[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16763-16890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further 
consideration of H.R. 2764 pursuant to House Resolution 498, the Chair 
may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under 
clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perlmutter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 498 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2764.

                              {time}  1017


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, 
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holden (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 20, 2007, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Pursuant to the order of the House on that day, no amendment to the 
bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of the 
House of that day, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2764

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 
     section 801 of the United States Information and Educational 
     Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international 
     organizations in which the United States participates 
     pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and 
     consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms 
     control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as 
     authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of 
     general administration, $3,820,018,000: Provided, That of the 
     amount made available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 may be transferred to, and merged with, funds in 
     the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'' 
     appropriations account, to be available only for emergency 
     evacuations and terrorism rewards: Provided further, That of 
     the amount made available under this heading, not less than 
     $363,905,000 shall be available only for public diplomacy 
     international information programs: Provided further, That of 
     the amount appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 shall 
     be available for the Secretary to establish and operate a 
     public/private interagency public diplomacy center which 
     shall serve as a program integration and coordination entity 
     for United States public diplomacy programs: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts appropriated under this heading, 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for 
     compensation to the families of members of the Foreign 
     Service or other United States Government employees or their 
     dependents, who were killed in terrorist attacks since 1979:  
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available for 
     compensation in the previous proviso may be obligated without 
     specific authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress: 
     Provided further, That of the amount made available under 
     this heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for the 
     operations of the Office on Right-Sizing the United States 
     Government Overseas Presence: Provided further, That not less 
     than $5,000,000 shall be for the Program for Research and 
     Training on Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the 
     Former Soviet Union (title VIII) as authorized by the Soviet-
     Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983 (22 U.S.C. 
     4501-4508, as amended): Provided further, That funds 
     available under this heading may be available for a United 
     States Government interagency task force to examine, 
     coordinate and oversee United States participation in the 
     United Nations headquarters renovation project: Provided 
     further, That no funds may be obligated or expended for 
     processing licenses for the export of satellites of United 
     States origin (including commercial satellites and satellite 
     components) to the People's Republic of China unless, at 
     least 15 days in advance, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified of 
     such proposed action: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading are available, pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 1108(g), for the field examination of programs and 
     activities in the United States funded from any account 
     contained in this title.
       In addition, not to exceed $1,558,390 shall be derived from 
     fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use 
     of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000, 
     to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to 
     be used for the purposes set out in that section; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed 
     $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and 
     publication programs and from fees from educational advising 
     and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in 
     addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from 
     reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House 
     facilities.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $964,760,000, to remain available until expended.


        Amendment Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida:
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $36,700,000)''.
       Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $36,700,000)''.


[[Page 16764]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and 
a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, 
coauthored by my good friend, Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey, restores 
funds for Cuba democracy assistance to the administration's requested 
level of $45 million by offsetting $36 million from the Department of 
State General Administration Budget.
  Unfortunately, as this chart so well demonstrates, the committee, 
while generally meeting or far exceeding the administration's requests 
for the rest of Latin America, something that I support, the bill funds 
Cuba democracy programs at approximately 20 percent of the President's 
request of $45 million; 20 percent for assistance for those brave men 
and women who risk their lives and their families' safety, unarmed, in 
a hard-line totalitarian police state to peacefully press for democracy 
in Cuba; human rights activists, independent journalists, independent 
librarians, independent physicians. This aid goes to them and to their 
families, to the families of political prisoners.
  As explained, Mr. Chairman, in the letter from nine members of the 
pro-democracy movement to the six Cuban American Members of Congress, 
they attest and affirm that the assistance is key, and that it reaches 
them and that it has made and is making a great difference for the pro-
democracy movement at this time.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this effort asked for a GAO 
report on these programs, and I thank them for it.
  First, the GAO report, after 18 months of thorough investigation, 
confirmed that the program is working. And I quote from the GAO report. 
``Dissidents we interviewed in Cuba said that they appreciated the 
range and types of U.S. democracy assistance; that this assistance was 
useful in their work, and that it demonstrates the U.S. Government's 
commitment to democracy in Cuba.''
  Mr. Chairman, the GAO report detailed many successes, despite 
emphasizing the great challenges posed by the totalitarian police state 
for aid distribution. It talked about the GAO report, 385,000 pounds of 
medicines, food and clothing have been delivered to the pro-democracy 
movement and their families; more than 23,000 shortwave radios, 
millions of books, newsletters and other informational material.
  U.S. assistance reported independent journalists and including the 
publication of approximately 23,000 reports by those independent 
journalists.
  Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the fact that the GAO report, 
while making absolutely no recommendation for any cut whatsoever in 
this program, does point out and make clear the case that it is an 
important and effective program; and after the GAO report, it has been 
significantly improved.
  I call the attention of all of my colleagues to the reply to the GAO 
report by the administrating agency, the USAID, where it delineates 
that all the GAO report's recommendations have been implemented. All of 
the recommendations have been implemented. That has made an effective 
and important program even more effective and important.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not turn our backs on the Cuban internal 
opposition. They will play a key role in the inevitable democratic 
transition that is approaching, and we must do all we can so that they 
can survive the brutality of a totalitarian police state, of violence 
and terror that, fortunately, to a great extent because of the pro-
democracy movement in Cuba, will soon be but a tragic and perverse 
historical memory.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration requested an 
increase in economic support funds for Cuba from $9 million to $45.7 
million.
  Between 1996 and 2005, USAID and the Department of State signed 
contracts worth $74 million for Cuba programs, according to the GAO's 
study. The administration is asking for a 1-year, fiscal year 2008 
request that is more than two-thirds the size of what was committed 
over the 10 years, from 1996 and 2005. This request is 500 percent of 
what USAID received in the last fiscal year. Given how ill-conceived 
and ill-managed the program is, there is no justification for an aid 
increase.
  My friend from Florida has raised the GAO report and said that it has 
not recommended that funding be cut. But the objective of the report 
was not to recommend that funding should be increased or decreased. It 
was to examine the roles and objectives of the agencies implementing 
United States democracy assistance targeted at Cuba, and the 
characteristics and selection of the grantees receiving Department of 
State and USAID awards, the types, amounts, beneficiaries and methods 
used to deliver assistance for selected grantees in 2005, USAID's 
monitoring and oversight of these grantees, and the availability of 
data to evaluate whether U.S. assistance has achieved its goals.
  Although I believe that this program does little to help dissidents, 
and very little to expand political space in Cuba, we have continued 
funding at the same level as provided by our former colleague, Jim 
Kolbe, when he chaired the subcommittee.
  The bill has $9 million, and requires USAID and the Department of 
State to present a plan for improved coordination and for oversight of 
the Cuba program.
  GAO concluded in a November 2006 report that ``poor monitoring and 
oversight of the Cuba program did not provide adequate assurance that 
funds were properly used.''
  Administrative costs on the part of grantees were high, oversight of 
the goods chosen inadequate; specifically, according to the GAO study, 
there were instances in which cashmere sweaters, Godiva chocolates, 
Nintendo Gameboys, Sony Playstations were among the items purchased in 
the United States to be shipped to dissidents in Cuba.
  The Cuba program is poorly managed and can be argued to be 
counterproductive. It is not a productive use of limited U.S. 
resources, and the result of this program is often to identify Cuban 
dissidents as U.S. funded opponents of the regime.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished coauthor of the amendment, Mr. 
Sires.
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, the funding that has been provided over the 
past 10 years to support the pro-democracy movement in Cuba has been 
working. U.S. assistance has provided books, newsletters and other 
informational material to the people of Cuba, as well as over 385,000 
pounds of medicine, food and clothing.
  According to a USAID report, U.S. assistance has also funded 
journalism correspondence courses for more than 200 Cubans, and the 
publication of about 23,000 reports by independent Cuban journalists 
about conditions and events in Cuba.
  Although the Cuban regime restricts nearly all political dissent, and 
denies its citizens the basic rights of free expression, association 
and assembly, our funding and assistance has allowed the pro-democracy 
and civil resistance movement in Cuba to dramatically increase in 
recent years.
  As evidenced in this chart, from just 2004 to 2005 there was a 54 
percent increase in the number of civil resistance actions reported on 
the island. Some of these civil resistance acts include citizens 
unwilling to cooperate with regime officials in repressing pro-
democracy activities, and citizens boycotting regime control meetings 
and mass gatherings.
  By supporting this amendment, the pro-democracy movement in Cuba can

[[Page 16765]]

continue to organize, communicate their vision for the future of the 
Cuban people, and prepare to assume the role in the process of 
democratic transition.
  But it is also important to realize that Cuba now is at the same 
stage that Spain was many years ago when they had a dictator for 40 
years. The world looked to Spain and saw that many of the institutions 
promoting democracy prevailed. If we don't work to promote dissidents 
who are pro-democratic dissidents in Cuba, we're not going to have any 
institution when the changes for a Cuban democratic island will exist.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, the committee recommends $9 million for 
democracy programs in Cuba. I want to be sure that no one is misled by 
a claim that this is a cut. This is the same amount that the program 
received last year.
  And last November, as has been noted, the GAO found serious problems 
with the administration of this program, as well as a lack of 
accountability which must be addressed, and this has not happened.
  The report is entitled ``U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba Needs 
Better Management and Oversight.'' So to increase the funding to almost 
$50 million, or by about 500 percent, is not just irresponsible, it has 
an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Reward mismanagement and 
incompetence.

                              {time}  1030

  No, my friends. The committee has acted wisely and I applaud the 
committee. It is demanding a spending plan and a strategy for how the 
funds will be used so we no longer will be sending cashmere sweaters to 
the tropical island of Cuba. Yes, this actually happened. I know it is 
hard to believe.
  This program does not need any more money. What it needs is what it 
has never had before, and that is vigorous congressional oversight. Why 
does it need oversight? There is simply no time to list all of the 
programs. Read the report in full measure.
  But I would note that I found it particularly informative that over a 
10-year period, $62 million of the $65 million in USAID grants was 
provided without competition. That is 95 percent of the money provided 
in response to unsolicited proposals with no bidding, no public notice, 
no compensation. No, this program doesn't need any more money. It needs 
oversight.
  And I agree, let's listen to the dissidents like my friend Miriam 
Lay-VA, who is one of the founders of the Ladies in White. Here is what 
she says:
  ``There must be no funds from any government allocated to the 
dissidents . . . the opposition gets practically nothing and the main 
thing is that it gives the Cuban Government a pretext to say that we 
are mercenaries and put us in jail. I'm against any funds from the 
American Government, and I think that if it wants to help the Cuban 
people, it should lift the embargo and allow trade, tourism, and 
academic exchanges, and Cubans should be allowed to travel without 
restriction to the United States and send money to their families'' in 
Cuba.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would simply 
remind my colleagues what if the policies advocated by those who are 
against this program had succeeded during the 1980s in Poland and 
Eastern Europe? Just ask yourself that question and remember when we 
did what we are doing here in the 1980s, what happened in Eastern 
Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to a distinguished 
leader and human rights activist from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to first thank the 
gentlewoman, the chairperson, for the funding she has supplied for this 
program.
  I believe we are at a crucial time in the southern part of our 
hemisphere. I believe that it will go one way or the other in the years 
ahead. It will either be a breeding ground for violence, trouble, and 
difficulty; or it will be a breeding ground for the democratic values 
that will make us safer and stronger and more prosperous. Cuba is not 
the only country that will influence that decision, but it is a pivotal 
country. And I think an investment in the long-term process of 
promoting democracy and prosperity in Cuba is not only in the best 
interest of the Cuban people but in the best interest of the American 
people.
  Many of the issues that my friend from Massachusetts talked about 
have been addressed and corrected. But I think the largest mistake that 
we could make would be to avoid our responsibility and opportunity to 
influence positively those who wish to bring democracy and the rule of 
law to Cuba at this very critical time in her history.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which seeks to send five times the current level of funding to so-
called democracy assistance programs for Cuba. Five times the amount of 
money to programs that are not transparent; smack of cronyism; are 
noncompetitive; and, frankly speaking, foolish, corrupt, and just plain 
embarrassing for the United States.
  How bad is this program? So bad that Cuba's courageous Catholic 
Church refuses to work with it. Many dissidents have told me that they 
think that this program is a bad idea. For Cuban opposition leaders to 
take money from the U.S. Government subjects them to the charge that 
they are somehow U.S. agents. That is not the way to promote democracy.
  I support the committee bill, which keeps funding level at $9 
million. It is the smart thing to do until problems outlined in the 
November GAO report have been addressed and the program redesigned and 
better managed so that it might have at least some chance of being 
effective.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House supports the work of Cuba's 
dissident and pro-democracy community. But we do not need to squander 
five times more money on leather coats, cashmere sweaters, Game Boys, 
crabmeat, and Godiva chocolates purchased by groups pretending to 
support them.
  What do Godiva chocolates have to do with promoting democracy in 
Cuba? Come on, give me a break.
  The American people want accountability, and I hope a majority in 
this Congress will too. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the Congressman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the 
Cuban terrorist dictator and dictatorship is ailing, this bill guts the 
funding for the brave and heroic pro-democracy movement in Cuba.
  Now, what has that money been used for in the last 10 years? This is 
in the report: Medicine, food and clothing for the families of 
political prisoners; more than 23,000 shortwave radios; hundreds of 
thousands of newsletters and other informational material, including 
books; journalism courses to more than 200 independent Cuban 
journalists who published almost 25,000 reports and publications from 
within the enslaved island.
  I hold in my hand a letter from a diverse group of brave opposition 
leaders in Cuba making it clear that this assistance is vital and 
desperately needed in the effort for a free and democratic Cuba.
  I read the GAO report, both the classified and unclassified parts of 
it, and it does state that this assistance does reach the pro-democracy 
movement in Cuba. And it is important to note that all of the 
recommendations, every single one in that report, have been 
implemented, unlike what you have heard today.
  This is not the time to abandon those brave men and women, their 
families, the political prisoners, the opposition

[[Page 16766]]

leaders, the independent journalists, labor leaders who are heroically 
and at a great personal risk working for a democratic transition in 
Cuba. This amendment, which is fully offset and CBO has scored as 
revenue neutral, will rectify the unconscionable betrayal and 
abandonment of the brave and heroic dissidents, the opposition leaders 
who are working under the toughest of conditions for a free and 
democratic Cuba.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The speaker just said that unless we have this amendment, this 
program will be gutted. The truth is the committee keeps the funding 
level as it is, and I think given the GAO report, that is only proper.
  As my colleagues have already mentioned, the GAO report that was 
commissioned by myself and Congressman Delahunt noted that there were 
items purchased with the money that is supposed to go to dissidents in 
Cuba: a gas chainsaw, Game Boys, PlayStations, a mountain bike, leather 
coats, cashmere sweaters. How is that going to help the dissident 
community in Cuba? I would submit not very much. But yet the same ones 
who support increasing this funding by five times also will not support 
allowing individuals to visit their own family members in Cuba and take 
toothpaste or clothing items or even to take a fishing poll so that 
poor Cubans might supplement their meager diets. That, according to the 
group that wants to increase funding here, should be outlawed. We 
should continue to outlaw that but increase taxpayer funding for a 
program that the GAO says there was intense mismanagement, cronyism. A 
scathing report that came out: lack of bank reconciliations, lack of 
documentation to determine compliance with cost-sharing requirements, 
questionable travel expenses lacking adequate documentation, 
questionable expenses paid to family members of a grantee manager, 
hundreds of dollars of petty cash observed in the grantee's office that 
was not controlled or properly cured.
  This is not a good amendment. If you believe in fiscal sanity, please 
defeat the amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let's see what the dissidents in Cuba, in a letter and knowing full 
well the risks they take by sending a letter to Members of Congress 
about this issue today, what they say about the aid that this program 
has sent to Cuba and is sending:
  ``We can affirm that the aid that for many years has flowed to the 
pro-democracy movement takes into account the vast range of needs, from 
medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from dying, to food, 
water filters, medical equipment, clothing, shoes, coats, toys for the 
children of political prisoners who suffer doubly the loss of a loved 
one and social repression on the streets and in school, essential 
vitamins, office supplies, the tools of democracy, computers printers, 
phones, fax machines, among others that account for the long list of 
articles and materials that have been made possible in Cuba.''
  And they thank the American people in the same way in which the 
people of Poland and the people of Eastern and Central Europe will be 
eternally grateful to the American people, including the Congress of 
the United States, for the support in their difficult days. The 
dissidents and the pro-democracy movement in Cuba thank the American 
people for this aid. And what President Bush has requested for the rest 
of the hemisphere is either being funded or exceeded, and yet for the 
only totalitarian police state in the hemisphere, the committee has 
funded it at 19 percent. That is not justifiable, Mr. Chairman. That is 
why we are asking for the funding fully offset to be at the requested 
level by the administration.
  Please support this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say very briefly, because I 
don't need to repeat the fact that our taxpayer dollars have spent 
money for cashmere sweaters, mountain bikes, and the like that really 
aren't doing good for our dissidents, but I want to also mention the 
letter that our colleagues from Florida mentioned, the one that USAID 
sent. It did say that this program that we have is doing some good, 
which is why I and my colleagues support the funding that we have in 
the current bill. But what was not mentioned was that in the same 
letter, the USAID also says that having restrictions on travel to Cuba, 
restrictions on sending goods to Cuba don't serve the dissidents well. 
So that begs the question, then. If the letter is important, the letter 
is important in totality.
  I think because of the GAO report and the fact that we do not have 
good controls on the use of our taxpayer dollars that the old saying 
that President Reagan said ``trust but verify'' is very important, and 
it is time we verify before we send more money.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Just to bring it back, one, this has nothing to do with trade. So the 
trade issue is not even out here. It also has nothing to do with the 
issue of travel, and I have asked for a visa to Cuba, and they denied 
me when I tried to go.
  This amendment should be called not the Diaz-Balart amendment. This 
should be the Sharansky amendment. This should be called the Yelena 
Bonner amendment. This should be the Havel amendment. I just read the 
interview with Havel the other day.
  What we want to do with this money is the same thing that was done in 
Eastern Europe during the days of Ronald Reagan when we brought down 
communism. This is what we did in Romania to bring down the Ceausescu 
government. So this is a major cut. The Bush administration funds this 
to the pro-democracy groups in Cuba. They need this for training. They 
need this for their journalists. They need this for technical 
assistance.

                              {time}  1045

  They need this for so many other reasons. USAID reported U.S. 
assistance supported journalism correspondence courses for 200 Cubans; 
publication of 23,000 reports by independent Cuban journalists, on and 
on. Dissidents are routinely rounded up.
  If this amendment passes, imagine how they will feel in Cuba today to 
know that the United States Congress stood with them. If it fails, they 
will be demoralized.
  This is really the Sharansky amendment of 2007. This is the Havel 
amendment of 2007. This is the Yelena Bonner amendment of 2007. This is 
the amendment that we used to do in the 1980s to bring down communism, 
to help the civilian side, the dissidents.
  This has nothing to do with travel; it shouldn't even be mixed with 
that. That's a mixed issue; it has nothing to do with trade. It is what 
do we do to help the dissidents; Armando Valadez has been in jail for 
almost 19 years.
  And so, I would hope that we can come together and send a message 
that when this amendment is passed, the word goes forth as they listen 
to their Radio Free Cuba tomorrow to know that the United States 
Congress stood with them the way that they stood with Havel.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf has said 
it all. This is an amendment not only of conscience, this is an 
amendment to help people who are risking their lives. Thousands who are 
in prison, hundreds recognized as prisoners of conscience by 
international organizations such as Amnesty International. They are 
risking their lives and their families' lives to peacefully advocate 
for freedom and democracy as those heroes mentioned by Mr. Wolf 
advocated and risked their lives in Eastern and Central Europe in the 
1980s, and they

[[Page 16767]]

finally achieved freedom. And have no doubt that the dissidents in the 
pro-democracy movement in Cuba will be fundamental in the transition. 
They will be leaders in the future tomorrow, perhaps received in this 
Congress as the sovereign and elected leader of the Republic of Cuba, 
perhaps one of those political prisoners, I have no doubt, or those 
opposition leaders.
  So it is time to help them and, as Mr. Wolf said, send a message of 
solidarity and not retreat at this critical time.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, if Sharansky served in this Congress 
today, if Havel were serving here in this Congress today, if Yelena 
Bonner was serving in this Congress today, Yelena Bonner and Sharansky 
and Havel would be for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Before I yield to my colleague, I would like to respond 
to my good friend, the ranking member, concerning his concern about the 
impact on the dissidents. I would daresay as an American who is proud 
of our values, if we open travel and communication and trade between 
the United States and Cuba, they would really understand what it's like 
to be an American. And I feel that's the best way to free the 
dissidents and to create an open and democratic society.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield to my good friend, Mr. 
Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield as 
much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I misspoke, and I need to make a 
correction for that.
  When I was quoting about the restrictions, the people who wanted to 
remove the restrictions, I meant to say it was a letter from the 
dissidents, the Cuban dissidents, to us.
  And also, I might add that the title of the report that our colleague 
from Florida cited is entitled, ``U.S. Democratic Assistance for Cuba 
Needs Better Management and Oversight,'' which is why the committee 
report funding at $9 million is the right course today.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In response to the ranking member, I don't disagree 
when he suggests that we listen to the dissidents because they're on 
the island, they're fighting the good fight, not from the safety of 
Washington or Boston or Miami, but they're there. Let's start to listen 
to them.
  This was a statement that was released by four of them, prominent and 
well respected, on the island. It is a statement that was signed by 
Marta Beatriz Roque, Jisela Delgado, Elizardo Sanchez and Vladimiro 
Roca. Let's listen to what they say. Let's not reach our own 
conclusions here in this House without listening to what they say.
  ``We consider it very important to achieve greater efficiency in the 
use of these funds. We believe that one possible way to achieve this 
would be the elimination of a series of existing restrictions on the 
sending of aid and travel to Cuba, which doesn't at all help the pro-
democracy struggle that we are carrying out inside our country.''
  With all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, it is about 
travel, it is about the embargo, because that's what the dissidents are 
saying to us here, and we ought to listen to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. And not only listen to the dissidents, but listen to 
the courageous Catholic Church in Cuba, which refuses to participate in 
this program.
  We have had a policy for 50 years that has failed, it has been a 
failure. This is a continuation of the same old, same old. But even if 
you want to go down that road, the reason why you should oppose this 
amendment is because this program has been plagued with corruption and 
cronyism. We have used taxpayer moneys to buy Godiva chocolates and 
cashmere sweaters. I mean, come on. That is not a way to support 
dissidents. That is not a way to support the struggling democratic 
movement in Cuba. This program has been mismanaged. It is up to the 
Members of this Congress to make sure we do the proper oversight to 
make sure that we're not wasting taxpayers' money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my colleague for the statement.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I call on Castro to not fear political 
dissidents in Cuba, nor free press, nor trade or travel with the U.S. 
But I also call on our government to consider the following: the U.S. 
has tried 45 years of an embargo and restrictive travel; the State 
Department has tried democracy assistance programs; and, the Treasury 
Department has tried restricting U.S. farmers from easily selling their 
products to Cuban consumers.
  All these U.S. government policies have failed to bring about a 
change of leadership in Cuba. Unfortunately throwing more money at TV 
Marti or democracy programs is not going to bring about a real change 
in Cuba. Real change can only be brought about by revolutionizing U.S. 
policy towards Cuba. Lifting the travel embargo--allowing for the free 
exchange of ideas and people between our country and Cuba--that's how 
we will support Cuban political discourse! That's how we will support 
freedom of expression in Cuba. Support lifting the embargo--vote 
against the Diaz-Balart amendment and support a saner policy towards 
Cuba!
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $158,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $140,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 63, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this restores $156 million of the $458 million that was 
cut. The amendment that we're going to offer today is in compliance 
with the Iraq Study Group.
  Now, about 226 Members of this body said they favor the Iraq Study 
Group. What this does is this puts money back in for demining. If you 
listen to the news today, there were 13 killed with regard to IEDs in 
the effort for demining. This also puts money in for training for human 
rights.
  Now, whether you want to go out today or whether you want to do 
whatever you want to do, we still need training for human rights, we 
still need training for capacity for democracy and governance, we still 
need ways for reconciliation to bring the parties together. We are 
always hearing about the differences between the different factions. 
That's what this money is for.
  The administration originally asked for $458 million. We knocked it 
down. We brought them in and said, what do you really need? They said, 
this is what we really need.
  This amendment is what the Iraq Study Group recommended. The Iraq 
Study Group recommendation number 6 says, ``Building the capacity of 
the Iraqi Government should be at the heart of U.S. reconstruction 
efforts, and capacity building demands additional U.S. resources.'' 
That's what this is on.

[[Page 16768]]

  I urge Members on both sides, this ought not be a political issue or 
partisan issue, to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. With great respect for my good friend and ranking member, 
Mr. Wolf, we have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency 
supplemental appropriations for Iraq, diplomatic operations and 
reconstruction.
  In addition, there are $3 billion for unexpended IRF funds. This 
amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for 
democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental 
provided $250 million for democracy activities, $67.6 million for civil 
society, $57.4 million for targeted development, $125 million in 
governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities.
  The amendment is also requesting $16 million in additional funding 
for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining activities. The 
recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq.
  Additionally, nowhere in this bill is there language restricting 
funding for humanitarian activities in Iraq. In my judgment, the 
administration should substantially expend the funds we have provided 
before Congress provides additional funding for the same purposes.
  And lastly, if the situation on the ground changes and our assistance 
can be used to make substantial achievements, we can address funding 
for Iraq as the President has requested, $2.893 billion in emergency 
appropriations for diplomatic operations and reconstruction in Iraq in 
fiscal year 2008.
  So, my colleagues, my good friend is requesting $158 million for 
purposes that have already been funded in a $2.8 billion supplemental. 
And there is another $2.893 billion supplemental coming up in 
September. I know that $158 million can be used for the tremendous 
needs around the world.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues join 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
this amendment offered by Mr. Wolf of Virginia to restore $158 million 
to this bill for democracy, governance, rule of law and human rights 
programs. In addition, it will fund nonproliferation and anti-terrorist 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate in this Chamber over the future of Iraq and 
the best course of action has been passionate and divisive. Each Member 
of this House has their own opinion, yet the one thing we should be 
united on is that our end goal should be the same, a secure and stable 
Iraq.
  Unfortunately, this bill predetermines failure by cutting off all 
funds to important democracy-building programs in Iraq. The majority 
has chosen to use this bill, as they have attempted several times 
already this year, to force a premature end to Iraq's pursuit of 
freedom and democracy. This will only lead to chaos and instability in 
the region.
  As a consultant to the Iraq Study Group, along with Mr. Wolf of 
Virginia, we introduced a bipartisan bill, the Iraq Study Group 
Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007 which provides a 
comprehensive set of recommendations and a plan of action to succeed in 
Iraq. Included in these recommendations are suggestions for funding 
democracy, governance and rule of law, all the items that are funded by 
this amendment.
  This bill has garnered 52 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, 
who have recognized the potential we have by implementing these 
recommendations together and moving forward as a united Congress. If we 
allow this bill to pass without the money for building an Iraq 
democracy, we condemn our mission to failure and declare that the 
sacrifices we made over the past several years were in vain. It will 
also squander any opportunity we have to give the Iraq Study Group 
recommendations a chance to succeed.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Wolf amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
vice chair of this committee, my distinguished friend, Mr. Jackson.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  We have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental 
appropriations for Iraq's diplomatic operations and reconstruction. As 
the gentleman has accurately noted in committee, the funding in this 
supplemental is tied up due to benchmarks; benchmarks that reflect the 
will of the American people and the Congress; benchmarks that 
presumably reflect the President's concurrence, as he signed them into 
law; benchmarks that can be argued are in the best interest of Iraq in 
becoming a stable democracy.

                              {time}  1100

  Furthermore, I believe the gentleman's argument is not valid, as the 
$2.863 billion we just provided will be available long before this bill 
comes back from the President's desk signed. Additionally, while I 
believe we provided sufficient funds for Iraq, I want to point out that 
the administration should substantially expend the funds that we have 
provided before Congress provides additional funding for the exact same 
purposes. Besides, Congress provided an extension of the authority to 
deobligate and then to reobligate prior-year appropriations to the Iraq 
Relief Construction Fund, which, as of May 1, 2007, had $3.119 billion 
in unexpended balances.
  In the committee, the gentleman raised the issue of visible support, 
as my last colleague raised in his remarks. I take a little bit of 
offense to that, because I think that every day our troops, our 
diplomats and aid workers are in harm's way, we show the greatest 
levels of support. What's more, none of the funding in the gentleman's 
amendment would go towards providing a safer environment for our men 
and women serving in the country of Iraq. We just provided $2.863 
billion.
  So let's take the gentleman's amendment apart for a moment and be 
clear on what we are considering. This amendment is requesting $140 
million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance 
programs. The supplemental provides $250 million for democracy 
activities; $67.6 million for civil society, and $57.4 million targeted 
for development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million 
in rule of law activities.
  On page 58, line 18, the amendment is requesting $16 million in 
additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining 
activities. I want to make a couple of points about that.
  The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in 
Iraq. We do not appropriate nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining-
related program accounts by country. We appropriate this account by 
program to allow the administration the flexibility to adjust to 
emerging priorities and opportunities. This amendment would seek to 
change that and radically affects how the President performs his 
duties.
  Additionally, this bill, and I want to emphasize this, this bill for 
the first time fully funds the President's request for NADR, something 
I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could 
not claim when they were in the majority. The humanitarian demining 
account is funded at the President's requested level of $56.5 million. 
It does not need further funding.
  On page 63, line 23, of the gentleman's amendment, where he requests 
an additional $2 million, the amendment is requesting this $2 million 
for foreign language training of Iraqi Security Forces. To date, we 
have provided $18 billion in training for the Iraqi Security Forces. $2 
million. Where does this figure come from? We have provided $18 
billion, and, now the distinguished ranking member seeks an additional 
$2 million.
  We have provided sufficient funding. Most of these accounts and 
numbers

[[Page 16769]]

are unexpended. The administration should substantially expend those 
funds we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for 
the exact same purposes, Mr. Chairman.
  Lastly, what is more, none of the funding in the gentleman's 
amendment would go toward providing a safer environment for our men and 
women serving in the country of Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for 
yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, while there are many disagreements about policy in 
Iraq, we can all agree that a military solution is insufficient. More 
evidence is clearly needed on the political, diplomatic, and economic 
fronts. But I have concerns about what I am hearing from across the 
aisle. Given the history, if we look back at the CR at the beginning of 
the year, there is a lack of clarity about how funds could be used by 
our State Department.
  Furthermore, we saw a marked reduction in human intelligence funding 
in the Intelligence authorization bill. In the supplemental, economic 
support funds were basically withheld. But some funding was restored 
through administration waivers. And now, in this bill, economic 
stabilization funds were basically zeroed.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank our colleague, our ranking member, for trying 
in subcommittee and in full committee to restore this funding. With 
this amendment, which I believe is very essential to success in Iraq, 
he has put forth this effort. This funding is clearly important if we 
are going to fund the political and economic endeavor in Iraq. The 
State Department cannot complete its planning and implementation of 
phase three of putting together these provincial reconstruction teams 
which are absolutely necessary to the success of the mission. So it is 
clear that we need for this amendment to pass to allow the State 
Department to plan and move.
  In the post-Cold War environment, we have grave responsibilities as a 
Nation. Yet we are refusing to fund our State Department worthy of this 
position of responsibility. The United Kingdom alone, which has one-
fifth the population of the United States, has 5,600 diplomats 
worldwide and 130,000 troops. The U.S. has a mere 6,500 diplomats 
worldwide with 1.4 million troops, 2.5 million if you count our 
Reserves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. Clearly, it is 
the responsible thing to do to move forward. It restores $140 million 
in economic support funds, $16 million in nonproliferation, anti-
terrorism and demining efforts, a critical, critical piece to this, and 
$2 million to increase international military education and training.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a responsible thing to do. I urge all 
of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I have a question for Mr. Boustany, my 
good friend, and the ranking member. I believe, Mr. Boustany, that you 
recommended that we fund this $158 million. Yet this amendment takes 
the money away from the State Department. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is 
doing a superb job. We just appropriated $2.8 billion in the 
supplemental. The American people have requested, and this Congress has 
requested, that we see some response to the benchmarks, that we see 
some response on the part of the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks 
that have been put in place.
  So if I understand correctly, even though the supplemental funded, 
and I am not going to repeat it, every single category that my dear 
friend, the ranking member and my friend, Mr. Boustany, are advocating 
for, you want to fund $158 million with funds from the State Department 
which are supporting Ambassador Ryan Crocker and other ambassadors 
around the world who are doing such an amazing job representing us.
  Mr. Chairman, I really think there is a disconnect here. I want you 
to know that for those of us who are opposing this amendment, with 
great respect, again, to my ranking member, we feel that the 
supplemental that has passed and the $2.8 billion that is coming up in 
September requested by the administration can address these issues if, 
in fact, there is an understanding that they are not being funded 
adequately.
  So, again, I strongly object to this amendment. I strongly object to 
taking funds away from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and our other 
ambassadors around the world and representatives of the State 
Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
by the gentleman from Virginia. I think it is important to focus on 
this debate. There is no challenge greater than this facing America 
right now. It is vitally important that we succeed in Iraq and allow 
that nation to establish a democracy. I hear on the other side that, 
well, we have amply funded this already.
  We are imposing dramatic increases in spending in thousands of other 
areas, a 56 percent increase in HIV/AIDS funding alone. What message do 
we send if we reduce spending in this area at this time? I would argue 
that whether you want out of Iraq tonight or whether you support the 
current course, it is vitally important that we send every message we 
possibly can to the Iraqi people and to our Nation that we are doing 
everything we can to support democracy.

                              {time}  1115

  That is what these funds are for. Of course, other funds have been 
spent, but these funds continue the effort to tell the Iraqi people we 
stand with them. These are funds for domestic purposes, for their 
security, for governance and for rule of law. I believe it is vitally 
important, indeed critically important for our Nation, that we fund 
this money now. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just for the record, did the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg) suggest that we decrease the money for HIV-AIDS around 
the world?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield. No, we are 
increasing it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thought you were suggesting that you didn't think that 
was a good idea; that it was more important to add to the $2.8 billion 
another $158 million and take it from the HIV funds. If I 
misunderstood, I apologize.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, by 
no means was I suggesting we should not be doing that. In fact, that is 
a discussion for another day. What I was suggesting is that there are 
many places where we are increasing spending even more dramatically 
than is suggested by the gentleman's amendment here for what I believe 
is a vitally important purpose, which is democracy, rule of law and 
governance in Iraq.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the gentleman 
believes that the $2.8 billion in the supplemental is not adequate and 
we must add $158 million now, even though there is another $2.8 billion 
supplement requested by the President for the fall.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairwoman for yielding me the time.
  The question here is one of unexpended balances. The amendment is 
requesting an additional $140 million for rule of law democracy-related 
programs, but the supplemental that is still warm on the President's 
desk provided $250 million for those democracy activities, and they 
have not been expended; $67.6 million for civil society and $57.4 
million targeted for development for $125 million in governance

[[Page 16770]]

programs, and they still haven't been expended; $150 million in rule of 
law activities that have not been expended as we move forward with the 
surge.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is premature to request $140 million additional 
dollars, page 40, line 26 of the gentleman's amendment, for moneys that 
have not been expended that the Congress just voted on in this 
particular bill. The same can be said of the gentleman's request on 
page 58, line 18, and page 63, line 23, $2 million. We have $18 billion 
to date appropriated for Iraqi Security Forces. Where does the figure 
$2 million come from? It comes from nowhere, Mr. Chairman.
  Support the chairwoman's request to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Members should know that Mr. Shays has been to 
Iraq 17 times and has been outside the umbrella of the military four 
times, and probably understands this issue in the Congress probably 
better than anybody else.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First I want to salute Mrs. Lowey. I think you have done a very fine 
job on this legislation. I know you are focused on a lot of issues, and 
I congratulate you for that.
  We have disagreement on a few items in a very significant bill. I 
have strong concern about the lack of any dollars for economic 
development in the fiscal year 2008 budget, and that is what we are 
talking about. We are not talking about an emergency supplemental, 
which, by the way, has lots of strings attached, which may mean, 
ironically, money may not be spent ever.
  We Republicans and Democrats, want to succeed in Iraq, economically, 
politically, socially and militarily. We want to succeed. The challenge 
is I feel like we are pulling the rug out from under the chance to 
succeed economically and politically.
  The reason why I say ``politically'' is I have been there before, 
during and after the elections. This money helped educate the Iraqis on 
how to have elections. They did their elections better than we do our 
elections in the United States.
  When I was outside the umbrella of the military, people would say, 
why have you put my father, my uncle, my brother, my cousin, my son out 
of work, when we abolished all of their military. So when I hear we 
spent $18 billion to reconstitute their military, that is not a large 
number. It is money that had to be used because of what we did. We 
attacked them. They did not attack us.
  We have a moral obligation, I believe, to put Iraq in a better place. 
If we don't do it economically and politically, any effort militarily 
fails.
  I mean no disrespect, but it is almost like there is an interest in 
having Iraq fail, so all the predictions that it will fail will be 
proven right. We need to prove ourselves wrong. We need to succeed.
  These dollars should be, in my judgment, in the 2008 account, not in 
an emergency supplemental, whether now or in the future. The 
administration asked for $458 million. We asked the NGO's to say, what 
are your absolute needs for economic support, the rule of law, 
governance and democracy? And they have come back to us and said, we 
need $158 million.
  I just hope that the gentlewoman in her wisdom will reconsider her 
decisions.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, with great respect, again, for our ranking member and 
for my friend Mr. Shays, who I know has been to Iraq many times, I do 
hope that in light of the supplemental, which has been funded at $2.8 
billion, and an additional supplemental which will be presented to the 
Congress in September for another $2.8 billion, we won't cut the rug 
from under our good friend, the competent Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and 
take this $158 million from the State Department for several lines that 
have been funded already in the supplemental. I won't go through that 
again.
  Mr. Ryan Crocker represents us, and I am so proud of his good work. I 
would like to support him and the other good men and women in the State 
Department around the world.
  So let's defeat this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully support the amendment offered by my good friend 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). This amendment gives vital assistance for 
demining, counterterrorism, rule of law programs, funding for Iraq 
military training and international human rights. We must remain 
committed to assisting the development of Iraq into a nation that is 
capable of governing itself, sustaining itself, defending itself and 
independently taking all necessary actions to root out terrorists and 
militias that seek to undermine the transition to a free and sovereign 
Iraqi Government, continue to promote democracy and the rule of law, 
continue to provide necessary services to the people of Iraq and 
maintain the authority of the Government of Iraq in all parts of its 
national territory.
  My colleagues seek to cut integral components of our effort for 
cooperation and coordination with Iraqi leaders. Mr. Wolf's amendment 
correctly is aimed at strengthening the Iraqi Government to make sure 
that that nation can truly become self-reliant and stable, and not 
count on the U.S. as a blank check any longer.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just in closing, the 
gentlewoman has been very good, and I appreciate the work of Mrs. Lowey 
on a lot of the issues. As Mr. Shays said, there are a lot of good 
things in the bill.
  This, in closing, deals with the whole issue of demining, human 
rights training, criminal justice, rule of law and human rights. None 
of these things really ought to be controversial for anybody, whatever 
their position. Also they fit into the recommendations of the Iraq 
Study Group.
  I think to offer an opportunity to heal and to build the private 
sector, the civilian sector in Iraq on these issues of human rights 
training is important, so when the United States is out, there will be 
respect for human rights, there will be criminal justice, there will be 
rule of law.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I guess I am asking him to yield really to a question so I 
can have a better understanding of the gentleman's amendment.
  Is it the intent of the gentleman's amendment that these funds would 
somehow not be subject to the benchmarks established in the 
supplemental bill for funding and future funding in Iraq? Is this 
around the benchmarks?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe they would be. 
The reason we did this, I will tell my friend from Illinois, is when 
the $458 million was cut, we asked the administration to come up and 
tell us what they really needed, because we said this is a very 
difficult issue. The gentlewoman put a lot of programs with good money 
in. What do you honestly need? So everything would be in compliance 
with the benchmarks. But it would also give them the initial funding. 
They said, we actually need this $158 million.
  But they would be, to answer your question, in compliance.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, if in fact, I certainly hope the Iraqi Government is 
able to achieve the benchmarks, but if in fact, for whatever reason, 
they are unsuccessful in achieving the benchmarks and the Congress of 
the United States is to recontemplate elements of the supplemental and 
additional funding for the efforts in Iraq, does this gentleman's 
amendment appropriate dollars that are not subject to the specific 
requirements of the benchmarks established in the supplemental? Is this 
a funding in addition to that funding?

[[Page 16771]]


  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is fiscal year 2008, 
and these would be all issues that I think everybody on both sides, 
Republican, Democrat, independent, moderate, conservative, would be 
for.
  If you go out on the street and say do you favor funding in the 2008 
bill for demining, I think you would get a 90-10 yes. If you said do 
you favor funding for human rights training or whatever the case may 
be, people would say yes. Do you favor funding with regard to the human 
rights rule of law, they would say yes.
  This is what the administration and the State Department, not so much 
the administration, the State Department really felt they would need.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide $1 million to the U.S. 
Institute of Peace, referred to as USIP, for the purposes of 
reestablishing the Iraq Study Group (ISG). We want the ISG to revisit 
Iraq to evaluate the condition in Iraq 1 year later, to look at their 
findings and compare them to a year ago, and to look at their 
recommendations to see where they might alter them. That is what the 
amendment does.
  I have spoken to Richard Solomon at the U.S. Institute of Peace, who 
said the Institute is prepared to do this, to reconstitute its expert 
working groups.
  This would be done at the same time that we are going to hear from 
Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus, who will be giving 
us their findings. But the Institute wanted to make clear they would 
not be there to look at and evaluate the Crocker-Petraeus findings and 
recommendations, but it would simply be a report that would be provided 
at the same time to which people then could compare.
  I spoke to one of the principals of the Iraq Study Group, Lee 
Hamilton. He said he is willing to take this effort on, provided it is 
to review what they did, to look at what has taken place in Iraq, to 
review their observations, their findings and their recommendations, 
but they would not be eager to take the Petraeus-Crocker report and 
analyze it. It would be done so there would be two instruments that 
Congress could look at.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will move $1 million from 
the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account to the United States 
Institute for Peace to reconstitute the Iraq Study Group. Although I 
feel compelled to point out the likelihood that by the time this bill 
is signed into law, the study on the effectiveness of the President's 
surge in Iraq will have passed, but, nevertheless, I support this 
amendment because I feel there is value added to reconstituting the 
Iraq Study Group, something that our ranking member continues to 
deserve kudos for establishing in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
gentlewoman, thank you very much. I would point out that the Iraq Study 
Group was an instrument created by both sides of the aisle, but 
particularly by Mr. Wolf. It is a bipartisan effort, and it would be 
good to continue this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman for accepting the 
amendment. I appreciate it very much. I thank Mr. Shays for offering 
it. I think this is really the way the country is going to go.
  There may be a vote here. Mr. Udall and other Members, along with Mr. 
Shays and Mr. McCaul, have a bill in to make the Iraq study the policy 
for the Nation.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for accepting it and thank Mr. Shays.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by thanking Mr. Shays 
again and my distinguished ranking member, who deserves our praise for 
establishing the Iraq Study Group in the first place. I thank you both.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
strong support for this amendment.
  U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Multi-National Force Commander 
General David Petraeus will provide an assessment of Iraq this fall.
  The assessment will include the military, economic and political 
situation in Iraq.
  The assessment will be a key determinant for future U.S. involvement.
  The debate over what to do in Iraq will continue and the Crocker-
Petraeus assessment will be challenged.
  If the report is positive Crocker and Petraeus must provide specific 
signs of progress and lay out in detail how long and how many troops 
will be needed in Iraq.
  If the report is negative then Crocker and Petraeus should provide 
definitive steps on a phased withdrawal plan that reduces the number of 
lives lost.
  Whatever the outcome of the Crocker-Petraeus assessment we need an 
independent validation of the assessment.
  This is why I am supporting Mr. Shays' amendment to reconstitute the 
Iraq Study Group.
  This bipartisan group, that provided observations and recommendations 
to the President last December concerning the situation in Iraq would 
be reengaged and provide the American people a bipartisan perspective 
of what we can expect for the future of Iraq.
  With all the partisan debate we witness week in and week out in 
Washington, we must reconstitute this nonpartisan group, which has as 
its only goal, moving forward American interests.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we come together and support this amendment 
to provide a bipartisan assessment of the situation in Iraq.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Lowey and 
Representative Wolf, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        capital investment fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $59,062,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized: Provided,

[[Page 16772]]

     That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-236 shall not apply to 
     funds available under this heading.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $32,508,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to 
     post inspections.


               educational and cultural exchange programs

       For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs, 
     as authorized, $501,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, may be credited to this 
     appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in 
     connection with English teaching, educational advising and 
     counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as 
     authorized: Provided further, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, $6,000,000 shall be transferred 
     to the Fund established by section 313 of the Legislative 
     Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 1151).


