that took the money from the UNFPA, 
the U.N. population fund, and sought to reprogram each and every dollar 
of that to an organization or to programs that provided family planning 
or maternal health care programming. Secretary of State Colin Powell 
said:
  ``The PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have 
unapproved births.'' Let me just remind my colleagues, in China you 
have got to get permission by the government in order to have a child. 
They have unapproved births and approved births. If you are unapproved, 
if you are out of plan, as they say, if you have an illegal child, a 
heavy fine is imposed upon the mother until she gets an abortion. If 
she has that child, somehow escapes the family-planning cadres, she 
then is severely criticized as well as fined. Sometimes up to 6 years' 
worth of her salary and her husband's is taken by the government as 
part of that fine. Secretary Powell goes on to say that the regime 
plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to 
avoid the penalties; and, therefore, this amounts to a program of 
coercive abortion. He points out, and I quote, ``UNFPA's support of, 
and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the 
Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of 
coercive abortion.''
  Let us not rig this program, this test, Mr. Speaker. The Crowley 
amendment would fundamentally change this anticoercion language that we 
have had on the books for some 18 years. I ask my colleagues, those who 
support abortion and those who do not, there should at least be a 
consensus that coercion is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable 
and we will not in any way directly or indirectly facilitate its use.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all remember when this President came 
before our House and, in a burst of excessive honesty, told us 
perceptively that we faced an axis of evil: three nations posed a great 
threat to the United States. His phraseology deliberately harkened back 
to the 1940s when we also faced a tripartite axis of evil. But what if 
President Roosevelt had led us in an invasion of Italy, forced 
Mussolini into hiding, and pretty much left it at that--ignoring what 
was going on in Berlin and Tokyo?
  It is easier to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than it is 
to find a policy toward Iran here in Washington.
  So I went to the Committee on Rules with two amendments. One I 
identified as an important amendment with 18 co-sponsors, including the 
gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke, including our ranking member, 
including senior Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on 
International Relations. This amendment would deprive the tyrants in 
Tehran of money and would provide money for those fighting for 
democracy.
  Then I put forward a second amendment which I clearly identified as 
unimportant, something that could be ignored by the Committee on Rules 
if they chose, a mere resolution.
  What did the Committee on Rules do? They killed the important 
amendment. They killed a chance to really discuss our policy toward 
Iran. And then they took the sense of Congress amendment, stripped out 
a little part of it, and put it before this House. They did nothing to 
save the House's time. We are still going to debate one of my 
amendments dealing with our policy toward Iran--the unimportant 
amendment. But the important amendment will not come before this House.
  Today in Tehran terrorist acts are being planned. Iran is the number 
one state sponsor of terrorism according to our State Department. Today 
in Tehran they plan to complete nuclear weapons within a few years. I 
believe those nuclear weapons will be smuggled into American cities and 
either exploded or used to blackmail America. When that happens our 
constituents will ask, what did the People's House do to prevent the 
empowerment of tyranny in Tehran? The answer will be, the Committee on 
Rules would not let us do very much of anything, but they would let us 
vote on sending a good luck card to the students fighting for democracy 
in Tehran.
  Please vote against this rule and give us a chance to debate the most 
important foreign policy issue before us today, and that is Iran and 
its nuclear weapons.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) has 1\1/4\ minutes left; the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 1 minute left.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California 
whether he has any additional speakers?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say it 
is my intention to close the debate here single-handedly.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close single-handedly for our side, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. It seems to be a 
radical thought in this House for us to actually spend whatever time it 
takes to debate the issues. I cannot understand

[[Page 18045]]

why in the People's House the Republican leadership seems to be working 
overtime to try to deny us the right to debate the issues that people 
care about. Seventy-seven amendments were offered in the Committee on 
Rules last night. Forty-two were made in order, of which only twelve 
are Democratic amendments. We can do much better. And there are some 
very important issues.
  We heard about the Schiff amendment which deals with the African 
uranium issue. I know there are some people in the White House and some 
people in the leadership here in this House who do not want to discuss 
this issue, but it is important because it gets to the issue of 
credibility. It is about whether the American people can have 
confidence in what their government tells them. It is about whether 
what the United States says is respected around the world.
  So if some of my colleagues do not want to ask the tough questions or 
get to the truth, then fine. They can vote no on the Schiff amendment. 
But at least give us the opportunity to vote up or down on some of 
these very important issues.
  The American people deserve an open process. They deserve a process 
much better than what we are getting right now. This rule, 
unfortunately, does not allow us to debate a lot of very important 
issues; and I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms 
to vote no.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. As was said, 75 
amendments were submitted to us; 42 of those 75 were made in order. We 
are going to be debating a wide range of issues.
  The question that was just raised by my friend from Massachusetts is 
one that will be very effectively addressed by the majority and the 
minority on our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To 
try to portray a concern about that other amendment is partisan. I will 
tell the Members that there are minority members on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence who believe that we did the right 
thing here.
  There are concerns that exist with this legislation, but I do believe 
with we should allow for a full debate, and we are going to be doing 
that. The establishment of the International Leadership Act, very 
important; dealing responsibly with the issue of migration, very 
important; dealing with the millennium challenge issue which the 
President has put forward and enjoys bipartisan support; these are all 
important issues that we will be able to move forward with once we pass 
this rule and pass this legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  While I am extremely pleased that my amendment to help women and 
girls in Afghanistan was included, I am disappointed that an amendment 
to help all women and girls in MCA eligible countries was not ruled in 
order.
  My amendment would have simply ensured that the equal rights of women 
and girls are included in the Millennium Challenge Account principal 
objectives.
  Statistics show that when we help a woman out of poverty, we help her 
family out of poverty.
  Women are key to sustainable development--a primary goal of the MCA.
  Countries that actively discriminate against women and girls should 
not become eligible to receive MCA funding.
  If we had included women and girls as part of the principal MCA 
objectives, we would have made a much more powerful difference in 
ensuring that our programs have the greatest impact.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
adopting House Resolution 316 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2330, which was debated 
yesterday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 201, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George

[[Page 18046]]


     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Berkley
     Conyers
     Gephardt
     Hayworth
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Millender-McDonald
     Myrick
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pitts


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw) (during the vote). Members are 
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1214

  Messrs. RANGEL, SPRATT, and MARSHALL, and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to recommit was laid on the table.

                          ____________________