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized, $8,175,000.


              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services, as authorized, $28,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009.


            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-303), preserving, 
     maintaining, repairing, and planning for buildings that are 
     owned or directly leased by the Department of State, 
     renovating, in addition to funds otherwise available, the 
     Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the Diplomatic 
     Security Construction Program as authorized, $729,898,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized, of which not 
     to exceed $25,000 may be used for domestic and overseas 
     representation as authorized: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
     acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or generators for 
     other departments and agencies.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     acquisition, and construction as authorized, $806,900,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service, $14,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the ``Repatriation Loans 
     Program Account'', subject to the same terms and conditions.


                   repatriation loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $678,000, as authorized: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $607,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with funds in the ``Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'' account.


              payment to the american institute in taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act (Public Law 96-8), $16,351,000.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $158,900,000.

                      International Organizations


              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $1,354,400,000: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of State shall, at the time of the submission 
     of the President's budget to Congress under section 1105(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code, transmit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations the most recent biennial budget prepared by 
     the United Nations for the operations of the United Nations: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     (or in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable) of 
     any United Nations action to increase funding for any United 
     Nations program without identifying an offsetting decrease 
     elsewhere in the United Nations budget and cause the United 
     Nations budget for the biennium 2008-2009 to exceed the 
     revised United Nations budget level for the biennium 2006-
     2007 of $4,173,895,900: Provided further, That any payment of 
     arrearages under this title shall be directed toward special 
     activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States 
     and the respective international organization: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution 
     to an international organization for the United States share 
     of interest costs made known to the United States Government 
     by such organization for loans incurred on or after October 
     1, 1984, through external borrowings.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase 
our funding of international counterterrorist programs, while also 
calling out the United Nations for its continued reluctance to 
recognize and fight international terrorism.
  We are at war with an enemy whose tactics not only involve the 
destruction of non-combatants, women, little children, people just 
trying to work or buying something at the market; their tactics depend 
on such destruction.

                              {time}  1130

  Terrorists disregard the rules of warfare and strike at pure 
innocents. They wear no uniform and often do not even care about saving 
their own lives. Despite the fact that the world is in the throes of 
the violence of terrorism, the U.N. has done so very little to fight 
this threat on humanity.
  The U.N. marks progress against terrorism by how many committees they 
have formed and how many documents have been signed. We need a world 
body that does not consider an expanded bureaucracy as success. We need 
a world body that is a partner in the war on terror.
  Instead, the U.N. spends its time passing toothless resolutions on 
counterterrorism that even countries such as Iran, Libya, and Syria can 
support. These nations will continue to funnel money to terrorist 
organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Mahdi Army knowing that 
there will be absolutely no repercussions from the U.N.
  My amendment proposes to shift $20 million, approximately 3 percent 
of the U.S. contribution to the U.N., to antiterrorism assistance 
programs. If the U.N. is unwilling to join the fight against terrorism, 
we should reallocate our dollars, reallocate a portion of the funds 
intended for them to programs which are truly working to bring real 
peace to the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. This amendment would cut $20 million from the 
contributions for international organizations. The question posed by 
this amendment is straightforward: Do you want to take funds away from 
an account that is saving lives every day around the world?
  Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year told Senate 
appropriators that U.N. peacekeeping was an example of the benefit of 
empowering partner nations, and it would cost the United States 
taxpayers almost eight times as much.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentlelady from New York yield 
for a clarification?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Of course.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. This amendment is not as to where our 
funds are coming from.

[[Page 16773]]


  Mrs. LOWEY. I apologize, we were responding to another amendment. 
Would the gentleman please clarify your amendment so we can direct our 
debate to the appropriate amendment. Is this the one you are going to 
offer and withdraw?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Exactly.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would be delighted to respond to you then. I thank the 
gentleman for withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet officially 
withdrawn my amendment. I would appreciate a comment from the 
gentlelady with regard to her support in general of our ideas on this 
amendment and the agreeability to work together to achieve what we are 
aiming for in this regard.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Would the gentleman from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I really do apologize to the gentleman because the order 
of the amendments was changed.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand.
  Mrs. LOWEY. And international peacekeeping is very important to me, 
but as soon as I understand what your amendment is that you are going 
to withdraw, I would be delighted to comment on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Could the gentleman redesignate the amendment? There seems to be a 
question. My comments were concerning the amendment to cut CIPA. May I 
have some clarification on what amendment we are discussing?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, hopefully that redesignation 
is a clarification.
  What we are trying to do is not, as in a subsequent amendment where 
we will be taking funds from the peacekeeping mission, which is what 
the gentlelady was referring to here, instead is to take money from the 
U.N. international organization line and redesignate those $20 million 
to join us in the fight against terrorism.
  As my opening comments to the Chair stated, the U.N. has done a 
woefully poor job when it comes to fighting terrorism around the world. 
We only have to look at the situation in the Sudan and Darfur, where 
they are not even able at this late date to define and tell us a 
genocide is going on. My goodness, the U.N. has not been able to 
grapple with the definition of what a genocide is, let alone take 
responsive action to try to bring it to an end.
  Likewise in the area of terrorism, the U.N. has again willfully and 
woefully failed to step up to the plate and be an instrument in 
fighting terrorism with so many of the world nations, the United States 
obviously taking a lead in that course.
  If the U.N. is not going to be the international body to step up and 
take affirmative action in these areas, I think it is incumbent upon us 
here in this House to make sure that our dollars, our limited American 
taxpayer dollars, do not go to an organization, the U.N., an 
international body that is not getting the job done; but instead, to 
reallocate those dollars, to reallocate $20 million. That is only 3 
percent of the U.S. contributions to the U.N. to antiterrorism 
assistance.
  Homeland security, fighting terrorism, is one of the hallmark 
principles that I came to Congress to work on and to achieve end 
results on, and this amendment to this legislation will go to that end.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from New Jersey.
  I do believe that nuclear nonproliferation must be a key focus of 
this committee and this Congress. In fact, in this bill because of the 
recommendations of so many members of our subcommittee and Members of 
Congress, we have increased money for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. 
So I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue as we 
move ahead.
  However, I do think that your offset, taking money from U.N. dues, is 
actually unwise and not a very good policy decision.
  Many people have criticized the U.N., want to disband the U.N., want 
to cut off dues to the U.N., and then when we need the U.N., they 
wonder: What are we going to do if we didn't have a United Nations?
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from New Jersey in 
strengthening the committees of the U.N. and working together to face 
the tremendous challenges we have internationally. So I support the 
gentleman's concerns about nuclear nonproliferation, and I look forward 
to working with the gentleman; but I strongly oppose taking the money 
from U.N. dues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we are in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand that the 
gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but let me be clear, the 
various international organizations for which this account is 
designated and the dues that we pay not only to the U.N. but to other 
member organizations that our country is a part of, believe me when I 
tell you, the State Department has made it very clear in each of those 
organizations that we are in a global war on terror and our 
contributions to those organizations, part of our mandatory obligations 
to those organizations for which the gentleman seeks to cut funding, 
would quite frankly undermine our ability to maintain our own status 
within those international organizations as we try to direct the global 
war on terror.
  The spirit of the gentleman's amendment, some aspects of it are 
actually covered in the supplemental bill and some aspects of it are 
obviously covered in our bill, is something that is very difficult to 
argue against, an additional $20 million for demining activities. Part 
of this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
in his amendment, and it is something in principle that we can support.
  Sufficient in this bill are the resources to advance democracy 
activities and demining activities, but by cutting aid to international 
organizations and contributions, cutting our contribution, our 
mandatory contribution to those organizations, is something that I 
believe the chairman and the majority would reject.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully understand 
there was a misunderstanding as to which amendment we were dealing 
with, and I appreciate the Chairman redesignating the amendment.
  The previous speaker made reference to ending nuclear 
nonproliferation and the like. Again, this amendment does not go to 
that point. This amendment simply goes to the point of taking money 
from the international organizations funds and trying to fight 
terrorism.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
do not withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is my understanding correct that the 
gentleman was going to withdraw his amendment, and now he is not going 
to withdraw his amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not withdrawn his amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Then let me make it clear on behalf of the 
distinguished chairman and the committee that we rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

[[Page 16774]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Foxx:
       Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $203,082,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would restore the 
funding level for international organizations provided in this bill to 
the fiscal year 2007 level.
  The purpose of my amendment is twofold. First, it would help bring 
accountability to organizations that have demonstrated limited 
effectiveness. Second, this amendment would help control the out-of-
control Federal deficit.
  This keeps the funding level at last year's level, which was very 
reasonable. In fiscal year 2006, total interest payments on Treasury 
debt securities amounted to $405.9 billion, or about 14 percent of 
Federal outlays. That amounts to 1.7 percent of the U.S. GDP. 
Translated, that means 1.7 cents of every dollar produced by Americans 
is used to pay interest on the Federal debt.
  As a percentage of GDP, the Federal debt ratio is larger for the 
United States than it is in Finland, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland and 
the United Kingdom. By any measure, it should be clear to any 
responsible fiscal steward that Congress needs to do more to control 
deficit spending to help reduce the Federal debt.
  My amendment would take a small but much-needed step in that 
direction. With a little help from the majority party in Congress, we 
could reduce unnecessary spending and return more money to the American 
people who earned it in the first place.
  Second, I wonder what our constituents would think if they knew they 
were being forced to pay millions for perpetual, never-ending funding 
increases for organizations such as the International Bureau for 
Weights and Measures, the International Coffee Association, the 
International Copper Study Group, the International Hydrographic 
Organization, the International Lead and Zinc Study Group, the 
International Rubber Study Group, and the World Organization for Animal 
Health.
  Given the tremendous amount of funding contained in the bill for the 
United Nations, I am particularly interested in encouraging that body 
to reexamine its spending habits so it can be more effective at 
fulfilling its mission.

                              {time}  1145

  As most would agree, the purpose of the United Nations is to help 
promote peace and security throughout the world. However, it has 
obviously failed miserably in that respect. Iran's nuclear weapons 
program is still chugging along at a rapid pace, threatening Israel and 
the entire region. Genocide persists in Sudan. All of the minds at the 
United Nations can't even agree on a definition for the word 
``terrorism'' in an age where terrorism remains one of the biggest 
threats to humanity and civilization.
  Furthermore, despite the implicit purpose of the United Nations Human 
Rights Council to promote global human rights, this body has among its 
membership notorious human rights abusers such as Angola, China, Cuba, 
Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Iran serves as the Vice Chair of the 
U.N. Disarmament Commission, Syria is the Rapporteur of the U.N. 
Disarmament Commission, Zimbabwe is the Chair of the U.N. Commission on 
Sustainable Development, and Sudan serves on the Executive Committee of 
the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
  And if that wasn't enough, an examination of a ranked list of 
countries subject to the most U.N. condemnation for human rights 
violations in 2006 reveals Israel ranking first, having received 135 
actions, nearly twice as many as Sudan, the next country listed, and 
more than the number of actions directed at Iran, China, Colombia, 
Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Syria combined. The United States ranks fourth 
on this list, having been subject to 38 actions. This indicates that 
the United Nations is more interested in condemning Israel and the 
United States than it is in horrendous human rights abusers throughout 
the world.
  With that being said, the part of my amendment that should draw 
support from both sides of the aisle is the fact that my amendment 
doesn't cut a dollar from U.S. spending on international organizations. 
My amendment simply maintains the fiscal year 2007 level. By holding 
the line on spending, Congress can have another year to work on 
balancing the books and finding other ways to fund the increased 
spending proposals contained in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when Americans are being asked to do more 
with their budgets, it is only reasonable to expect the same out of 
those who benefit from generous American donations. That is why it 
should be clear to all of my colleagues why they should support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. This amendment would cut $203 million from our 
contribution to international organizations. This amendment fails to 
realistically address the effect our arrears have on our standing in 
the world community. At a time when the United States is increasingly 
relying on international organizations to further our security 
interests around the world, shortchanging our treaty-obligated 
contributions to these organizations undercuts our foreign policy goals 
and undermines our reputation around the world. It also countermands 
our new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's call to pay our dues in full and 
on time. As of today, the United States is $291 million in arrears at 
the U.N. for regular budget contributions alone. The United States has 
chosen to belong to each of these organizations. They leverage U.S. 
taxpayer dollars and advance a wide range of U.S. foreign policy 
objectives, including monitoring nuclear proliferation through the 
IAEA, creating norms for international telecommunications through the 
ITU, and fending off global pandemics through the WHO.
  The administration and the Congress have underfunded and cut this 
account in recent years. This amendment would continue this trend. The 
United States has an $80 million deficit in the CIO account and the 
State Department is paying U.S. dues late or incurring arrears in 
virtually every organization in this account. Shortfalls to the CIO 
account in 2006 caused the State Department to pay all of its regular 
dues to the IAEA almost a full year late, even as we relied on that 
organization to track nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea; pay 
dues to our allies in the OECD almost a year late; pay all of our dues 
to the WHO about a year late, even as we asked WHO to help contain 
avian flu; and pay the vast majority of our regular dues to NATO a year 
or so late, even as we relied on that organization to shore up security 
in Afghanistan.
  This amendment has no appreciation of the influence this increasing 
trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations has 
on our ability to sway others and it is difficult to justify why our 
priorities should be given full consideration when we chronically pay 
our dues late. Paying these international organizations late is 
counterproductive to achieving

[[Page 16775]]

United States international security goals. The increasing trend of 
paying late and underfunding international organizations confounds U.S. 
demands for better management in them.
  An example of this detrimental effect is seen at the World Health 
Organization which reports that the arrears owed by the United States 
are preventing well-managed budgets and resulting in programs not 
reaching optimal effectiveness for a year or more after they were 
planned to be fully operational. Further, other dues-paying countries 
take note when the United States fails to honor its commitments in 
these international organizations. As a result, our influence on making 
budgetary and policy decisions in them is lessened. For example, the 
U.S. consistently wants the Food and Agriculture Organization to 
increase its capacity to set worldwide food and plant standards, yet it 
is very difficult to justify why U.S. priorities for the FAO should be 
given full consideration when the U.S. is chronically paying its dues 
there about a year late.
  Therefore, I strongly object to the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what my colleague has 
said. But these organizations do nothing to help the security of the 
United States. The U.N. is an ineffective and corrupt organization and 
our continuing to provide much of its funding implicitly endorses that 
corruption and ineffectiveness. If we put this to a vote of the 
American people, they would say, fund nothing of the United Nations. 
Keeping this at level funding is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairwoman.
  Well, here we go again, cutting a multilateral account that allows us 
to hold our head up high in the international community as we organize 
the international community in the global war on terror in favor of 
unilateralism.
  To fight the war on terror, we must be multilateral and not 
unilateral. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Khalilzad said pay our dues on 
time and pay it in full. Every time there's a crisis that confronts our 
country, we run to the U.N., we run to the international community 
demanding their involvement to help provide security for the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Everyone has frustrations. I think the U.N. could do certainly a lot 
more on Darfur and many of the other things. They stood by and frankly 
didn't do very much in Rwanda, either. But what this amendment would 
do, I think, is people have to look at it. This would actually cut NATO 
fees, and NATO is sort of the backbone of what we're doing in 
Afghanistan and many other places, but particularly $41 million out of 
this fund goes to NATO.
  Also, on the World Health Organization with regard to avian flu and 
things like that, this is not the time to do that. Also, there is 
another issue that I have personally made a cause, of funding the war 
crime tribunals to bring people to justice. This would cut the war 
crimes tribunal in Rwanda where over 800,000 people have died between 
the Hutus and the Tutsis and that whole issue. Also the former 
Yugoslavia where after the genocide that took place, Milosevic was 
brought to the court.
  So for those reasons, I understand what the gentlelady is trying to 
do. But I think this would be the wrong place to kind of do it, from 
NATO and IAEA and the World Health Organization and the war crimes 
tribunal.
  Lastly, this is at the request of President Bush, of the Bush 
administration. This is what the Bush administration, President Bush, 
has requested.
  For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
       Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the chairman.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that will partially restore the 
administration's funding request for the International Narcotics 
Control and Law Enforcement account in the FY08 State Department and 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This amendment would add $30 
million to the account, halfway between the committee funding level and 
the President's request. This is a bipartisan amendment. I would like 
to thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Cuellar, for 
his support as an author and cosponsor.
  Earlier this month I attended the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary 
Group in Austin, Texas, and for 3 days we talked about issues important 
to the United States and Mexico. The major topic discussed was the 
issue of increasing violence and lawlessness along the U.S.-Mexico 
border. The drug cartels have taken control over northern Mexico and 
law enforcement has become corrupt and ineffective. Since his 
inauguration earlier this year, President Calderon has begun a renewed 
effort to reestablish law enforcement's control over his country and 
their borders. However, the drug kingpins are ruthless in their efforts 
to retain control and the Mexican Government's law enforcement 
capabilities are sorely outdated. Just recently, the drug cartels 
brazenly ordered the assassination of a Mexican state legislator.
  I would like to take a moment to commend Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking 
Member Wolf for including $27.5 million in the bill for this effort and 
for recognizing in the report language of the bill the need to address 
this problem which so devastatingly impacts our southern border, our 
national security and the citizens of this country. However, I believe 
that additional funding would go a long way to eradicating the drug 
cartels.
  The offset in this amendment is a $30 million reduction in the 
contributions to the international organization's account. I believe 
it's a worthwhile transfer of funds that will benefit not only our 
border with Mexico but also our counterdrug efforts worldwide. One of 
the most important international peacekeeping efforts today should be 
on the southern border against the violent criminal enterprise of the 
narcotraffickers.
  The cartels control the corridor routes into this country, exporting 
drugs and human trafficking across our southern border. The 
intersection between these criminal enterprises and potential 
terrorists could be deadly. In the post-9/11 world, we can no longer 
continue to ignore this threat.

[[Page 16776]]

  At a time when the newly elected Mexican Government has stepped 
forward and made a commitment to reform its law enforcement and combat 
the drug cartels, it is important that we provide as much funding and 
resources as possible to the International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Again, Madam Chair, I thank you for the time and I also 
appreciate the work that you have done in making sure that we help the 
Mexican Government fight the drug cartel problems that they have. We 
have a perfect opportunity at this time, and I think Mr. McCaul 
understands this since we have been working on this for a while, that 
they have a President now, President Calderon, that is willing to go 
ahead and take on the powerful drug cartels. Being from Laredo, Texas, 
I see what's been happening across the river. We had, talking about one 
of the Congressmen, my counterpart right across Laredo in Nuevo Laredo, 
there was an attempt to assassinate him, he ended up in the hospital, 
his chauffeur got killed, because again he wanted to go ahead and fight 
the drug cartels.
  It is extremely important that we provide this extra funding because 
if we don't, what you're going to have, you're going to have a bigger 
problem than what we're seeing right now across the river. It has 
permeated not only the law enforcement, it has not only permeated also 
the judiciary, but it has also affected other parts of the society.

                              {time}  1200

  The Mexican Government wants to work with us, and I want to make sure 
that we work on increasing the dollars.
  My understanding is, and I am hoping that my colleague will be 
willing to do that, that if we can withdraw this amendment, I believe 
we have a commitment from the chairwoman that in conference committee 
she will go ahead and increase the dollars, because we need more than 
what's been appropriated so far, what's currently in the bill itself.
  I believe we have a commitment that, Mr. McCaul, if you are willing 
to withdraw, together, both of us, we do have a commitment from the 
chairwoman. She has been very good at keeping her word on this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for your important work with Mr. 
McCaul on this issue.
  I understand the urgency and the impact of methamphetamine in your 
areas and the tremendous negative impact on the people you represent.
  I have a problem with the offset. Therefore, if you will withdraw 
this amendment, I would be delighted to work with the gentlemen as we 
approach our conference in increasing money for this very important 
need.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I will consider withdrawing the amendment. I 
would like to get a few assurances from the gentlelady, if I may, and 
that is that this funding would be directed primarily, would be 
targeted towards the problem at the U.S.-Mexico border with the drug 
cartels who have controlled these corridors that I mentioned.
  If I could just add, my subcommittee on Homeland Security issued this 
report on the border last conference confirming the threat. This was 
given to President Calderon by Secretary Chertoff.
  He understands this. I have met with the Mexican Congress. They 
understand it. Our State Department actually does understand this. 
While they may not ask overtly, they really could use these funds to 
confront this threat.
  I would ask, in exchange for withdrawing, that we try to come as 
close as possible to the number I have requested and that that money be 
directed towards the threat that Mr. Cuellar and I see so often down in 
a border State.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would say to the gentleman that in my discussions with 
Mr. Cuellar he is very clear about the urgency of this issue and the 
impact of these concerns on the citizens that you both represent.
  I would be delighted to work with you. We will certainly search for 
funding as close to the numbers you mention as we possibly can.
  Again, the only issue with this amendment was the offset, not the 
important need for the funding.
  I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with you. I 
thank you for withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with those assurances, I will 
withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $1,302,000,000, of which 15 percent shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended for any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping 
     mission unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the 
     new or expanded mission in the United Nations Security 
     Council (or in an emergency as far in advance as is 
     practicable): (1) the Committees on Appropriations and other 
     appropriate committees of the Congress are notified of the 
     estimated cost and length of the mission, the national 
     interest that will be served, and the planned exit strategy; 
     (2) the Committees on Appropriations and other appropriate 
     committees of the Congress are notified that the United 
     Nations has taken appropriate measures to prevent United 
     Nations employees, contractor personnel, and peacekeeping 
     forces serving in any United Nations peacekeeping mission 
     from trafficking in persons, exploiting victims of 
     trafficking, or committing acts of illegal sexual 
     exploitation, and to hold accountable individuals who engage 
     in such acts while participating in the peacekeeping mission; 
     and (3) a reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 615 of 
     this Act is submitted, and the procedures therein followed, 
     setting forth the source of funds that will be used to pay 
     for the cost of the new or expanded mission: Provided 
     further, That funds shall be available for peacekeeping 
     expenses only upon a certification by the Secretary of State 
     to the appropriate committees of the Congress that American 
     manufacturers and suppliers are being given opportunities to 
     provide equipment, services, and material for United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities equal to those being given to foreign 
     manufacturers and suppliers.


         Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 10, line 17, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, including the prosecution in their home 
     countries of such individuals in connection with such acts''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. First of all, I want to begin by saying 
that I am pleased that the committee has taken steps to see that the 
United Nations peacekeeping forces are not or will not be engaged in 
human trafficking or other sex crimes. But I am concerned that the 
language in the bill, quite frankly, does not go quite far enough.
  The facts are that between 2004 and 2006, 179 peacekeepers from the 
U.N., under their charge, under their control, were dismissed or 
repatriated following investigations for sex crimes. Yet only a very 
few of these have been successfully prosecuted for their crimes.
  Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed that 
members of the U.N. force in southern Sudan had abused children as 
young as 12. Just last year, the U.N. had tried to claim that these 
reports were just unfounded rumors, but only after these

[[Page 16777]]

reports did the U.N. admit to repatriating four of these individuals 
for these crimes. Yet none of these four have ever been prosecuted in 
their home country of Bangladesh.
  Just this week, the Government of Sudan agreed to a substantial 
peacekeeping force in Darfur. We must ensure the people of Darfur, who 
have been subject to a systemic rape and violence constituting 
genocide, do not suffer further at the hands of the people who are 
there to protect them.
  I am concerned that the language in the present bill that the U.N. 
``hold accountable'' these individuals will mean that the U.N. 
peacekeepers will continue to get away scot-free. All national armed 
forces have processes for court martial and punishing crimes committed 
by their personnel. The U.N. must see to it that these countries 
offering peacekeepers actually apply their system of justice when a 
crime is committed.
  The U.N. is supposedly committed to high ideals of human rights and 
justice. We are merely asking that they keep them to ensure that their 
own personnel and others operating under the U.N. flag do not use their 
position to commit gross crimes. Let us be clear that the United States 
taxpayers funding these important missions will not stand for this 
injustice.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for accepting the 
amendment, because I do believe, as I am sure she does as well, that 
this is the right thing to do for the people of the world and not only 
for the people here in the United States as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:


 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $30,430,000.


                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $15,725,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized.


              american sections, international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by 
     treaties between the United States and Canada or Great 
     Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $10,630,000, 
     of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for 
     representation expenses incurred by the International Joint 
     Commission.


                  international fisheries commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $26,000,000: Provided, That the United States share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.

                                 Other


                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the 
     Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $15,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized.


         center for middle eastern-western dialogue trust fund

       For necessary expenses of the Center for Middle Eastern-
     Western Dialogue Trust Fund, the total amount of the interest 
     and earnings accruing to such Fund on or before September 30, 
     2008, to remain available until expended.


                 eisenhower exchange fellowship program

       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
     5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September 
     30, 2008, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any 
     contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the 
     rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are 
     not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform 
     Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for 
     Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on 
     compensation for personal services.


                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2008, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the Department of State to the National 
     Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, $80,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors


                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, as authorized, to carry out international 
     communication activities, including the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio and 
     television transmission and reception and purchase, lease, 
     and installation of necessary equipment for radio and 
     television transmission and reception to Cuba, and to make 
     and supervise grants for radio and television broadcasting to 
     the Middle East, $671,632,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount in this heading, not to exceed $16,000 may be used for 
     official receptions within the United States as authorized, 
     not to exceed $35,000 may be used for representation abroad 
     as authorized, and not to exceed $39,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses of Radio Free 
     Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $2,000,000 in receipts 
     from advertising and revenue from business ventures, not to 
     exceed $500,000 in receipts from cooperating international 
     organizations, and not to exceed $1,000,000 in receipts from 
     privatization efforts of the Voice of America and the 
     International Broadcasting Bureau, to remain available until 
     expended for carrying out authorized purposes.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mack

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mack:
       Page 14, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000) (reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, while we in this Chamber can debate in 
freedom, and the American people can hear and see our every word, 
thanks to a free press, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, the only thing that 
people can see or hear are the things that Hugo Chavez lets his media 
print and broadcast.
  Freedom of the press died in Venezuela on May 27, 2007, when Chavez 
shut down RCTV. This was just the latest in a long line of actions to 
snuff out free press, free speech, and free thought. By shutting down 
the largest and oldest TV network in the country, Chavez is sending a 
message to all other media that he has the power to do anything he 
wants to with radio and television stations in Venezuela.
  The government is targeting opposition voices because of their 
massive reach, appeal, and influence throughout the country. Chavez 
said: ``I am going to go after those who resist the revolution and 
eliminate them one by one.'' This was in reference to one of the only 
remaining independent voices left in Venezuela.
  As the window of independent media in Venezuela closes, Voice of 
America will play a critical role in getting the truth out about what 
is happening in the country.

[[Page 16778]]

  Voice of America must provide and create additional programs. With 
targeted funding, Voice of America can have an even greater ability and 
capability to broadcast longer with more programming. Voice of America 
serves as a significant counter to Chavez's propaganda being exported 
to Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba.
  My amendment would significantly grant the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors the tools to increase broadcasting to Venezuela and Latin 
America.
  Chavez's communist plans for the future do not include independent 
media and freedom of the press. We must recognize the war on terrorism 
is in our backyard. The gang of countries lining up with Chavez is 
powerful: Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and others, together with the 
likes of Iran.
  We must recognize a serious threat to our national security. In fact, 
just this morning, Chavez announced plans to visit Iran in a few weeks, 
following a long courtship between the two countries.
  The window of freedom is closing fast. We cannot turn our backs on 
the people of Venezuela. We must do more to promote freedom inside 
Venezuela.
  America has always been a beacon of freedom in our hemisphere. Now we 
must be the pillar of hope for the people of Venezuela and our friends 
and neighbors in Latin America who fear Hugo Chavez and his communist 
revolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to 
the attention of the House. International broadcasting is an essential 
component of our Nation's public diplomacy strategy, enjoys broad 
bipartisan support in our committee.
  The bill before the House includes $671.6 million for the 
international broadcasting operations of the BBG. It restores over $30 
million in cuts to BBG language services proposed in the President's 
budget. It includes program increases requested for high-priority areas 
such as $2.9 million for broadcasting to North Korea, $.5 million for 
enhanced broadcasting to Somalia, $1.2 million for Radio Sawa in the 
Middle East, $5 million to retain BBG's broadcast capability.
  The matter of broadcasting to Venezuela is an emerging issue. I 
commend the gentleman for his amendment and join him in urging its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman for accepting 
the amendment.
  Venezuela is going down the wrong path, and I think this will help us 
set a new course so the people of Venezuela can continue to enjoy the 
freedom and democracy they deserve.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Skelton, for the purpose 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairwoman of the 
State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy on 
oversight on Iraq funding.
  Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you for your hard work in ensuring 
that funds spent in Iraq are properly overseen. Your bill on the floor 
today contains a section concerning the Special Inspector General for 
Iraq Reconstruction that extends the authorities of that office.
  The National Defense Authorization Act, which came out of the Armed 
Services Committee and passed the House on May 17, contained a 
provision with similar goals that I had worked out with Chairman Lantos 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  I want to thank, first, the chairwoman for pursuing this issue so 
strenuously. Also, I want to express my appreciation that we were able 
to work out a way forward so that our two committees worked together on 
the issue, rather than pursuing separate paths.
  Rather than contesting it at this time, the inclusion of this 
authorization language in the State Department, Foreign Operations and 
Related Programs appropriations bill, I rise to assure you that you 
will be involved in the Defense authorization conference on the SIGIR 
issue. I am glad that in return you have offered to drop your provision 
in conference on your bill so that together we can ensure that there is 
only one version of the language instead of competing versions.
  I yield to the chairwoman for a response.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank Chairman Skelton for his hard work on this 
project.
  We included the SIGIR provision in our appropriations bill to ensure 
that this subject does not fall out somewhere in the process. You and I 
agree completely on the importance of the SIGIR office.
  I look forward to working with you to make sure that the version 
ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act 
conference report achieves the goals our respective bills laid out. It 
is my intention to drop section 696 of the State, Foreign Operations 
appropriations act in conference so that we do not end up with 
competing versions of the same language.
  Mr. SKELTON. Let me sincerely thank the chairwoman. I do look forward 
to working with you on this issue. I think this is the right way to 
approach this, and I certainly appreciate it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   broadcasting capital improvements

       For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities for radio and television transmission and 
     reception, and purchase and installation of necessary 
     equipment for radio and television transmission and reception 
     as authorized, $10,748,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $499,000, as authorized by section 
     1303 of Public Law 99-83.

                              {time}  1215

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into colloquy with Mr. Blumenauer.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy, as I 
appreciate the hard work that she and her committee have done bringing 
forward, I think, a really terrific bill.
  I wish to enter into colloquy with you, Madam Chair. At the end of 
2005 Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act with 
broad bipartisan support. At the time it was called landmark 
legislation.
  Unfortunately, today it's clear that the intent and many of the legal 
requirements in the Water for the Poor Act are not being met by the 
State Department and USAID.
  Earlier this month the State Department delivered its second report 
on the required drinking water and sanitation strategy. Unfortunately, 
it continues to be more of a recitation of the work they're doing, 
rather than a strategic, forward-looking road map to move from the 
current state of access to achieving the international commitment to 
cut in half the percentage of people without access to safe drinking 
water and sanitation.
  While our legislation was specifically written so that it would 
improve aid quality at any level, there was also a call to increase the 
amount of resources devoted to the very poor. For instance, as part of 
the strategy, we required an increase in the percentage of assistance 
going to high-priority countries, defined as countries with the 
greatest need, and countries in which assistance would be expected to 
make the greatest difference. Many, if not most of these countries 
would be in sub-Saharan Africa.
  For too long the State Department has used disaster funding to 
artificially inflate the numbers it used to meet

[[Page 16779]]

congressional requirements, instead of giving the necessary focus to 
long-term sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for 
the poor.
  For too long, sub-Saharan Africa has gotten funding that is inversely 
proportional to the level of need. For too long the State Department 
has treated Water for the Poor Act as if it were a guideline or a 
suggestion, rather than a law passed by Congress and signed by the 
President that they're obligated to fully implement.
  I very much appreciate the work of Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman 
Obey, for whom I know this is a particular interest. I deeply 
appreciate increasing the overall level of funding for water and 
sanitation to $300 million, and directing that much of it be spent 
pursuant to the Water for the Poor Act.
  I hope for the opportunity, as we move forward towards conference, to 
work together to ensure that as much money as possible is made 
available to the long-term development of safe drinking water and 
sanitation programs in the areas of greatest need, with a strategy 
needed to ensure that we're make the most effective use of our AIDS 
dollar.
  Most important, I hope that the Appropriations Committee will 
continue to help with the oversight needed to make the Water for the 
Poor Act fully implemented and the United States lives up to our 
international commitment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue and 
applaud your work over the past few years. As you have stated, the 
committee bill increased funding for safe water by $100 million and 
placed priority on long-term and sustainable safe water programs.
  The report provides clear direction to the agency that funding must 
be provided in accordance with the strategy based on the Paul Simon 
Water for the Poor Act.
  Finally, we share the gentleman's concern about the reliance on 
emergency programs to meet this recommendation, and will work with the 
agency in the coming year to ensure that this does not happen again.
  I thank you for raising these issues today. I look forward to working 
together on this issue in the coming year.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If the gentlewoman will yield.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just can't tell you how much I appreciate what 
you've done and this commitment. I appreciate your words and everything 
the committee has done to make our water investments go to the right 
places in the right ways for the right thing.
  I am reassured that your intention that only $80 million of the $300 
million level come from disaster assistance. That's an important step 
in making the necessary long-term investments to deal with this leading 
cause of preventable death in the world.
  I'm particularly pleased by the requirement that funds be spent in 
accordance with the Water for the Poor Act, which was carefully crafted 
to provide a framework, a policy and a goal for ensuring affordable and 
equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the poorest 
in this world. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work 
with you.
  There was, at one point, our colleague, Chairman Payne of the Africa 
Subcommittee was going to be here I thought, and I apologize, I don't 
see him. But I know he has done outstanding work with the subcommittee. 
And I think between the three of us, great things could happen.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. And I know of Mr. Payne's 
important work on water, in Africa in general, so many other issues. 
And I thank you.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Mr. 
Payne, who is really an expert on Africa and all phases of African 
development, and has a keen interest in water. And I thank you for 
coming.
  Mr. PAYNE. Let me thank Congresswoman, Chairwoman Lowey and, of 
course, Congressman Blumenauer for the opportunity to join in this 
colloquy.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, I 
recently called a hearing on the implementation of the Water for the 
Poor Act where Congressman Blumenauer testified. I agree with him that 
the State Department, in its 2007 report to Congress, reflects inflated 
figures and a lack of concrete strategies for providing sustainable 
access to drinking water and sanitation for the poor.
  The Millennium Development Goals, a catalyst for the Water for the 
Poor, aimed to reduce by one-half the proportion of people without 
access to basic sanitation and safe drinking water by 2015. Due, in 
part, to the State Department's inefficient execution of sustainable 
programs, the MDG target is being missed in sub-Saharan Africa, which 
has had the slowest rate of improvement in this category compared with 
all other regions.
  Furthermore, the State Department reported that in fiscal year 2006, 
the U.S. helped 9 million people receive improved access to water. Of 
the beneficiaries, 75 to 80 percent was in the Middle East, and 25 
percent was outside this region. According to the United Nations, most 
countries in the Middle East and North Africa are on track towards 
reaching the MDG targets. Our efforts should be directed to regions 
such as sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest proportion of people 
living without access to improved water sources of any region in the 
world, and is not on track to meet its MDG target. Therefore, of the 
$150 million appropriated to Africa and the Middle East, I feel that 
more than 50 percent should be allocated to the countries in Africa, 
where the need is greatest.
  So I conclude by saying also, the State Department's water funding in 
Africa has primarily been used for emergency relief efforts, rather 
than water supply and management projects that deliver sustainable 
results. In maintaining the vision of the Water for the Poor Act, 
assistance should be focused on improving the sustainable management of 
drinking water and sanitation.
  I agree with Congressman Blumenauer and Chairwoman Lowey that of the 
$300 million appropriated for fiscal year 2008, a significant amount 
should be directed towards sustainable water management with programs 
in Africa.
  With efficient execution and adequate funding, the objectives of the 
Water for the Poor can be accomplished. Access to safe water and 
sanitation plays a central role in promoting global public health, 
economic growth, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.
  I look forward to working with Congressman Blumenauer and 
Congresswoman Lowey in increasing our funding to regions with the 
greatest need and improving the strategies in place to provide the 
world's poor with sustainable, safe, drinking water and basic 
sanitation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 additional minute to Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would just like to express my deep appreciation, 
Chairman Payne, for what you have done with your Africa Subcommittee 
shining a spotlight on the international water issue. The hearing that 
you convened was riveting, and I thought it was the best expression of 
the needs we've had in Congress.
  The prospect of our Subcommittee on Foreign Ops, working with your 
subcommittee, on Africa, being able to focus on this, I think, is the 
brightest spot, and it's going to make a difference for millions of 
lives around the world. I appreciate your leadership and your focus on 
this, and thank you both for your efforts.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend, Mr. Cuellar from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, again I also want to echo what the other 
Members have said on your leadership on this particular bill, very 
important bill.

[[Page 16780]]

  But what I want to do, Madam Chair, is point out two things that you 
have selected that are very important to my district, south Texas, the 
border area. The first one has to do with the funding that has been 
increased for the International Boundary Water Commission that provides 
funding for the levees that we have along the U.S. and Mexico border. 
The current budget right now is at $2 million. You have brought that up 
now to an amount of almost $16 million. This, again, is appreciated 
again by my office, my constituents, but also by Congressmen Ruben 
Hinojosa and Solomon Ortiz that have levees down there. This is an 
issue that has to be addressed because, again, we don't want to see 
what happened in another part of the United States. This levee work is 
very important. It's important to the areas of mission, McAllen and the 
other areas in south Texas. This will go a long way and, again, Madam 
Chair, I want to thank you for that.
  I also want to thank you for some report language that you added, 
something that, again, Michael McCaul and myself have been very 
interested in, and that is the issue of the trafficking of human, what 
we call human cargo, also drugs, cash and of course the missing 
Americans. As you know, there are people that live in the United States 
that have gone over across the river into Nuevo Laredo and have been 
kidnapped and have not been found. We've been asking the Mexican 
Government for years to provide us information so we can bring some 
sort of closure to this particular situation. And again, we have not 
gotten this, and we're hoping that the Mexican government will provide 
us this information as soon as possible.
  But this report language, Madam Chair, that you have added will 
provide us this incentive and hopefully an incentive to the Mexican 
Government to work with us to provide us information on the missing 
Americans.
  Again, Madam Chair, I want to thank you very, very much for adding, 
increasing the amount of the levees from $2 million to almost $16 
million. On behalf of Congressmen Ruben Hinojosa and Solomon Ortiz, we 
thank you very much for your leadership.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much for your kind words and your 
important interest in this area. And I look forward to continuing to 
work with you.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Commission on International Religious Freedom


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of 
     the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-292), $3,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $2,037,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

  Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive 
     Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized, 
     $2,000,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of 
     official representation, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009.

      United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States-China Economic 
     and Security Review Commission, $4,000,000, including not 
     more than $5,000 for the purpose of official representation, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That 
     for purposes of costs relating to printing and binding, the 
     Commission shall be deemed, effective on the date of its 
     establishment, to be a committee of Congress: Provided 
     further, That compensation for the executive director of the 
     Commission may not exceed the rate payable for level II of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That section 1238(c)(1) of the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, is amended by striking ``June'' and inserting 
     ``December'': Provided further, That travel by members of the 
     Commission and its staff shall be arranged and conducted 
     under the rules and procedures applying to travel by members 
     of the House of Representatives and its staff: Provided 
     further, That section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is amended by 
     striking subsection (g).

                    United States Institute of Peace


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of 
     Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace 
     Act, $25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009.

      GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES


                      allowances and differentials

       Sec. 101. Funds appropriated under title I of this Act 
     shall be available, except as otherwise provided, for 
     allowances and differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 
     of title 5, United States Code; for services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and for hire of passenger transportation 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).


                      unobligated balances report

       Sec. 102. The Department of State and the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations a quarterly accounting of the cumulative 
     balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such 
     agency during any previous fiscal year.


                          embassy construction

       Sec. 103. (a) Of funds provided under title I of this Act, 
     except as provided in subsection (b), a project to construct 
     a diplomatic facility of the United States may not include 
     office space or other accommodations for an employee of a 
     Federal agency or department if the Secretary of State 
     determines that such department or agency has not provided to 
     the Department of State the full amount of funding required 
     by subsection (e) of section 604 of the Secure Embassy 
     Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113 and 
     contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-453), as 
     amended by section 629 of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2005.
       (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in subsection (a), a 
     project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United 
     States may include office space or other accommodations for 
     members of the Marine Corps.


                         peacekeeping missions

       Sec. 104. None of the funds made available under title I of 
     this Act may be used for any United Nations undertaking when 
     it is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that: (1) the United Nations 
     undertaking is a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking 
     will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or 
     operational control of a foreign national; and (3) the 
     President's military advisors have not submitted to the 
     President a recommendation that such involvement is in the 
     national security interests of the United States and the 
     President has not submitted to the Congress such a 
     recommendation.


                            denial of visas

       Sec. 105. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under title I of this Act shall be expended 
     for any purpose for which appropriations are prohibited by 
     section 616 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section 
     616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year 
     2008.


                     senior policy operating group

       Sec. 106. (a) The Senior Policy Operating Group on 
     Trafficking in Persons, established under section 105(f) of 
     the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
     2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(f)) to coordinate agency activities 
     regarding policies (including grants and grant policies) 
     involving the international trafficking in persons, shall 
     coordinate all such policies related to the activities of 
     traffickers and victims of severe forms of trafficking.
       (b) None of the funds provided under title I of this or any 
     other Act making appropriations for Department of State and 
     Related Agencies shall be expended to perform functions that 
     duplicate coordinating responsibilities of the Operating 
     Group.
       (c) The Operating Group shall continue to report only to 
     the authorities that appointed them pursuant to section 
     105(f).


                united states citizens born in jerusalem

       Sec. 107. For the purposes of 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 request of the citizen, record 
     the place of birth as Israel.

                        e-government initiatives

       Sec. 108. Any funds provided under title I of this Act used 
     to implement E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the 
     procedures set forth in section 615 of this Act.

[[Page 16781]]




                          consulting services

       Sec. 109. The expenditure of any appropriation under title 
     I of this Act for any consulting service through procurement 
     contract, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to 
     those contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 
     public record and available for public inspection, except 
     where otherwise provided under existing law, or under 
     existing Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.


limitation on diplomatic or consular post in the socialist republic of 
                                vietnam

       Sec. 110. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under title I of this Act shall be expended 
     for any purpose for which appropriations are prohibited by 
     section 609 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal 
     year 2008.


                      state department authorities

       Sec. 111. Funds appropriated under title I of this Act for 
     the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of 
     State may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 
     15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, 
     section 313 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), and section 
     504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414(a)(1)).


           restriction on contributions to the united nations

       Sec. 112. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under title I of this Act may be made available to 
     pay any contribution of the United States to the United 
     Nations if the United Nations implements or imposes any 
     taxation on any United States persons.


                           personnel actions

       Sec. 113. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken 
     in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to 
     such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to 
     transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition 
     to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 615 (a) and 
     (b) of this Act and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set 
     forth in that section.


               restrictions on united nations delegations

       Sec. 114. None of the funds made available under title I of 
     this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States 
     delegation to any specialized agency, body, or commission of 
     the United Nations if such commission is chaired or presided 
     over by a country, the government of which the Secretary of 
     State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2405(j)(1)), has provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism.

               TITLE II--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE

                Export-Import Bank of the United States


                           inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.


                            program account

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any 
     country, other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in 
     Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act, that has detonated a nuclear explosive after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428, as 
     amended, sections 1(a) and (b) of Public Law 103-428 shall 
     remain in effect through October 1, 2008: Provided further, 
     That not less than 10 percent of the aggregate loan, 
     guarantee, and insurance authority available to the Export-
     Import Bank under this or any prior Act should be used for 
     renewable energy and environmentally beneficial products and 
     services.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $68,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2026, for the disbursement of 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants 
     obligated in fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act or any prior Act appropriating funds for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for tied-
     aid credits or grants may be used for any other purpose 
     except through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph are made available 
     notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945, in connection with the purchase or lease of any 
     product by any Eastern European country, any Baltic State or 
     any agency or national thereof.


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses for members of the Board of 
     Directors, $78,000,000: Provided, That the Export-Import Bank 
     may accept, and use, payment or services provided by 
     transaction participants for legal, financial, or technical 
     services in connection with any transaction for which an 
     application for a loan, guarantee or insurance commitment has 
     been made: Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection 
     (b) of section 117 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, 
     subsection (a) thereof shall remain in effect until October 
     1, 2008.

                Overseas Private Investment Corporation


                           non-credit account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $47,500,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered 
     administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                            program account

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $20,000,000, 
     as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, to be derived by transfer from the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation Non-Credit Account: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall be available 
     for direct loan obligations and loan guaranty commitments 
     incurred or made during fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010: 
     Provided further, That funds so obligated in fiscal year 2008 
     remain available for disbursement through 2016; funds 
     obligated in fiscal year 2009 remain available for 
     disbursement through 2017; funds obligated in fiscal year 
     2010 remain available for disbursement through 2018: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized to 
     undertake any program authorized by title IV of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 in Iraq: Provided further, That funds 
     made available pursuant to the authority of the previous 
     proviso shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       In addition, such sums as may be necessary for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the credit program may 
     be derived from amounts available for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the credit and insurance programs in the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation Non-Credit Account 
     and merged with said account.

                      Trade and Development Agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $50,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

                TITLE III--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 2008, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:


           united states agency for international development

                child survival and health programs fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, for child survival, health, and family planning/
     reproductive health activities, in addition to

[[Page 16782]]

     funds otherwise available for such purposes, $1,955,150,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That 
     this amount shall be made available for such activities as: 
     (1) immunization programs; (2) oral rehydration programs and 
     pneumonia prevention and treatment programs; (3) health, 
     nutrition, water and sanitation programs which directly 
     address the needs of mothers and children, and related 
     education programs; (4) assistance for children displaced or 
     orphaned by causes other than AIDS; (5) programs for the 
     prevention, treatment, control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, 
     tuberculosis, polio, malaria, and other infectious diseases, 
     and for assistance to communities severely affected by HIV/
     AIDS, including children infected or affected by AIDS; and 
     (6) family planning/reproductive health: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for nonproject assistance, except that funds 
     may be made available for such assistance for ongoing health 
     activities: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, not to exceed $350,000, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used to 
     monitor and provide oversight of child survival, maternal and 
     family planning/reproductive health, and infectious disease 
     programs: Provided further, That the following amounts should 
     be allocated as follows: $374,150,000 for child survival and 
     maternal health; $15,000,000 for vulnerable children; 
     $350,000,000 for HIV/AIDS; $591,000,000 for other infectious 
     diseases; and $375,000,000 for family planning/reproductive 
     health, including in areas where population growth threatens 
     biodiversity or endangered species: Provided further, That of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading, and in addition to 
     funds allocated under the previous proviso, not less than 
     $250,000,000 shall be made available, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, except for the United States 
     Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-25), for a United States contribution to 
     the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the 
     ``Global Fund''), and shall be expended at the minimum rate 
     necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $70,000,000 should be made available for a United 
     States contribution to The GAVI Fund, and up to $6,000,000 
     may be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated by 
     this Act under the heading ``Operating Expenses of the United 
     States Agency for International Development'' for costs 
     directly related to international health, but funds made 
     available for such costs may not be derived from amounts made 
     available for contributions under this and preceding 
     provisos: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior 
     appropriations 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: 
     Provided further, That any determination made under the 
     previous proviso must be made no later than six months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and must be accompanied by 
     a comprehensive analysis as well as the complete evidence and 
     criteria utilized to make the determination: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a 
     method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person 
     to practice abortions: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available under this Act may be used to 
     lobby for or against abortion: Provided further, That in 
     order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, 
     funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning 
     projects which offer, either directly or through referral to, 
     or information about access to, a broad range of family 
     planning methods and services, and that any such voluntary 
     family planning project shall meet the following 
     requirements: (1) service providers or referral agents in the 
     project shall not implement or be subject to quotas, or other 
     numerical targets, of total number of births, number of 
     family planning acceptors, or acceptors of a particular 
     method of family planning (this provision shall not be 
     construed to include the use of quantitative estimates or 
     indicators for budgeting and planning purposes); (2) the 
     project shall not include payment of incentives, bribes, 
     gratuities, or financial reward to: (A) an individual in 
     exchange for becoming a family planning acceptor; or (B) 
     program personnel for achieving a numerical target or quota 
     of total number of births, number of family planning 
     acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family 
     planning; (3) the project shall not deny any right or 
     benefit, including the right of access to participate in any 
     program of general welfare or the right of access to health 
     care, as a consequence of any individual's decision not to 
     accept family planning services; (4) the project shall 
     provide family planning acceptors comprehensible information 
     on the health benefits and risks of the method chosen, 
     including those conditions that might render the use of the 
     method inadvisable and those adverse side effects known to be 
     consequent to the use of the method; and (5) the project 
     shall ensure that experimental contraceptive drugs and 
     devices and medical procedures are provided only in the 
     context of a scientific study in which participants are 
     advised of potential risks and benefits; and, not less than 
     60 days after the date on which the Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development determines 
     that there has been a violation of the requirements contained 
     in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (5) of this proviso, or a 
     pattern or practice of violations of the requirements 
     contained in paragraph (4) of this proviso, the Administrator 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report 
     containing a description of such violation and the corrective 
     action taken by the Agency: Provided further, That in 
     awarding grants for natural family planning under section 104 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall be 
     discriminated against because of such applicant's religious 
     or conscientious commitment to offer only natural family 
     planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall comply 
     with the requirements of the previous proviso: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this or any other Act 
     authorizing or appropriating funds for foreign operations, 
     export financing, and related programs, the term 
     ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning assistance, 
     shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, consistent 
     with local law, of information or counseling about all 
     pregnancy options: Provided further, That to the maximum 
     extent feasible, taking into consideration cost, timely 
     availability, and best health practices, funds appropriated 
     in this Act or prior appropriations Acts that are made 
     available for condom procurement shall be made available only 
     for the procurement of condoms manufactured in the United 
     States: Provided further, That information provided about the 
     use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are 
     funded from amounts appropriated by this Act shall be 
     medically accurate and shall include the public health 
     benefits and failure rates of such use.

                              {time}  1230


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Payne

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Payne:
       Page 29, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $25,000,000) (increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $25,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
increases the amounts available in the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill to fight the global spread of tuberculosis by 
adding an additional $50 million by taking $25 million from the 
Economic Support Funds account and $25 million from within the Child 
Survival and Health Programs account.
  According to the World Health Organization estimates, someone is 
infected with the organism that develops into TB every second. Every 
second. An infected person may not develop full-blown TB, but in 2004, 
of the 9 million people who were newly infected, 2 million died. The 
good news is that it is entirely curable.
  However, the treatment requires patients to be on a drug regimen for 
6 months. If they do not complete the regimen, or if they complete it 
but take an incorrect number of pills during the treatment, the 
infection can develop into what is known as multiple drug resistance or 
MDR-TB. MDR-TB is not responsive to either of the two first-line TB 
drugs, and the treatments that are available take longer and are more 
expensive than regular TB medications.
  But as news headlines earlier this month have shown, there is an even 
more deadly threat: extensively drug-resistant TB. XDR-TB is not only 
resistant to the two first-line drugs but also to three of the six 
second-line drugs. The treatment required to cure a patient can be 
radical, including the removal of part of the lung that has been 
infected.

[[Page 16783]]

  Earlier this month, a Georgia man who had been diagnosed with a 
dangerous strain of TB known as extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, 
or XDR-TB, traveled through four countries, completely unimpeded. If he 
had been infectious at the time, there could have been an outbreak 
across two continents.
  We must also keep in mind that XDR-TB has a deadly linkage with HIV 
and threatens to undermine all of the investments we have made in the 
global fight against HIV/AIDS. The devastating effect of patients with 
HIV first gained global recognition last August with reports of an 
outbreak in a hospital in South Africa where 52 of 53 patients with 
XDR-TB died. Half of them died within a matter of 16 days.
  This tragedy serves as a sobering example of what may happen across 
Africa if we do not act to prevent another outbreak. Given XDR-TB's 
resistance to both the low-cost, first-line anti-TB drugs and to 
several of the classes of second-line drugs used, we are faced with a 
burgeoning epidemic driven by HIV infection that is lethal.
  Since the initial outbreak, South African medical authorities have 
documented some 400 cases in dozens or more hospitals in South Africa. 
What is troubling, however, is that no one knows for sure that these 
400 cases represent the extent of the outbreak because XDR-TB typically 
kills quickly and doctors' ability to identify it is severely limited; 
so many people may have simply died without its even being diagnosed.
  Experts believe that XDR-TB has moved beyond South Africa into other 
countries in the sub-region where the capacity to identify it and 
control it is significantly weaker than in South Africa and where the 
HIV/AIDS rate continues to drive the epidemic. As a matter of fact, 
there are only two laboratories in 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa 
that can determine this disease.
  All of us here today must work together to take the necessary steps 
to enhance the ability of the medical establishments in Africa and 
other developing countries to identify, treat, and stop the spread of 
drug-resistant TB, primarily in Africa, and to head off further 
incursions of XDR-TB into the United States. Failure to do so will 
result in potentially devastating health catastrophes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 1 
more minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each side will control 1 additional 
minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen was strongly supporting 
this and was hoping to come here, but she is not here at this time.
  So I will just conclude by saying that it is my intent that none of 
the $25 million in this amendment that comes from the Economic Support 
Fund will come out of Economic Support Fund assistance to countries and 
programs in the Middle East or ESF-funded programs that support Afro-
Colombians or ESF-funded programs for Sudan, Liberia, and Congo, ESF 
funds that are to be channeled towards the Trans-Saharan Counter 
Terrorism Initiative, or ESF funds that are for democratic assistance 
programs. So I wanted to make that clear so that we know exactly where 
these funds come from.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  On behalf of Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, she wanted to thank you very 
much for the clarification and she appreciates it very much.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  I agree with the intention of the amendment. And I thank my friend 
for raising this important issue. As we know, tuberculosis is taking a 
terrible toll on men, women, and children in the developing world, with 
approximately 3 million people dying every year. The recent highly 
publicized case of extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis has brought 
this issue to the forefront, and the additional funding of this 
amendment will be used to strengthen the global tuberculosis treatment 
and care network. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue 
and would be happy to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the vice 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Jackson.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's generosity in 
supporting the Payne amendment.
  I want to just share with the full committee some of the views of the 
members of the subcommittee, because I think their views need to be 
taken into account.
  While we overwhelmingly support the gentleman's amendment for an 
increase in $50 million, the offset does have the effect, Mr. Payne, of 
robbing Peter to pay Paul. The committee worked very hard to increase 
the child survival account, which is another health care account that 
includes maternal health, that includes malaria accounts, and we worked 
very hard to increase the ESF account, which does impact profoundly 
sub-Saharan Africa, Afro-Colombian programs, and Israel and Egypt. And 
while these funds are extremely important, the subcommittee did the 
best that it could in the original mark to increase funding for 
tuberculosis, particularly the extremely drug-resistant strands of 
tuberculosis.
  So I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I also 
rise in strong support of the committee's initial mark, which did 
everything it could within its power to increase child survival and ESF 
funds.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne amendment and 
thank my colleague for working with Chairwoman Lowey in drafting this 
amendment.
  Over the last month the entire country has awakened to the threat of 
XDR-TB (Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis). The simple fact of 
the matter is that we can prevent XDR-TB and the less dangerous MDR-TB 
(Multi-drug resistant TB) with better TB control programs that ensure 
that people who are taking drugs for TB stay on their medicines, and 
avoid developing drug resistance.
  XDR-TB has already been found in over 37 countries around the world. 
However, due to inadequate lab facilities around the world we don't 
truly know how far XDR-TB has spread.
  Additional funding provided by the Payne amendment would help us 
address some of these issues. I want to again thank my colleague 
Representative Payne for offering this amendment and for working with 
Chairwoman Lowey to ensure that we increase funding for Tuberculosis 
programs in the State-Foreign Ops bill this year.
  I look forward to continuing to work with both of my colleagues and 
the committee to ensure that TB continues to get the funding and 
attention it deserves.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 34, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me begin by thanking the chairwoman and 
her staff and the vice chairman of the committee for working with my 
office, and of course the ranking member and their staff.
  It is evident how hard this committee has worked on a very broadband, 
wide-reaching initiative as it relates to appropriations in the foreign 
relations, foreign affairs of this Nation.

[[Page 16784]]

  As a member of the authorizing committee, we recognize that this 
committee touches the heartbeat of every aspect of the world's 
business, and the importance of the United States in creating 
internationalism for the greater good of the world.
  As I listened to Mr. Payne, my amendment falls squarely in track of 
improving the health conditions of Africa and recognizing the need for 
hospitals that in fact will respond to a number of issues.
  My amendment reallocates an additional $5 million to the Child 
Survival and Disease Fund to increase the amount of funds appropriated 
for child and maternal health.
  The purpose of this amendment is to direct additional funds for 
technical assistance to provide capacity-building for hospitals in 
Africa that deal with child-surviving and other relevant needs.
  We have been, if you will, screening the research annals across this 
Congress to try to find out how many full-service hospitals are on the 
Continent of Africa. Some have said 200, some say I know that there's 
one in Sierra Leone. Some say they know there's one in South Africa. 
But I can assure you that the plight of women who are pregnant in 
Africa is a severe plight. Take, for example, that every minute 
somewhere in the world, a woman dies from pregnancy-related causes, 
with 95 percent of those deaths occurring in Africa and Asia. 
Worldwide, about 529,000 women die from pregnancy-related causes every 
year. A woman in sub-Saharan Africa has a 1 in 16 chance of dying in 
pregnancy or childbirth. Part of the care and prevention of such is 
preventative care, the money that is in this particular account. But I 
also believe part of it is the importance of building full-capacity 
hospitals that deal with women in the maternal aspect as well as in the 
pregnancy aspect. And so this amendment seeks to provide that 
opportunity.
  And I might cite, as an example, the Mutombo Hospital in Kinshasa, 
Congo. It is a hospital that has 300 beds, three operating rooms, an 
outpatient clinic, an emergency room, a pharmacy. You cannot find that, 
Mr. Chairman, across Africa. Therefore, I believe there is a definitive 
need to provide them technical assistance so that we don't have to 
guess what number of hospitals are in and on the continent, but we will 
know that they look somewhat like this, with operating rooms, with 
expansive facilities to provide treatment for mothers and babies, 
treatment that will be lifesaving.
  Madam Chairwoman, let me simply say that I had an experience in a 
hospital in Africa. One of my first medical experiences was to require 
sutures in an accident in Africa. Let me thank those medical 
professionals who helped me be here today, but I want you to know that 
I was laying out on a wooden slab and looking through tattered curtains 
and looking at the sky as the doctors were working on me. That was the 
hospital that I was in on the continent. I do not say it in degradation 
or insult. What I say is I would venture to say that if we go to Africa 
today, and many other countries, the kinds of facilities that are there 
reflect that kind of lack of resources.
  This will help not only in maternal and child survival because of the 
loss of life of mothers who are pregnant and who give birth with 
facilities that would provide hospital resources, but it will also, if 
you will, give encouragement to the continent, as has been done by the 
hospital in Kinshasa, Congo, Mutombo, who I hope will also be, as they 
say, ``in the mix'' on providing opportunities for others to see what 
can be done.
  I hope that this amendment will be accepted because it will go a long 
way for expanding the lives of mothers and children, but it will also 
go a long way for ensuring that we believe in good hospital care, 
excellent hospital care across the Continent of Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I rise to speak in 
support of amendment #2 to H.R. 2764, the State and Foreign Operations 
Act of 2008. I would first like to thank Chairwoman Lowey for her 
extraordinary leadership and guidance in crafting this bill.
  H.R. 2764 will play a crucial role in restoring the global respect to 
this country that many around the world had so eagerly rewarded it in 
the past for its historical humanitarian efforts. America, that beacon 
upon the hill, will shine a little bit brighter amongst those who will 
through this bill, be able to get healthcare, and whose very lives are 
dependent upon such care. Among these spared lives are many, many 
children and women who would needlessly perish from the perils of 
poverty without our support.
  Mr. Chairman, sparing lives of children and women starts with 
ensuring that they have adequate healthcare. That is why I offer my 
amendment which provides: on Page 29, line 1, after the dollar amount, 
insert (increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000). In offering 
this amendment, my intent is to increase the amount of funds 
appropriated for child and maternal health by $5,000,000. The reason 
that I urge support for increased funds for child and maternal health 
is that the greatest threat for the quality of life for our children 
all around the world is lack of health care for the mother and child.
  In the United States, the birth of a child in most instances is a 
time of joy because the mother and baby go home from the hospital 
together, healthy and happy. Sadly, however, in poor countries 
childbirth can be dangerous and potentially tragic for both mother and 
child. Take, for example, that every minute, somewhere in the world a 
woman dies from pregnancy-related causes, with 95 percent of these 
deaths occurring in Africa and Asia. Worldwide, about 529,000 women die 
from pregnancy-related causes every year--about the number of women and 
girls who live in Dallas, Texas or San Diego, California. A woman in 
sub-Saharan Africa has a one in 16 chance of dying in pregnancy or 
childbirth.
  Mr. Chairman, with less than 200 full-service hospitals, Africa 
desperately needs our assistance because without it, Africa will 
continue to fall far short of providing the necessary and proper life 
saving healthcare for its population. About 3.4 million babies die 
every year due to poor maternal health and inadequate delivery care. In 
addition, an estimated 100,000 women a year in poor countries develop 
obstetric fistulas, a condition caused by obstructed labor and creates 
permanent holes in their bladders that cause continual leaking of 
urine.
  Every year, more than 10 million children under the age of five die 
from totally preventable deaths. Some are directly caused by illness 
such as pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria. Others are caused by indirect 
causes including conflict and HIV/AIDS. Malnutrition, poor hygiene and 
lack of access to safe water and adequate sanitation contribute to more 
than half of these deaths.
  What is even sadder, Mr. Chairman, is that two thirds of both 
neonatal and young child deaths--over 6 million deaths every year--are 
preventable. Half a million women die in pregnancy each year, most 
during delivery or in the first few days thereafter. Obstructed labor, 
hemorrhaging, and infection, can all be averted provided a woman has 
access to safe and appropriate pre-natal care. Madam Chair, the 
increased funds from my amendment would be dedicated to providing women 
with this vital care. Specifically, these funds would contribute to 
capacity building for hospitals in Africa which engage in child-
survival and maternal health programs. We have seen the positive impact 
that these facilities have made within the health care environment. 
Professional basketball star Dikembe Mutombo established the Biamba 
Marie Mutombo Hospital and Research Center, a hospital that provides 
desperately needed healthcare to the impoverished population in 
Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo. At full 
capacity, it will include 300 beds and will offer the following 
services to the population: pediatrics; gynecology/obstetrics/women's 
health; internal medicine; surgery (general and subspecialties); 
emergency medicine; intensive care; outpatient care; laboratory 
services; and radiology.
  Existing low-cost, low-technology and high impact interventions such 
as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-
treated bednets, improved breastfeeding practices and adoption of safe 
hygiene practices can prevent unnecessary maternal and child deaths as 
well as reduce malnutrition. By packaging services and implementing at 
scale, high impact and evidence-based maternal, newborn and child 
survival interventions, we can save millions of lives.
  As I stand here today, I reflect upon my visit to Honduras in 2001, 
and I remember how important the child and maternal health crisis was, 
and now recall how that it was in part the impetus behind my founding 
of the bi-partisan Congressional Children's Caucus in 1997. As I have 
done since 1997, I will continue to

[[Page 16785]]

make it a priority to support initiatives that protect the health and 
welfare of children worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, the success in reducing infant and maternal mortality 
and reducing family size and nutrition strongly depends on support from 
this noble nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment that will go a long way to save the lives of many women and 
children.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank my good friend for your important work in Africa 
and for your observations.
  I rise to accept this amendment, and I agree with the intention of 
the amendment. I really do thank my friend for raising this very 
important issue.
  This committee made global health a priority in this fiscal year. We 
provided a total of $6.517 billion for global health. And I do agree 
with the gentlewoman that strengthening the public health 
infrastructure should be central to our global health strategy. So I do 
appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue, and I look forward 
to working with you.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the accepting of this 
amendment, and I look forward to working with you as we go to 
conference. Laying the groundwork for the infrastructure of health care 
on the continent goes a long way in saving lives.
  I thank you for your leadership and the leadership of the ranking 
member. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         development assistance

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 103, 105, 106, and sections 251 through 255, and 
     chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $1,733,760,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That $519,000,000 shall be allocated for basic 
     education: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading and managed by the United States Agency 
     for International Development Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, 
     and Humanitarian Assistance, not less than $35,000,000 shall 
     be made available only for programs to improve women's 
     leadership capacity in recipient countries: Provided further, 
     That such funds may not be made available for construction: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this Act, 
     $300,000,000 shall be made available for access to safe water 
     and water management programs: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $175,000,000 shall be 
     made available for biodiversity and environmental programs: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading that are made available for assistance programs for 
     displaced and orphaned children and victims of war, not to 
     exceed $42,500, in addition to funds otherwise available for 
     such purposes, may be used to monitor and provide oversight 
     of such programs: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading should be made available for programs in 
     sub-Saharan Africa to address sexual and gender-based 
     violence.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 29, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. To the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, 
Foreign Relations Appropriations Committee, let me thank you for your 
leadership, and to the ranking member as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we know the story of Liberia. And I want to 
applaud the new President of Liberia, who has visited us, someone who 
understands economics and is committed to the success of this nation. 
She cannot, however, do it without friends.
  Liberia has an enormously important nexus to the United States. It 
was where slaves were returned back to the Continent of Africa after 
having been enslaved here in the United States. I look forward to 
reenergizing the relationship, not only with the continent, but also, 
particularly with the nation of Liberia after a very troubling and very 
violent time.
  Our new President of Liberia is tracking all of the needs, accounting 
for all of the dollars. My amendment simply seeks to reallocate an 
additional $5 million for the Republic of Liberia of the $365 million 
Development Assistance account. The net effect would be to increase 
developmental assistance to the Republic of Liberia to $35 million. Let 
me explain why this would be a wise investment.
  We have heard recently from Bob Johnson, the former chairman of BET, 
who has taken a special interest, private sector initiative in Liberia. 
And if I recall his remarks correctly, he believes that Liberia can be 
on the precipice of a rebirth. It can be on the precipice, if you will, 
of a renaissance of economic development, educational achievement and 
infrastructure repair.
  In 2003, 14 years of civil war left Liberia in shambles. Nearly 
200,000 civilians have died. Nearly one-third of the population, or 1 
million citizens, have been displaced. And 300,000 have fled the 
country. Women are involved on all sides of the war from combat to 
slavery to rape. Child soldiers were involved in this terrible, 
horrific tragedy. Physical violence often accompanied the rape. A 
highly regarded survey of six selected Liberian counties revealed that 
roughly 7 percent of women have been raped during the war, although 
female minors were frequently targeted.
  The war ended, and as I indicated, we now have a woman President. 
Liberian President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, underlines this in her 
statement to the 2006 International Symposium on Sexual Violence. ``In 
studies conducted in many of the countries of Liberia in 2004, a large 
percentage of women and girls reported that they were victims of 
various forms of violence.''
  This reprogramming of dollars will refocus on the need for 
developmental assistance that will be able to assist those who are 
making their first steps, their first steps of achievement, both 
business-wise, education-wise and building up the confidence of women, 
men and families, turning child soldiers into constructive, giving 
adults, and participating with President Sirleaf's commitment to moving 
Liberia forward as a shining star on the continent. I know they know 
how to do it, but we need to give them the extra added tools, and to be 
able to emphasize in this bill that their development is key.
  I ask my colleagues to consider where Liberia has been, where Liberia 
is today, and where they will be 20 years from now. I believe in 
President Sirleaf and the commitment of Bob Johnson, the Clinton 
Foundation, and many others who have targeted the Liberian people and 
the Liberian Government as an achievable goal of economic 
developmental, educational, political democracy that can be again the 
shining star.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that will provide this 
extra direction for developmental assistance in Liberia.
   Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I rise to speak in 
support of this amendment to H.R. 2764, the State and Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act of 2008. But before I do, let me commend 
Chairwoman Lowey for her exceptional leadership in shepherding this 
bill through the legislative process.
  The legislation she has so ably crafted is an indispensable measure 
in restoring America's international prestige and leadership position 
in the global community. Equally important, this legislation reflects 
what is good about America: its generosity, its concern for the less 
fortunate, its commitment to protecting the weak and uplifting the 
downtrodden, and the recognition that we live in an interdependent 
world. You will recall the wise counsel of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.,

[[Page 16786]]

who said, ``we will either live together as brothers or we will perish 
as fools.''
   Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It simply seeks to reallocate 
an additional $5 million for the Republic of Liberia out of the $365 
million Development Assistance account. The net effect would be to 
increase developmental assistance to the Republic of Liberia to $35 
million. Let me explain briefly why this would be a wise investment.
  In 2003, fourteen years of civil war left Liberia in shambles. Nearly 
200,000 civilians had died. Nearly a third of the population, or one 
million citizens, had been displaced, and 300,000 had fled the country.
  Women were involved on all sides of the war from combat to slavery to 
rape. Physical violence often accompanied the rape. A highly regarded 
survey of six selected Liberian counties revealed that roughly 7 
percent of women had been raped during the war. Moreover, female minors 
were frequently targeted.
  The war ended more than 4 years ago but the plight of Liberia's women 
is still problematic. Rape and domestic violence continue to plague 
Liberia. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf underlines this in 
her statement to the 2006 International Symposium on Sexual Violence in 
Conflict and Beyond: ``In studies conducted in many of the counties of 
Liberia in 2004, a large percentage of women and girls reported that 
they were victims of various forms of violence and abuse. International 
organization reports show that a large percentage of these women were 
raped.''
   Mr. Chairman, traditional Liberian culture stigmatizes rape, so 
victims often choose to stay silent, hiding what they see as a shameful 
and incriminating experience from their family and townspeople. Until 
recently, Liberian government courts had no systems in place to assist 
rape survivors. Traditional culture around rape was one of shame for 
women and acceptance for men. But times are slowly changing. And it 
began with the historic election of President Sirleaf, Liberia's first 
female head of state.
  Raised in Liberia and Harvard-educated, President Sirleaf began her 
long involvement with the Liberian government as its Assistant Minister 
of Finance during the 1970s. She went into exile after a military coup 
destabilized the country in 1980, but returned to Liberia to run for 
Senate 5 years later. When she was running for Senate, she was briefly 
imprisoned for speaking out against Liberia's leader at the time, 
Samuel Doe.
  You will remember how she described her capture and close encounter 
with rape when she addressed a joint session of the Congress on March 
15, 2007: ``In 1985, after challenging the military regime's failure to 
register my political party, I was put in jail with several university 
students who also challenged the military rule. This House came to our 
rescue with a resolution threatening to cut off aid to the country 
unless all political prisoners were released. Months later, I was put 
in jail again, this time in a cell with 15 men. All of them were 
executed a few hours later. Only the intervention of a single soldier 
spared me from rape.''
   Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my amendment would result in 
additional funding to secure women rights and prevent violence against 
women.
  Securing and protecting women's rights is something the Association 
of Female Liberian Lawyers fights for every day. AFELL, an organization 
of female lawyers based in Monrovia, is on a mission to educate and 
represent women nationwide.
  Founded during the first civil war, 1989-1996, AFELL grew in 
prominence during the second conflict, which lasted from 1999 to 2003. 
In November 2000, with fighting still active, AFELL won a state patent 
to prosecute rape cases. Before this, Liberian law only allowed state 
lawyers to prosecute criminal cases. The patent represented a major 
success for AFELL.
  This was the first in a series of victories. AFELL later collaborated 
with the government to increase penalties for rape. Resulting 
legislation led to more punitive rape laws that call for 10 years to 
life imprisonment for rape.
   Mr. Chairman, the Republic of Liberia has made great progress in 
recent years but still much work remains to be done. Listen again to 
the words of President Sirleaf: ``In the campaign months, I traveled to 
every corner of our country. I trudged through mud in high boots, where 
roads did not exist or had deteriorated past repair. I surveyed ruined 
hospitals and collapsed clinics. I held meetings by candlelight, 
because there is no electricity anywhere--including the capital--except 
from private generators. I was forced to drink water from creeks and 
un-sanitized wells all of which made me vulnerable to the diseases from 
which so many of our people die daily.''
   Mr. Chairman, the women and children of Liberia want what we all 
want for those we love. They want to learn. They want to be safe from 
violence. They want to be healthy. They want the same chances that men 
have. They want to be literate. They want their work recognized. They 
want the right to inherit property. They want protection against rape. 
They want clean water that won't sicken and kill their children. They 
want a hopeful future.
  I believe my amendment will help hasten the day when these dreams are 
realized.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you this opportunity to discuss my amendment to 
H.R. 2764. I ask all members to support it. Again, I thank Chairwoman 
Lowey for her fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the 
House.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept this amendment.
  I thank the gentlewoman again for raising an important issue. I agree 
with the intention of the amendment. Liberia certainly has been a 
priority for us. And we support the very important work that the 
President is doing there. We provided a total of $30 million in the 
Development Assistance account, $30 million above the President's 
request, and I would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I will yield.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I believe when we focus the great work that 
you've done on a particular area, it encourages our newly elected woman 
President of Liberia, which we hope and pray for her ultimate success 
for her people and for the Continent of Africa. I thank the gentlelady 
for accepting the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              international disaster and famine assistance

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for 
     international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and 
     reconstruction assistance, $322,350,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $20,000,000 should be for famine 
     prevention and relief.


                         transition initiatives

       For necessary expenses for international disaster 
     rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended, to support 
     transition to democracy and to long-term development of 
     countries in crisis: Provided, That such support may include 
     assistance to develop, strengthen, or preserve democratic 
     institutions and processes, revitalize basic infrastructure, 
     and foster the peaceful resolution of conflict: Provided 
     further, That the United States Agency for International 
     Development shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations at least 5 days prior to beginning a new 
     program of assistance.


                      development credit authority

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees provided 
     by the United States Agency for International Development, as 
     authorized by sections 256 and 635 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, up to $21,000,000 may be derived by transfer 
     from funds appropriated by this Act to carry out part I of 
     such Act and under the heading ``Assistance for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States'': Provided, That such funds 
     shall be made available only for micro and small enterprise 
     programs, urban programs, and other programs which further 
     the purposes of part I of the Act: Provided further, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such direct and 
     guaranteed loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That funds made available by this paragraph may be 
     used for the cost of modifying any such guaranteed loans 
     under this Act or prior Acts, and funds used for such costs 
     shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     provisions of section 107A(d) (relating to general provisions 
     applicable to the Development Credit Authority) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as contained in section 306 
     of H.R. 1486 as reported by the House Committee on 
     International Relations on May 9, 1997, shall be applicable 
     to direct loans and loan guarantees provided under this 
     heading: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize total loan principal, any portion of which is to be 
     guaranteed, of up to $700,000,000.

[[Page 16787]]

       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out 
     credit programs administered by the United States Agency for 
     International Development, $7,400,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for 
     International Development: Provided, That funds made 
     available under this heading shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2010.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                              development

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $625,700,000, of which up to $25,000,000 may remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading and under the heading 
     ``Capital Investment Fund'' may be made available to finance 
     the construction (including architect and engineering 
     services), purchase, or long-term lease of offices for use by 
     the United States Agency for International Development, 
     unless the Administrator has identified such proposed 
     construction (including architect and engineering services), 
     purchase, or long-term lease of offices in a report submitted 
     to the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to 
     the obligation of these funds for such purposes: Provided 
     further, That the previous proviso shall not apply where the 
     total cost of construction (including architect and 
     engineering services), purchase, or long-term lease of 
     offices does not exceed $1,000,000: Provided further, That 
     contracts or agreements entered into with funds appropriated 
     under this heading may entail commitments for the expenditure 
     of such funds through fiscal year 2009: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used to open or 
     close an overseas mission of the United States Agency for 
     International Development without the prior written 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That the authority of sections 610 and 109 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be exercised by the 
     Secretary of State to transfer funds appropriated to carry 
     out chapter 1 of part I of such Act to ``Operating Expenses 
     of the United States Agency for International Development'' 
     in accordance with the provisions of those sections: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act or 
     any prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations, 
     export financing, or related programs may be used by the 
     United States Agency for International Development for the 
     rent of buildings and space in buildings in the United States 
     pursuant to the authority of section 636(a)(1) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That the previous 
     proviso shall not apply to any lease, agreement, or other 
     instrument executed for the purpose of maintaining United 
     States Agency for International Development continuity of 
     operations and to the cost of terminating the domestic lease 
     executed on September 30, 2005.


 capital investment fund of the united states agency for international 
                              development

       For necessary expenses for overseas construction and 
     related costs, and for the procurement and enhancement of 
     information technology and related capital investments, 
     pursuant to section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, $87,300,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That this amount is in addition to funds otherwise 
     available for such purposes: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation only pursuant to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not to exceed $75,144,500 may be made available for the 
     purposes of implementing the Capital Security Cost Sharing 
     Program.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                development office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $38,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     which sum shall be available for the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the United States Agency for International 
     Development.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,656,506,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $415,000,000 
     shall be available only for Egypt, which sum shall be 
     provided on a grant basis, and of which sum cash transfer 
     assistance shall be provided with the understanding that 
     Egypt will undertake significant economic and political 
     reforms which are additional to those which were undertaken 
     in previous fiscal years: Provided further, That with respect 
     to the provision of assistance for Egypt for democracy and 
     governance activities, the organizations implementing such 
     assistance and the specific nature of that assistance shall 
     not be subject to the prior approval by the Government of 
     Egypt: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading for assistance for Egypt, not less than 
     $135,000,000 shall be made available for project assistance, 
     of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be made available 
     for democracy, human rights and governance programs and not 
     less than $50,000,000 shall be used for education programs: 
     Provided further, That $11,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading should be made available for Cyprus to be 
     used for scholarships, administrative support of the 
     scholarship program, bicommunal projects, and measures aimed 
     at reunification of the island and designed to reduce 
     tensions and promote peace and cooperation between the two 
     communities on Cyprus: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $263,547,000 
     should be made available only for assistance for Jordan: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading not more than $63,500,000 may be made available for 
     assistance for the West Bank and Gaza: Provided further, That 
     $45,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be made available for assistance for Lebanon, of which 
     not less than $10,000,000 should be made available for 
     scholarships and direct support of American educational 
     institutions in Lebanon: Provided further, That not more than 
     $300,000,000 of the funds made available for assistance for 
     Afghanistan under this heading may be obligated for such 
     assistance until the Secretary of State certifies to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of 
     Afghanistan at both the national and provincial level is 
     cooperating fully with United States funded poppy eradication 
     and interdiction efforts in Afghanistan: Provided further, 
     That the President may waive the previous proviso if he 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that to do so is vital to the national security interests of 
     the United States: Provided further, That such report shall 
     include an analysis of the steps being taken by the 
     Government of Afghanistan, at the national and provincial 
     level, to cooperate fully with United States funded poppy 
     eradication and interdiction efforts in Afghanistan: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $218,500,000 is available only to carry out 
     programs in Colombia and may be transferred to ``DEVELOPMENT 
     ASSISTANCE'' to continue programs administered by the United 
     States Agency for International Development: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     that are available for assistance for the Democratic Republic 
     of Timor-Leste, up to $1,000,000 may be available for 
     administrative expenses of the United States Agency for 
     International Development: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     programs and activities for the Central Highlands of Vietnam: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     that are made available for a Middle East Financing Facility, 
     Middle East Enterprise Fund, or any other similar entity in 
     the Middle East shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000) (reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, Mrs. Lowey, 
thank you for a well-drafted bill, but this is an area in which I have 
some concern.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would designate $50 million in Economic 
Support Funds for the Community Action Programs, also known as CAP in 
Iraq. The CAP program directly engages Iraqis in reconstructing their 
own communities while building a nationwide grassroots constituency for 
democracy. Typical CAP projects use both U.S. and Iraqi funds and 
resources to rebuild schools, repair water and sewage lines, build 
health clinics, as well as a host of other infrastructure and 
development projects.

                              {time}  1300

  The CAP agencies are Mercy Corps; IRD, International Relief and 
Development; CHF International; ACDI/VOCA Counterpart; and in the past, 
Save the Children. Since 2003, six of USAID's NGO partners have 
implemented this program in all 18 governorates of Iraq.

[[Page 16788]]

In order to maintain the security of staff and win the trust of Iraqi 
communities, the implementers and USAID have largely run the program 
under the radar. As a result, not enough people are aware of the 
remarkable success story that CAP represents.
  Here are just a few highlights: CAP has successfully managed more 
than 6,000 reconstruction and development projects and created more 
than 2.7 million days of employment and 34,000 long-term jobs with 43 
percent of those jobs going to women, Iraqi women.
  A January 2005 audit report from the USAID regional inspector 
general, Baghdad, stated: ``Based on tests performed on 89 
statistically selected sample projects, the CAP achieved 98 percent of 
its intended outputs.''
  I am going to read that again: ``Based on tests performed on 89 
statistically selected sample projects, the CAP achieved 98 percent of 
its intended outputs.''
  Communities are contributing between 15 and 25 percent of the value 
of each project. That is Iraqis contributing. This contribution is 
often in the form of labor, in-kind materials, or other provisions.
  In my travels to Iraq, I have seen firsthand how the CAP program 
improves the lives of Iraqis and most importantly how it helps us 
accomplish our mission of creating a secure environment for the Iraqi 
people so democracy can prosper.
  It would be a terrible waste to turn our backs on such a great 
investment. In fact, this is exactly the time to nurture and build on 
the relationships CAP partners have forged with communities. 
Furthermore, CAP provides the foundation and the constituency at the 
community level that will help ensure the success of other State 
Department civil society programs.
  The CAP program has enjoyed strong support from the Appropriations 
Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the past. An amendment 
we offered during last year's supplemental appropriations act to 
increase CAP funding by $10 million was accepted by the committee.
  The committee noted in its report last year that ``CAP provides a 
vehicle for empowering communities, building community cohesion and 
providing evidence that the U.S. is committed to improving the lives of 
Iraqis.''
  We are asking for $50 million to be designated within Economic 
Support Funds to ensure the agencies can expand and improve the 
valuable projects they've been implementing for the last several years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment 
because, as I have explained to Mr. Shays, I believe this is a really 
critical program. I would love to work with you on it.
  This amendment would provide $50 million in funding for Community 
Action Programs. There is no funding in this particular bill for Iraqi 
operations and reconstruction. As I explained to the gentleman, the 
reason there is no funding in this bill is because of the $2.8 billion 
in the supplemental and the $2.8 billion requested in September for the 
supplemental.
  I want to make it very clear that I agree with the gentleman that the 
Community Action Program and NGO partnership with USAID does really 
good work. In fact, CAP is the only program of its kind to operate 
outside the Green Zone in Iraq. I have been a strong supporter of their 
efforts. I have met with them repeatedly. I know of their good work.
  By working from the community level up and assisting Iraqi moderates 
who have eschewed sectarian and insurgent violence, the CAP partners 
directly engage Iraqis in reconstructing their own communities. They 
create employment. They build nationwide grass-roots constituency for 
democracy.
  Congress identified CAP as a priority when it appropriated $100 
million specifically for CAP in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental. 
Additionally, we just provided $95 million for CAP in the 2000 
supplemental. I want to make it clear to my good friend from 
Connecticut that we put the money in after I met personally with 
representatives of CAP.
  I understand the important work that they are doing. I have spoken to 
the CAP partners. They agreed that they do not need any additional 
funding in the regular fiscal year 2008 bill. They tell me they have 
enough to continue operations. As difficult as it is there, they are 
continuing operations through fiscal year 2008 at the current pace of 
operation.
  They also noted that they worked very hard to stay under the radar in 
Iraq, which is what makes their great achievements possible. I want to 
make it clear that they have no interest, from my conversations with 
them, they don't want to be the foil in an Iraq funding debate. We have 
made it clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear once again that the reason we 
are not providing additional funding and we cannot provide additional 
funding to the CAP in this bill is because of the $2.8 billion in the 
supplemental, the $2.8 billion that is being requested. The CAPs have 
made it clear they don't need the money now. They are operating under 
the radar. If we are providing zero funding for Iraq in this bill, they 
don't want to be part of this debate.
  This is not a partisan issue. They are doing very important work. It 
has nothing to do with any of the other debate on Iraq. It is what is 
needed now. There are tremendous needs around the world that we are 
trying to fill in this bill.
  So, again, with great respect for my good friend, Mr. Shays, we have 
worked together on many issues. I appreciate your concerns. I agree 
with your concerns, but not in this bill; and I look forward to 
continuing to work with you as we move ahead.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to you, there is no money in the 
2008 budget, fiscal year 2008 budget. The challenge we have is that 
this is the one program, more than any others, that works. It shouldn't 
be tied to any benchmarks because implementing this program, expanding 
it actually, will make it easier for all those benchmarks to be 
realized.
  I am not trying to bring more attention to this program. I just think 
it needs to be funded and expanded and this is the vehicle to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shays has made a good case, and the Chair has made 
a good case for this. Without mentioning the groups, so we don't call 
any attention to them, we know the good work that they are doing. Mr. 
Shays lived with one of the groups for a period of time. You saw the 
schools they were building. So I am just concerned we are getting 
wrapped up into process that since nothing is in, we are not going to 
put things in.
  This is something that would actually work and have success in Iraq 
from the civilian side. It would be a great boost to have this in. So I 
strongly support the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, just to address my good friend, Mr. Shays, 
I agree with everything you said. I agree with all the good work that 
the CAPs are doing.
  That is why we appropriated $100 million and then another $95 
million. But I want to make it clear, at least from my interaction from 
the CAPs, and I have had many discussions with the CAPs, they don't 
need the money now. They are operating under the radar. They are doing 
good work. And with the supplemental in 2008 that is coming up in 
September, they don't need the money now. They certainly welcome, if it 
is necessary, some additional funding to them.

[[Page 16789]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, just so the debate is a little more 
accurate, and we will see how the vote turns out whether I ask for a 
roll call vote or not, would it not be fair to say that they can live 
with the money they have, but they would like to have more and they 
could use more and do more with it? This is not a trick question, but I 
want to make sure for the record we don't make it seem like they have 
all that they need and can use well.
  If the answer to that first question is yes, my second question would 
be, would it be the intent of the gentlewoman from New York to consider 
funding this program at an amount that will enable them to do at least 
what they are doing now in fiscal year 2008, and possibly more?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and again with great 
respect to the gentleman from Connecticut, in my discussions with the 
CAP, they made it clear that they don't need money now. This is now 
June. We just passed a supplemental. In September there will be another 
supplemental. They are doing great work, and we both admire their work.
  Given the tremendous needs around the world, which I know you 
support, be it clean water or HIV-AIDS or peacekeeping, and we can go 
on and on, the CAP made it clear to me that they do not need the money 
now. Therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment, because I do 
not want to take the money from any other urgent needs that exist in 
the world today.
  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentlewoman will yield further, you are making me 
more concerned rather than less by your honesty. Could I ask the 
gentlewoman to respond to her intent on how she will be looking to fund 
this issue? This is the one program that is in fact working in Iraq. No 
one disputes it. We can dispute everything else, but not this. My 
interest is what your intentions are in the future as it relates not to 
Iraq in general or military forces, but the CAP agency program?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to make it 
very clear to my good friend from Connecticut, just as they had $100 
million and then an additional $95 million in the last supplemental, I 
certainly would intend to fund this outstanding program in the next 
supplemental that will be before us in September to continue their 
important work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000) (reduced by $75,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to ask support for a rather 
straightforward budget-neutral amendment that will meaningfully 
contribute to our campaign against international terrorism and serve 
the long-term national securities interests of the United States.
  My amendment would provide an additional $75 million for basic 
education programs directly reaching Pakistani children through the 
U.S. Agency for International Development or provided through local and 
international nongovernmental organizations offering reliable and 
effective basic education services. In doing so, the amendment serves 
long-term United States national security interests by helping to give 
Pakistani children an educational alternative to extremist, jihadi-
teaching madrassas.
  I am pleased that the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
has agreed to accept this amendment. In their bill and committee 
report, the gentlewoman from New York and the rest of the members of 
the committee have recognized the importance of basic education 
assistance to our country's long-term national security interests. This 
amendment would complement and build off of those important efforts, 
and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her willingness to work 
with me and accept my amendment.
  The 9/11 Commission described a ``generational struggle'' against 
international terrorism, stressing the importance that any offensive 
efforts ``be accompanied by a preventative strategy.'' They also noted, 
``It is hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle 
against Islamic terrorism'' and urged the United States Government to 
support in Pakistan ``a comprehensive effort that extends from military 
aid to support for better education.'' Unfortunately, we have not yet 
gone far enough in that regard.
  In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project 
gave the United States Government a D grade for not doing enough to 
support secular education. It noted, ``United States assistance to 
Pakistan has not moved sufficiently beyond security assistance to 
include significant funding for education efforts.'' And just a few 
months ago, our own State Department concluded, ``Pakistan remains a 
major source of Islamic extremism.''
  This is precisely the time that we should be spending substantially 
more on education, where we should be broadening and deepening our 
relationship with the Pakistani people with aid that reaches directly 
into the Pakistani homes.
  This amendment is an important first step in this endeavor by 
providing an extra $785 million infusion for basic education directly 
to Pakistani children, an extra $75 million that would come on top of 
Pakistani education funding already in the bill and what we have 
provided for before.
  This amendment provides this additional $75 million for basic 
education by reprogramming existing funds within the Economic Support 
fund account; $50 million of the total $75 million will be drawn from 
that part of the Economic Support fund that provides direct budgetary 
support for the Pakistani Government.
  Over the last several years, the Pakistani Government has been 
receiving hundreds of millions of dollars per year in a cash transfer. 
This amendment would ensure that $50 million of those funds be 
reprogrammed to ensure they reach Pakistani children and not simply be 
handed over to the Pakistani Government without direction. The other 
$25 million of the $75 million total would come from the nonbudgetary 
support component of the Economic Support fund.
  All of us hope to support the Pakistani people in their efforts to 
achieve a stable, prosperous and free nation. But our national security 
interests here are much more acute. Will we be safe over the next 5, 10 
or 20 years as thousands of more young people learn jihad at extremist 
madrassas instead of learning real-world skills to become productive 
citizens in their communities and in our shared world?
  When asked about this amendment, former 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman 
Lee Hamilton responded, ``Increased U.S. funding for basic education 
provided by the Tierney Pakistan Education Assistance Amendment will 
send a powerful message that we are committed to a better future for 
young Pakistanis and to supporting alternatives to radical Islamic 
education. Sending this kind of a message is hugely important to the 
future of America's relationship with the people of Pakistan and our 
efforts to combat radical Islam.''
  It is past time to heed the 9/11 Commission's warning by fighting 
terrorism at its source, by stopping the process of extremism before it 
can

[[Page 16790]]

begin, by helping the children of Pakistan to have an alternative to 
extreme madrassas. That should be at the core of our long-term national 
security strategy, that is what this amendment is all about.
  Again I thank the gentlewoman from New York for accepting this 
amendment. I look forward to working with her to see that this 
additional funding for basic education programs directly reaching 
Pakistani children is retained in conference.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept this amendment. I thank the gentleman 
for his interest in basic education in Pakistan. As the gentleman 
knows, I have been a firm believer in basic education for a long time. 
The bill includes a total of $750 million for basic education programs.
  The gentleman recently went to Pakistan. I had the privilege of going 
to Pakistan and visited the earthquake zones, and in fact I had the 
privilege of opening a school in the earthquake zone. These beautiful 
young girls looked at me and said, can you send us science teachers? 
Can you send us computers? We know this experience can be replicated 
thousands of times around the world.
  So I really do appreciate the gentleman's commitment to basic 
education, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and accept 
his amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the chairwoman will yield, I want to 
again say I was in Pakistan at the same time that you were, 
approximately, and you witnessed, as did we, exactly what you are 
talking about. This is a great effort, to be able to go in the right 
direction, to put in public education as an alternative to the 
madrassas.
  I thank you for the fine work you have done, and your committee as 
well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New 
York for her work with me on this.
  Mr. Chairman, by way of brief background, there is a strong and 
vibrant minority community of Christians in Iraq. Some the oldest 
Christians in the world are these various sects: The Assyrian Church of 
the East, the Assyrian Church of the East Ancient, the Assyrian 
Evangelical, the Syriac Orthodox, the Syriac Catholic, the Coptic 
Church, the Armenian Catholic, the Armenian Evangelical, the Armenian 
Orthodox, and the Chaldean have their origins in Iraq and other Middle 
Eastern countries such as Iran, Turkey and Syria.
  Like other ethnic minorities residing in the Middle East, throughout 
their history these various sects have been used as pawns by major 
powers in the region. Unfortunately, their Christian faith has made 
them targets and they frequently have been subjected to harassment and 
violence throughout the region.
  In particular, the regime of Saddam Hussein was particularly brutal 
in their treatment of Christians. Because of their religion and because 
the majority of Christians opposed Saddam's regime, many of their 
leaders were assassinated and subjected to arbitrary detention.
  The war in Iraq exacerbated this situation and further endangers the 
faith of this group. It is estimated that as many as 40,000 Iraqi 
Christians, 5 percent of the faithful, have left the country since the 
war has begun. While Iraqi Christians make up just 3 percent of the 
overall population, reports are that Christians make up more than 20 
percent of the refugee exodus to Syria, and there are mounting fears 
that if Iraq becomes an Islamic theocracy, the exodus will accelerate.
  My congressional district, the 18th District of California, happens 
to be home to a large Assyrian population. I have heard the horror 
stories from some in my district, and I am committed to ensuring that 
the interests of the Assyrians and the broader Christian community are 
well protected in the new Iraq.
  I have taken numerous steps to protect the rights of the minority. In 
particular I have written a letter on the subject to Secretary Rice and 
have implored her to use all means available to ensure that the rights 
of this group are respected.
  To further enhance our ability to protect these people, it is my 
understanding that there is report language in this bill which urges 
that $10 million in the recently enacted supplemental be targeted 
towards helping the Christian community in Iraq. I want to work with 
the chairwoman and the rest of the members of the committee to ensure 
that this money goes for its intended purpose of protecting this 
community and does not get diverted to other issues.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California (Mr. 
Cardoza) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the 
committee. This type of government-sponsored terrorism was a hallmark 
of Saddam Hussein's rule and cannot continue. It was endemic. 
Unfortunately, it seems that the practice continues, and I continue to 
worry that our assistance may not be benefiting the intended 
recipients.
  I too am concerned about the plight of the Christian minority, and I 
am dedicated to using whatever tools we have available to ensure their 
rights are given due consideration.
  Furthermore, I want to note for my colleagues that the recent 
supplemental included a requirement for a report on the ethnic and 
geographic distribution of the United States assistance programs 
reaching the Nineveh Plain region, which should give us a clearer 
picture of the situation facing Iraqi Christians.
  I want to assure my friend that I, and I know my ranking member, who 
cares passionately about these issues, will work closely with the 
Congressman to ensure that this $10 million does go for its intended 
purpose of protecting the Christian minority in Iraq.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her help on 
this issue and for her agreement to work towards ensuring that the 
money goes to alleviate the suffering of the Christian community in 
Iraq. This community has lived in this part of the world for over 1,000 
years, and we must do our part to ensure that they live there for 1,000 
more.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is 
interested in this and a lot of others, and I thank the Chair for 
accepting the Kirk amendment in the full committee.
  I looked for you yesterday. What I wanted to ask you to do was to 
offer an amendment on the floor, and I know the gentlewoman would have 
accepted it, of another $100,000, or $1 million, for the Chaldean 
Christians, and get a roll call vote on it; because colloquies are 
colloquies, but a roll call vote is a roll call vote.
  AID has failed to address this issue. We have asked them a number of 
times. They tell us that we can't be targeting with regard to certain 
ethnic groups, and it has never been a satisfactory answer. So it is 
too late now, but it would have been a good thing to do. In fact, this 
Congress and this government, we have abandoned the Christians in the 
Middle East. We have pretty much walked away and the Christian 
community in the Middle East is declining.
  So you are on to something, and hopefully you can find a way in 
another bill or in the supplemental perhaps to offer to work with the 
gentlewoman to have an amendment, and then you offer an added $100,000 
or $1 million or whatever you think is appropriate, and then ask for a 
roll call vote so the entire Congress is on record, because you are 
right on target.
  I want to thank you, and we will work with you and help you in any 
way possible. But a roll call vote of 435-0 would send a message to the 
AID people that they would have to face and focus on.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure my good friend from 
California, and, of course, my ranking

[[Page 16791]]

member, that we together will make it clear that this is an urgent 
issue, and the amendment in the committee validated the urgency of the 
issue. I know we will continue to work together to address this.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing this up, and, of course, I respect 
the interest and passion of my ranking member. We will be following up, 
and there will be attention given to this issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I think that comment 
really sends a message. Obviously AID is watching this debate right 
now, and for the Chair of the committee to say that, they have actually 
gotten the message. So I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CARDOZA. If the gentleman would yield briefly, I would say I did 
look for the gentleman on the floor yesterday as well, but we must have 
missed each other in our search. I thank the gentleman for his comments 
in the Rules Committee where I raised this issue initially. I look 
forward to working with the gentleman in the future. I will look for 
opportunities, together we will look for opportunities, to send a 
continuing message that this population is important, not just to the 
Middle East, but to this country as well, and it is important for us to 
assist and invest in this community.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for an important statement.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Chairman, I don't have any amendment at 
the desk, but I do wish to rise in support of the 2008 State and 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and to commend the committee, 
particularly the chairwoman from New York, for the fine work that has 
been done to get the bill to this point.
  I want to bring attention to a very important aspect of the bill: 
funding for trade capacity building. This bill raises the Federal 
appropriation level to $214 million. That is $87 million more than the 
administration requested.
  Obviously there are many different points of view on trade in this 
body, but I think all of us can agree that we must do everything 
possible to enable developing countries to facilitate trade with the 
world.
  Most people think of trade infrastructure projects when they think of 
trade capacity. But facilitating trade goes well beyond that. These 
funds will help developing countries with labor and environmental law 
enforcement and provide technical assistance for better trade access in 
remote areas.
  Trade capacity assistance is a relatively new tool in the trade 
arena, but it has recently played an important role in the 
implementation of trade and will continue to play a critical role as we 
consider several free trade agreements with developing countries that 
are eligible to receive capacity building from our Nation.
  I thank the chairwoman for maintaining the commitment to trade 
capacity funds in recent agreements, and I hope to work closely with 
the committee on follow-up and oversight of trade capacity funds, past 
and in the present.
  Hopefully, in the near future, we will have the opportunity to 
consider this on the floor with countries such as Peru, Panama and 
Colombia. All of these nations need trade capacity assistance, but 
Colombia is arguably the country with the most intense and persistent 
challenges.
  I look forward to working closely with the committee and USAID to see 
that we dedicate some of the increased funds in this bill to help 
Colombia meet critical needs, like assistance for its Fiscalia, the 
Office of the Attorney General. The Fiscalia bears the overwhelming 
responsibility of continuing the progress towards security and peace in 
Colombia, with investigations of murders and kidnappings, particularly 
those of labor leaders, and managing the legal process of the 
demobilization of paramilitaries and the FARC. The Fiscalia needs as 
much support as we can offer it if it is going to expeditiously carry 
out the hundreds of investigations and legislative demands that it must 
meet as an independent agency of justice.
  I hope my colleagues who share my concern over violence in Colombia, 
particularly in remote areas populated by African Colombians and 
attacks against labor leaders, will support the 2008 Foreign Operations 
bill and join me in calling for trade capacity funds specifically 
dedicated to those countries who are cooperating with us to make 
strides toward a more secure hemisphere.

                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for 
bringing attention to these important issues. As you know, the former 
Chair of this committee, Mr. Kolbe, has been a leader on trade, and 
continues to share with us the importance of trade as we move forward 
in this process.
  I thank you very much for focusing on his very important legacy. He 
was a great partner for me working together on this committee, and I 
also appreciate your mentioning Colombia and the fact that we changed 
the balance of funding in this bill, putting more resources in the 
Fiscalia. When I was there, it was clear to me that they didn't have 
enough people to enforce the law to go after the narcotraffickers, so 
this was an important area, in addition to increasing funding for 
interdiction. Justice, rule of law, interdiction, and funding for the 
Afro-Colombians, and we know there has been a tremendous need. Thank 
you for your work. I look forward to working together. I know that my 
colleagues realize how important these issues are as well.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to enter into a colloquy about the need for increased funding 
for the United States contribution to the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Organization with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. If the gentlewoman would yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Foreign Ops appropriations bill about 
the need for increased funding for the United States contribution to 
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization called CTBTO.
  I had planned to offer an amendment to fund the CTBTO at least to the 
administration's request of $18 million for fiscal year 2008; but I 
would just like to make a few points for the record.
  As you know, the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request 
calls for $18 million for the U.S. contribution to the CTBTO. 
Unfortunately, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill would shift 
$8 million of the administration's already inadequate request to 
another account, leaving only $10 million for U.S. funding for CTBTO 
test ban monitoring.
  The administration's request already falls well short of what is 
necessary to make up for past funding shortfalls that threaten to slow 
or stop the construction and operation of the test ban treaty 
organization's international monitoring system.
  In 2002, the Bush administration unilaterally decided not to support 
the U.S. portion, approximately $800,000 per year, of the on-site 
inspection component of the CTBTO verification activities. The 
administration, which does not support ratification and entry into 
force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, argues that because the on-
site inspection will only be available upon the entry into force of the 
treaty, the United States should not contribute.
  For fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration requested and Congress 
approved only $14.4 million for the CTBTO, which was $7 million short 
of the $22 million assessed by the organization.
  The continuing resolution covering most fiscal year 2007 spending set 
U.S. funding for the CTBTO at the fiscal year 2006 level, which was $9 
million short of the United States $23.4 million assessment.

[[Page 16792]]

  Compounding the problem last month, the Bush administration 
unilaterally decided to obligate only $10 million of the $14.4 million 
appropriated by Congress. As a result, the U.S. is now in arrears to a 
total of $28.3 million.
  We are the single largest contributor to CTBTO, and our shortfalls 
will have a significant impact. The United States failure to pay its 
share will directly affect the CTBTO's ability to complete construction 
and certify for use the remaining stations in the international 
monitoring system, including those in more remote and strategic regions 
such as Turkmenistan, which lies just north of Iran.
  I am sure that the gentlewoman from New York (Chairman Lowey) shares 
my deep concern that the United States is underfunding the CTBTO as the 
danger of Iran's nuclear program grows as these fundings continue to 
deplete and we are not able to keep up with our obligations.
  Unless Congress increases funding for the U.S. contribution, these 
shortfalls that have accumulated over the last 7 years will continue to 
undermine the effort to complete a global monitoring network and 
conduct data analysis designed to detect and deter nuclear weapons test 
explosions.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that my good friend from 
California brought this issue to our attention.
  I really want to thank you for your work on CTBTO, and I agree with 
you that the United States should show leadership and pay our full 
share of obligations that it owes to the CTBTO.
  The bill tries to draw balance between the various programs funded 
within the nonproliferation antiterrorism account, but I understand the 
concerns my friend has raised and these are concerns of the committee. 
There are many members of the committee who are working very hard on 
this issue, and it is my intention to continue to work with you as the 
bill moves through the process.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairwoman's attention 
to this matter and her distinguished and significant leadership on this 
issue, and I look forward to working with her on this as the bill goes 
forward and in the conference.
  Once again, I appreciate having a colloquy. I think these are very 
important issues, especially since I hope we will get to ratify the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and our obligations are significant to 
make sure that we have this global monitoring effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       (c) The provisions of section 628 of this Act shall apply 
     to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision of this or any other Act, 
     including provisions in this subsection regarding the 
     application of section 628 of this Act, local currencies 
     generated by, or converted from, funds appropriated by this 
     Act and by previous appropriations Acts and made available 
     for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia may be used 
     in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States to carry out the 
     provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the 
     Support for East European Democracy SEED Act of 1989.


                     international fund for ireland

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $15,000,000, which shall be available for the United States 
     contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall 
     be made available in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading shall remain available until September 30, 
     2009.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $297,332,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2009, which shall be 
     available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     assistance and for related programs for Eastern Europe and 
     the Baltic States.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use 
     of economic assistance.
       (c) The provisions of section 628 of this Act shall apply 
     to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision of this or any other Act, 
     including provisions in this subsection regarding the 
     application of section 628 of this Act, local currencies 
     generated by, or converted from, funds appropriated by this 
     Act and by previous appropriations Acts and made available 
     for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia may be used 
     in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States to carry out the 
     provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the 
     Support for East European Democracy SEED Act of 1989.
       (d) The President is authorized to withhold funds 
     appropriated under this heading made available for economic 
     revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he 
     determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not 
     complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General 
     Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that 
     intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and 
     related activities between state sponsors of terrorism and 
     terrorist organizations and Bosnian officials has not been 
     terminated.


    assistance for the independent states of the former soviet union

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, $397,585,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters 
     shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided 
     further, That funds made available for the Southern Caucasus 
     region may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for confidence-building measures and other activities in 
     furtherance of the peaceful resolution of the regional 
     conflicts, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and 
     Nagorno-Karabagh: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds appropriated under this heading 
     in this Act or prior Acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, that are 
     made available pursuant to the provisions of section 807 of 
     Public Law 102-511 shall be subject to a 6 percent ceiling on 
     administrative expenses.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than $52,200,000 should be made available, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for such purposes, for assistance 
     for child survival, environmental and reproductive health, 
     and to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious 
     diseases, and for related activities.
       (c)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that 
     are allocated for assistance for the Government of the 
     Russian Federation, 60 percent shall be withheld from 
     obligation until the President determines and certifies in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of the Russian Federation--
       (A) has terminated implementation of arrangements to 
     provide Iran with technical expertise, training, technology, 
     or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor, related 
     nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile 
     capability; and
       (B) is providing full access to international non-
     governmental organizations providing humanitarian relief to 
     refugees and internally displaced persons in Chechnya.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       (A) assistance to combat infectious diseases, child 
     survival activities, or assistance for victims of trafficking 
     in persons; and
       (B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation 
     and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM 
     Support Act.
       (d) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply 
     to--
       (1) activities to support democracy or assistance under 
     title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public 
     Law 104-201 or non-proliferation assistance;
       (2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development 
     Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
       (3) any activity carried out by a member of the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his 
     or her official capacity;
       (4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other 
     assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
       (5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945; or
       (6) humanitarian assistance.

                          Independent Agencies


                       inter-american foundation

       For necessary expenses to carry out the functions of the 
     Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, 
     $19,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.


                     african development foundation

       For necessary expenses to carry out title V of the 
     International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 
     1980, Public Law 96-

[[Page 16793]]

     533, $30,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided, That funds made available to grantees may be 
     invested pending expenditure for project purposes when 
     authorized by the Board of Directors of the Foundation: 
     Provided further, That interest earned shall be used only for 
     the purposes for which the grant was made: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African 
     Development Foundation Act, (1) in exceptional circumstances 
     the Board of Directors of the Foundation may waive the 
     $250,000 limitation contained in that section with respect to 
     a project and (2) a project may exceed the limitation by up 
     to $10,000 if the increase is due solely to foreign currency 
     fluctuation: Provided further, That the Foundation shall 
     provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations after 
     each time such waiver authority is exercised.


                              peace corps

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), including the purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for administrative 
     purposes for use outside of the United States, $333,500,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     used to pay for abortions: Provided further, That the 
     Director may transfer to the Foreign Currency Fluctuations 
     Account, as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2515, an amount not to 
     exceed $2,000,000: Provided further, That funds transferred 
     pursuant to the previous proviso may not be derived from 
     amounts made available for Peace Corps overseas operations.


                    millennium challenge corporation

       For necessary expenses for the ``Millennium Challenge 
     Corporation'', $1,800,000,0000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, up to $95,000,000 may be available for 
     administrative expenses of the Millennium Challenge 
     Corporation: Provided further, That up to 10 percent of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be made available 
     to carry out the purposes of section 616 of the Millennium 
     Challenge Act of 2003 for candidate countries for fiscal year 
     2008: Provided further, That none of the funds available to 
     carry out section 616 of such Act may be made available until 
     the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge 
     Corporation provides a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations listing the candidate countries that will be 
     receiving assistance under section 616 of such Act, the level 
     of assistance proposed for each such country, a description 
     of the proposed programs, projects and activities, and the 
     implementing agency or agencies of the United States 
     Government: Provided further, That section 605(e)(4) of the 
     Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 shall apply to funds 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for a 
     Millennium Challenge Compact entered into pursuant to section 
     609 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 only if such 
     Compact obligates, or contains a commitment to obligate 
     subject to the availability of funds and the mutual agreement 
     of the parties to the Compact to proceed, the entire amount 
     of the United States Government funding anticipated for the 
     duration of the Compact.

                          Department of State


                       global hiv/aids initiative

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the prevention, treatment, 
     and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS, including 
     administrative expenses of the Office of the Global AIDS 
     Coordinator, $4,450,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $300,000,000 shall be made available, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, except for the 
     United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
     Malaria Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-25) for a United States 
     contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis 
     and Malaria, and shall be expended at the minimum rate 
     necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     heading and under the heading ``Child Survival and Health 
     Programs Fund'' shall be made available notwithstanding the 
     second sentence of section 403(a) of Public Law 108-25: 
     Provided further, That up to 5 percent of the aggregate 
     amount of funds made available to the Global Fund in fiscal 
     year 2008 may be made available to the Office of the United 
     States Global AIDS Coordinator for technical assistance 
     related to the activities of the Global Fund.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pitts:
       In the item relating to ``Global HIV/AIDS Initiative'', 
     strike ``Provided Further, That funds made available under 
     this heading and under the heading `Child Survival and Health 
     Programs Fund' shall be made available notwithstanding the 
     second sentence of section 403(a) of Public Law 108-25:''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, United Nations program on HIV/AIDS report estimates 
that there are 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and 
like everyone else, I am deeply saddened by this reality.
  However, I am also filled with hope because recent evidence indicates 
that the current prevention strategy is helping to produce behavioral 
change that has significantly decreased people's risk of contracting 
this deadly disease.
  The current HIV/AIDS prevention strategy was carefully crafted in the 
PEPFAR authorization bill to reflect a balanced approach, and the good 
news is that this balanced approach is working.
  The PEPFAR authorization bill, which became law in 2003, included a 
provision that required one-third of the 20 percent for prevention 
funding, that is approximately 7 percent of the total PEPFAR funds, to 
be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs.
  Prior to the implementation of this spending directive, the U.S. 
promoted an unbalanced condoms-only approach. The U.S. remains the 
largest distributor of condoms in the world. But for the first time the 
behavior factor is getting real attention under the current program 
rules. And the result: falling HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in 7 of the 15 
focus countries.
  The current prevention strategy is based on the comprehensive ABC 
model, first established in Uganda, developed by Uganda. The ABC model 
stands for A, abstinence; B, be faithful; C, condoms. A comprehensive, 
balanced approach.
  After implementation of this model in Uganda, the number of young 
males age 15 to 24 reporting premarital sex decreased from 60 percent 
in 1989 to 23 percent in 1995. For females, the decline was 53 percent 
to 16 percent. The program actually helped change the behavior in women 
and men, a fact I hope my colleagues take seriously.
  Opponents of this approach claim that behavioral change is 
unrealistic. Dr. Edward Green, a researcher at Harvard University, was 
an opponent of the ABC model and in particular of abstinence until he 
saw what happened in Uganda. He testified before the Energy and 
Commerce Committee saying: ``Many of us in the AIDS and public health 
communities did not believe that abstinence or delay and faithfulness 
were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.''
  Not only has Uganda seen a society transformed by behavioral change, 
we can now add Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zambia 
to the list of countries that are experiencing a decrease in HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates.
  Experts continue to testify to the fact that behavioral change 
continues to be the key indicator of HIV/AIDS prevention. Yet for some 
reason, some of my colleagues have decided to make a crucial provision 
of this successful strategy optional. This crucial provision ensures 
that the ``abstinence'' and ``be faithful'' components are incorporated 
into the approach. Never mind the fact that PEPFAR is expected to be 
reauthorized later this year, and never mind the fact that the 
reauthorization might be the more appropriate forum to debate this 
critical component that was agreed to.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we need a comprehensive approach, 
but I remind them that abstinence and fidelity education are 
fundamental to the comprehensive ABC approach.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we need an approach that saves 
lives. I remind them that the ABC model, with the A and the B spending 
requirement intact, is continuing to save more and more lives. In 
countries that have relied predominantly on condom distribution, HIV/
AIDS prevalence rates have not improved. Meanwhile, countries that 
promote behavioral change have seen significant improvement.

[[Page 16794]]

  Mr. Chairman, a balanced, evidence-based approach is essential if we 
are going to effectively fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. The current policy 
is the balanced approach. It is the evidence-based approach. It is the 
approach that is working. Why change what works?
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and keep abstinence and 
fidelity in the AIDS program, and in doing so, to vote for an approach 
that is saving lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, despite the best efforts of our prevention 
programs, the HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to grow. In 2006, 4.3 million 
people were infected with the virus; and for every new treatment 
patient in 2006, six additional people became infected with HIV. If we 
do not slow the pandemic, treatment costs alone in 2010 could be as 
high as $11 billion. Unless this trend is reversed, global efforts to 
expand treatment will falter and our global effort to address the 
pandemic will fail.
  That is why it is so critical to maximize the effectiveness of the 
$5.062 billion for HIV/AIDS programs provided in this bill and make 
sure that our prevention programs work.
  A recently released Institute of Medicine report entitled, ``PEPFAR 
Implementation,'' stated: ``The earmark has greatly limited the ability 
of country teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention 
programs that are well integrated with each other and with testing, 
care, and treatment programs.'' These congressionally mandated funding 
restrictions are hampering our overall prevention efforts.

                              {time}  1345

  Therefore, and I want to make it very clear to my colleague, the bill 
allows the President to provide funding for HIV/AIDS prevention at his 
discretion. It does not change the underlying PEPFAR law, nor does it 
require that the President change the amount of funding for any 
particular prevention programs. In fact, it doesn't require the 
President to change the programs at all. The language simply provides 
flexibility to design the most effective prevention programs.
  Effective HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives must be designed to respond 
to the local social and cultural conditions. These efforts should 
include all available options, including abstinence programs, 
comprehensive prevention programs, condom distribution, and medical 
interventions such as male circumcision and mother-to-child prevention 
programs to ensure that we use every tool at our disposal to stop this 
deadly disease.
  We know that the only solution to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is 
expanded and effective prevention programs. Our bill language again 
provides the administration with the flexibility to respond to the 
ever-changing pandemic in the most effective ways without the 
restrictions of arbitrary numerical targets.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts), and in support of this evidence-based approach to reducing 
the spread of HIV and AIDS.
  The AIDS epidemic in Africa is a serious problem that demands serious 
results. However, I also had the privilege of seeing firsthand the 
success of Uganda's ABC program when I traveled to Uganda a couple of 
years ago to visit my daughter who's a missionary there and also a 
health educator dealing specifically with HIV/AIDS. Also meeting with 
who has now become adopted into our family, Mama Nabali, who is a young 
woman with three children who has HIV as a result of behavior issues 
related specifically to a husband who was unfaithful in many, many 
ways.
  It has been interesting to note that in Uganda as well as other 
countries that are now using the ABC program authorized and pushed by 
the First Lady and the President, President Museveni of Uganda, in each 
of those cases there is a significant decline in reported numbers of 
sexual partners, that's the behavior portion of it, and a significant 
decline in the numbers of unmarried youth who are sexually active, 
which is the abstinence portion of it.
  Authorizing legislation that requires 33 percent of prevention funds 
to be spent in abstinence-until-marriage programming is the best way to 
address this problem because it's a proven, successful method of 
reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. There is growing evidence that partner 
reduction is the single most important factor in reducing HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates.
  According to the PEPFAR Third Report to Congress, ``Of the countless 
developments taking place in the global fight against the AIDS 
pandemic, perhaps the single most important in recent years is the 
growing number of nations in which there is clear evidence of declining 
HIV prevalence as a result of changes in sexual behavior.''
  Furthermore, no country with a generalized epidemic that has relied 
on condom prevention alone has reported a decline in HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates. Because studies have shown that the abstinence-until-
marriage method is producing the best results, I urge my colleagues to 
consider the merits of the Pitts amendment and support this important 
and, need I say, life-changing and lifesaving legislation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, an expert on Africa and so 
many of the issues that are critical, Mr. Payne.
  Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment that would 
strike the underlying language that provides flexibility to the 
President on designing his HIV/AIDS programs.
  In 2003, Congress and the President came together to establish the 
Global HIV/AIDS Initiative. Five years ago, the world was optimistic 
that we could, with additional funding, start to turn the pandemic 
around. As we have heard, success has not been as easy as we would have 
hoped, and over 4 million people were newly infected last year. That is 
why, in addition to increasing the amount of money we are spending to 
combat HIV/AIDS, we must take every effort to ensure that we are 
spending money as wisely as possible.
  The chairwoman's bill contains language which gives the President 
maximum flexibility. There is no empirical data to my knowledge which 
supports the abstinence-only earmark in P.L. 108-25, the original 
PEPFAR authorizing legislation. The earmark calls for one-third of all 
prevention funds to be spent on abstinence-only until marriage. No one 
has ever explained the rationale for that figure. The provision of 
flexibility to the President to determine how much money to spend on 
abstinence-only is way overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Pitts amendment and to 
support the chairperson in this endeavor.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida, Dr. David Weldon, 2 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time exists on both sides, please.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 8\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentlewoman from New York has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts 
amendment. I am concerned with the change in the abstinence policy in 
the PEPFAR budget to permissive authority for the administration to 
give grants to abstinence-based programs. I fear that this is a setback 
to the work we are doing overseas with AIDS relief.
  The best way to stop AIDS is to encourage people to abstain from 
sexual behavior outside of marriage. Last July, southern African AIDS 
experts and officials listed, and I'm quoting here, reducing multiple 
concurrent partnerships as their number one priority for preventing the 
spread of HIV.

[[Page 16795]]

  I used to treat AIDS patients. I used to practice infectious disease. 
The reason AIDS exploded through the gay community in this country in 
the late seventies and the early eighties was because of this 
phenomenon, having multiple concurrent sexual partners. And the reason 
Uganda, and you're going to hear Uganda quoted over and over again, was 
successful in lowering their AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 
percent, and there was very little foreign aid going in the country at 
the time they did this, is because they established an education 
program.
  People are rising on the floor today acting like there is no money 
for anything other than abstinence education. This is a very modest 
component of the bill. We have a lot of money for prevention. We have 
money for mother-to-child prevention. We are simply requiring that a 
third of the money go to what I think is the most cost-effective venue 
that we could be using.
  I would highly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
believe right now under the current law, the President has the 
authority to waive this requirement if the country team asks for it and 
as I understand some countries have and they have waived the authority. 
I believe that this language that they changed in PEPFAR is authorizing 
and this should have been left to the authorizing debate.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Pitts amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill 
provides the President flexibility, not mandates. The gentleman's 
amendment seems to be more interested in bean-counting than saving and 
treating those with HIV/AIDS. Is it more important to make sure that 33 
cents out of every dollar, according to the gentleman's amendment, go 
to abstinence or that we give the President some flexibility if, that 
is if, he needs it?
  We all know that HIV/AIDS prevention programs must be targeted to the 
group that we are seeking to influence and when abstinence programs may 
be appropriate for some groups, including the very young. I want to 
raise to my colleagues' attention that the underlying language in the 
bill that provides flexibility enjoys broad support from groups that 
are working on the ground.
  I have a letter from the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation 
urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts amendment.
  I have a letter from CARE, one of the world's leading NGOs providing 
AIDS care and prevention services, urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts 
amendment.
  I have a letter from the General Board of Church and Society of the 
United Methodist Church urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts amendment.
  I urge my colleagues and their counsel and to vote ``no'' on the 
Pitts amendment.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote the distinguished 
ranking Republican member who said this on the floor last night:
  ``I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good, and I 
want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives not only here 
but around the world. This is the work of the Lord. And I know Members 
are going to come down here and they're going to be against this bill. 
And I hope that we can change some of the things to prevent a veto, but 
this bill eventually when it passes, and it will pass, assuming it will 
be vetoed, is really about feeding the poor, the hungry, the naked and 
the sick. Almost a better title would be the Matthew 25 bill. So it has 
the potential to do a lot of good and I hope to work with the 
chairwoman to ensure the State Department has what it needs to do these 
things.''
  Matthew 25 is very clear, Mr. Chairman:
  Then the king will say to those on his right, ``Come you who are 
blessed by my father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for 
you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me 
something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I 
was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed 
me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came 
after me.''
  Then the righteous will answer him, ``Lord, when did we see you 
hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? When 
did we see a stranger and invite you in? Or needing clothes and clothe 
you? When did we see you sick or in prison or did we go visit you?''
  The king will reply, ``I will tell you the truth, whatever you did 
for one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it unto me.''
  Mr. Chairman, the people need medicine, not self-righteousness. 
Reject the Pitts amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't know I was going to get a biblical 
lesson here, but I would just ask the man rhetorically, is abstinence 
biblical? Is faithfulness biblical? That's what we're speaking on 
behalf of.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska who is a member of 
the Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Fortenberry.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Pitts 
amendment. This amendment will save lives. The President's Emergency 
Plan for AIDS Relief, commonly known as PEPFAR, is the largest 
bilateral foreign assistance program dedicated to mitigating the HIV/
AIDS crisis worldwide. The plan places special emphasis on the 15 
countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean which account for 
approximately 50 percent of the world's HIV infections.
  If the U.S. is to remain the world's leader in saving lives from the 
devastation of AIDS, it's time to look at the track record and see what 
works well. Demographic and health surveys show that HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates in at least 7 of the 15 PEPFAR focus countries is 
declining. Countries such as Uganda, Zambia and Senegal have success 
stories to showcase and something to teach us. In these nations and 
others experiencing declines in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, it is 
through indigenous programming that respects the local cultural milieu 
and social norms that figure prominently.
  In Uganda, for example, prevalence rates among pregnant women fell 
from approximately 20 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in the year 2000. 
Between 1991 and 1998, HIV prevalence rates among 15- to 19-year-olds 
fell by 75 percent, from approximately 21 percent to 5 percent.
  While causal factors behind the prevalence declines are complex and 
should not be oversimplified, it is clear that the success stories in 
Uganda, Zambia, Senegal and elsewhere all incorporate the same common 
denominator, an emphasis on abstinence and fidelity, as critical 
elements in successful interventions.

                              {time}  1400

  As it stands, this appropriations bill would potentially reverse the 
most significant element of this success by diminishing the emphasis on 
abstinence and fidelity. This issue is much too serious to prevent the 
outright dismissal of compelling clinical evidence that in-country 
programming emphasizing abstinence and fidelity can effectively reduce 
the prevalence of HIV and AIDS.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment.
  HIV/AIDS is devastating Africa and other parts of the developing 
world. We all share that. We share that knowledge. We can be proud that 
the United States is leading the way in addressing the global AIDS 
pandemic. We are providing support for millions of people through 
treatment, care and prevention programs.
  But we need to take a very practical approach, and the bill before us 
does that by including the language that gives the President 
flexibility to implement prevention programs that fit the country's 
current AIDS pandemic.
  I thought it was very compelling to hear the story that was just 
shared on

[[Page 16796]]

the floor by my Republican colleague about how a wife had become 
infected, not because of her behavior, but because of her husband's 
behavior.
  I am particularly concerned about the 40 percent of new HIV/AIDS 
infections in youth between the ages of 15 and 24. Women and girls make 
up 60 percent of all the infections, and 76 percent of the infections 
among those are between the ages of 15 and 24. Now, abstinence could be 
an option, but we know that marriage is not a protective factor.
  Listen carefully to this: over the next 10 years, more than 100 
million girls in the developing countries will be married before their 
18th birthday, some as young as age 14, mostly to older men, often 
against their will. These are forced child brides.
  These girls will have a significantly higher rate of HIV infection 
than their peers who are sexually active and their unmarried peers.
  We should give these young girls the opportunity to protect 
themselves, to save their own lives. I believe that we must make sure 
that our prevention programs address their needs and provide 
alternatives. For these young girls and women, abstinence is just not 
an option. They need programs that provide them with full information 
to protect themselves. We, in Congress, must do all that we can to stop 
child marriage; but, in the meantime, we need to protect these young 
women.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is ranking member of the 
Africa Subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Pitts amendment.
  As an original cosponsor of the President's $15 billion, 5-year law 
to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, I rise in strong opposition to the 
language in the bill that undermines and dismisses the successful HIV/
AIDS prevention spending requirement in the PEPFAR legislation.
  Where the epidemic has spread among the general population, the only 
successful evidence-based approach to HIV/AIDS prevention is that which 
emphasizes abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in 
relationships, and, lastly, where necessary, condoms.
  The success of the ABC approach depends on the proper balance between 
these three elements. The spending requirement is necessary to attain 
that balance.
  The vast majority of PEPFAR's focus countries have generalized 
epidemics; and those that have emphasized A and B, abstinence and being 
faithful programming, have experienced significant increases in the 
number of youth and adults who are either abstaining or being mutually 
faithful, and, at the same time, they have seen significant drops in 
those countries, in the percentage of their population infected with 
HIV/AIDS.
  Examples of countries that have aggressively promoted abstinence and 
fidelity at the national level, backed by real resources, and have 
experienced decreased HIV rates include Uganda, Senegal, Jamaica, 
Thailand, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Dominican Republic and Kenya.
  On the other hand, no country with a generalized epidemic that has 
relied primarily on condom promotion has reported a decline in HIV 
rates. Southern Africa is a tragic example of this.
  The Washington Post on March 2 pointed out that ``researchers 
increasingly attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana, and in 
Southern Africa generally, to the high incidence of multiple sexual 
relationships . . . [Western AIDS experts] brought not just ideas, but 
money, and soon billboards in Botswana touted condoms. Schoolchildren 
sang about them. Cadres of young women demonstrated how to roll them 
out. The anti-AIDS partnership between the . . . Gates Foundation and 
drugmaker Merck budgeted $13.5 million for condom promotion, 25 times 
the amount dedicated to curbing dangerous sexual behavior. But soaring 
rates of condom use,'' The Washington Post went on, ``have not brought 
down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together until both were among 
the highest in Africa.''
  As indicated in The Washington Post report, those who are considered 
AIDS experts in the West, including some of those who directed U.S. 
prevention funding prior to PEPFAR, imposed their narrow-minded condom 
promotion mentality on Africa.
  The PEPFAR coordinator, on the other hand, Ambassador Mark Dybul, 
testified last fall that the 33 percent prevention spending requirement 
``has helped support PEPFAR's field personnel in appropriately 
broadening the range of prevention efforts . . . In addition, the 
directive has helped PEPFAR to align itself with the strategies of the 
host nations, of which ABC is a key element.''
  In a letter to the editor of Lancet, June 2006, the Minister of 
Health of Namibia noted that PEPFAR support for AB, abstinence and 
faithful, is needed to ensure the balance of the ABC programs that 
Namibia seeks. That is because, he goes on to say, other international 
donors support only condoms but not abstinence or being faithful 
programs.
  Finally, let me say that even with the spending requirement, the 
United States remains by far the largest condom distributor in the 
world.
  If our goal here is to save lives by implementing the strongest 
evidence-based prevention programs possible, we should be at least 
maintaining, and I would suggest increasing, the percentage of funding 
directed to abstinence and to being faithful programs. It works, it has 
proven that it works, and I support the Pitts amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  I oppose the Pitts amendment. I support strongly the attempt by the 
subcommittee to give the President flexibility to implement prevention 
programs that fit the countries' current AIDS epidemic. I salute the 
President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief. I have been to Africa, 
Uganda, and Tanzania to see how the program works.
  Everyone I spoke with pleaded with us to make sure that there was 
more emphasis on not A, B, but on C, condoms. Young children were 
asking that this be a factor in their schools. They said sex is going 
to happen no matter what you say. No matter what you say about 
abstinence or be faithful, it's going to happen. It is particularly 
disconcerting to think that someone who has chosen one partner and 
loves that partner, not knowing that that partner has been unfaithful, 
and, in fact, has AIDS, transmitting that disease to, in most cases, a 
young woman.
  This makes eminent sense. I would like to think that we could get our 
religious beliefs out of this issue, not talking practically, but 
talking realistically. If you want to prevent deaths, you need to allow 
more condoms.
  If you want to save lives, you need to allow more condoms. If you 
want to prevent pregnancies, you need to allow more condoms. If you 
don't want so much interest on other things like whether there should 
be abortion, you need to have condoms.
  I weep thinking young kids go to school without teachers and go home 
without parents. We need to be doing more in Africa to spend our money 
better.
  Thank you, Mrs. Lowey, for what you have done to give the President 
of these United States the flexibility with his team that puts PEPFAR 
into operation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts amendment.
  First of all there is the flexibility; there is ability to waive. I 
hope Mr. Pitts will cover that.
  Let me read you what Ambassador Mark Dybul said. He said recent data 
from Kenya, Zimbabwe and urban Haiti show decline in HIV prevalence. A 
new

[[Page 16797]]

study has concluded that these reductions and prevalence do not simply 
represent the natural course of these nations' epidemics, but can only 
be explained by changes in sexual behavior. This demonstrates the power 
of behavior changes to save lives and the importance of support for 
effective behavior change intervention.
  If people from my old neighborhood back in southwest Philadelphia 
heard this debate that the Congress was debating ``faithful'' in this, 
is it a good idea or a bad idea, they would say, what is going on?
  As Mr. Pitts said, I would argue too that he is right. I think 
Biblical faithfulness is a Biblical principle. Faithfulness is a very 
good principle. Does anyone disagree? Now we are debating abstinence? 
We are saving lives.
  So there is flexibility. So there is a fake argument here. There is 
the ability to waive; and what we are doing here, we could talk about 
different things, they are underlying agendas. We are talking about 
basically are we going to save lives. Are we going to save lives.
  I will stipulate that Mark Dybul has forgotten more about this than 
this Congress knows. Because of that, I will urge an ``aye'' vote for 
the Pitts amendment to save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, there is flexibility in the existing 
program. Countries can apply for a waiver. Every country that has 
applied has received a waiver. Our friends say that all they want to do 
is provide flexibility and more condoms.
  Well, for 20 years of fighting AIDS, the bureaucrats who run these 
programs tried the same approach over and over again. It never worked. 
When Uganda came up with a comprehensive approach that would, they 
still opposed it.
  Well, the buck stops here in Congress, and we told them in 2003 to do 
what works, and it's working. Without this amendment, this bill will 
allow them to go back to the failed policies of the passed. So many on 
the other side are saying we need to listen to the other experts on the 
ground; we need to follow their advice.
  That's true. They even raise this point with the Centers for Disease 
Control in a letter signed by several of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, including the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman, 
Mrs. Lowey. That letter highlighted the report that was written by the 
world's leading HIV/AIDS experts, was endorsed by more than 100 leaders 
from 36 countries, people like the President of Uganda, people like 
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the HIV/AIDS director of the World Health 
Organization, researchers from Johns Hopkins and other leading medical 
institutions.
  Allow me to quote from what these people, the experts, are saying 
about what's working to reduce AIDS prevalence: ``When targeting young 
people or those who have not started sexual activity, the first 
priority should be to encourage abstinence or delay of sexual onset, 
hence emphasizing risk avoidance as the best way to prevent HIV and 
other sexually transmitted infections, as well as unwanted 
pregnancies.'' Abstinence, behavior change, that is what the experts 
are stressing. I agree, the experts know best.
  They are saying that a comprehensive approach that includes 
behavioral change is crucial to winning the fight against AIDS.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PITTS. I would yield.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman be saying Archbishop Desmond Tutu would 
be basically supporting your amendment?
  Mr. PITTS. That's the quote that I read from the statement he signed.
  Mr. WOLF. Nobel Prize winner Bishop Tutu from South Africa supports 
the amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. That's correct.
  Mr. WOLF. I mean, is there a greater expert, from both moral and 
understanding than that?
  Did the gentleman say there have been waivers granted?
  Mr. PITTS. That's correct. Every country that requested waivers has 
received one.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WOLF. Every single country. I think the gentleman has made the 
case.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the copies of the 
letters and the statement.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2005.
     Hon. Julie Gerberding,
     Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clifton 
         Road, Atlanta, GA.
       Dear Dr. Gerberding: On November 27, 2004, the Lancet 
     published a statement entitled ``The Time Has Come for Common 
     Ground on Preventing Sexual Transmission of HIV.'' Signed by 
     more than 100 religious, political, health and scientific 
     leaders from across the developed and developing world, this 
     statement called for an end to ``polarizing debate'' and 
     urged the international community ``to unite around an 
     inclusive evidence-based approach to slow the spread of 
     sexually transmitted HIV.'' We are writing to ask whether you 
     support this statement.
       The statement describes key elements of successful HIV 
     prevention. These include:
       1. Ensuring prevention activities are grounded in the 
     science of epidemiology, supported at the local level, and 
     respectful of human rights;
       2. Promoting abstinence among those young people who are 
     not yet sexually active, encouraging mutual monogamy among 
     sexually active adults, and helping individuals who engage in 
     high-risk activities to stop;
       3. Encouraging correct and consistent condom use among 
     individuals who are engaging in high-risk activities and 
     those who are sexually active with a partner whose HIV status 
     is unknown;
       4. Expanding prevention programs for young people both in 
     and out of school, supporting parents ``in communicating 
     their values and expectations about sexual behavior''; and
       5. Employing community-based approaches that involve 
     religious organizations, women's and men's organizations, 
     care groups, youth organizations, health workers, local 
     media, and traditional and governmental leadership.
       The statement also notes that expanding access to services 
     for testing, counseling and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other 
     sexually transmitted infections, preventing mother-to-child 
     transmission, and enhancing access to family planning 
     services are all essential in order to achieve the 
     prevention, care and treatment objectives of the President's 
     Emergency Plan for AIDS and other global initiatives. It 
     endorses continuing review of potential interventions such as 
     microbicides, new antibiotic treatments, and vaccines.
       The statement was written by several of the world's leading 
     HIV experts, and endorsed by more than 100 leaders in the 
     fight against AIDS from 36 countries across a range of 
     disciplines. Notable endorsers include: Uganda's President 
     Yoweri Museveni, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of the Anglican 
     Church of Southern Africa, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in 
     Africa Stephen Lewis, and HIV/AIDS Director at the World 
     Health Organization Jim Kim.
       The statement has also been endorsed by representatives 
     from the World Bank; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and the heads of HIV/AIDS programs 
     in several countries including Ethiopia, India, Jamaica, and 
     Uganda. Leaders and representatives from major faith- and 
     community-based nongovernmental organizations from the United 
     States and around the world also back the statement.
       Given the broad international and domestic support for the 
     Lancet statement and the importance of collaboration in AIDS 
     prevention efforts worldwide, we would like to know whether 
     you, as a key leader in this administration in combating HIV/
     AIDS, support this statement.
       We would appreciate a response by January 24, 2005.
           Sincerely,
         Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 
           Government Reform, House of Representatives; Nita M. 
           Lowey, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Foreign 
           Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, 
           Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives; 
           Fortney Pete Stark, Ranking Minority Member, 
           Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, 
           House of Representatives; Sherrod Brown, Ranking 
           Minority Member, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on 
           Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives; Barbara 
           Lee, Chair, Global AIDS Initiative, Congressional Black 
           Caucus, House of Representatives.
         Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Member of Congress; Betty 
           McCollum, Member of Congress; Howard L. Berman, Member 
           of Congress; Lois Capps, Member of Congress; Richard J. 
           Durbin, U.S. Senator.

[[Page 16798]]

           
                                  ____
                                                    June 18, 2007.
       Dear Representative: We are writing on behalf of the United 
     States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and Catholic 
     Relief Services (CRS) to express deep concern regarding two 
     provisions in the State/Foreign Operations appropriations 
     bill, which the full House may soon debate. First, the bill 
     would nullify the current 7 percent allocation (one-third of 
     HIV and AIDS prevention funds) for abstinence-before-marriage 
     programs in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 
     (PEPFAR). These programs have proven to be very effective in 
     Africa as part of a larger strategy that focuses on overall 
     behavior change. We consider it unwise to abandon this 
     strategy through the Appropriations process and urge you to 
     support any effort to reverse this provision.
       The other fundamental defect is language in Section 622 
     rescinding the Mexico City Policy, which prevents U.S. family 
     planning assistance from being channeled through groups that 
     perform and promote abortion as family planning. On this 
     issue we urge you to follow the counsel by our Bishops' 
     Conference offered in a companion letter.
       The Catholic Church is deeply committed to U.S. leadership 
     on the issue of HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. At 
     home and around the world, and particularly through the 
     experience of Catholic Relief Services in 12 of the 15 PEPFAR 
     focus countries and many others, principally in Africa, the 
     Church is deeply involved in offering life-saving help to 
     people threatened by HIV and AIDS. This is not about 
     ideology; it is about saving lives. In this common effort, we 
     would urge the following steps to advance the U.S. commitment 
     to address the spread of HIV and AIDS: Do not abandon the 
     consensus that underpins U.S. leadership.
       PEPFAR, at its heart, is about coming to the aid of some of 
     our most vulnerable sisters and brothers. PEPFAR legislation 
     was carefully negotiated and reflects a consensus on how best 
     to proceed and on what works in HIV and AIDS prevention. By 
     setting aside the requirement that 33 percent of prevention 
     funding focus on ``abstinence-before-marriage,'' Congress is 
     summarily rejecting sound evidence and experience of what 
     actually works in reducing HIV and AIDS.
       Abandoning this approach through the Appropriations 
     process, rather than through the process of reauthorizing 
     PEPFAR, is also unwise, premature and counter-productive. 
     This is an important issue that requires careful 
     consideration of evidence and experience accumulated over a 
     period of years. We and others on the front lines look 
     forward to making our full case about the effectiveness of 
     abstinence, behavior change, and partner reduction as ways to 
     help save lives through the regular authorization process of 
     hearings and deliberation. This is where decisions should be 
     made in the interest of sound policy and on behalf of the 
     lives and dignity of those who are most affected by HIV and 
     AIDS.
       USCCB and CRS were major supporters of the PEPFAR 
     initiative when it was first announced in 2003. Since then, 
     we have been actively engaged in education and advocacy to 
     support major new investments in the U.S. commitment to fight 
     the global pandemic. As we prepare for the reauthorization of 
     PEPFAR legislation, attempts to abandon the current approach 
     will seriously threaten consensus needed to expand U. S. 
     leadership on this issue. It would be tragic if efforts to 
     abandon this effective approach put at risk the consensus and 
     momentum for increased U.S. commitment and investment in this 
     life-saving initiative.
       We strongly urge the Committee to retain designated funding 
     for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV through abstinence 
     and fidelity education.
       PEPFAR included a 7 percent allocation (one-third of HIV 
     and AIDS prevention funds) for abstinence-before-marriage 
     programs. The State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill 
     abandons this commitment, even though there is a global 
     shortage of funding available for this critical and effective 
     method for preventing sexually-transmitted HIV.
       Since 2003, CRS has been one of the largest and most 
     successful partners in PEPFAR. In its extensive experience 
     and in the documented experience of others, only an approach 
     to sexually transmitted HIV prevention that has sufficient 
     funding for a behavior change strategy based on abstinence, 
     partner reduction, and faithfulness education has yielded 
     meaningful advances in stopping the spread of HIV. Educating 
     youth on the risks they may face and providing them with good 
     ``life skills'' so that they can make good, sound decisions, 
     actually saves lives. Evidence shows that the HIV and AIDS 
     prevalence rates in at least 7 of the 15 PEPFAR Focus 
     Countries are declining--and in every such case, there is a 
     significant decline in the reported numbers of sexual 
     partners and in the number of unmarried youth aged 15-24 who 
     are sexually active.
       There is no evidence that an increase in the use of condoms 
     alone, without abstinence and behavior change interventions, 
     has reduced the rate of AIDS cases. Our experience leads us 
     to strongly reaffirm the need for designated funding for 
     abstinence-until-marriage, funding that was virtually non-
     existent before PEPFAR. Without funding for such programs, 
     human lives, particularly in Africa, may be further 
     threatened. A recent Washington Post article presents 
     concrete evidence in this regard, affirming that in the case 
     of Botswana, ``soaring rates of condom use have not brought 
     down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both 
     were among the highest in Africa'' (``Speeding HIV's Deadly 
     Spread,'' Washington Post, March 2, 2007; p. A1).
       Congress has responded to the health needs of the poor 
     around the world with generosity. We ask that you support any 
     effort to restore the PEPFAR-mandated allocation for 
     ``abstinence-until-marriage'' funding. In addition, we urge 
     you to fully fund this important investment in preventing HIV 
     infections and saving lives, and not let it be side-tracked 
     into diversionary battles. Now is the time for new 
     investment, not re-fighting old battles.
       With appreciation for your continued support for addressing 
     the critical health needs of the poor around the world, we 
     remain,
           Sincerely yours,
     Thomas G. Wenski,
       Bishop of Orlando, Chairman, Committee on International 
     Policy.
     Ken Hackett,
       President, Catholic Relief Services.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would just like to clarify and ask either the ranking 
member or the gentleman a question. Number one, I'm puzzled that you 
don't trust the President of the United States and give him the 
discretion. We're not changing the law. We're just giving the President 
the discretion. Now, that's Number one.
  Number two, I believe both gentlemen said that waivers can be issued. 
Of course waivers can be issued. I believe the gentlemen know that when 
a waiver is granted the other countries may make up the difference. So, 
for example, if waivers are granted to 50 percent of the countries, I 
think of my trip to Arusha, Tanzania. And there was a hut right in the 
middle of this community, a Masai village, and there were 15 huts 
around it. And the chief of that village went from hut to hut to hut to 
hut, spreading HIV/AIDS.
  Now, I'd be interested to know how this would work if the waivers are 
granted, and many of the other communities around the world have to 
make up for that waiver, how would this be done.
  And the gentleman, Number three, has also talked about a 
comprehensive program. Well, we may agree. I believe in abstinence. I 
think it's great. And if it can be implemented in Africa and Asia and 
all the other countries that are spreading HIV/AIDS like wildfire, I'm 
perfectly in support. But we're talking about comprehensive programs, 
including abstinence. And I'm glad the gentleman agrees that this 
should be comprehensive programs including abstinence. Would you like 
to respond?
  Mr. WOLF. I will yield to the gentleman first.
  Mr. PITTS. The only thing your amendment would do is remove the A and 
the B from the ABC model.
  Mrs. LOWEY. No, excuse me. There's confusion in the amendment. My 
amendment would give the President the authority, the President of 
these United States, with Ambassador Dybul, to make these decisions. 
We're not removing anything.
  Mr. PITTS. And the President could remove the A and the B, and just 
have the C. And when Ambassador Dybul was asked if any of the countries 
wanted waivers, they all said no.
  Mrs. LOWEY. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining on her time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word. And I'm pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank our chairwoman for yielding and for her 
leadership, and just say, as one of the authors of the PEPFAR 
legislation, I actually helped write the majority of this legislation. 
I can tell you that while I did not agree nor support the 33 percent 
earmark, I know for a fact that this does not undo that earmark.
  Let me just tell you a couple of things. You probably have heard, and 
you know that over the next 10 years,

[[Page 16799]]

more than 100 million girls in developing countries will be married 
before their 18th birthday, and often against their will.
  As currently written, the bill does not change the underlying 
abstinence-until-marriage earmark. For me that's unfortunate, but it 
doesn't change that. And it does not require the President to make any 
changes to current prevention funds. The current language merely 
provides the President with the flexibility to plan the most 
appropriate and sensitive and required program for countries per their 
request.
  The fact is, the administration has already waived, you're right, 
application of the abstinence earmark for certain countries receiving 
assistance under our global AIDS programs. But I want you to remember, 
ABC does mean abstinence, be faithful, use condoms.
  For many of these young girls, abstinence is not an option. And we 
must provide them with what they need to protect themselves. ABC is 
ABC.
  The Lowey language provides a very practical, commonsense, 1-year 
fix, mind you, 1 year. And it gives the President the authority to 
program global AIDS funding according to local country needs. 
Ultimately, it will be up to the President to determine whether to 
exercise this flexibility.
  This amendment, Mr. Pitts, it really does render a death sentence to 
millions of girls and their children and their babies.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against restricting the ability of 
the President to save lives. And that's what this amendment would do. 
And so I hope that all of the posturing and all of the ideological 
debate today really comes down to the fact that we believe, all of us 
believe in ABC: Abstinence, be faithful, use condoms.
  And as I said, I helped write this bill. And I was much opposed to 
this earmark, but, believe me, I know that this does not remove it.
  And so I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
I thank the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Committee for her 
leadership in this area.
  My life has been devoted to public health, to bettering it. And this 
amendment is bad public policy wherever it will affect lives. It 
forces, actually, bad public health policy and removes the flexibility 
to opt for better allocation of public health services.
  PEPFAR is extremely important to our fight against the transmission 
of HIV/AIDS and our treatment of the 40 million people living worldwide 
with this disease. But as the Institutes of Medicine and GAO have both 
reported, country teams have been greatly limited in their ability to 
provide effective lifesaving services by the restriction that has been 
placed for the past several years.
  I applaud Chairwoman Lowey for lifting this restriction by allowing 
PEPFAR funds to be spent where they are actually needed in order to 
accomplish the program's goal.
  We spent all last week listening to complaints about a lack of 
responsible spending. Quite frankly, making the amount of funds 
available for proven effective public health programs dependent upon 
spending for unproven, ineffective programs is the epitome of 
irresponsible spending.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to support 
responsibility.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlelady. I believe I have 2 minutes, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds under the 5-minute rule, 
and an additional 30 seconds under her original 15 minutes, a total of 
1 minute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify for my distinguished 
ranking member and my colleague from Pennsylvania that what this does 
is give the President of the United States of America the authority, 
the flexibility.
  I believe in ABC, abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. But I want to 
make it very clear to my colleagues, when the administration uses the 
waiver, then the other countries of the world still have to meet that 
one-third percent when it comes to prevention, abstinence. All we're 
saying, again, is abstinence, be faithful, use condoms.
  We have to prevent unnecessary abortions. We have to save lives. We 
have to make sure that we do whatever we can to prevent the spread of 
HIV/AIDS.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PITTS. 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 Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of a colloquy with the distinguished former Speaker, Mr. 
Hastert.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf.
  I thank the gentlelady and Ranking Member Wolf for working with me 
throughout this process on an important issue that I have worked on for 
many years and that's Plan Colombia.
  As you know, Colombia is a critical U.S. ally in the region, and it's 
in our interest to cultivate this partnership to ensure that Colombia 
remains strong.
  I sincerely appreciate the chairwoman's efforts to address my 
concerns about the overall cuts to the program, particularly given the 
constraints of the bill. However, I still have concerns about funding 
levels provided for the Colombian aviation programs, as well as some of 
the certification requirements contained in the bill.
  Alternative livelihood, which the chairwoman is very interested in, 
and I am too, and other developmental projects are certainly vital to 
our overall effort in Colombia, but they can only be successful in 
areas where the Colombian Government maintains territorial control.
  That being said, I would like to continue working with the chairwoman 
and ranking member to address some of these issues as we move forward 
to conference.
  Madam Chairman, once again, I thank you and I look forward to working 
with you as the process continues.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, to my friend the former Speaker, I 
want to thank you for the collaborative way you have worked with me and 
our ranking member, Mr. Wolf. I would like to commend you for your many 
years of dedicated and unyielding work on Colombia.
  I, as you, have long been deeply concerned about the situation facing 
us in the war on drugs. We agree that increasing drug interdiction 
efforts is necessary. We also agree that Colombia is a vital partner 
and ally of the United States.
  I want to say again that I fully recognize the strategic importance 
of Colombia. In no way does this bill reduce our steadfast support to 
our friends in Colombia.
  I've tried, in this bill, working with my good friend, Mr. Wolf, to 
strike a more balanced strategy that shifts the aid from the military 
and strengthens civilian governments, humanitarian assistance and rural 
development.
  I continue to believe that we need to attack the underlying and 
pervasive poverty that is at the root of the problems in Colombia, as 
well as the region. I've attempted to increase the social component in 
our assistance to Colombia and begin Colombianization of the the 
military package and place a greater emphasis on interdiction rather 
than eradication.
  This bill also increases funding for judges, prosecutors and rule of 
law and creates jobs in the legal economy.
  Again, I say to my good friend from Illinois, I greatly appreciate 
your advice, the give-and-take you have provided as we drafted this 
bill. I want to

[[Page 16800]]

assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to pay close 
attention to his concerns as we work through the next stages of the 
process.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I want to join my colleagues in continuing to work on the 
important issue. U.S. assistance to Colombia has been directly 
responsible for bringing stability to the country. The people of 
Colombia couldn't travel freely, but now they can. The security is due 
to Plan Colombia. I appreciate the Speaker's hard work over the years 
on this issue.
  I want to thank Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman Lowey for really being very 
open and taking all the time to kind of work this out.
  Mr. HASTERT. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield. I too would 
just like to say thank you for your hard work, and I'm honored to 
continue to work with you on this issue. Thank you very much.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. And it was a pleasure working with 
you, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this 
important issue.


                      Announcement By the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
  An amendment by Mr. Wolf of Virginia.
  An amendment by Mr. Shays of Connecticut.
  An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  An amendment by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
  An amendment by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1430


        Amendment Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, 
noes 170, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--254

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--170

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Granger
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman

                              {time}  1456

  Mr. BERMAN and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HIGGINS, CARNEY, MILLER of North Carolina, JEFFERSON, 
GUTIERREZ, SCHIFF, MELANCON, RYAN of Ohio, KENNEDY and SPRATT, and Mrs. 
JONES of Ohio, Ms. BORDALLO and Ms. GIFFORDS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

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

[[Page 16801]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 219, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 528]

                               AYES--205

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

                               NOES--219

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1501

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 355, 
noes 69, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 529]

                               AYES--355

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan

[[Page 16802]]


     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--69

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Drake
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Israel
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McCotter
     McCrery
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Souder
     Tierney
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Heller
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1505

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


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 232, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               AYES--192

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu

                               NOES--232

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1509

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

[[Page 16803]]




                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 287, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 531]

                               AYES--137

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

                               NOES--287

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Bachus
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1514

  Mr. McINTYRE and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 226, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 532]

                               AYES--200

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce

[[Page 16804]]


     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--226

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Abercrombie
     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Waxman


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1518

  Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman, and I rise for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York.
  First of all, Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for your 
efforts to increase funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 
demining and related programs.
  My amendment would have targeted a specific increase for the 
counterterrorism program within the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 
demining and related programs account. This vital program was only 
funded at the President's request of $6 million, which is actually a 
reduction from the $7.4 million in last year's budget.
  I appreciate the good work done by the chairwoman and by the 
committee in meeting the President's request. I understand that. But 
the President has not done a sufficient job in the area of 
counterterrorism, and there has been actually a reduction in this area.
  As the cochair of the Task Force on Terrorism and Proliferation 
Financing, I have joined many of my colleagues, including the Chair, in 
meetings and hearings facing the challenges that we confront in the 
United States Government in battling terrorist financing.
  Since the attacks on 9/11 Congress and this committee have taken 
significant steps towards utilizing investigation and data collection 
regarding terrorist financing as a viable intelligence tool for 
disrupting the financing of terrorist activities. Nevertheless, 
terrorists' proven ability to move money through innovative means 
necessitates continued progress in this critical counterterrorism area.
  Al Qaeda's strength, for example, rests in its ability to continually 
adapt to U.S. tactics, and thus it requires greater innovation and 
greater resources in order to develop new strategies to counter those 
efforts.
  In April, I had an opportunity to organize a trip to the Middle East 
where we met with high-ranking banking officials to discuss the issue 
of anti-terrorism financing in Jordan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in 
Istanbul, Turkey. I believe that through international financial 
pressure, we can effect real change in the policies of other countries 
towards these terrorist groups.
  In the parts of the world where financial restrictions would have the 
greatest impact, unfortunately, U.S. influence is at its lowest. On the 
other hand, however, I know from our own experience that these 
countries do want to participate in the global economy. Thus, we have 
seen that these countries are more likely to adopt transparency in 
their finance laws for the purpose of gaining legitimacy in the eyes of 
global investors rather than simply responding to U.S. pressure. By 
allocating more resources to induce anti-money-laundering compliance 
and transparency, we can make significant gains in tracking terrorists 
and cutting off their funding.
  While we made some progress, considerable work remains to be done in 
regulating, for instance, the hawala system, which is an informal 
transfer system used extensively in the Middle East, because anytime 
you have a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability regarding 
the movement of funds, there is a great likelihood that terrorists and 
criminals can harness the system for their own gain.
  By closing off legitimate financial markets for terrorists, we force 
them to change tactics that are less secure and oftentimes easier to 
track. A perfect example is the example of December 14 and the arrest 
of Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh at the border crossing into Gaza 
from Egypt carrying an estimated $30 million in cash in suitcases for 
the Palestinian Authority and for Hamas. The reason that Hamas has to 
operate that way is because financial markets were not available to 
them. Instances like these highlight the importance and indeed the 
benefit of focusing on counterterrorism financing efforts.
  In essence, I am greatly concerned that the President is not doing 
enough and that by meeting the President's request, we here are not 
doing enough to stop the financing of terrorist operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield back to the gentlewoman from New York for 
a response.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman. I 
agree that the counterterrorism financing program is a vital tool in 
assisting foreign countries' efforts to identify, freeze and prevent 
the use of financial institutions, businesses and charitable 
organizations as conduits for money to terrorist organizations, 
including giving countries an investigative ability to follow the money 
trail and arrest terrorists preemptively.
  I support the work of the Department of State, the Department of 
Justice and the Department of Treasury in assisting countries who are 
at risk to terrorist financing. However, overall

[[Page 16805]]

budgetary constraints did not provide sufficient opportunity for us to 
increase the requested funding level at this time.
  However, I want to assure you, this is a priority of this committee. 
This is a priority of this Congress. In fact, I have been a member for 
years of this same task force, the same committee of which you are 
cochair, I believe, and I look forward to working with you as the bill 
moves through this Congress to conference to see if we can bolster 
those funds.
  I really do thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for the courtesy that 
has been extended to me, and I also look forward to working together on 
this very important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


          international narcotics control and law enforcement

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $568,475,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That during 
     fiscal year 2008, the Department of State may also use the 
     authority of section 608 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, without regard to its restrictions, to receive excess 
     property from an agency of the United States Government for 
     the purpose of providing it to a foreign country under 
     chapter 8 of part I of that Act subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall provide 
     to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and prior to the 
     initial obligation of funds appropriated under this heading, 
     a report on the proposed uses of all funds under this heading 
     on a country-by-country basis for each proposed program, 
     project, or activity: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $15,000,000 
     shall be made available for training programs and activities 
     of the International Law Enforcement Academies: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     for counter narcotics activities in Afghanistan shall be made 
     available for eradication programs through the spraying of 
     herbicides: Provided further, That $12,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be made available for 
     demand reduction and drug awareness programs: Provided 
     further, That not less than $8,000,000 shall be made 
     available for programs to combat transnational crime and 
     criminal youth gangs: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not more than $38,000,000 
     may be available for administrative expenses.


                     andean counterdrug initiative

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to support counterdrug 
     activities in the Andean region of South America, 
     $312,460,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of State, in consultation with 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development, shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and prior to the initial obligation of 
     funds appropriated under this heading, a report on the 
     proposed uses of all funds under this heading on a country-
     by-country basis for each proposed program, project, or 
     activity: Provided further, That section 482(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That 
     assistance provided with funds appropriated under this 
     heading that is made available notwithstanding section 482(b) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be made available 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That of the 
     funds available under this heading for assistance for the 
     Colombian National Police Support for Eradication program, 
     not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for program 
     assistance to protect biodiversity, indigenous reserves and 
     Afro-Colombian lands subject to spraying in Colombia: 
     Provided further, That of the funds available for the 
     Colombian national police support for eradication program for 
     the procurement of chemicals for aerial coca and poppy 
     fumigation programs, exclusive of funds made available 
     pursuant to the previous proviso, not more than 10 percent of 
     such funds may be made available for such fumigation programs 
     unless the Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that (A) the herbicide is being used in 
     accordance with label requirements of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency for comparable use in the United States and 
     with Colombian laws; (B) the aerial fumigation program does 
     not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or 
     the environment including endemic species; (C) the social 
     dislocation and changes in vegetative cover caused by the 
     geographic shifts in coca and poppy cultivation resulting 
     from the aerial spraying program have been thoroughly 
     assessed on a regional level, and effective measures are 
     being taken to minimize adverse impacts; (D) all 
     certification reports on the aerial eradication program are 
     being made available to the public in a timely manner in both 
     English and Spanish; (E) complaints of harm to health or 
     licit crops caused by such spraying are being thoroughly 
     evaluated and fair compensation is being provided in a timely 
     manner for meritorious claims; (F) all claims, evaluations, 
     and compensation reports will be disclosed biannually to the 
     public in both English and Spanish; (G) a minimum of 15 
     percent of sprayed fields will be subject to independent and 
     randomly selected off-target damage assessments; (H) programs 
     are being implemented by the United States Agency for 
     International Development, the Government of Colombia, or 
     other organizations, in consultation and coordination with 
     local communities and existing local development initiatives, 
     to provide alternative sources of income in municipalities 
     where security permits for small-acreage growers whose 
     illicit crops are targeted for fumigation; (I) programs to 
     provide food security to affected families are operative in 
     areas where security does not permit alternative development 
     programs: Provided further, That funds may not be used for 
     aerial fumigation in Colombia's national parks or reserves 
     unless the Secretary of State determines that there are no 
     effective alternatives to reduce drug cultivation in these 
     areas and that the spraying is conducted in accordance with 
     current Colombian laws: Provided further, That of funds 
     provided for interdiction under this heading, not less than 
     10 percent of airtime allocated for aerial assets, (both 
     fixed and rotary wing aircraft), shall be used annually for 
     major drug interdiction operations, including assaults on 
     large drug processing labs and high value narcotics related 
     targets: Provided further, That no United States Armed Forces 
     personnel or United States civilian contractor employed by 
     the United States shall participate in any combat operation 
     in connection with assistance made available by funds 
     provided in this Act for Colombia: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated under this heading that are made available 
     for assistance for the Bolivian military may be made 
     available for such purposes only if the Secretary of State 
     certifies that the Bolivian military is respecting human 
     rights, and civilian judicial authorities are investigating 
     and prosecuting, with the military's cooperation, military 
     personnel who have been implicated in gross violations of 
     human rights: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not more than $17,000,000 
     may be available for administrative expenses of the 
     Department of State, and not more than $7,800,000 may be 
     available, in addition to amounts otherwise available for 
     such purposes, for administrative expenses of the United 
     States Agency for International Development.


                    migration and refugee assistance

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the 
     International Organization for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities 
     to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of 
     personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921 
     through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $829,900,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That not more 
     than $22,500,000 may be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That not less than $40,000,000 of 
     the funds made available under this heading shall be made 
     available for refugees from the former Soviet Union and 
     Eastern Europe and other refugees resettling in Israel.


     united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
     1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)), $45,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


    nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs

       For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-
     terrorism, demining and related programs and activities, 
     $467,000,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-
     terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support 
     Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance 
     of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and 
     related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including activities implemented through nongovernmental 
     and international organizations, and section 301 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution 
     to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a 
     United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test 
     Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this

[[Page 16806]]

     amount not to exceed $38,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to 
     nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such 
     funds may also be used for such countries other than the 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union and 
     international organizations when it is in the national 
     security interest of the United States to do so: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to 
     the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to 
     participate or being otherwise discriminated against in any 
     of the activities of that Agency: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available for demining and related activities, 
     not to exceed $700,000, in addition to funds otherwise 
     available for such purposes, may be used for administrative 
     expenses related to the operation and management of the 
     demining program: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading that are available for ``Anti-terrorism 
     Assistance'' and ``Export Control and Border Security'' shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.

                       Department of the Treasury


               international affairs technical assistance

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 129 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $18,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, 
     which shall be available notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law that restricts assistance to foreign countries.


                           debt restructuring

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan 
     guarantees, as the President may determine, for which funds 
     have been appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     programs within the International Affairs Budget Function 
     150, including the cost of selling, reducing, or canceling 
     amounts owed to the United States as a result of concessional 
     loans made to eligible countries, pursuant to parts IV and V 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, of modifying 
     concessional credit agreements with least developed 
     countries, as authorized under section 411 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
     amended, of concessional loans, guarantees and credit 
     agreements, as authorized under section 572 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-461), and of 
     canceling amounts owed, as a result of loans or guarantees 
     made pursuant to the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, by 
     countries that are eligible for debt reduction pursuant to 
     title V of H.R. 3425 as enacted into law by section 
     1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113, $200,300,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That not less 
     than $20,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be made available to carry out the provisions of part V 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That 
     amounts paid to the HIPC Trust Fund may be used only to fund 
     debt reduction under the enhanced HIPC initiative by--
       (1) the Inter-American Development Bank;
       (2) the African Development Fund;
       (3) the African Development Bank; and
       (4) the Central American Bank for Economic Integration:

     Provided further, That funds may not be paid to the HIPC 
     Trust Fund for the benefit of any country if the Secretary of 
     State has credible evidence that the government of such 
     country is engaged in a consistent pattern of gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights or in 
     military or civil conflict that undermines its ability to 
     develop and implement measures to alleviate poverty and to 
     devote adequate human and financial resources to that end: 
     Provided further, That on the basis of final appropriations, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the 
     Committees on Appropriations concerning which countries and 
     international financial institutions are expected to benefit 
     from a United States contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund 
     during the fiscal year: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall inform the Committees on Appropriations 
     not less than 15 days in advance of the signature of an 
     agreement by the United States to make payments to the HIPC 
     Trust Fund of amounts for such countries and institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     disburse funds designated for debt reduction through the HIPC 
     Trust Fund only for the benefit of countries that--
       (1) have committed, for a period of 24 months, not to 
     accept new market-rate loans from the international financial 
     institution receiving debt repayment as a result of such 
     disbursement, other than loans made by such institutions to 
     export-oriented commercial projects that generate foreign 
     exchange which are generally referred to as ``enclave'' 
     loans; and
       (2) have documented and demonstrated their commitment to 
     redirect their budgetary resources from international debt 
     repayments to programs to alleviate poverty and promote 
     economic growth that are additional to or expand upon those 
     previously available for such purposes:

     Provided further, That any limitation of subsection (e) of 
     section 411 of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     under this heading: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading in this or any other 
     appropriations Act shall be made available for Sudan or Burma 
     unless the Secretary of the Treasury determines and notifies 
     the Committees on Appropriations that a democratically 
     elected government has taken office.

                     TITLE IV--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $85,076,000, of which up to $3,000,000 may remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds under this heading shall 
     not be available for Equatorial Guinea: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading that are made 
     available for assistance for Guatemala, other than for 
     expanded international military education and training, shall 
     be available only for the Guatemalan Air Force, Navy and Army 
     Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That assistance 
     provided under this heading for the Guatemalan Army Corps of 
     Engineers is only available for training to improve disaster 
     response capabilities and to participate in international 
     peacekeeping operations: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading that are made available for 
     assistance for the Guatemalan military, other than for 
     expanded international military education and training, may 
     be made available only if the Secretary of State certifies 
     that the Guatemalan Air Force, Navy and Army Corps of 
     Engineers are respecting human rights, and civilian judicial 
     authorities are investigating and prosecuting, with the 
     military's cooperation, military personnel who have been 
     implicated in gross violations of human rights: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading for 
     military education and training for Libya and Angola may only 
     be made available for expanded international military 
     education and training: Provided further, That the civilian 
     personnel for whom military education and training may be 
     provided under this heading may include civilians who are not 
     members of a government whose participation would contribute 
     to improved civil-military relations, civilian control of the 
     military, or respect for human rights: Provided further, That 
     funds made available in the previous proviso and funds made 
     available for Haiti, Libya, Angola, the Democratic Republic 
     of the Congo, Guatemala, and Nigeria may only be provided 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations and any such notification shall include a 
     detailed description of the proposed activities: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, no later than 60 days after 
     enactment of this Act, a report addressing how the Western 
     Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation IMET program 
     for fiscal year 2008 contributes to the promotion of human 
     rights, respect for civilian authority and the rule of law, 
     the establishment of legitimate judicial mechanisms for the 
     military, and achieving the goal of right sizing military 
     forces.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $4,509,236,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $2,400,000,000 
     shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not less 
     than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only 
     for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days 
     of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the 
     extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be 
     used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by 
     this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United 
     States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which 
     not less than $631,200,000 shall be available for the 
     procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense 
     services, including research and development: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, 
     $200,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Jordan: Provided further, That funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this paragraph shall be 
     nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds 
     made available under this paragraph shall be obligated upon 
     apportionment in accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title 
     31, United States Code, section 1501(a): Provided further, 
     That $5,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading 
     shall remain available until expended and shall not be 
     subject to the sixth proviso of this paragraph: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     previous proviso shall be made available except pursuant to 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.

[[Page 16807]]

       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 615 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for assistance for Sudan: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for assistance for the Guatemalan 
     Army: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading that are made available for assistance for the 
     Guatemalan military may be made available only if the 
     Secretary of State certifies that (1) the Guatemalan Air 
     Force, Navy and Army Corps of Engineers are respecting human 
     rights; (2) civilian judicial authorities are investigating 
     and prosecuting, with the military's cooperation, military 
     personnel who have been implicated in gross violations of 
     human rights; and (3) the Guatemalan Congress has adopted and 
     the President has signed the International Commission Against 
     Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG): Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for assistance for Haiti and Guatemala except 
     pursuant to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     made available under this heading may be used, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for demining, the 
     clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related activities, and 
     may include activities implemented through nongovernmental 
     and international organizations: Provided further, That only 
     those countries for which assistance was justified for the 
     ``Foreign Military Sales Financing Program'' in the fiscal 
     year 1989 congressional presentation for security assistance 
     programs may utilize funds made available under this heading 
     for procurement of defense articles, defense services or 
     design and construction services that are not sold by the 
     United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make 
     timely payment for defense articles and services: Provided 
     further, That not more than $41,900,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be obligated for 
     necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the United 
     States, for the general costs of administering military 
     assistance and sales: Provided further, That not more than 
     $395,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 
     21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during 
     fiscal year 2008 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That foreign military 
     financing program funds estimated to be outlayed for Egypt 
     during fiscal year 2008 shall be transferred to an interest 
     bearing account for Egypt in the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
     York within 30 days of enactment of this Act.


                        peacekeeping operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $293,200,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

                              {time}  1530

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all Chairwoman Lowey and 
Ranking Member Wolf for their good work in bringing this good bill to 
the floor. But I rise today particularly to commend Chairwoman Lowey, 
Ranking Member Wolf, and the subcommittee for their efforts to relieve 
the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. By providing over $200 million for 
peacekeeping and humanitarian aid to Darfur, this bill will provide 
desperately needed support for the 2.5 million people driven from 
Darfur or displaced within Darfur by the Sudanese's deliberate actions.
  Yet even as I acknowledge the significant resources that have been 
included in this bill, I cannot contain my outrage and frustration that 
the genocide in Darfur continues. Hundreds of villages and small towns 
have been razed, burned to the ground, and obliterated, the men killed, 
the women systematically raped, children slaughtered as if they were 
vermin, survivors fleeing for their lives into the squalor of refugee 
camps.
  A common tactic of this horror has been to stuff the villages' water 
wells with the bodies of the dead so there will be no water for people 
who try to return to their ancestral homes.
  Just last week, Sudanese President Omar Bashir agreed, yet again, to 
the deployment of a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping 
force in Darfur. This proposal calls for 20,000 African Union 
peacekeepers to be led and paid for by the United Nations. President 
Bashir has apparently offered his unconditional acceptance to the plan.
  But do we have any reason to believe that this latest agreement is 
anything but one more delaying tactic? After all, President Bashir 
already agreed to a joint U.N.-A.U. peacekeeping force in November only 
to renege a couple of months later. Each time the international 
community moves even timidly towards imposing punitive measures against 
Sudan, President Bashir briefly acquiesces and then promptly resumes 
his unconscionable obstruction of peacekeeping efforts. How are we to 
know if this latest concession is any different?
  Just last week, activists representing 36 organizations addressed a 
letter to the U.N. Security General, Ban Ki-moon, decrying the 
escalating attacks in Darfur and documenting the flight of aid 
organizations from the region. The conference on Darfur to occur next 
week in Paris will provide one more opportunity for the United States, 
France and other nations to join together in outlining tough 
consequences for Sudanese failure to accept prompt deployment of the 
twice-agreed-upon U.N.-A.U. peacekeeping force.
  We know that the Sudanese Government responds to international 
pressure, but it must be fierce and sustained if it is to finally end 
the vicious and senseless slaughter of the people of Darfur.
  I would like to ask simply five questions, Mr. Chairman. How many 
times in this Congress have we and will we congratulate ourselves for 
passing virtually unanimously powerless resolutions condemning the 
Bashir regime's actions in Darfur?
  Second, Will President Bush build on the study provision in the 
House-passed Armed Services authorization for fiscal year 2008 to 
develop a robust base in Chad for the deployment of peacekeeping forces 
and for the delivery of food and services to the millions of refugees?
  Or three, Is this administration so committed to other dealings with 
Sudan that all of President Bush's statements about the genocide in 
Darfur are just words?
  Four, Why should America participate in the 2008 Olympic Games in 
China when China repeatedly obstructs U.N. action on Darfur?
  Finally, When will America's 4-year demonstrated impotence be 
perceived as complicity in the horror of Darfur?
  It is time to stop the shilly-shallying, stop the attacks on 
civilians, and bring peace to Darfur. Today as we again provide funding 
for humanitarian assistance, let us remember that our lack of more 
effective action will be judged harshly by future generations who will 
wonder why we didn't act decisively to stop the genocide in Darfur.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman and I appreciate your constancy and 
your passion on this issue. I know you are aware that our committee put 
in over $100 million above the President's request to assist the 
financing of the African Union mission. And I do hope that at some 
point in the near future we can talk with equal passion about what is 
being done to address this disaster.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OLVER. I understand and applaud you and the ranking member for 
that $100 million above the President's request. That is very 
commendable, but the atrocity and the genocide continue.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Absolutely. I thank you very, very much.

[[Page 16808]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               TITLE V--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  international financial institutions

                      global environment facility

       For the United States contribution for the Global 
     Environment Facility, $106,763,000 to the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development as trustee for the Global 
     Environment Facility (GEF), by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     to remain available until expended.


       contribution to the international development association

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, $950,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the fund, $25,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


               contribution to the asian development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended, $115,306,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


              contribution to the african development bank

       For payment to the African Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $2,037,000, for the United States 
     paid-in share of the increase in capital stock, to remain 
     available until expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the African Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation for the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $31,919,000.


              contribution to the african development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the African 
     Development Fund, $135,684,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


  contribution to the international fund for agricultural development

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to increase the resources of the International Fund 
     for Agricultural Development, $18,072,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                international organizations and programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $333,400,000: Provided, That 
     section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act shall not apply 
     to contributions to the United Nations Democracy Fund.


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
       Page 72, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000) (reduced by 
     $20,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to begin by thanking Chairman Lowey, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Obey, and 
Mr. Lewis for their great cooperation and working with me to find an 
acceptable compromise on the important issues in this amendment. I am 
grateful for their agreement to support the amendment text before us 
today.
  This amendment serves two basic purposes. First, it seeks to restore 
funding for two initiatives: it restores funding for the U.N. Democracy 
Fund at the administration's requested $14 million level, which had 
been zeroed out in the committee report.
  The Democracy Fund, an initiative proposed by President Bush in 2004, 
increases cooperation between democratic countries and supports new and 
transitional democracies. It has been successful in making grants to 
programs in more than 100 countries around the world to support civil 
education, voter registration, access to information, and democratic 
dialogue.
  In recent weeks, I have been working with the chairman of Foreign 
Affairs, Chairman Lantos, and his staff to ensure that a $14 million 
authorization for the Democracy Fund stays intact in preconference 
meetings with the Senate on H.R. 1 and H.R. 982, the Advanced Democracy 
Act.
  I am glad that this amendment provides us with another opportunity to 
continue our bipartisan support for this critical work. The amendment 
also would restore $6 million out of the $10 million requested by the 
administration for the U.N. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative.
  This initiative, modeled on the Democracy Fund, is designed as a 
voluntarily funded, freestanding trust that will make technical 
assistance grants to promote positive environments for business and 
innovation around the world.
  Second, in addition to restoring those deleted funds, this amendment 
will strike $20 million from the proposed U.S. contributions to the 
U.N. Development Program. The past 6 months have brought a series of 
very serious revelations and questions about the UNDP activities in 
North Korea, Mr. Chairman, a rogue regime under sanctions by the U.N. 
Security Council.
  While we appreciate the fact that the program has been terminated in 
North Korea, there has not been sufficient investigation and 
cooperation from UNDP in answering questions that bear on the 
fundamental issues that are of national security interest to the United 
States.
  The $20 million cut proposed in my amendment will send a clear signal 
about our demands and expectations for greater transparency and 
accountability from the United Nations Development Program while also 
continuing to make a substantial contribution to UNDP's core programs.
  Again I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support for this 
important amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the chairwoman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I understand the intent of this amendment, and we have 
worked to craft an amendment we both can accept.
  As you know, I believe that the United Nations Development Program is 
a key partner in our efforts to address global poverty. Their programs 
work to spread democracy, to address global HIV/AIDS, to improve the 
environment, and to respond to natural disasters and crises. All of 
these programs are critically important and they are working.
  Because of their broad mandate, they often work under very difficult 
circumstances, and it is their work in North Korea that has led to the 
recent allegations of inadequate controls on funds to North Korea. 
These are serious concerns and need to be addressed.
  However, I want to point out to my colleagues that UNDP has reacted 
swiftly to these concerns by suspending its program and closing the 
office in North Korea. In addition, UNDP is working with its executive 
board to put new accountability and transparency measures in place.
  In light of congressional concerns that have been raised on both 
sides of the aisle, I worked with the gentlelady to negotiate this 
agreement which reduces UNDP resources in order to provide support to 
the U.N. Democracy Fund and the U.N. Entrepreneurship Fund. I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and accept her 
amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman of the 
subcommittee, and I want to express my support for the bill and express 
my

[[Page 16809]]

appreciation specifically for the significant increases in funding for 
global health issues, peacekeeping, and trade capacity building, 
especially in Colombia. And I know that the chairlady shares the 
frustration that was articulated by the preceding speaker, Mr. Olver, 
on Darfur. We wish we could do far more than we are able to on the 
horrific situation in Darfur.

                              {time}  1545

  But I also want to express my support for the work of an 
international nongovernmental organization, the International 
Commission on Missing Persons, otherwise known as the ICMP. The ICMP is 
an organization whose work in Bosnia, Iraq, Vietnam and the tsunami-
affected areas has brought relief to thousands of families with missing 
relatives resulting from armed conflict and natural disaster. This 
commission, which was established in 1996 from the Dayton Peace 
Accords, has received U.S. Government support in the past and is widely 
acclaimed throughout the international community. But is in desperate 
need of funds in Iraq today.
  I would strongly urge the committee to consider this organization for 
possible congressional support in this year's conference or in future 
appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for his passion. I know you're 
concerned with so many issues in this bill. I appreciate your comments 
and I look forward to continue working together.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for her support.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, 
through page 95, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS


  compensation for united states executive directors to international 
                         financial institutions

       Sec. 601. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the North American Development 
     Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.


   restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies

       Sec. 602. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     made available to pay any voluntary contribution of the 
     United States to the United Nations if the United Nations 
     implements or imposes any taxation on any United States 
     persons.


                    limitation on residence expenses

       Sec. 603. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to title III of this Act, not to exceed $100,500 
     shall be for official residence expenses of the United States 
     Agency for International Development during the current 
     fiscal year: Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken 
     to assure that, to the maximum extent possible, United 
     States-owned foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of 
     dollars.


                      unobligated balances report

       Sec. 604. Any Department or Agency to which funds are 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall 
     provide to the Committees on Appropriations a quarterly 
     accounting of cumulative balances by program, project, and 
     activity of the funds received by such Department or Agency 
     in this fiscal year or any previous fiscal year that remain 
     unobligated and unexpended.


               limitation on representational allowances

       Sec. 605. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to titles II through V of this Act, not to exceed 
     $250,000 shall be available for representation and 
     entertainment allowances, of which not to exceed $2,500 shall 
     be available for entertainment allowances, for the United 
     States Agency for International Development during the 
     current fiscal year: Provided, That no such entertainment 
     funds may be used for the purposes listed in section 647 of 
     this Act: Provided further, That appropriate steps shall be 
     taken to assure that, to the maximum extent possible, United 
     States-owned foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of 
     dollars: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act for general costs of administering military 
     assistance and sales under the heading ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', not to exceed $4,000 shall be available 
     for entertainment expenses and not to exceed $130,000 shall 
     be available for representation allowances: Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available by this Act under the 
     heading ``International Military Education and Training'', 
     not to exceed $55,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to 
     exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', not to exceed $4,000 shall be available for 
     representation and entertainment allowances: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act under 
     the heading ``Millennium Challenge Corporation'', not to 
     exceed $115,000 shall be available for representation and 
     entertainment allowances.


          prohibition on taxation of united states assistance

       Sec. 606. (a) Prohibition on Taxation.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under titles II through V of this Act may be 
     made available to provide assistance for a foreign country 
     under a new bilateral agreement governing the terms and 
     conditions under which such assistance is to be provided 
     unless such agreement includes a provision stating that 
     assistance provided by the United States shall be exempt from 
     taxation, or reimbursed, by the foreign government, and the 
     Secretary of State shall expeditiously seek to negotiate 
     amendments to existing bilateral agreements, as necessary, to 
     conform with this requirement.
       (b) Reimbursement of Foreign Taxes.--An amount equivalent 
     to 200 percent of the total taxes assessed during fiscal year 
     2008 on funds appropriated by this Act by a foreign 
     government or entity against commodities financed under 
     United States assistance programs for which funds are 
     appropriated by this Act, either directly or through 
     grantees, contractors and subcontractors shall be withheld 
     from obligation from funds appropriated for assistance for 
     fiscal year 2009 and allocated for the central government of 
     such country and for the West Bank and Gaza Program to the 
     extent that the Secretary of State certifies and reports in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations that such taxes 
     have not been reimbursed to the Government of the United 
     States.
       (c) De Minimis Exception.--Foreign taxes of a de minimis 
     nature shall not be subject to the provisions of subsection 
     (b).
       (d) Reprogramming of Funds.--Funds withheld from obligation 
     for each country or entity pursuant to subsection (b) shall 
     be reprogrammed for assistance to countries which do not 
     assess taxes on United States assistance or which have an 
     effective arrangement that is providing substantial 
     reimbursement of such taxes.
       (e) Determinations.--
       (1) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any 
     country or entity the Secretary of State determines--
       (A) does not assess taxes on United States assistance or 
     which has an effective arrangement that is providing 
     substantial reimbursement of such taxes; or
       (B) the foreign policy interests of the United States 
     outweigh the policy of this section to ensure that United 
     States assistance is not subject to taxation.
       (2) The Secretary of State shall consult with the 
     Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to 
     exercising the authority of this subsection with regard to 
     any country or entity.
       (f) Implementation.--The Secretary of State shall issue 
     rules, regulations, or policy guidance, as appropriate, to 
     implement the prohibition against the taxation of assistance 
     contained in this section.
       (g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the terms ``taxes'' and ``taxation'' refer to value 
     added taxes and customs duties imposed on commodities 
     financed with United States assistance for programs for which 
     funds are appropriated by this Act; and
       (2) the term ``bilateral agreement'' refers to a framework 
     bilateral agreement between the Government of the United 
     States and the

[[Page 16810]]

     government of the country receiving assistance that describes 
     the privileges and immunities applicable to United States 
     foreign assistance for such country generally, or an 
     individual agreement between the Government of the United 
     States and such government that describes, among other 
     things, the treatment for tax purposes that will be accorded 
     the United States assistance provided under that agreement.


        prohibition against direct funding for certain countries

       Sec. 607. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Libya, North Korea, Iran, or Syria: Provided, That for 
     purposes of this section, the prohibition on obligations or 
     expenditures shall include direct loans, credits, insurance 
     and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank or its agents: 
     Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the 
     prohibition shall not include activities of the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation in Libya: Provided further, 
     That the prohibition shall not include direct loans, credits, 
     insurance and guarantees made available by the Export-Import 
     Bank or its agents for or in Libya: Provided further, That 
     the prohibition shall not apply to funds made available under 
     the heading ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING'' 
     for Libya.


                             military coups

       Sec. 608. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to titles II through V of this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance 
     to the government of any country whose duly elected head of 
     government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, 
     That assistance may be resumed to such government if the 
     President determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of 
     assistance a democratically elected government has taken 
     office: Provided further, That the provisions of this section 
     shall not apply to assistance to promote democratic elections 
     or public participation in democratic processes: Provided 
     further, That funds made available pursuant to the previous 
     provisos shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                           transfer authority

       Sec. 609. (a) Department of State and Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors.--Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State under title I of this Act may be transferred between 
     such appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     under title I of this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided further, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 615 (a) and (b) of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       (b) Export Financing Transfer Authorities.--Not to exceed 5 
     percent of any appropriation other than for administrative 
     expenses made available for fiscal year 2008, for programs 
     under title II of this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations for use for any of the purposes, programs, and 
     activities for which the funds in such receiving account may 
     be used, but no such appropriation, except as otherwise 
     specifically provided, shall be increased by more than 25 
     percent by any such transfer: Provided, That the exercise of 
     such authority shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       (c)(1) Limitation on Transfers Between Agencies.--None of 
     the funds made available under titles II through V of this 
     Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
     pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority 
     provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in addition to transfers 
     made by, or authorized elsewhere in, this Act, funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the purposes of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be allocated or 
     transferred to agencies of the United States Government 
     pursuant to the provisions of sections 109, 610, and 632 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (d) Transfers Between Accounts.--None of the funds made 
     available under titles II through V of this Act may be 
     obligated under an appropriation account to which they were 
     not appropriated, except for transfers specifically provided 
     for in this Act, unless the President, not less than 5 days 
     prior to the exercise of any authority contained in the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults 
     with and provides a written policy justification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (e) Audit of Inter-Agency Transfers.--Any agreement for the 
     transfer or allocation of funds appropriated by this Act, or 
     prior Acts, entered into between the United States Agency for 
     International Development and another agency of the United 
     States Government under the authority of section 632(a) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any comparable 
     provision of law, shall expressly provide that the Office of 
     the Inspector General for the agency receiving the transfer 
     or allocation of such funds shall perform periodic program 
     and financial audits of the use of such funds: Provided, That 
     funds transferred under such authority may be made available 
     for the cost of such audits.


                 commercial leasing of defense articles

       Sec. 610. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide 
     financing to Israel, Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO allies 
     for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with an 
     option to purchase) of defense articles from United States 
     commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment 
     (other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having 
     possible civilian application), if the President determines 
     that there are compelling foreign policy or national security 
     reasons for those defense articles being provided by 
     commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale 
     under such Act.


                         availability of funds

       Sec. 611. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act.
       (b) Funds appropriated for the purposes of chapters 1, 8, 
     11, and 12 of part I, section 667, chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act, and funds provided under the 
     heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC 
     STATES'', shall remain available for an additional four years 
     from the date on which the availability of such funds would 
     otherwise have expired, if such funds are initially obligated 
     before the expiration of their respective periods of 
     availability contained in this Act: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any funds 
     made available for the purposes of chapter 1 of part I and 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     which are allocated or obligated for cash disbursements in 
     order to address balance of payments or economic policy 
     reform objectives, shall remain available until expended.


            limitation on assistance to countries in default

       Sec. 612. No part of any appropriation provided under 
     titles II through V in this Act shall be used to furnish 
     assistance to the government of any country which is in 
     default during a period in excess of one calendar year in 
     payment to the United States of principal or interest on any 
     loan made to the government of such country by the United 
     States pursuant to a program for which funds are appropriated 
     under this Act unless the President determines, following 
     consultations with the Committees on Appropriations, that 
     assistance to such country is in the national interest of the 
     United States.


                           commerce and trade

       Sec. 613. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to titles II through V of this Act for 
     direct assistance and none of the funds otherwise made 
     available to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation shall be obligated or expended to 
     finance any loan, any assistance or any other financial 
     commitments for establishing or expanding production of any 
     commodity for export by any country other than the United 
     States, if the commodity is likely to be in surplus on world 
     markets at the time the resulting productive capacity is 
     expected to become operative and if the assistance will cause 
     substantial injury to United States producers of the same, 
     similar, or competing commodity: Provided, That such 
     prohibition shall not apply to the Export-Import Bank if in 
     the judgment of its Board of Directors the benefits to 
     industry and employment in the United States are likely to 
     outweigh the injury to United States producers of the same, 
     similar, or competing commodity, and the Chairman of the 
     Board so notifies the Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact on the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or

[[Page 16811]]

       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.


                          surplus commodities

       Sec. 614. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American 
     Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the African Development Bank, and the African 
     Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using 
     funds appropriated or made available pursuant to titles II 
     through V of this Act, for the production or extraction of 
     any commodity or mineral for export, if it is in surplus on 
     world markets and if the assistance will cause substantial 
     injury to United States producers of the same, similar, or 
     competing commodity.


                reprogramming notification requirements

       Sec. 615. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act, 
     or in prior appropriations Acts to the agencies and 
     departments funded by this Act that remain available for 
     obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2008, or provided 
     from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States 
     derived by the collection of fees or of currency reflows or 
     other offsetting collections, or made available by transfer, 
     to the agencies and departments funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) closes or opens a mission or 
     post; (6) reorganizes or renames offices; (7) reorganizes 
     programs or activities; or (8) contracts out or privatizes 
     any functions or activities presently performed by Federal 
     employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) For the purposes of providing the executive branch with 
     the necessary administrative flexibility, none of the funds 
     provided under title I of this Act, or provided under 
     previous appropriations Acts to the agencies or department 
     funded under title I of this Act that remain available for 
     obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2008, or provided 
     from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States 
     derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies 
     or department funded by title I of this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $750,000 or ten percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by ten percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, 
     which would result in a change in existing programs, 
     activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance 
     of such reprogramming of funds.
       (c) For the purposes of providing the executive branch with 
     the necessary administrative flexibility, none of the funds 
     made available in this Act for the headings ``CHILD SURVIVAL 
     AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FUND'', ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', 
     ``INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS'', ``TRADE AND 
     DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'', ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND 
     LAW ENFORCEMENT'', ``ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'', 
     ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'', 
     ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
     UNION'', ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'', ``GLOBAL HIV/AIDS 
     INITIATIVE'', ``PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS'', ``CAPITAL 
     INVESTMENT FUND'', ``OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE UNITED STATES 
     AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT'', ``OPERATING EXPENSES 
     OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
     OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'', ``NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-
     TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS'', ``MILLENNIUM 
     CHALLENGE CORPORATION'' (by country only), ``FOREIGN MILITARY 
     FINANCING PROGRAM'', ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND 
     TRAINING'', ``PEACE CORPS'', and ``MIGRATION AND REFUGEE 
     ASSISTANCE'', shall be available for obligation for 
     activities, programs, projects, type of materiel assistance, 
     countries, or other operations not justified or in excess of 
     the amount justified to the Committees on Appropriations for 
     obligation under any of these specific headings unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance: 
     Provided, That the President shall not enter into any 
     commitment of funds appropriated for the purposes of section 
     23 of the Arms Export Control Act for the provision of major 
     defense equipment, other than conventional ammunition, or 
     other major defense items defined to be aircraft, ships, 
     missiles, or combat vehicles, not previously justified to 
     Congress or 20 percent in excess of the quantities justified 
     to Congress unless the Committees on Appropriations are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such commitment: Provided 
     further, That this paragraph shall not apply to any 
     reprogramming for an activity, program, or project for which 
     funds are appropriated under title III or title IV, of this 
     Act of less than 10 percent of the amount previously 
     justified to the Congress for obligation for such activity, 
     program, or project for the current fiscal year.
       (d) The requirements of this section or any similar 
     provision of this Act or any other Act, including any prior 
     Act requiring notification in accordance with the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     may be waived if failure to do so would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health or welfare: Provided, That in case of 
     any such waiver, notification to the Congress, or the 
     appropriate Congressional committees, shall be provided as 
     early as practicable, but in no event later than 3 days after 
     taking the action to which such notification requirement was 
     applicable, in the context of the circumstances necessitating 
     such waiver: Provided further, That any notification provided 
     pursuant to such a waiver shall contain an explanation of the 
     emergency circumstances.


limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and 
                                programs

       Sec. 616. Subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations, funds appropriated under 
     titles II through V of this Act or any previously enacted Act 
     making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs, which are returned or not 
     made available for organizations and programs because of the 
     implementation of section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, shall remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009.


             independent states of the former soviet union

       Sec. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the 
     heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER 
     SOVIET UNION'' shall be made available for assistance for a 
     government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union 
     if that government directs any action in violation of the 
     territorial integrity or national sovereignty of any other 
     Independent State of the former Soviet Union, such as those 
     violations included in the Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That 
     such funds may be made available without regard to the 
     restriction in this subsection if the President determines 
     that to do so is in the national security interest of the 
     United States.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
     UNION'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its 
     military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not 
     apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation 
     programs.
       (c) Funds appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR 
     THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION'' for the 
     Russian Federation, Armenia, and Uzbekistan shall be subject 
     to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (d) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to 
     environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.
       (e) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or 
     making grants, with funds appropriated by this Act or prior 
     appropriations Acts under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE 
     INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION'' and under 
     comparable headings in prior appropriations Acts, for 
     projects or activities that have as one of their primary 
     purposes the fostering of private sector development, the 
     Coordinator for United States Assistance to Europe and 
     Eurasia and the implementing agency shall encourage the 
     participation of and give significant weight to contractors 
     and grantees who propose investing a significant amount of 
     their own resources (including volunteer services and in-kind 
     contributions) in such projects and activities.


   prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization

       Sec. 618. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to

[[Page 16812]]

     methods of, or the performance of, abortions or involuntary 
     sterilization as a means of family planning. None of the 
     funds made available to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be obligated or 
     expended for any country or organization if the President 
     certifies that the use of these funds by any such country or 
     organization would violate any of the above provisions 
     related to abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

                               STATEMENT

       Sec. 619. (a) Funds provided in this Act for the following 
     accounts shall be made available for programs and countries 
     in the amounts contained in the respective tables included in 
     the report accompanying this Act:
       ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'';
       ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'';
       ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER 
     SOVIET UNION'';
       ``ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'';
       ``NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED 
     PROGRAMS'';
       ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM''; and
       ``INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS''.
       (b) Any proposed increases or decreases to the amounts 
     contained in such tables in the accompanying report shall be 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations and section 634A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


                   special notification requirements

       Sec. 620. None of the funds appropriated under titles II 
     through V of this Act shall be obligated or expended for 
     assistance for Liberia, Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, or 
     Cambodia except as provided through the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
       In section 620 of the bill (relating to special 
     notification requirements), strike ``Liberia,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment would repeal a section of U.S. law that requires a 
report to Congress 15 days before any U.S. assistance can be obligated 
for Liberia. The obligating agency, whether State or USAID, would be 
required to submit this paperwork in addition to information they may 
have already provided in their annual budget documents.
  I should note that the only other countries that are currently 
subjected to this requirement are Sudan, Zimbabwe, Serbia, Pakistan and 
Cambodia.
  Mr. Chairman, as you and many of my colleagues know, for over 20 
years, the people of Liberia have been subjected to the ravages of 
poverty, conflict, coups, and corruption. As one observer put it, 
``seldom has a country sunk as far as Liberia did under the leadership 
of Charles Taylor and his predecessors.'' I do think I need to recount 
the number of casualties from wars, including the last civil war which 
only a few years ago with the assistance of U.S. leadership, which 
killed a quarter of a million of the country's 3 million people and 
displaced most of the rest.
  In 2005, the people of the Republic of Liberia had the opportunity to 
go to the polls, some lining up for many hours, and open a new chapter 
in that country's tortuous history. When it was all said and done, 
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was elected President, becoming the first female 
president of any African country. In recognition of this historic 
election and the tremendous opportunity presented by these elections, 
last March, the House welcomed President Johnson-Sirleaf on her visit 
to the U.S. during which she addressed Congress, the U.N. Security 
Council, and met with President Bush.
  In the year and a half since then, President Johnson-Sirleaf has been 
busy trying to rebuild the nation's education and health system, 
devastated by years of war, oversee the deactivation and reintegration 
of the old security forces and ex-combatants, and accommodate the 
return of thousands who fled the country during the wars.
  Today, I am offering a very small and simple amendment which I 
believe would help make a difference in helping President Johnson-
Sirleaf succeed in the monumental task--and it is monumental--that lays 
before her.
  My amendment would repeal a section of U.S. law that requires a 
report to Congress 15 days before any U.S. assistance can be obligated 
for Liberia for any purpose. The obligating agency (whether State or 
USAID) must submit paperwork for all obligated funds in addition to any 
information they may have already provided to Congress about these 
projects in the annual budget documents. I should note the only other 
countries that are currently subjected to this requirement are Sudan, 
Zimbabwe, Serbia, Pakistan, and Cambodia.
  According to State Department and USAID officials, such requirements 
impose reporting, program review, and other requirements that, in some 
cases, substantially slow the disbursement of reconstruction assistance 
to Liberia. This requirement was placed on Liberia funds beginning in 
the early 1990's and were put in place to give Congress the ability to 
exercise additional oversight when the ruthless and corrupt Charles 
Taylor and his predecessors ran Liberia and when U.S. assistance was 
relatively small. From 1996-2003, U.S. assistance ranged from $3 to $6 
million.
  As you know, in light of the recent elections and optimism about the 
future of Liberia, Congress in the last few years has significantly 
increased U.S. assistance to Liberia. However, some have expressed 
concerns, including President Johnson Sirleaf, that the current laws 
notification requirements are delaying the receipt of these funds for 
important projects to help rebuild Liberia as it emerges from conflict. 
According to the State Department, these delays can be as long as 4 to 
6 weeks and dependent on the Appropriations Committee being available 
to receive them--such as in the middle of the August recess. Given 
Liberia's 6-month rainy season (May to October) when much work cannot 
be done on many projects, these delays could push projects on the 
ground much farther behind schedule in reality.
  My amendment would prevent U.S. assistance from Liberia from being 
subjected to these additional reporting requirements in FY 2008. The 
State Department supports removing Liberia, noting that it will speed 
up the obligation of U.S. funds to this important country. The State 
Department notes, as do I, that these reporting requirements have 
outlived their usefulness with respect to Liberia. In the past, when we 
were dealing with the regime of Charles Taylor, they were absolutely 
useful and necessary.
  Today, as Congress continues to express its support to President 
Johnson-Sirleaf and the people of Liberia, including $100 million more 
in aid in the bill before the House, let us support efforts to speed 
up--and likewise remove obstacles that would hinder--the establishment 
in Liberia of social and economic conditions that foster reintegration, 
economic growth, and rebuilding of infrastructure--including access to 
basic education and health services.
  In these crucial but surprisingly fast moving first few months of 
President Sirleaf Johnson's administration, it is critical that we not 
only support her with words of encouragement, but remove bureaucratic 
obstacles that help prevent needed aid from being timely delivered to 
implement reforms and show that a democratically elected government can 
meet the people's needs.
  Removal of Liberia would not set a new precedent. Over the years. the 
following countries have been under and then removed from this 
reporting requirement: Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, 
Colombia, Panama, Peru, Nicaragua, Jordan, and Uganda, just to name a 
few. It can hardly be argued that Congress exercises less oversight 
over assistance to those countries now than it did when they were 
subject to the obligation reporting requirement. Additionally, the FY 
2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that was passed by the 
House removed Liberia from this provision.
  Why would we want to delay development assistance such as education 
funds to a country where more than half of the people today cannot read 
or write? Where male life expectancy at birth is slightly under 38 
years and for females, slightly under 42 years. Infant mortality: 157 
infants per 1,000 live births die before there first birthday.
  I certainly appreciate the need for Congress to retain and exercise 
oversight over these funds to ensure that they are being properly used, 
just as we do with the other nations receiving under this bill. Indeed, 
most of the countries receiving funding in this bill are not subjected 
to this reporting requirement. Once removed from these requires, the 
same regular Congressional Notification process would

[[Page 16813]]

apply to Liberia that applies to all other countries.
  Let me be clear. Removing this requirement does not mean that Liberia 
is somehow a perfect country without problems or challenges. In fact, 
removing this requirement would recognize those challenges and serve to 
remove one more obstacle to ensure that this country and its new 
leaders have every opportunity to succeed.
  As President Sirleaf-Johnson said in her address before Congress last 
March: ``They (the Liberian people) are counting on me and my 
administration to create the conditions that will guarantee the 
realization of their dreams. We must not betray their trust. All the 
children I meet, when I ask what they want most, say, `I want to 
learn.' `I want to go to school.' `I want an education.' We must not 
betray their trust.''
  I know that the gentlewoman from New York, the chairperson of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Lowey has been keenly aware of this issue. I 
certainly appreciate the efforts made by her, her staff, and Members of 
the Committee as they put together this very important bill and note 
the Committee's appropriate role in oversight and ensuring that funds 
are properly spent.
  I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. David Price, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Representative Moore's amendment striking the requirement of 
congressional notification for foreign assistance to Liberia.
  I joined Ms. Moore on a recent delegation to Liberia under the 
auspices of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which has an 
ongoing partnership with the Liberian Congress. We are working to 
support the new democratic government in Liberia, under the leadership 
of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a government that is attempting to 
lift Liberia from the wreckage of its recent history of civil war and 
dictatorship.
  We met with President Sirleaf, and she told us that the window of 
opportunity for this democratic government to demonstrate progress is 
brief. Liberia is facing enormous challenges: intractable poverty, an 
unemployment rate of 85 percent, crumbling infrastructure, and a public 
health crisis. The Liberian government simply must find a way to 
deliver significant advances if it is to convince its citizens that 
democracy is a viable option.
  Our foreign assistance is critical to helping President Sirleaf show 
rapid progress. It is supporting the development of the economy, the 
strengthening of the government, the provision of basic services like 
electricity, and the reintegration of civil war combatants into 
productive roles in society.
  But the biggest hindrance to our assistance efforts in Liberia is an 
outdated notification requirement that sets up a series of bureaucratic 
hurdles, delaying the delivery of our aid, often by several months. 
With time so critical in accomplishing progress, we cannot afford these 
delays. I urge my colleagues to support Representative Moore's well-
designed and well-considered amendment to eliminate this outdated 
requirement and to give Liberia the chance it deserves to succeed.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much, sir.
  I just want to acknowledge that this administration has done a great 
deal for Liberia. Certainly Chairwoman Lowey has been exceptional. 
Liberia is a huge priority for her. I noted that my colleague, Ms. 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, earlier, Mr. Chairman, added money to this bill, 
and as my colleague, Mr. Price, has said, this will make or break, I 
think, this administration that we are all so hopeful of the beautiful 
democracy that is budding in Liberia. This would be a precedent-setting 
form of assistance that will cost us no extra money.
  Thank you so much.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
agree with the intention of this amendment and thank my friend for 
raising this very important issue. As you know, the subcommittee agrees 
with you that Liberia should be a priority. We support the efforts 
currently under way by President Johnson Sirleaf to move her country 
out of poverty. We provided a total of $40 million in the fiscal year 
2007 supplemental and in this bill we provide a total of $106.5 million 
for Liberia.
  We look forward to continuing to work with the gentlewoman and others 
in Congress to support Liberia. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest 
in this issue and would be happy to accept this amendment.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              definition of program, project, and activity

       Sec. 621. For the purpose of titles II through V of this 
     Act ``program, project, and activity'' shall be defined at 
     the appropriations Act account level and shall include all 
     appropriations and authorizations Acts funding directives, 
     ceilings, and limitations with the exception that for the 
     following accounts: ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' and ``FOREIGN 
     MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', ``program, project, and 
     activity'' shall also be considered to include country, 
     regional, and central program level funding within each such 
     account; for the development assistance accounts of the 
     United States Agency for International Development ``program, 
     project, and activity'' shall also be considered to include 
     central, country, regional, and program level funding, either 
     as:
       (1) justified to the Congress; or
       (2) allocated by the executive branch in accordance with a 
     report, to be provided to the Committees on Appropriations 
     within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, as required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                  child survival and health activities

       Sec. 622. Up to $13,500,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act in title III for assistance under the heading 
     ``CHILD SURVIVAL AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FUND'' account, may be 
     used to reimburse United States Government agencies, agencies 
     of State governments, institutions of higher learning, and 
     private and voluntary organizations for the full cost of 
     individuals (including for the personal services of such 
     individuals) detailed or assigned to, or contracted by, as 
     the case may be, the United States Agency for International 
     Development for the purpose of carrying out activities under 
     that heading: Provided, That up to $3,500,000 of the funds 
     made available by this Act for assistance under the heading 
     ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'' may be used to reimburse such 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations for such costs of 
     such individuals carrying out other development assistance 
     activities: Provided further, That funds appropriated by 
     titles III and IV of this Act that are made available for 
     assistance for child survival activities or disease programs 
     including activities relating to research on, and the 
     prevention, treatment and control of, HIV/AIDS may be made 
     available notwithstanding any other provision of law except 
     for the provisions under the heading ``CHILD SURVIVAL AND 
     HEALTH PROGRAMS FUND'' and the United States Leadership 
     Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (117 
     Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), as amended: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under title III and 
     IV of this Act, not less than $441,000,000 shall be made 
     available for family planning/reproductive health: Provided 
     further, That, in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, 
     abortions, and the transmission of sexually transmitted 
     infections, including HIV/AIDS, no contract or grant which 
     includes funding for the provision of contraceptives in 
     developing countries, shall be denied to any nongovernmental 
     organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in 
     the President's March 28, 2001, Memorandum to the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development with respect to providing contraceptives in 
     developing countries, or any comparable administration policy 
     regarding the provision of contraceptives.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey:
       Page 97, beginning on line 10, strike ``: Provided 
     further,'' and all that follows through line 21 and insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That, in order to 
     prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and the 
     transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including 
     HIV/AIDS, no contract or grant for the exclusive purpose of 
     providing donated contraceptives in developing countries 
     shall be denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on 
     the basis of the policy contained in the President's March 
     28, 2001, Memorandum

[[Page 16814]]

     to the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development with respect to providing 
     contraceptives in developing countries, or any comparable 
     administration policy regarding the provision of 
     contraceptives.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, under current law, the global gag rule, 
also known as the Mexico City policy, prohibits foreign nongovernmental 
organizations, NGOs, from receiving any U.S. assistance unless they 
agree not to use their own funds to perform or refer patients for 
abortion or to even advocate the legalization of abortion. This policy 
applies even when abortion is illegal in a country or when NGOs promote 
the legalization of abortion for cases of rape and incest.
  The bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact with one 
important exception. It would allow for the provision of 
contraceptives, not direct funding, the provision of contraceptives to 
foreign NGOs to help reduce abortion, unintended pregnancy and the 
spread of HIV/AIDS.
  Let me repeat that. The intent of the bill is to provide 
international NGOs U.S.-donated contraceptives, not funds for millions 
of men and women who desperately need them. The provision provides 
absolutely no assistance for abortion. It is strictly prohibited in 10 
other sections of this bill.
  While I have made clear my intent to allow only for the provision of 
donated contraceptives, some of my colleagues have brought to my 
attention concerns that the language as currently written could be 
interpreted more broadly than intended. Therefore, to make it 
absolutely clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who may 
have concerns about the language, I am offering this amendment to my 
own bill to clarify the existing language by narrowing the provision in 
question by replacing it with the following language beginning on page 
97, line 10 of the bill:
  ``That, in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and 
the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/
AIDS, no contract or grant award exclusively for the purpose of 
providing donated contraceptives in developing countries shall be 
denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the 
policy contained in the President's March 28, 2001 Memorandum to the 
Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development 
with respect to providing contraceptives in developing countries, or 
any comparable administration policy regarding the provision of 
contraceptives.''
  This amendment, which replaces the current provision in the bill with 
the one I just read, can leave no doubt in any reasonable individual's 
mind that the provision will provide contraceptives. It will not 
provide funding to foreign NGOs. In fact, this amendment would advance 
the Bush administration's stated goal of the Mexico City policy ``to 
make abortion more rare'' and protect women and children.
  Filling the unmet need for contraceptives could prevent 52 million 
unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 29 million abortions, 142,000 
pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 children from losing their 
mothers in just 1 year. These are statistics. How much more evidence do 
my colleagues need to be convinced that contraception reduces abortion, 
saves lives? It is simply not enough to say that you support family 
planning as long as the current restrictions remain in law, denying 
millions of the poorest men and women around the world access to 
contraceptives.
  In my judgment, support for my amendment represents a good-faith 
effort to find common ground on this issue. I really do hope that we 
can all agree that voting against family planning and the provision of 
contraceptives, which my colleague from New Jersey will ask you to do 
in a later amendment, and against the opportunity to provide more than 
200 million men and women in developing countries with access to 
contraceptives is the most extreme vote any of us can take.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Lowey amendment because 
it does not address the underlying problem. Whether we support pro-
abortion organizations through cash donations or items of cash value, 
the result is the same. The amendment before us today attempts to 
undermine the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy exists to draw 
a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion. 
However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this 
line. Mr. Chairman, a blurred line is what leads to coercive abortions 
and forced sterilizations.
  The Mexico City policy is critical for several reasons. First, money 
is fungible. Every U.S. tax dollar or commodity that goes to an 
abortion provider frees up funds to pay for more abortions and more 
pro-abortion lobbying. Secondly, our population grantees are seen as 
representatives of the United States in the countries in which we 
operate. When organizations prominently associated with United States 
family planning programs perform and promote abortions, people in these 
countries logically associate these activities with the United States.
  It is important to note that this policy does not in any way reduce 
funds for family planning. As this chart shows, before Smith-Stupak, 
there are $441 million for international family planning, including 
contraceptive commodities. After Smith-Stupak, there will still be $441 
million for international family planning, including contraceptive 
commodities. It simply requires that any foreign nongovernmental 
organizations that receive taxpayer dollars agree not to perform or 
actively promote abortions.

                              {time}  1600

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment, support the 
Smith-Stupak amendment to restore the Mexico City policy and to protect 
the taxpayers' rights to neither directly nor indirectly fund abortion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. It is such a pleasure for me to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady.
  I just want to make a comment. The money will not change; there is 
not going be an increase or a decrease with regard to the amendment. 
This is about where the money is going to go, and there are 20 
countries at least where we are not able to get contraceptives to women 
and men in these countries who need it. This is not about increase or 
decrease. This is about getting the money to where it needs to be.
  The gentleman before me stated, how can we support coercive 
abortions. There are many prolife Republicans and prolife Democrats who 
voted for trade with China, to increase investment in China. We all 
don't have to rehash what China does with their pro- abortion policy. 
So the coercive argument needs to at least be consistent.
  I just want to share with my friends, I am a prolife Democrat, but I 
believe that this will reduce the number of abortions around the world. 
This is the only way to do it.
  The example I want to share with my colleagues is Ghana, where 
abortion is illegal. The oldest and the largest family planning 
organization in Ghana previously provided a third of the contraceptives 
in the nation with no abortion services. It has received no U.S. 
assistance for family planning, which has decreased access to 
contraceptives by 56 percent.
  This has led to an increase of almost 500 abortions in Ghana because 
we were not providing prevention. The abortion debate in the 21st 
century needs to be about prevention. That is exactly what this bill 
does, this amendment does, and what Ms. Lowey is trying to do.
  I also want to share with our colleagues, because we seem to get 
mixed

[[Page 16815]]

information, prevention and family planning does reduce the number of 
abortions. We have many countries where we have implemented this, and 
it has worked.
  In the last two decades, in the last two decades, there have been 
significant declines in abortion rates in a number of countries like 
Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
Romania, Russia and Turkey. In Russia the abortion rate declined by 61 
percent between 1988 and 2001 because of an increase of 74 percent of 
preventive and contraceptive use.
  We know prevention works. If you want to reduce abortion, we need to 
provide the prevention. Mrs. Lowey just went to great lengths to say we 
are just shipping the product. This is not money; this is not funds. We 
are going to ship the product, and then those organizations will be 
able to take the money they save and buy more contraceptives, not 
provide abortion, especially in these countries where abortion is 
already illegal.
  I want to support the amendment from the Chair.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment reiterates the unambiguous 
intention of the underlying language in the bill that Mr. Stupak and I 
will seek to strike later on, that, if enacted, provides in-kind U.S. 
taxpayer assistance to pro-abortion organizations around the world. 
That's what's happening here, nothing more and nothing less.
  Prolife Members, especially some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, know and fully understand that in-kind contributions are 
of no less value than money. In-kind or cash, it is a distinction 
without a difference.
  The intended recipients of the Lowey amendment are precisely those 
pro- abortion organizations that have refused to divest themselves of 
abortion and agree to the Mexico City provisions. The Mexico City 
policy, separates family planning from abortion. The Mexico City policy 
helps to ensure that foreign nongovernment organizations that want U.S. 
grants, be they in the form of cash or in-kind commodities 
contraceptives, only engage themselves in family planning, as 
advertised.
  It stands to reason, if we support pro-abortion organizations, unborn 
children and their mothers, and the laws that today protect them, will 
be put into jeopardy; and the violence of abortion will increase and 
not be diminished.
  Let me just note that neither the Mexico City policy, nor the 
amendment that Mr. Stupak and I will offer today, reduces family 
planning by so much as a penny. It simply strikes the language in the 
bill that carves out an exception to the Mexico City policy for who? 
The pro-abortion organizations.
  As a matter of fact, since the restoration of the Mexico City policy, 
several countries, including Ethiopia, DR Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, 
Haiti, Pakistan, have gotten huge increases in contraceptives and 
family planning assistance. Ethiopia, for example, went from $4.9 
million to $19.5 million in 2007 under the Mexico City policy, almost a 
300 percent increase.
  Congo went from $1 million to $9 million. Pakistan for 1.4 to 16.5. 
U.S. funding to Nigeria and Uganda doubled while Haiti tripled. USAID 
has made it clear that it targets what its analysts say is unmet need. 
Even Ghana has seen its average annual contraception shipment rise, 
from $1.5 million in calendar years 1998-2001 to $2.3 million for 
calendar years 2002-2003.
  Under the Mexico City policy, the U.S. has remained the largest donor 
nation by far to international family planning. We just insist and 
direct that those funds are used in a way and go to the groups that are 
about family planning and are not double hatted, trying to enable 
abortionists and abortion lobbyists overseas.
  I would point out, as Mrs. Lowey stated earlier when she talked about 
lobbying, the Mexico City policy, I have a copy for anybody to read, 
makes it very clear that when it comes to lobbying, we are only talking 
about lobbying for abortion as a method for birth control. Exempted 
explicitly, unlike what she said earlier, are rape, incest and life-of-
the-mother provision.
  I hope she will correct the record. It is clearly false.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with Chairwoman Lowey and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Madam Chairman, thank you for engaging in this discussion to clarify 
the language related to international family planning and abortion 
restrictions in the bill. I understand that you have included a 
provision in the underlying bill that makes certain exemptions for 
contraceptives from the Mexico City policy.
  I further understand that the intent of this provision is to allow 
international nongovernmental organizations, otherwise known as NGOs, 
to receive U.S.-donated contraceptives for distribution to the poorest 
men and women in the poorest regions of the world.
  As the chairwoman knows, I do not support providing direct funding to 
international NGOs that do not adhere to the Mexico City policy. I have 
concerns that the language, as it is currently drafted, could be 
interpreted more broadly than intended and could be construed to permit 
not only the provision of contraceptives, but also the provision of 
funding directly to organizations that perform or advocate for 
abortions.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you for yielding. I would like to associate myself 
with the gentleman's remarks and his concerns that the language could, 
in fact, be interpreted to have a broader application, not only 
allowing for the provision of contraceptives.
  Would the chairwoman explain her provision and clarify her 
legislative intent?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the chairwoman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I do thank my two friends and colleagues for their work 
on this important issue and for this opportunity to clarify the intent 
of the provision. I want to be very clear. The intent of this provision 
is only to allow for the donation of the contraceptives and not to 
provide funding.
  While I disagree with broader interpretations of this language, I 
wanted to offer an amendment to clarify this provision. My amendment is 
crystal clear. It would only allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated 
contraceptives, not funds, for distribution to millions of men and 
women across the globe in desperate need of these products.
  I hope that our discussion and my clarifying amendment that I intend 
to offer will alleviate any concerns that you or other Members have 
about the intent behind this provision.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chairwoman, does your amendment do anything to 
alter or weaken the 15 provisions currently in the underlying bill that 
bans U.S. funding for abortions abroad or places restrictions on the 
use of family-planning funds?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Absolutely not. My amendment would not alter or weaken 
these long-standing provisions which I chose to retain in the fiscal 
year 2008 bill, 15 different provisions that were offered by various 
Members of Congress. Every provision is still in this bill that 
prohibits the use of U.S. tax dollars for abortion or restricts family 
planning.
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the chairwoman for clarification and her 
legislative intent that her amendment would only allow donated 
contraceptives to be provided to international NGOs and that no funds, 
no funds in this bill, will be used to provide or advocate for 
abortions overseas.
  I also would like to be clear that I support your decision to retain 
the long-standing provisions in the bill to prohibit U.S. funds from 
being used to provide or advocate for abortions overseas and place 
reasonable restrictions on the use of family planning funds.

[[Page 16816]]


  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman. I would like to thank the 
chairwoman for her comments and her willingness to offer this 
clarifying amendment and to make it absolutely clear that the bill 
would only allow for the provision of contraceptives and not for direct 
funding.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the question here is who really gets the money. That's 
the question. I think that it hasn't been addressed adequately.
  I want to say at the outset, I support, I, Frank Wolf, support family 
planning, period.
  A May 22 Washington Post article described a recent crackdown on 
Chinese families that have violated China's one-child policy. The 
article stated that Chinese birth control bureaucrats showed up in a 
half-dozen towns in Guangxi Province carrying sledgehammers and 
electric cattle prods to destroy the homes and businesses of those who 
had failed to pay their fines under China's coercive one-child policy. 
The article described family-planning officials as ransacking 
businesses owned by parents of more than one child. Those who protested 
were bloodied in the struggle, and villages reported people being 
killed in the violence.
  Now, I heard that on NPR too. It was brutal. So that's really what we 
are talking about, because the United States-Mexico City policy 
prevents funding from going to international organizations that promote 
abortion as a means of family planning, including in China.
  Two prime examples of these organizations are the International 
Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, both of 
which are closely tied to the Chinese one-child policy. They are, in 
essence, the ones that will get this. They never, ever speak out.
  In fact, China was the second country to become ``officially 
recognized as a qualified member of the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation.'' On its Web site, International Planned 
Parenthood Foundation recently touted, saluted, just said it was a 
great thing, China's effort to exploit, its exploitation policy, 
family-planning policy regime worldwide.
  I don't want to get off too far on this, but this is a country 
getting aid for these groups that are poisoning your toothpaste, 
poisoning your pets, and, if you read the article the other day, 
painting Thomas the Tank Engine trains with lead paint that most people 
here, their children and grandchildren have. This country is the 
country.
  We restrict UNFPA funds to China expressly because China is coercive 
and this is a coercive government. This is a government that single-
handedly could be stopping the genocide in Darfur today.

                              {time}  1615

  Organizations that will receive funds under the new family planning 
language in this bill will be able to help China continue these 
unconscionable, and, I would say, immoral activities.
  I support family planning, but I can't support, will not support 
giving family planning taxpayer funds to these kind of organizations 
that not only never speak out, but actually participate.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I'd be glad to yield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer a unanimous consent 
request to give the gentleman an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still controls time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I'd like to offer a unanimous consent 
request to yield the gentleman an additional minute on both sides, and 
if the gentleman will accept my UC, to yield a minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 14 minutes remaining on his time. He 
yielded himself 3 minutes. That has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I asked a unanimous consent request to yield 
both sides an additional minute in the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would be so kind as to 
yield.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman please share with the 
committee the specific provision in Ms. Lowey's amendment that says 
funds are being used for this purpose, the specific provision.
  Mr. WOLF. These groups that I just referenced, and Mr. Jackson, if 
you could have heard the NPR, I will get you the text of the NPR story. 
In fact, I will get it and I will insert it in the Record.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would continue to yield. 
I'm asking specifically about the language in the statute that the 
gentlelady is advancing in her amendment. Could you show us the 
specific language in the statute, the recommended statute?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes. These groups, under this provision would be allowed to 
get the support that are now active doing this in China.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I just would like to respond quickly, before I recognize 
Mr. Kirk, to my good friend, Mr. Wolf. As Mr. Wolf knows, no money is 
going to China. China has no participation in this debate at all. It's 
very clear. In fact, not only did we not address UNFPA in this bill, we 
strengthened the prohibition so that not a dime would be spent in 
China. So I just wanted to clarify that China has nothing to do with 
this debate on contraceptives.
  I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and maybe remove some of the 
partisan tension as a Republican Member in support of this amendment 
that otherwise, without action, the global gag rule would cut off 
critical providers of family planning assistance.
  In this Congress the issue of illegal immigration is at the top of 
our agenda. And women in developing countries consistently report that 
they would like to have two to three children rather than five to 
seven.
  As population pressures rise, so does the move to enter the United 
States, legally or illegally. To reduce the illegal immigration 
pressure on our borders, we need short-term solutions like border 
enforcement, and long-term solutions like backing voluntary family 
planning to help women in developing counties have the smaller family 
that they want.
  The global gag rule has been used to cut off the International 
Planned Parenthood Federation because it used less than 1 percent of 
its own privately raised funds for abortion-related services. And when 
we cut off IPPF, we might have another provider of family planning 
assistance to the women of Mexico for example, like the UNFPA, but we 
cut them off too.
  Mr. Chairman, I would argue that the American people would strongly 
agree with the principle that if Mexican women wanted to have fewer 
children, then we should help them.
  Voluntary family planning would boost child survival rates. It would 
also lower the rate of growth of Mexico's population. A slower rate of 
growth of Mexico's population would improve the economy of Mexico. It 
would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico's ecosystem. But 
a slower rate of growth would also reduce the long-term illegal 
immigration pressure on America's borders.
  We should adopt this bipartisan amendment. We should help women in 
developing countries have the smaller families that they want. We 
should also adopt policies which reduce the population pressure on our 
own borders with a policy that supports the rights of women and lowers 
the pressure on our environment.
  I commend the Chair for offering this amendment.

[[Page 16817]]


  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
want to say that I, Doctor, Representative Phil Gingrey as a pro-life 
OB-GYN, in the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that I'm very 
supportive of family planning, but not family planning that includes 
definition of abortion as part of family planning.
  In the Lowey amendment, which I'm opposed to, I'm not questioning her 
integrity or intent in what she says in explanation, but I think it's a 
very confusing amendment. And when we just heard the two Democratic 
Members engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 
as they said that they were very much in favor of the Mexico City 
policy and wanted to make sure that no money would be spent, and I 
think the chairlady tried to explain that.
  But then just a second ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson), stood up to ask our ranking member if there was anything in 
the Lowey amendment that spoke to the issue of funding.
  But I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, 
funding versus commodity. If you tell me that you're going to give me 
$75, that's funding, I guess. If you're going to say, no, I'm not going 
to give you $75, I'm going to give you a tank of gas, it's the same 
value.
  And I think as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was 
explaining earlier with his poster, that you ultimately take money away 
from the countries that need it. And we don't want to do that.
  If you really want to make sure that we don't export abortion to 
another country, then we're going to have an amendment coming up 
momentarily, the Stupak-Chris Smith amendment, that strikes the 
language and restores the Mexico City policy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I'll be glad to yield to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'd just like some clarification. You said this 
money is going to come from countries that need it, and it's going to 
go to other countries. Are you suggesting that those other countries do 
not need this kind of contraceptives and the preventative care?
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I will quote USAID on this, Mr. 
Ryan. Twenty countries that currently do not receive USAID family 
planning would not receive donations under this amendment because the 
countries in question that you're talking about, have comparatively low 
need for family planning. And furthermore, they lack USAID presence 
necessary to monitor compliance with other statutory provisions.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. USAID has done, I think, a remarkable job in 
focusing on unmet needs, not just in the area of family planning, but 
child survival, microcredit lending and a whole host of other very 
important interventions that help poor people.
  It's all about prioritization. I showed you earlier one country after 
another that has had a doubling and a tripling of their money and 
commodities and contraceptives since the Mexico City policy was 
reinstated in 2001. It's all about prioritization.
  Let me also say, because Ghana was mentioned earlier today, just 
because Planned Parenthood of Ghana is so obsessed with abortion 
promotion that it won't sign the policy, other NGOs and other providers 
have stepped into the breach and provide family planning and not 
abortions to the people of Ghana.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a 
distinguished Member of this Congress from New York, Mr. Joseph 
Crowley.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend from New York, Ms. Lowey, the chair of the 
Subcommittee on the State Foreign Operations Committee.
  And I think we have to make something really clear, perfectly clear; 
that in this bill, in this bill there are 10 provisions, 10 provisions 
that specifically outlaw or prohibit the use of U.S. funds in foreign 
assistance for abortion or the promotion of abortion. We have it right 
here on these charts. Ten provisions, in total, that prohibit the 
spending of any U.S. funds on the promotion of abortion or abortion.
  This amendment and this legislation is not about abortion. It is 
about prevention. And there's an opportunity here for our colleagues to 
support prevention. Here we have the gentlelady from New York, what 
she's trying to do is prevent 52 million unplanned pregnancies each 
year, 29 million abortions each year, 1.4 million infant deaths each 
year, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths each year, and over a half a 
million children from losing their mothers each year. That's what this 
amendment is about. That's what the gentlelady is trying to accomplish.
  The other side of the aisle is saying that they're for family 
planning. Well, here is your opportunity to demonstrate that. Here is 
your opportunity to show, not only the Congress, but the United States 
and the world, and especially the developing world, that you are for 
family planning and helping to extend not only life, but the quality of 
life in many of these countries.
  I think we ought to be applauding what the gentlelady from New York 
is trying to do today, as opposed to trying to derail that. If you are 
for family planning, here is your opportunity. If you're for prevention 
of transmittable sexual diseases here is your opportunity to stand up. 
Stand up for family planning and support the gentlelady from New York 
in her motion, in her amendment and the underlying bill as well.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I've always supported the right-
to-life position. And I've listened to this debate with great interest.
  Money is fungible. Tens of millions of dollars are going to go to 
NGOs. And these NGOs can take money that they already have and use it 
for abortions, because they'll have money that they can use for the 
family planning that they're talking about tonight. They'll be able to 
free up money to do what we don't want them to do.
  Intent is one thing Mrs. Lowey's talking about. What happens is quite 
sometimes another.
  The American taxpayers who are for abortion, and who are pro-life, 
don't want their tax dollars used for abortion, across the spectrum. 
They just don't want it to happen.
  No tax dollars can be or should be used for abortion. I've had town 
meetings, and people who are pro-choice have come up to me and said 
they don't want their tax dollars used for it. They're pro-choice, but 
they want people to do it with their own dollars.
  I'd just like to say to my colleague, money is fungible, and this 
will be tax dollars used for abortion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to clarify the record, Mr. Chairman, this is 
not money. This is a product that will be shipped. And the other side 
keeps distorting the debate. This is about the product going over 
there.
  You can't say you're for family planning and then we provide some of 
the contraceptives to ship over, and then they vote against it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest before I yield to the 
gentleman, Mr. Levin, that these provisions, the charts disappeared. If 
you would like to refresh your memory, there are 15 provisions that I 
left in this bill that make it absolutely clear that no U.S. dollars 
may go for abortion.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, over 25 years ago I was assistant 
administrator of AID, running the population program. This issue of 
fungibility came up. We were assiduously implementing

[[Page 16818]]

the Hyde amendment. So we tried through accounting mechanisms to 
address the fungibility issue.
  So then it was said that's not enough. So then Mexico City was 
proposed and implemented.
  This is not a repeal of the Mexico City policy. Whatever one thinks 
of it, it is not.

                              {time}  1630

  This isn't about abortion, and it really isn't about fungibility.
  Mr. Wolf, if you take your position far enough, we should give no 
military assistance to any country that has a policy on family planning 
that you don't like because in that sense it is fungible. But that 
carries it beyond a rule of reason. And what this proposal does is to 
apply a rule of reason, as has been said, to contraceptives provided in 
kind to people who need these contraceptives. That is the long and the 
short of this. And, essentially, you are the ones who are blurring the 
issue, not us. And if you take your logic to the extreme, you will tie 
this appropriation process for numerous countries into knots. This is 
trying to untie a knot, if you want to put it that way, only in the 
sense of providing products in kind to people who need them. And if you 
say you are for family planning and you vote otherwise, you are voting 
against family planning.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to Mr. Burton to respond 
to something that was said.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my 
colleagues I understand what you have been saying. You are going to 
give product to them. But when you give them product, that frees up 
money that they have for abortions. So you are indirectly going to be 
funding abortions. That is what I said. And the American taxpayers 
don't want their money in any way to be used, indirectly or directly, 
for abortions.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lowey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mexico City policy was first promulgated in 1984 
and renewed by the current administration in 2001. This policy simply 
requires that, as a condition for receipt of U.S. family-planning aid, 
whether commodities or cash, foreign nongovernmental and international 
organizations certify that they neither perform nor actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning. This is a sound policy, and we 
should not undermine it in any way.
  The Lowey amendment is an attempt to blur this line by diverting 
contraceptive commodities from organizations that do not promote or 
provide abortion to those that do.
  Abortion is a tragic loss of life not only to the child but to the 
mother. We know from the affidavits that were produced from the 
Gonzales v. Carhart case, 180 post-abortive women, what they had to 
say. Let me give you an example of one:
  ``How has abortion affected you?''
  ``My life is worthless to me. There is nothing in it. Shame, guilt, 
and regret is hard to live with. I am 50 years old now.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Mexico City policy at issue here establishes a 
bright line between noncontroversial family planning activities and 
abortion. We should not blur this line with the Lowey amendment in any 
way.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 8\1/4\ minutes, and the 
gentlewoman from New York has 4 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, what we should be doing here is 
eliminating the gag rule. But that is not what we are doing. All that 
this amendment does is to allow family-planning organizations to 
receive free donations of contraceptives and condoms.
  Now, instead, the opposition wants to prohibit even this, even though 
you suggest that you are for family planning. You would never do this 
to the women of America because they have control over their lives. But 
the women of the Third World don't have control over their lives, and 
you know that.
  What is going to happen without access to contraceptives is that 52 
million unwanted pregnancies will occur, and there will be almost 30 
million abortions as a result. Where is the sense in that?
  We have got to find a way for women to control their lives in the 
Third World. The fact is a vast majority of women in the Third World 
don't have any control over when the sex act is performed. That is not 
their choice. Most of them are married and most of them are in faithful 
relationships irregardless of their husband's conduct. They are 
overwhelmed by the number of children they have to provide for. But you 
want to deny them the ability to control the number of children in 
their family?
  Not to pass this amendment is punitive. This is punishing of those 
women. It is wrong. It is immoral, in fact. This moderate amendment 
certainly should be passed by this Congress in the 21st century.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry 
about the remaining time on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois may inquire.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, under my 
unanimous consent request, an additional minute was given to their side 
and an additional minute to our side, and I wanted to make sure that 
the additional minute has been calculated in the remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The additional time has been added. The time remaining 
is 8\1/4\ minutes for the gentleman from Virginia and 2\3/4\ minutes 
for the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlewoman from 
Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), I would say to my friend, my very good friend, I 
would increase the funding for family planning. I would gladly increase 
it. So I think the question is how much money would be good if we could 
actually increase it with that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. 
Fallin).
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to this debate today, and it 
seems to me that the question is not if there is money going to family 
planning. I understand there is $441 million already allocated, U.S. 
money, that goes to foreign countries for family planning. But the 
question is whom is the money going to and do the organizations that 
receive the money for family planning promote abortion as a method of 
family planning. And that is what this whole debate is on our side.
  And the way I see it, if we supplement the budgets of other 
organizations in foreign countries who use abortion as family planning 
by giving them contraceptives, which we already do, by the way, $441 
million worth of family-planning help, then we are supplementing their 
budgets so that they can have freed-up money to continue down the route 
of doing abortions for family planning. So it is just kind of logical 
that that is what we are doing here by changing this policy. And that 
is why I support the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  And the gentlewoman has been kind to say that she wants to work in 
good faith and find common ground, and she has said it is her goal to 
get contraceptives to other countries. So if that is our goal and our 
goal is not to help other countries with abortions for family planning, 
then let's accept this amendment, the Smith-Stupak amendment, and let's 
pass it and let's show that the United States will not be in the 
business of exporting abortions to foreign countries.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Marilyn Musgrave of 
Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as we are debating this, I think that 
one

[[Page 16819]]

thing we have to be mindful of is every Member of Congress knows what 
an in-kind contribution is. And I would just like to say that we know 
that we have to account for in-kind contributions and we have to 
consider this in the Lowey amendment.
  I oppose this because I really feel that we need to protect the 
international family planning integrity. We know what the Mexico City 
policy was put in effect to do. We know that people in this country do 
not want their taxpayer dollars used to provide for abortion as a means 
of family planning.
  Another thing that has not been brought into this debate is this 
amendment really is a poison pill. I think that it undermines the 
Mexico City policy, and I think that it could possibly subject this 
bill to a veto. And I think we need to be very mindful of that as we 
engage in this debate.
  And we need to be mindful that this amendment doesn't increase USAID 
funding for contraceptives. It simply diverts contraceptive commodities 
from organizations that do not promote or provide abortions as a method 
of family planning.
  So I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment. I understand the 
intention. But, again, we all know what an in-kind contribution does, 
and we know what it does to the budgets of those organizations that 
promote abortion as a method of family planning.
  The Smith-Stupak amendment is the only amendment that removes the 
poison pill, restores the Mexico City policy, and allows the USAID to 
continue to direct the U.S. family-planning resources to organizations 
that are not engaged in pro-abortion activities.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment.
  This amendment would clarify existing language in the Foreign 
Operations bill that would only, and I repeat, only allow for NGOs to 
receive U.S.-donated contraceptives. This amendment makes it clear that 
only contraceptives will be donated and made available to millions of 
men and women around the world. Not funding.
  By increasing global contraceptive supplies, this will help many 
women and men overseas plan their families, protect against sexually 
transmitted diseases, and minimize at-risk pregnancies.
  Mr. Chairman, since the administration reinstated this policy in 
2001, 20 nations have stopped receiving U.S. shipments of 
contraceptives. Women and children in these countries often suffer from 
high maternal and child mortality rates because of a lack of adequate 
health care and access to family planning. I believe we must give hope 
to these women and families by providing them with the contraceptives 
they need to make their own decisions regarding their families. And I 
also think it is essential to provide individuals with the tools they 
need to protect themselves against the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  I rise in support, and I urge all the Members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment, although I do want to 
express my appreciation to Chairman Lowey for preserving, as she 
indicated, the 15 different restrictions that are in this bill on the 
use of American taxpayer dollars overseas to directly fund abortion.
  But I want to say respectfully to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, come on. Legislation that disallows contributions to fund 
abortions in family-planning organizations around the globe ought to 
also disallow in-kind contributions to those same organizations.
  Money is fungible. We know that. Organizations that receive 
commodities can take the resources that they would have used to 
purchase those commodities and use it to promote abortion. We all know. 
We are adults in this room. We all know that we are seeing here a 
concerted, sincere, and I would like to say respectfully creative 
legislative effort to undermine a policy known as the Mexico City 
policy that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know 
is broadly supported by the American people.
  Whatever the view is on abortion in this country, the American people 
don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions at home 
or abroad. They don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used through 
the foreign aid program to fund organizations that promote abortion as 
a means of family planning. And the possibility of making tens of 
millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars available to 
organizations that promote abortion around the globe, making it 
available in the form of commodities is still making resources 
available to organizations that promote abortion.

                              {time}  1645

  And so I say very respectfully, the American people don't want to see 
their tax dollars used to fund abortion overseas, and the American 
people don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used to make in-kind 
contributions to organizations that fund abortion and promote abortion 
as well.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Chairwoman Lowey has made it perfectly clear her intent 
to allow only for the provision of donated contraceptives. Some of our 
colleagues have expressed concerns that the language, as currently 
written, could be interpreted more broadly than intended. Therefore, 
Chairwoman Lowey is offering this amendment to clarify this provision.
  This amendment is crystal clear, my friends. It would only allow 
nongovernmental organizations to receive U.S. donated contraceptives, 
not funds, for distribution to millions of men and women in desperate 
need of these products.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot reduce abortions without contraception. That 
is a fact. Contraception is about prevention. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want to talk about prevention, that is the 
focus of this amendment.
  And let me just say this to all of my colleagues; for those in this 
body who proclaim to want to protect lives and to save lives and that 
is your mission, you have but one choice in this debate, and that is to 
support the Lowey amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker in this round.
  The gentlelady has the right to close, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia who is in opposition to the 
amendment has the right to close.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentlewoman like to proceed, then?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. We heard the word 
``fungible'' and ``fungibility'' more than once today. I just want to 
apply that logic to China because we've heard about China today.
  According to the logic of money being fungible, all of the money that 
our friends on the other side over the past 6 years who have borrowed 
from China, allowed China to make money on the interest, and therefore 
use that money to have forced abortions in China, that's fungible.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish the other side was as concerned about forced 
abortions in China when they were busting the budget over the last 6 
years.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is reminded that she is not allowed to 
yield blocks of time. She is allowed to yield time, but not in set 
amounts.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

[[Page 16820]]


  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to have this opportunity to rise in 
support of the Lowey amendment.
  I share Chairwoman Lowey's concerns about the lack of access to 
contraceptives, the lifesaving tool for disease prevention in the 
developing world.
  The World Health Organization estimates that 80 million women face 
unwanted pregnancies each year. More than 150 million couples have no 
access to family planning, and more than 75,000 women die each year due 
to complications related to unsafe abortion. These staggering 
statistics reflect the dire situation in countries such as Ghana, 
Ethiopia, Romania and many others as nations struggle to provide health 
care and basic services to their citizens.
  It is a tragedy that 24.5 million people are living with HIV in sub-
Saharan Africa, where more than 12 million children have been orphaned 
by AIDS. I know that I speak for the vast majority of Americans when I 
say that we have a responsibility to respond to this crisis.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I am opposed to abortion. And this 
position compels me to work to promote access to contraception and 
other methods of pregnancy prevention. I also feel that being pro-life 
means working to protect life at all stages, and to alleviate suffering 
wherever I am able to do so is an important priority. Rarely has the 
world known such intense suffering as that faced by sub-Saharan Africa 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, we must do everything in our power to ensure that the 
money we spend on international family planning, $441 million in this 
bill, will be used in the most effective way. The Lowey amendment makes 
sure that we do that.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been crystal clear. You 
know, at times we've kind of passed over each other, but it isn't about 
abortion. I also want to thank the gentlelady for putting clauses on 
abortion in the bill. And it's not about family planning, because this 
doesn't change the family planning fund.
  There is only one debate here, and that is, should family planning 
money go to organizations that advocate or perform abortion? And that 
is really what this is about. Those organizations are restricted under 
the Mexico City Policy. And that is in fact, in the view of people who 
are against abortion, providing public funds if you provide the condoms 
or whatever you're giving in in-kind aid.
  Now, for example, as a Republican candidate, I'm not likely to get 
cash funding from anybody on your side of the aisle. But I have a 
feeling that if somebody donated stamps to me or donated a mailing to 
me or donated things in my office, your side would view that the same 
as a cash contribution. And people back home can understand that money 
this direct is, in fact, fungible. We have had this debate since I've 
been in Congress on faith-based. Every time the faith-based argument 
comes up, your side of the aisle argues that giving money to pay for 
preachers' expenses, for electricity at a Christian organization, is in 
fact the same as a direct contribution to those faith-based 
organizations. You can't have it both ways.
  In fact, this is fungible money. The debate if you're against 
abortion is, you do not believe that money should go to organizations, 
taxpayer money, taken and collected from people who have a passionate 
opposition to abortion as well as those who favor abortion, should go 
to organizations that advocate that. If you're for abortion, you 
believe that should be allowed. And that's clearly what we've 
established in this debate. It's crystal clear.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is the article that I referred to, 
Public Radio, I'll put it in the Record. It says, Morning Edition, 
April 23. ``During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China 
have been forced to have abortions even as late as 9 months into the 
pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.'' It goes on, 
mentions a family which Liang describes how they told her that she 
would have to have an abortion. ``You don't have any more room for 
maneuver,'' he says they told her. ``If you don't go to the hospital, 
we'll carry you.'' The couple was then driven to Youjiang district 
maternity ward in Baise City. ``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The 
hospital was full of women who had been brought in forcibly. There 
wasn't a single spare bed. The family planning people said forced 
abortions or forced sterilization were both being carried out. We saw 
women being pulled in one by one.''
  Now, in answer to Mr. Ryan's comment, Mr. Ryan, I led the opposition 
over here in opposition to PNTR. President Clinton was one of the 
biggest supporters. He accused President Bush, criticized him, and then 
switched and strongly supported it.
  I have sent your office, with due respect, probably 25 letters asking 
you as a Blue Dog member to cosponsor a bill that I have, and I'll do 
it again, on the SAFE Commission. On my SAFE Commission I have eight 
Members from the Democratic Party, eight Members from the Republican 
Party, and I put everything on the table, tax policy. Someone on your 
side said there is no Republican over there that would do it. I put tax 
policy on it. Some of my people don't like it, but we do. We also put 
all the entitlements to save the country.
  I agree with you. God bless you. I agree that the debt that the 
Saudis hold is terrible. The debt that the Chinese hold. And I would 
beg you, because I know you're a good person, I watch you in committee, 
I followed your campaigns, join me in the SAFE Commission. We can get a 
handle on this deficit that we have in the country. This places a 
partisan political pit, and both sides are at each other.
  So what I want to do is what we did on the Iraq Study Group, get 
eight Republicans and eight Democrats, give 1 year, this is modeled 
after David Walker, the GAO, to go around the country and educate and 
talk to the American people and listen. And then we use the Base 
Closing Commission concept whereby this Congress has to vote.
  You're right. The amount of debt that the Chinese hold is horrible 
and that the Saudis hold. And I have written you over and over. The 
fact is, I will say it right now, I've been surprised that I haven't 
had anybody from your side cosponsor, because I will stipulate you care 
about the deficit as much as I do, maybe as a newer Member you may 
actually care about it more. But I agree with you, and the SAFE 
Commission is the opportunity to deal with this.
  If you look at the language in the package I'll send to your office, 
I put every single thing on the table. And if you would join me, I 
don't know if we could pass it in this Congress or not, but I think 
you're exactly right, we could help save this country because we are 
living off of Chinese money and Saudi money. And keep in mind, the 
Saudis funded all the madrasses up at the border. There were 15 Saudis 
funding the Wahhabis. The Saudis are funding radical, anti-Christian, 
anti-Semitic. So if we could come together and do that.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I think that clearly the ranking member is one of the extraordinary 
Members of this Congress, who has enormous credibility across a wide 
range of issues. But I think, given that the ranking member's arguments 
in committee are so substantive and so sound, I want to make it clear, 
at least for Members, about the context of the debate. And if the 
chairman would correct me if I'm wrong.
  Many of the NGOs that we are talking about are also the same NGOs 
that

[[Page 16821]]

provide primary care in many of these villages for which the language 
is directed. If we provide them with Child Survival funds, are these 
medicines fungible for the same NGOs? In many of these villages in the 
Third World, it's not that there are three or four doctors in the 
village, it's the same doctor. There is a shortage of doctors and 
nurses. It's the same doctors being sponsored by the same NGOs on the 
ground in these villages. They're either providing primary care, 
preventive care, making recommendations to people within the village on 
how they should behave and/or what are necessary to address their 
primary care issues.
  If we provide them with AIDS treatments, are those same AIDS 
treatments fungible? And how is it that we can sit here and argue, at 
least from Washington, a different reality that is taking place on the 
ground where these issues are taking place? If the chairman would 
respond. I ask for the committee's indulgence.
  Mr. WOLF. The gentleman's concern, and the gentleman is a very good 
Member, and I appreciate when he speaks a lot of times in committee. I 
agree with him, and not only do I agree in my conscience, I vote with 
him, and sometimes I even speak for him. But it is an issue here of 
going to the groups that are involved, and I will put a copy of the 
article in the Record, but the two that I mention, and to give them the 
support whereby they would do these things. I can't speak for other 
people, but I think it would be wrong.

                             June 21, 2007

               Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China

                            (By Louisa Lim)

       MORNING EDITION, APRIL 23, 2007.--During the past week, 
     dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have 
     abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy, 
     according to evidence uncovered by NPR.
       China's strict family planning laws permit urban married 
     couples to have only one child each, but in some of the 
     recent cases--in Guangxi Province--women say they were forced 
     to abort what would have been their first child because they 
     were unmarried. The forced abortions are all the more 
     shocking because family planning laws have generally been 
     relaxed in China, with many families having two children.
       Liang Yage and his wife Wei Linrong had one child and 
     believed that--like many other couples--they could pay a fine 
     and keep their second baby. Wei was 7 months pregnant when 10 
     family planning officials visited her at home on April 16.
       Liang describes how they told her that she would have to 
     have an abortion: ``You don't have any more room for 
     maneuver,'' he says they told her. ``If you don't go [to the 
     hospital], we'll carry you.'' The couple was then driven to 
     Youjiang district maternity hospital in Baise city.
       ``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The hospital was full of 
     women who'd been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single 
     spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions 
     and forced sterilizations were both being carried out. We saw 
     women being pulled in one by one.''
       The couple was given a consent agreement to sign. When 
     Liang refused, family planning officials signed it for him. 
     He and his wife are devout Christians--he is a pastor--and 
     they don't agree with abortion.
       The officials gave Wei three injections in the lower 
     abdomen. Contractions started the next afternoon, and 
     continued for almost 16 hours. Her child was stillborn.
       ``I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl,'' Wei said. 
     ``The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me 
     said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate, 
     so I didn't look up to see the baby.''
       Medical sources say fetuses aborted in this manner would 
     have been dead for some time, so the tissue is necrotic and 
     thus dark in color.
       ``The nurses dealt with the body like it was rubbish,'' Wei 
     said. ``They wrapped it up in a black plastic bag and threw 
     it in the trash.''
       This was also the treatment given to the stillborn baby of 
     He Caigan. Family planning officials turned up at her house, 
     in the countryside several hours outside Baise, before dawn 
     on April 17 to force her to go to the hospital. This would 
     have been her first baby--but she hadn't married the father, 
     in contravention of family planning laws. She was already 9 
     months pregnant, just days away from delivery.
       ``They told me I'm too young, I couldn't keep the child and 
     I should have an abortion,'' she said. ``I'm too young to get 
     a marriage certificate--I'm only 19 and my boyfriend's only 
     21.''
       After the forced abortion, her boyfriend left her. She said 
     that she's still in great physical pain and that her life had 
     been ruined.
       An eyewitness, who requested anonymity for fear of the 
     consequences, said that he counted 41 occupied beds on just 
     one floor of the maternity hospital in Baise and that he 
     believed none of the women he saw had come to the hospital of 
     their own free will.
       Coerced abortions such as these were not unusual after 
     China's one-child policy was first introduced in 1980. But a 
     law passed five years ago guarantees China's citizens a 
     degree of choice in family matters. When contacted for 
     comment, an official at China's State Commission for 
     Population and Family Planning said she'd heard nothing about 
     forced abortions in Guangxi and asked for more details. But 
     in Baise, a family planning official surnamed Nong 
     acknowledged that such behavior would violate regulations. 
     Despite the fact that these allegations refer to events that 
     happened just within the last week, he said an investigation 
     had already been held.
       ``We were very surprised to hear of these accusations,'' 
     Nong said, ``but our investigation concluded some individuals 
     who were dissatisfied with our family planning policies were 
     fabricating stories. These facts simply don't exist. We 
     really love and care for women here.''
       Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed 
     some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged 
     necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its 
     family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate 
     was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5 
     percent. This is significant because the career prospects of 
     local officials depend upon meeting these goals.
       Wei Linrong and her husband Liang Yage, were incensed by 
     their treatment, seeing it as little short of murder.
       ``I think their methods are too cruel,'' said Wei, ``my 
     heart really hurts. Such a tiny baby, it was innocent. And 
     they killed it.''
       ``Every time we talk about this child, we both cry,'' Liang 
     added. ``We can't bear talking about this child.''
       Liang and his wife risked further official disapproval by 
     contacting a Christian group overseas to publicize their 
     plight. China may once have depended on its state apparatus 
     of control and fear to silence those who suffer human rights 
     abuses at the hands of its officials. But China's victims are 
     angry, and they want their voices to be heard.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Lowey 
Amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations 
bill. This amendment is a poison pill that will result in a veto by the 
President.
  The original Mexico City policy, which was emasculated in the 
Appropriations Committee, prevents U.S. population assistance funds 
from going to foreign organizations which ``perform or actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning.'' This was done to ensure 
compliance with the long-standing law that taxpayer dollars cannot be 
used to finance abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger 
to the life of the mother. The Stupak-Smith amendment restores the 
Mexico City policy to its original intent.
  On the other hand Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment, masks the effort 
to fund pro-abortion organizations with U.S. tax dollars. This 
amendment would provide economic support in the form of valuable 
commodities and other items to organizations that promote and provide 
abortion as a method of family planning. Additionally, this amendment 
does not increase USAID funding for contraceptives, as the amendment's 
supporters have claimed.
  In fact, it does nothing to increase contraception and simply diverts 
contraceptive commodities from organizations that DO NOT promote or 
provide abortion to organizations that DO promote or provide abortion 
as a method of family planning.
  This ``stealth amendment'' further undermines the Mexico City policy 
that President Reagan established in 1984. Prior to the implementation 
of the Mexico City policy by President Reagan in 1984, organizations 
which support abortion such as Planned Parenthood kept two sets of 
books in order to qualify for U.S. funds: one tracking the use of 
taxpayer dollars for services such as family planning counseling and 
contraception distribution, and another chronicling the use of private 
organization funds for abortion-related expenses. Mr. Chairman, we all 
know that money is fungible. Such double bookkeeping ensured that 
taxpayer dollars for family planning inevitably subsidized abortion by 
freeing up more private funds for this purpose. The Mexico City policy 
was adopted to stop this practice.
  Mr. Chairman, while President Clinton revoked this policy, it was 
reinstated by President Bush to ensure American citizens are not forced 
to pay for a procedure many find morally abhorrent.
  Additionally Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues 
that the President has threatened to veto any legislation that weakens 
existing pro-life protections. Opposing the Lowey amendment and 
supporting the

[[Page 16822]]

Stupak-Smith amendment will ensure that the hard work our colleagues 
have put into this appropriations bill is not for nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment and support the 
Stupak-Smith Amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy to its 
original intent.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and of the underlying bill, which provides overseas family 
planning providers with a targeted exemption from the restrictions of 
the Global Gag Rule.
  As this amendment makes crystal clear, the contraceptive exemption in 
this bill allows for only the provision of donated contraceptives--not 
funding--to NGOs that would otherwise be barred from receiving U.S. 
assistance. In so doing, this bill will provide millions of men and 
women with contraceptive products.
  Since President Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule in 2001, U.S. 
government shipments of contraceptives and condoms have ceased to 
twenty developing countries, including Cote d'lvoire and Vietnam--two 
focus countries of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
  Restricting access to U.S.-donated contraceptives and condoms is 
counterproductive to our country's unprecedented commitment to the 
fight against HIV/AIDS.
  Furthermore, providing modern contraceptives to the 200 million women 
in the developing world who desire this health care would avert 52 
million unwanted pregnancies, prevent 22 million abortions, and would 
keep 505,000 children from losing their mothers each year.
  Put simply, contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies which often 
end in abortion, and condoms prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. 
These facts are undisputable.
  I commend Chairwoman Lowey for her willingness to offer this 
amendment to clarify the legislative intent of this important 
provision, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order 
to protect access to common-sense prevention measures that will improve 
the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities 
worldwide.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, 
contains language that undermines the Mexico City Policy. While the 
State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nina 
Lowey (D-NY) drafted a bill that included excellent funding levels for 
foreign nations in need of assistance, her amendment would essentially 
gut the Mexico City Policy. This will have a devastating effect on 
women and families overseas.
  The Reagan administration, in 1984, restricted U.S. population aid by 
terminating USAID support for any foreign NGO that was involved in 
promoting or performing abortions as a method of family planning in 
other nations. This was called the ``Mexico City Policy,'' named after 
the location of the United Nations population conference where the 
policy was first announced. In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the 
policy imposed by the Reagan and Bush administrations. As his first act 
in office, President George W. Bush restored the Mexico City Policy on 
January 20, 2001 and released a letter stating, ``I will veto any 
legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, 
or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.''
  The Mexico City Policy should not have been weakened. Taxpayer 
dollars should not, in any way, be used to promote abortion as a method 
of family planning. The United States should never be active in 
promoting abortions overseas. Instead, the U.S. should offer family 
planning programs that support the health of the mother, child and 
family unit.
  There are several known organizations that use U.S. foreign aid 
funding to promote and provide abortions, as well as sterilizations, 
overseas. In 1998, newspapers were filled with stories of women 
participating in U.S. funded family planning programs who were forced 
to undergo sterilization procedures, especially in Peru. There were 
also stories of women coerced to participate in family planning 
programs by threatening to withhold food, clothing and shelter from 
their family.
  In response to these atrocities, I introduced an amendment to the 
State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in 1998 that defined the 
meaning of ``voluntary participation'' in family planning programs. It 
was to ensure the NGOs receiving USAID funding for family planning 
programs understood what voluntary participation meant and required 
informed consent for women on the benefits and risks associated with 
different family planning methods. Since it was enacted for fiscal year 
1999, there have been several violations and vulnerabilities in 
countries receiving funding. These violations and vulnerabilities were 
identified and corrected by USAID.
  Without strong direction from the United States on how taxpayer 
dollars are spent, we will continue to find violations that are 
destructive to women and families.
  It is due to the Lowey amendment, which undermines the Mexico City 
Policy, that I will be voting against final passage of a bill that 
contained important foreign aid for countries in need, such as Israel. 
It is unfortunate this amendment was adopted, and organizations that 
promote and perform abortions to the women overseas will be able to 
receive U.S. taxpayer funding. It is my hope the Senate will take up 
this bill and strike this harmful language.
  Tonight, I will vote against H.R. 2476 on the basis that it clearly 
undermines good policy and subjects what could have been a good piece 
of legislation to a veto by the President. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against final passage of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, someday future generations of 
Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and 
seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity 
to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so 
aggressively promoted death to children by abortion.
  They will note that we prided ourselves on our human rights rhetoric 
and record, while precluding unusually all protection to the most 
persecuted minority in the world today, unborn children. They will 
indeed wonder why it took so long to stop just one hideous method of 
death, partial-birth abortion--and why dismembering a child with sharp 
knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices or chemically 
poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals, failed to elicit 
so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy or compassion for the victims.

                              {time}  1700

  Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Chairman. It is extreme 
child abuse. It is cruelty to children. It exploits women. In America, 
it has destroyed 49 million unborn babies and wounded countless numbers 
of women.
  Now, as in previous years, some Members of Congress want to export 
the violence of abortion to Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia and 
Europe by reversing the prolife Mexico City policy and by providing in-
kind assistance to some of the most vociferous pro-abortion 
organizations on the Earth. To counter that, Mr. Stupak and I are 
offering an amendment, to strike the pro-abortion enabling language 
contained in this bill.
  First announced by the Reagan administration at a 1984 U.N. 
Population Conference held in Mexico City, hence its name, the current 
policy simply requires that foreign nongovernmental organizations 
agree, as a condition of their receipt of Federal assistance for 
family-planning activities, to neither perform nor actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning.
  The three exceptions in the Mexico City policy are rape, incest and 
life of the mother.

[[Page 16823]]

  Mr. Chairman, today, scores of countries throughout the world are 
literally under siege in a well-coordinated, exceedingly well-funded 
campaign to legalize abortion on demand, putting women and children at 
risk. Most of the pressure is coming directly from foreign 
nongovernmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation based in London. IPPF and its country affiliates perform 
abortions and lobby aggressively for abortion on demand.
  IPPF, you will recall, in 1992 adopted an abortion manifesto called 
Vision 2000, a sweeping ``action plan.'' Vision 2000 says that IPPF and 
its affiliates, and I quote this, ``Will bring pressure on governments 
and campaign for policy and legislative changes to remove restrictions 
against abortions.'' The Mexico City policy puts a stop to enabling 
IPPF and likeminded groups from doing just that.
  So it couldn't be more clear, Mr. Chairman, that if we provide either 
cash or in-kind contributions to abortion organizations, we empower 
them and we enable them to campaign to expand abortion. Instead, we 
should direct our funds and in-kind assistance, including commodities 
and contraceptives, to organizations committed only to family planning.
  IPPF's vision, Mr. Chairman, is what I call a nightmare. Earlier my 
friend, Mr. Jackson, was talking about the least of our brethren in 
found Matthew is Gospel, Chapter 25. Who in this world fits the 
definition of the least of our brethren more than a helpless unborn 
child who is being killed by dismemberment or chemical poison? I don't 
know who. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable people on Earth, I say 
to my good friend.
  IPPF's vision is a world of free abortion and unfettered access to 
subsidized abortion rights right up until birth. It is all in their 
documents. They're for abortions for minors even without any parental 
notification or consent, and they don't like conscience clauses for 
doctors and health care practitioners, either.
  One only has to look at Planned Parenthood here in the United States 
to understand where their affiliates would take the rest of the world. 
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has, for example, 
colocated family planning clinics with abortion mills. They annually 
perform 265,000 abortions every year in America, a quarter of all the 
abortions in our country a staggering loss of children's lives. One 
organization. They lobby and litigate to stop women's right-to-know 
laws and parental consent laws. They lobby in favor of partial birth 
abortion. If that is not child abuse, I don't know what is. Make no 
mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, that is what they want to do 
everywhere. We kid ourselves if we don't realize that and appreciate 
that.
  The Mexico City policy, on the other hand, separates abortion from 
family planning in certain foreign aid programs. It ensures that family 
planning is the exclusive activity of the organization and not 
abortion. If we provide other cash or in-kind contributions or anything 
of value, we again empower, we enrich and we enable these 
organizations. It is all about whom we give to.
  Finally, I would like to say with deep respect to my prolife 
colleagues, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, some of 
whom are under intense pressure to support the other side and to oppose 
Mr. Stupak and me, if protecting babies and women from abortion matters 
to you, and I mean really, really matters to you, there is no way that 
any of us could work to overturn the Mexico City policy. This is the 
time to stand for the innocent and the inconvenient ones who can't 
speak for themselves.
  I would remind my colleagues again that nothing in our language today 
cuts by a penny the money that is allocated in this appropriations bill 
for family planning. If you look, and we will do this again later, at 
one country after another, we have seen doubling and tripling, 
quadrupling even, of money going to countries, especially in Africa, 
for family planning under the Mexico City policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact, 
with one important exception. It would allow for the provision of 
contraceptives, not direct funding, to foreign NGOs to help reduce 
abortion, unintended pregnancy, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The 
amendment I offer today makes absolutely clear that no funding would be 
provided to international organizations that do not comply with the 
Mexico City policy. In addition, the provision provides absolutely no 
assistance for abortion.
  This is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of the bill. Every 
provision in this bill has been kept there that forbids U.S. dollars 
going to abortion.
  There are tremendous unmet needs for contraception in developing 
countries that most need this assistance to address population and 
health crises, including the spread of HIV/AIDS and unintended and 
high-risk pregnancies.
  The global gag rule has only made matters worse for decreasing access 
in many countries. U.S. shipments of contraceptives have ceased to 20 
developing nations, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In 
some areas, the largest distribution centers for contraceptives have 
experienced decreased access for over 50 percent of the women they 
serve. This decline in access to contraceptives has led to increases in 
unintended pregnancy and in the number of women seeking postabortion 
care.
  It is clear that withholding contraceptives, my friends, does not 
reduce abortion. Providing contraceptives is the way to reduce 
unintended pregnancies and abortions. The numbers speak for themselves. 
Increased use of contraceptives in the last two decades has been 
accompanied by significant declines in abortion rates in a number of 
countries. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate declined by 61 
percent, as has been mentioned, between 1988 and 2001, as modern 
contraceptive use increased by 74 percent.
  Proponents of the Smith amendment will make several false claims. 
They may say that this provision would provide funding or assistance 
for services and products other than contraceptives directly to 
international NGOs who are not compliant with Mexico City. It 
absolutely will not.

                              {time}  1715

  They will argue that the Smith amendment will not cut family planning 
funds in this bill. However, it will dramatically decrease the 
effectiveness of our international family planning aid by withholding 
contraceptives to the areas of the world that need them most to prevent 
unintended pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  The other side will also say that my provision encourages abortion as 
a means of family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Abortion is already illegal in many of the areas that would receive 
contraceptives under my provision, particularly in African countries. 
Furthermore, these organizations do not promote abortion as a means of 
family planning. They provide family planning to prevent unintended 
pregnancies, thereby reducing abortion.
  You may also hear that by providing contraceptives, these 
organizations will be able to use their own funds for other purposes 
prohibited by Mexico City. I have already made clear the incredible 
unmet need for contraceptives. In Uganda alone, the average number of 
births per woman is 7.1, while the unmet need for family planning is 
reported by married women at 35 percent. The bill will provide donated 
contraceptives, not funding, to groups that are unable to provide 
enough contraceptives in areas with severe shortages.
  Furthermore, contraceptives are not fungible. They are used for 
contraception. Period. By filling the unmet need for contraceptives, 
each year we can prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 
29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 
children from losing their mothers.

[[Page 16824]]

  It is clear that voting for the Smith amendment and against 
contraceptives is an extreme position that will in fact hurt our 
efforts to decrease abortion. So if you really want to decrease 
abortion, if you really say you are for family planning, if you really 
want to save lives, if you really want to decrease HIV/AIDS, which is 
spreading throughout the world, vote no on the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the coauthor of 
this amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment, which is the only amendment before the House that would 
restore the Mexico City Policy. This policy is a vital, pro-life 
provision intended to protect the integrity of U.S. family planning 
programs around the world by establishing a clear wall of separation 
between abortion and family planning. By directing support to 
organizations that agree not to promote or perform abortion as a method 
of family planning, we ensure that U.S.-supported programs are not in 
the abortion business.
  Let me be clear: Our amendment does not, does not, reduce 
international family planning funding for services or contraceptives by 
a single penny. Instead, the policy that we are promoting improves the 
credibility of international family planning programs by ensuring that 
they are entirely separated from abortion activities.
  Despite misleading statements to the contrary, the previous Lowey 
amendment is not about contraceptives or HIV. We have provisions in the 
legislation where that language can be put, and it would be perfectly 
acceptable to all of us. Instead, the Lowey amendments are a direct 
assault on the Mexico City Policy.
  The Smith-Stupak amendment restores the Mexico City Policy and in no 
way reduces funding for contraceptives. U.S. family planning funded in 
this bill at $441 million should be directed to organizations that do 
not promote or perform abortions.
  The effort to prevent unplanned pregnancy by providing contraceptives 
continues robustly under the Mexico City Policy. As you can see from 
the chart here before me, U.S.-funded family planning increased 
dramatically in countries where USAID has found the need to be the 
greatest.
  Mrs. Lowey claims Ethiopia and some of these others have actually 
decreased money. It is simply not true. If you look, in Ethiopia 
funding has nearly quadrupled, increasing from $4.9 million to $19.5 
million under the Mexico City Policy. In Uganda, funding has almost 
doubled, from $5.2 million to $9.8 million.
  International family planning is funded at $441 million in this bill, 
and it will still be funded at $441 million in this bill under the 
Smith-Stupak amendment.
  I would give the previous speaker, Mrs. Lowey, credit for being 
ingenious. It is an ingenious amendment which really undermines the 
Mexico City language.
  I urge all Members to support our pro-life and pro-family amendment. 
Support the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a distinguished member of 
the committee.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment does 
nothing to reinstate the Mexico City executive order. It is an 
executive order. What is in statute and what continues to be in 
statute, on page 93 of H.R. 2764, section 618, ``None of the funds may 
be made available to be paid for the performance of abortion as a 
method of family planning.''
  On line 13, ``None of the funds,'' and then it goes on to say, ``may 
be used for the performance of involuntary sterilization as a method of 
family planning or to coerce or provide financial incentive to any 
person undergoing sterilization. None of the funds may be made 
available to carry out part of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
amended, that may be used to pay for biomedical research for the 
performance of abortions or involuntary sterilization.'' None of the 
funds. None of the funds. That is all protected in here. The Smith 
language doesn't change anything.
  President George Bush in fact himself has said that one of the best 
ways to prevent an abortion is to provide quality family planning 
programs. And here are the facts, folks.
  In developing countries, 120 million married couples would like to 
postpone their next pregnancy or have no more children, but they don't 
have access to modern contraceptives. In sub-Sahara Africa, 26 percent 
of the women who desire to delay or end their child bearing remain 
without access to volunteer family planning and then they risk an 
unintended pregnancy. Every year more than 525,000 women die from 
causes related to pregnancy in childbirth, with 99 percent of these 
deaths occurring in developing countries. An additional 8 million women 
each year suffer needless complications from pregnancy and birth. And 
lack of spacing birth, this is really key, because I have spoken to 
women in Africa and in Latin America, lack of spacing birth results in 
intervals of 9 to 14 months, which raises the increased maternal death 
rate by 250 percent.
  Vote for voluntary family planning. Vote for 22 more additional 
countries receiving voluntary planning. Vote against Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment 
that guards against policies that would lead to taxpayer funding of 
abortions abroad. This amendment would ensure that the Mexico City 
Policy is included in this spending bill.
  The Mexico City Policy, first enacted by President Reagan in 1984 and 
reinstated in 2001, ensures that organizations that do international 
population assistance work and that promote abortion as a method of 
family planning do not receive United States funding.
  This is a critical policy that underscores the sanctity of human life 
by telling groups that if they want to promote abortion, they better 
find a source of funding other than the U.S. taxpayer. It is quite 
simple: If a group demonstrates a disregard for human life, they don't 
get funding.
  Let me be clear, the Mexico City policy and this funding do not 
reduce funding for family planning programs. The focus instead is on 
channeling funds to organizations that agree not to promote abortion. 
There is, therefore, no overall reduction of family planning funds. 
Again, the guidelines are simple. If you promote abortion, the U.S. 
Government will not be giving you money.
  Under the current language in the State-Foreign Operations 
appropriation bill, funding would once again flow to groups that 
promote abortion. The Smith-Stupak amendment would eliminate language 
that allows funding to go to even the most aggressively pro-abortion 
groups.
  This amendment is about our Nation's abortion policy. As such, it is 
entirely focused on ensuring our government does not fund groups that 
promote abortion. I support this amendment because it wisely guards 
against any erosion of our protection of the sanctity of human life.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), an outstanding member of the 
committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and once again for her very valiant efforts to save lives of women and 
children throughout the world.
  Let me first say I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. 
This bill includes a very narrow provision to allow foreign NGOs to 
receive only U.S.-provided contraceptives. Chairwoman Lowey has 
additionally offered the amendment that clarifies the existing language 
in the bill to make it absolutely clear that this provision only allows 
for the donation of the contraceptives.

[[Page 16825]]

  This provision has absolutely nothing to do with funding. The bill 
does not provide financial assistance to clinics or to NGOs. It simply 
allows those family planning organizations that have been denied USAID 
family planning funding under the global gag rule to receive 
contraceptives from USAID and domestic NGOs.
  Again, it has nothing to do with providing assistance for abortions, 
which are already strictly and clearly prohibited in 10 other 
provisions in this bill, which, I must say, I am very disappointed 
with. But the fact is that those provisions are there.
  By providing contraceptives, we will actually help to reduce 
abortions, reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS and save the lives of 
mothers and infants by reducing the number of high-risk and unintended 
pregnancies.
  The negative impact of the gag rule, which, of course, as I said 
earlier, and you all know this, this bill leaves the gag rule in place, 
but the negative impact is well documented. Since it was reinstated in 
2001, shipments of United States-donated contraceptives have ceased in 
20 developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
  The NGOs most affected are often the ones with the most extensive 
distribution networks and the largest outreach to young women in rural 
areas. They often provide the only family planning program in a region 
and they have suffered severely from the cutoff of contraceptive 
shipments. The Smith amendment would continue to punish these NGOs for 
running successful family planning programs and would effectively 
undermine the goal we all share to reduce abortions and HIV and AIDS 
around the world.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why we are doing this, Mr. 
Smith. You know and I know that this does not tamper with, 
unfortunately, the global gag rule or Mexico City language.
  So let's be straightforward. Let's be honest. What we are trying to 
do today is just save the lives of women and children.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a philosophical difference of how 
we approach things. This is about respect for life, our's and those in 
other countries. I commend the gentleman on the amendment, and I do 
rise in support of this amendment and of the Mexico City Policy and 
making certain that we pass the Smith-Stupak amendment. It will strike 
the language that would undermine that policy.
  It is not going to take away the $441 million for family planning. It 
is going to put a bright line of separation between abortion and family 
planning. The U.S. should not be in the business of exporting abortion 
overseas. It has been a tragedy for women here in the U.S., and it will 
carry the same hurt, it will carry the same trauma if it is used 
abroad.
  So I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating, the statistics we 
have heard so many times about the language that is in this bill and 
what is not in this bill. There are at least 10 provisions in the bill 
that prohibit U.S. foreign assistance from being used to promote or 
perform abortions. In many of these countries, abortion is illegal. 
That could not be more clear.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership on this bill and 
for including this commonsense, common ground, family planning 
provision to include contraceptives only, and not funding.
  I rise today in strong support of both the Lowey amendment and of the 
contraceptives-only provision in the bill, and in opposition to the 
Smith amendment.
  Under current U.S. policy, too many people in the developing world, 
especially Africa, contraceptives are in short supply, placing the 
health and well-being of millions of people at risk. President Bush has 
recognized the crisis and proposed a major Africa initiative.
  The very specific and narrowly tailored language of Chairwoman 
Lowey's language allows the U.S. to provide contraceptives only so NGOs 
can provide contraceptives in developing countries. This provision is, 
as I say, a commonsense, common ground solution to a very real problem. 
This provision will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, help 
prevent abortions and help stem the spread of disease, including HIV/
AIDS.
  The far-reaching impacts of this provision are immeasurable. This 
will make a substantive difference in the lives of women and families 
around the world by allowing them to protect themselves and plan and 
space their births. It will help slow rapid population growth, which 
results in poverty and instability. It will help stop the spread of 
HIV/AIDS.
  I urge all my colleagues who are committed to family planning to 
oppose the Smith amendment, vote to support the Lowey amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend Congressman Smith of New Jersey and Mr. 
Stupak, which seeks to restore the Mexico City Policy. It is a 
longstanding guideline for receiving U.S. family planning assistance.
  This policy, as we know, prevents U.S. funding for foreign 
nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, that perform or promote abortion 
as a method of family planning. This standard is consistent with our 
domestic policy, as regulations prohibit taxpayer dollars from programs 
that support abortion as a method of family planning.
  The Mexico City Policy applies the same standard of domestic funding 
to global family planning, and therefore reinforces the belief that the 
fundamental goal of family planning programs should be to reduce 
abortions. By eliminating the Mexico City Policy, we are devaluing the 
importance of other preventative methods of family planning.
  As the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am 
seriously concerned about the effect that such a policy change would 
have on our ability to protect the respect for innocent human life and 
human rights worldwide.

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment.
  We have heard it so many times before, but the global gag rule is not 
about abortion. It is about women dying to the tune of 600,000 a year. 
That is equal to one or two jumbo jets crashing each day. The fact 
remains that, since 1973, no U.S. Federal funds have been or are being 
used around the world for abortions.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they respect 
life, but during the time that we have been debating this bill, 65 
women around the world will die from pregnancy because of many related 
complications; and they are dying because they do not have access to 
the most basic health care such as contraceptives.
  I commend my colleague, Mrs. Lowey, for her commonsense approach to 
refining the global gag rule. Although I support a full repeal of the 
global gag rule, it would be unconstitutional in our country, and it is 
unconscionable that we are exporting it to the world's poorest women.
  But the Lowey amendment merely allows NGOs and organizations to 
receive contraceptives, which are proven to prevent unintended 
pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. That is what 
it does. It is family planning.
  So I ask my colleagues, what do we tell a Somalian mother whose 
teenage

[[Page 16826]]

daughter has just died in childbirth? Do we explain there are some 
politicians in Washington who do not think that she deserves the same 
information and health care services that their own daughters have?
  These programs are about saving women and girls' lives and helping 
both men and women get access to reproductive health services. So if 
you oppose abortion and oppose the spread of HIV/AIDS, it makes common 
sense, good sense to support access to contraceptives and oppose the 
Smith amendment. Support the Lowey provision.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment.
  I believe women in developing nations, these poor women are not 
asking help to abort their children. They are asking for help with 
food, housing and medical care for them and their families. It costs 
roughly $5 to spray a house with the cheapest insecticide to protect 
entire families from being infected with malaria.
  The drug Nevirapine reduces the risk of prenatal HIV infection by 50 
percent. One dose is given to the mother and one to the baby, and these 
two doses only cost $5.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is how our foreign aid dollars should be 
spent, saving lives, not destroying them. Most preventable child deaths 
are from malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, infections of newborns and 
malaria.
  The United States has contributed more than $1.5 billion in the last 
5 years to treat almost 5 billion episodes of child diarrhea with 
lifesaving oral rehydration therapy, and we have reduced deaths from 
diarrheal disease by more than half since 1990.
  These are the success stories of how U.S. tax dollars are saving 
lives, and we need to continue to preserve lives. The money in this 
bill should be spent on newborn care programs and not on destructive 
abortion procedures destroying the life of the child and harming women.
  I believe we need to export lifesaving policy that provides poor 
women with the food, with the housing and the medicine that they need 
so desperately.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let 
me say at the outset, I have the deepest respect for the opinions 
expressed in this Chamber. I may not agree with them, but I respect 
them.
  We are all try to reduce unintended pregnancies. We are all trying to 
reduce abortion. In contrast to what a prior speaker said, there is 
nobody here in this Congress, right or left, who doesn't have respect 
for human life; and that kind of verbiage really ought not to be 
expressed in this Chamber.
  I will say, however, that while I respect my opponents' arguments, 
the arguments do lose some credibility on the issue of fungibility. The 
fact of the matter is, as has been stated before, not one penny in Mrs. 
Lowey's bill is spent promoting or providing abortion. It is on in-kind 
contraceptives.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have said, whoa, whoa, but 
that is promoting the funding of abortion, because every single in-kind 
contraceptive that is donated means that there is more money by that 
country to fund an abortion.
  Well, if you are going to apply that argument, my friends, then you 
better just admit defeat on the global war on terror right now. Because 
the fact of the matter is that many of the same countries that we are 
providing in-kind military assistance to to help us in the global war 
on terror allow for legal abortion. Some even provide abortion 
services.
  Here is a map. If you are going to argue the fungibility issue, then 
in fact every time that we provide funding to Pakistan, we are 
promoting abortions, because in some cases abortion is legal in 
Pakistan.
  Every time we are providing military funding and assistance to India, 
we are promoting abortions. Australia, Japan, South Korea. When we are 
providing funding for the Colombian antidrug initiative, we are 
promoting abortions in Colombia under that argument. Canada. Russia. 
When we provide military assistance to secure loose nukes in Russia, 
under your argument that money is fungible. They can take our 
assistance, secure the loose nukes and then use that money in order to 
provide and promote abortions.
  If you use that argument, my friends, you need to go back to your 
districts today and admit to your constituents that every time you have 
supported that military aid you have supported abortion, because the 
money is fungible.
  The Czech Republic. Many of you support providing military assistance 
and in-kind assistance to the Czech Republic for the national missile 
defense system. They permit abortions. Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, NATO 
countries, South Africa, the Ukraine.
  The fact of the matter is that the fungibility argument has no 
credibility. You can only have fungibility if you have money. There is 
no money in this bill for abortion services.
  If we are going to have an honest debate on this issue, let's be 
honest and let's be consistent. What this language does is say we want 
to reduce unintended pregnancies. We want to reduce abortions. The way 
to do it is to allow for in-kind contributions of contraceptives. This 
is important language.
  I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to be consistent.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just 
to say that the previous speaker's comments missed by a mile what this 
is all about.
  The Mexico City policy does not apply to a single country. It applies 
to organizations. Countries are expressly excluded from Mexico City 
policy. It is all about pro-abortion organizations, and whether or not 
we want to enrich and enable them to expand abortion. We want to put 
our money and in-kind contributions to those that have divested 
themselves from the killing of unborn children.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support this measure to 
prevent the U.S.-taxpayer-funded export of abortion.
  The purpose of U.S. foreign assistance is to strengthen the 
foundation for international stability by fostering civil society, 
supporting institutions that foster self-determination, and helping the 
vulnerable by bringing healing and hope and basic sustenance.
  As a leading provider of foreign assistance worldwide, the United 
States has made extraordinary strides towards alleviating suffering 
throughout the world. Unfortunately, an element of the Foreign 
Operations bill before us today risks undermining this noble legacy.
  The Mexico City policy, first announced by President Reagan in 1984, 
requires that as a condition for receiving Federal funds for family 
planning, foreign nongovernmental organizations agree that they will 
neither perform abortions nor lobby to change abortion laws or 
otherwise actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.
  The Foreign Operations bill, as it currently stands, would undo this 
policy and subsidize abortion providers overseas. U.S. taxpayers should 
not be forced to do this, nor should other countries be forced to 
accept it. Abortion is so often the result of abandonment, Mr. 
Chairman; and I believe women deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, many Americans aren't comfortable about the rightness 
or wrongness of it. Many Americans are unsure in their heart of hearts 
about the ethics of abortion. Americans agonize about this difficult 
issue, and our collective experience as a society demonstrates the 
grave consequences.
  Given these considerations, is abortion really the best we can offer 
to

[[Page 16827]]

some of the most vulnerable populations in the world? Is this really 
how we wish to be identified as a Nation?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to retain the long-standing Mexico 
City policy and not to compromise the reputation and legitimacy of our 
foreign assistance programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Before I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds for 
clarification to my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I do seek a clarification. The distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey attempted to clarify, but I am now a little more confused. As I 
understood his argument, he said that when an organization promotes 
abortion, we are looking to punish it. But when a country that we 
happen to like promotes abortion, then we can provide them with $300 
million or $400 million in budget support.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. First of all, we are not punishing. We are 
saying that, as a matter of human rights principle, that the killing of 
an unborn child rises to a sufficient level that we will pick other 
NGOs to whom we will give our dollars.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, maybe, just maybe, if a woman has access 
to contraceptives, abortion will be prevented.
  What is wrong with you people? Where do you come from?
  Oh, that's right, you come from the United States of America, where 
all women are allowed, rich or poor, to have access to and choices over 
family planning. Lucky us.
  There are many choices for preventing unwanted pregnancies, and let 
us not forget prevention of HIV/AIDS. If you are against abortion, at 
least support prevention. If you are concerned about HIV/AIDS, support 
contraception.
  Our Nation has a long history of generosity and caring. That should 
not end today. What are we doing? We are up here with the Lowey 
amendment ensuring that women in the poorest villages in the poorest 
countries have access to contraceptives. We are doing that by providing 
medically approved and necessary contraceptives to women who would 
otherwise have no other means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and/or to 
prevent HIV/AIDS.
  Unintended pregnancies and illegal abortions have been on the rise in 
areas where access to family planning has been denied. Chairwoman 
Lowey's provision is just plain common sense. Let's put women's health 
above politics and vote ``no'' on the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-
Stupak amendment. The Mexico City policy does not reduce family 
planning funding at all. It only requires that funds, support and 
supplies are directed to NGOs that do not promote abortion as part of 
family planning.
  U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to hand their hard-earned tax 
money over to organizations that practice policies that these taxpayers 
morally oppose. The Mexico City policy has established that clear 
bright line that allows us to provide assistance in a morally 
acceptable manner.
  President Bush has clearly indicated his intent to veto this bill if 
it weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion or that 
encourages the destruction of human life at any stage. Enough of us, 
myself included, have pledged to sustain this veto that it will, 
indeed, be sustained.
  We must ensure that taxpayer funds do not underwrite organizations 
that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Smith-Stupak amendment today.

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately must rise in opposition 
to the Smith-Stupak amendment. I have great respect for the passion 
displayed by Mr. Smith and Mr. Stupak and I share their opposition to 
abortion. However, in this instance I must strongly disagree with their 
decision to prevent the distribution of contraception to some of the 
most poor and needy people and nations in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, we are asked to make an important decision in this 
year's debate on the Foreign Operations bill. Our commitment to 
providing international family planning speaks volumes about who we are 
as a nation. These funds reach some of the most vulnerable populations 
in the world and can literally mean the difference between life and 
death.
  I know that Americans regardless of their position on abortion are 
horrified by the statistics on HIV/AIDS in Africa and the number of 
unwanted pregnancies and abortions throughout the developing world. I 
believe that it is our responsibility, as people committed to the 
sanctity of life and the basic human dignity of all people, to respond 
to this crisis. I believe that it is also our responsibility to do so 
in the most effective manner possible while staying true to our core 
values. The language that Chairwoman Lowey proposes makes it possible 
for the United States to provide developing nations access to 
contraceptive products, products that save lives. The Lowey language 
ensures that the organizations best equipped to distribute these 
products to the neediest, poorest parts of the world are able to do so. 
Finally, it respects the law of the land that prohibits Federal 
financial assistance to organizations that provide abortions or 
abortion counseling.
  I know that crafting this language was no easy feat and I commend 
Mrs. Lowey for her dedication to moving forward with a bill that 
reflects the values of our Nation and respects the strong feelings that 
Members have on both sides of the abortion debate. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the Smith-Stupak amendment and allow this critical, 
lifesaving assistance to reach those who so desperately need it.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dave Weldon.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just want to clarify a point just made by 
the gentleman from Rhode Island. Under the Smith language, 
contraceptive devices will be distributed. This whole debate is about 
whether we're going to give contraceptives to Planned Parenthood, 
Parenthood International, aggressively trying to overturn the pro-life 
laws in countries all over the world.
  We have dramatically increased distribution under Mexico City of 
contraceptive devices. Ethiopia, from 4.9 million to 19.5 million. A 
big, long list here. This is about Planned Parenthood and their effort 
to overturn pro-life laws all over the world and we don't want to give 
money to them. That's what this debate is about.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Stupak for their leadership on this amendment. What we are doing here 
on this amendment is no small thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it should be noted for the record that most 
Americans do not believe that abortion is an appropriate form of family 
planning. To suggest it is simply wrong. It would never be considered 
proper within the United States and it isn't proper that taxpayers' 
money be spent for this purpose overseas.
  The amendment that we are debating today in question is not anti-
family planning. There are a number of alternatives to abortion which 
do not rise to the level of concern that this proposal engenders. This 
is only anti-family planning if one considers abortion

[[Page 16828]]

to be a method of family planning. I reject this way of thinking and 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  When President Bush adopted our Nation's current policy, he was 
right. Prohibiting the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to fund 
abortions outside the United States is a policy that has been in place 
for many years. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues who care about 
the sanctity of human life to vote in favor of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask how much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the 
Congressman from Michigan for their work on this amendment and their 
longstanding commitment to protecting human life.
  This is about two fundamental issues that have been talked about here 
on the floor. First, taxpayer dollars shouldn't go to organizations, 
whether those dollars are cash or in-kind, shouldn't go to 
organizations that perform or promote the taking of innocent human 
life. Second, it recognizes the more fundamental principle, life is 
precious, life is sacred, and government's fundamental responsibility 
is to protect the weak from the strong, to protect those innocent 
individuals whose lives are being taken.
  This is good public policy. We should keep it in place. It's 
consistent, frankly, with our heritage and with our history. I always 
like to remind folks of what the founders said when they talked about 
that fundamental document that started this great experience we call 
America: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  It's interesting to note the order the founders placed the rights 
they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness, your goals and dreams, 
if you first don't have liberty? And do you ever have true liberty, 
true freedom, if government does not protect your most fundamental 
right, your right to live?
  This amendment is consistent with the founders' vision, it's good 
policy, and we should adopt it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, Mr. 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just would like to end this debate to say that we 
all have the same goals here. We all want to reduce the number of 
abortions. Nobody wants to celebrate it. I'm a pro-life Democrat. I 
voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion and I'm proud of my vote. 
But we do have an honest disagreement on how we reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies. And to me it is clear that if we do not provide 
contraception to these poor women in these poor countries, then we will 
have more abortions. The statistics bear this out, the facts bear this 
out, and that's why this amendment needs to go down and we need to pass 
the chairwoman's language here, because I believe that if this 
amendment passes, there will be more abortions, not less.
  And one final comment to the gentleman from New Jersey, we were not 
pressured to support this position. We came to this position by 
honestly looking at the facts. No leadership pressured us, me and Mr. 
Langevin and those of us who have a different voting record than some 
people over here. So this is our choice. Please vote down this 
amendment and let's reduce the number of abortions.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) control the remainder of the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment to strike the 
language eliminating the vitally important protections of the Mexico 
City Policy. I just believe it's wrong to force American taxpayers to 
subsidize organizations who actively promote abortion in foreign 
nations.
  In response to some of the arguments on the other side that this is 
not about promoting abortion or not, I disagree. It's really not about 
providing contraceptives. This is about promoting abortion. Because as 
the gentleman from New Jersey was trying to say before he was cut off, 
there are NGOs that are in compliance with the Mexico City Policy which 
means that they neither perform nor actively promote abortions as a 
method of family planning in other nations. It is they who are eligible 
for assistance under the Mexico City Policy. It is they who should be 
getting the benefit, not those organizations that are promoting 
abortions around the world that can substitute the provision of these 
contraceptives to then use that money available to go and pursue their 
other agenda.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment 
to restore the pro-life Mexico City Policy protections that were 
effectively stripped from this bill.
  Human life is a precious commodity and around the globe it is still 
too often taken for granted. Like millions, in my heart and in my mind, 
I believe that life begins at conception. And as a Member of this body, 
I feel I have an obligation to protect the right to life wherever I 
can. The most effective way to do that now, today, is to support the 
Mexico City Policy which would prevent our international aid from going 
to foreign organizations that support or promote abortions.
  This policy is based on the simple idea that American taxpayers 
should not be forced to export abortions with their money. Again, we're 
talking about taking money away from the American taxpayer and using it 
to subsidize foreign abortions. For most, this defies common sense. It 
defies fiscal sense. And it is reprehensible to the millions who 
believe in the fundamental right to life.
  I urge all Members to support the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Stupak-Smith 
amendment. This amendment very simply ensures that our taxpayer Foreign 
Operation funds will not be used to support abortion overseas. The 
Mexico City Policy, which was first instituted in 1984 by President 
Ronald Reagan, simply states that any U.S. funding for family planning 
cannot be used to promote abortions as a suitable option in family 
planning.
  As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a 
consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of 
abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most 
Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars 
of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use 
it to fund and to underwrite organizations that promote abortion 
overseas.
  It is precisely for that reason that I rise today in strong support 
of this thoughtful amendment and urge my colleagues to preserve the 
Mexico City Policy and vote ``aye'' on the Stupak-Smith amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, recently a new organization 
formed in the United States called the Silent No More Awareness 
Campaign.

[[Page 16829]]

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

                              {time}  1800

  Prenatal surgery has shattered myths concerning the unborn as well. 
Unborn children are patients. So let's give the money to the family 
planners overseas that are all about family planning, not abortion 
promotion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let that go unanswered. We 
are not promoting abortion. We are trying to reduce the number of 
abortions by providing contraception.
  The fact of the matter is the Republican party has no plan on 
reducing the number of abortions, none. There is only one way to do it, 
and you provide contraception to poor people. That's what we are trying 
to do.
  You're right. It's not about who's getting; it's about who's not 
getting. There are poor women who are not getting contraception and 
contraceptives. We are trying to provide it.
  I commend what you are trying to do. We are trying to reduce number 
of abortions, and all the explicit details of an abortion procedure are 
exactly why we are trying to do this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear in closing, we all may 
have different views about abortion. I respect your views. I may 
differ. Each person is entitled to their own conscience and their own 
views on abortion.
  But this is not about abortion. Every provision forbidding U.S. 
dollars going to abortion is in this bill, and it remains in this bill. 
The choice is clear, my friend.
  My amendment will provide donated contraceptives, reduce unintended 
pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, prevent HIV/AIDS, save 
lives, save the lives of millions of poor people around the world. This 
amendment will save lives. Mr. Smith's amendment will lead to more 
abortions, put more lives at risk.
  My friend, the choice is very clear. If you want to reduce the number 
of unintended pregnancies, if you want to save lives, if you want to 
prevent abortion, you vote for the Lowey amendment and against the 
Smith amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by both the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
  This amendment would simply reaffirm our country's long standing 
commitment to not using federal taxpayer money to fund or support 
abortions. More specifically, this amendment would preserve the 
decades-old, internationally agreed upon Mexico City Policy that 
defends the sanctity of life by preventing taxpayer dollars from 
funding overseas family planning organizations that promote or perform 
abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, while many Americans may disagree on the issue of 
abortion, a vast majority of them do not believe that abortions should 
be publicly funded. This Mexico City Policy significantly prevents the 
exploitation of developing nations where some non-governmental 
organizations aggressively advocate the use of abortion as birth 
control--birth control, Mr. Chairman. The tactics of these NGOs are 
simply and utterly unconscionable, and I know Americans don't want 
their tax dollars funding these activities.
  Now, opponents of the amendment have tried to assert that it would 
take away funding from international family planning. Quite to the 
contrary, this Amendment does not take one single cent from these 
activities, but rather maintains the current policy preventing Federal 
funding of foreign abortions. We must remain resolute in the 
preservation of this policy.
  Having practiced as a pro-life OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I firmly 
believe that we have an obligation to protect life at each and every 
stage--and this obligation does not just apply to unborn Americans.
  Any human life--regardless of geography, regardless of circumstance--
has the right to exist. Foreign abortions are just as tragic as 
abortions here at home.
  We should not and we cannot allow the Mexico City Policy to be 
abandoned. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Stupak/Smith.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the amendment 
to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This policy ensures that U.S. 
bilateral family planning programs are not conduits for exporting 
abortions internationally.
  Let me be clear from the beginning: the Mexico City Policy is NOT 
anti-family planning. In no way does this policy reduce the $425 
million that the United States provides in family planning assistance. 
What this amendment does do is to put a wall between contraception and 
abortion, thereby preventing this Congress from making the American 
taxpayers an implicit partner in the aborting of unborn children. It 
sends the message that as Americans, we stand for the life and liberty 
of all individuals--those whose voices can be heard, and those whose 
voices cry from the womb.
  This Democrat-led Congress has voted to protect roosters from 
cockfighting and horses from slaughter. Doesn't it would seem logical 
that this Congress would stand up and protect the fragile lives of the 
unborn?
  But this Congress has shown that it is only selectively sympathetic 
to the furtherance of life. As when horses are killed, or roosters are 
hurt. But not when a tiny, human life is stamped out with the approval 
of our government.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this amendment before us.
  The Foreign Operations Appropriations measure in its current form 
will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies globally, curb the 
deadly spread of HIV/AIDS, and improve infant and maternal survival 
rates throughout the developing world.
  I want to commend my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for 
including a provision in this measure which provides a targeted 
exemption from the Global Gag Rule.
  This will allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated contraception and 
condoms.
  For the past 6 years, the global gag rule has jeopardized access to 
comprehensive health care for women in developing countries. It has 
denied NGOs the resources they need to provide necessary medical advice 
and treatments.
  The intent of the Global Gag Rule was to restrict abortion. However, 
by denying access to contraception and condoms, the Gag Rule denies 
women the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first 
place.
  With population levels rising and efforts to prevent the spread of 
HIV increasing, the demand for contraception is higher then ever.
  More than 200 million women around the world want to control when 
they have children and protect themselves from HIV, but they can't do 
so because they lack access to condoms and contraception.

[[Page 16830]]

  Since the Global Gag Rule was reinstated, shipments of contraceptives 
from the U.S. government have been denied to 20 developing countries 
throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Its effect on healthcare 
in these nations has been devastating.
  In the face of this, the Smith amendment would deny access to 
contraception and condoms to some of our most valuable NGOs reaching 
at-risk people of all ages.
  What would the impact of this cutoff be?
  Consider that access to contraceptives would prevent an estimated 52 
million unintended pregnancies each year.
  That, in turn, would prevent 22 million abortions. It would also 
prevent 23 million unplanned births; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, 
and 1.4 million infant deaths.
  Family planning helps women to have their children during the 
healthiest times for both mother and child. It has proved critical to 
the reduction of infant mortality in numerous developing countries.
  Contraceptive access is also critical to disease prevention. 
According to the WHO, the leading cause of last year's 4.3 million new 
HIV cases was unprotected sex. Access to condoms is a matter of life 
and death.
  And of those millions, how many were parents? More than 13 million 
children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to AIDS. 
That is 12 percent of all the orphaned children in the world--more than 
10 million children.
  Cutting off the flow of contraceptives would be an enormous step back 
for the health of the world's women, children and families. The 
underlying bill before us takes a commonsense approach to global health 
that will reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. It 
will also help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and improve infant and child 
survival rates.
  This amendment would take us in the opposite direction. I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote no on the Smith/Stupak amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 533]

                               AYES--223

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

                               NOES--201

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

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

                              {time}  1825

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

[[Page 16831]]




              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               AYES--205

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

                               NOES--218

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1832

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


                          Legislative Program

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


                              afghanistan

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


                notification on excess defense equipment

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


                       global fund accountability

       Sec. 625. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, 20 percent of the funds that are appropriated by this 
     Act for a contribution to support the Global Fund to Fight 
     AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the

[[Page 16832]]

     ``Global Fund'') shall be withheld from obligation to the 
     Global Fund until the Secretary of State certifies to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Global Fund--
       (1) is releasing incremental disbursements only if grantees 
     demonstrate progress against clearly defined performance 
     indicators;
       (2) is providing support and oversight to country-level 
     entities, such as country coordinating mechanisms, principal 
     recipients, and Local Fund Agents (LFAs), to enable them to 
     fulfill their mandates;
       (3) has a full-time, professional, independent Office of 
     Inspector General that is fully operational;
       (4) requires LFAs to assess whether a principal recipient 
     has the capacity to oversee the activities of sub-recipients;
       (5) is making progress toward implementing a reporting 
     system that breaks down grantee budget allocations by 
     programmatic activity;
       (6) has adopted a policy on the public release of documents 
     produced by the Office of the Inspector General;
       (7) is tracking and encouraging the involvement of civil 
     society, including faith-based organizations, in country 
     coordinating mechanisms and program implementation; and
       (8) has provided to the Secretary of State a report on 
     faith-based organizations as described in subsection (b).
       (b) The report referred to in subsection (a)(8) is a report 
     that provides a description and assessment of grants and sub-
     grants provided by the Global Fund to faith-based 
     organizations. The report shall include--
       (1) on a county-by-country basis--
       (A) a description of the amount of grants and sub-grants 
     provided to faith-based organizations; and
       (B) an assessment of the extent to which faith-based 
     organizations have been or are involved in the Country 
     Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) process of the Global Fund; and
       (2) a description of actions the Global Fund has taken and 
     will take to enhance the involvement of faith-based 
     organizations in the CCM process, particularly in countries 
     in which the involvement of faith-based organizations has 
     been underrepresented.


       prohibition on bilateral assistance to terrorist countries

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


                          debt-for-development

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


                           separate accounts

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


                      enterprise fund restrictions

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


                      financial market assistance

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


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

       Sec. 631. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-

[[Page 16833]]

     American Foundation Act or the African Development Foundation 
     Act. The agency shall promptly report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations whenever it is conducting activities or is 
     proposing to conduct activities in a country for which 
     assistance is prohibited.


                  impact on jobs in the united states

       Sec. 632. None of the funds appropriated under titles II 
     through V of this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     provide--
       (1) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States; or
       (2) assistance for any program, project, or activity that 
     contributes to the violation of internationally recognized 
     workers rights, as defined in section 507(4) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That the 
     application of section 507(4) (D) and (E) of such Act should 
     be commensurate with the level of development of the 
     recipient country and sector, and shall not preclude 
     assistance for the informal sector in such country, micro and 
     small-scale enterprise, and smallholder agriculture.


                          special authorities

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


                     arab league boycott of israel

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

[[Page 16834]]




                       eligibility for assistance

       Sec. 635. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained under titles II 
     through V of this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     in support of programs of nongovernmental organizations from 
     funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1, 10, 11, and 12 of part I and chapter 4 of part II 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and from funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN 
     EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'': Provided, That before using 
     the authority of this subsection to furnish assistance in 
     support of programs of nongovernmental organizations, the 
     President shall notify the Committees on Appropriations under 
     the regular notification procedures of those committees, 
     including a description of the program to be assisted, the 
     assistance to be provided, and the reasons for furnishing 
     such assistance: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion or involuntary sterilizations 
     contained in this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 2008, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to 
     this subsection may be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that support international terrorism; 
     or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to the government of a country that violates 
     internationally recognized human rights.


                         reservations of funds

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


                 ceilings and designated funding levels

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


                 prohibition on publicity or propaganda

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


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

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


              nongovernmental organizations--documentation

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


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

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


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

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

[[Page 16835]]

       (4) The term ``unpaid property taxes'' means the amount of 
     unpaid taxes and interest determined to be owed by a foreign 
     country on real property in the District of Columbia or New 
     York, New York in a court order or judgment entered against 
     such country by a court of the United States or any State or 
     subdivision thereof.


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

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


                     war crimes tribunals drawdown

       Sec. 644. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of up to $30,000,000 of 
     commodities and services for the United Nations War Crimes 
     Tribunal established with regard to the former Yugoslavia by 
     the United Nations Security Council or such other tribunals 
     or commissions as the Council may establish or authorize to 
     deal with such violations, without regard to the ceiling 
     limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: Provided, That 
     the determination required under this section shall be in 
     lieu of any determinations otherwise required under section 
     552(c): Provided further, That the drawdown made under this 
     section for any tribunal shall not be construed as an 
     endorsement or precedent for the establishment of any 
     standing or permanent international criminal tribunal or 
     court: Provided further, That funds made available for 
     tribunals other than Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or the Special Court 
     for Sierra Leone shall be made available subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                               landmines

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


           restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

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


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

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


                                 haiti

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


                                colombia

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

[[Page 16836]]




         limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

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


              limitation on assistance to security forces

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


                    foreign military training report

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


                       authorization requirement

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


                                 libya

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


                         palestinian statehood

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


                 limitations on assistance to colombia

       Sec. 656. (a) Withholding of Funds for Assistance to the 
     Colombian Armed Forces.--
       (1) Requirement to withhold assistance funding.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the headings ``ANDEAN 
     COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'' and ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING 
     PROGRAM'' that are available for assistance for the Colombian 
     Armed Forces--
       (A) 25 percent of such funds under each such heading shall 
     be withheld from obligation until the Secretary of State 
     consults with, and submits a written certification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Colombia 
     has met the requirements described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (D) of paragraph (2); and
       (B) An additional 15 percent of such funds under each such 
     heading shall be withheld from obligation until July 31, 
     2008, and shall only be obligated after the Secretary of 
     State consults with, and submits a written certification to, 
     the Committees on Appropriations that, the Government of 
     Colombia is continuing to meet the requirements described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) and has met 
     the requirements described in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of 
     such paragraph.
       (2) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) The Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces is 
     suspending from the Colombian Armed Forces those members, of 
     whatever rank, who, according to the Minister of Defense or 
     the Procuraduria General de la Nacion, have been credibly 
     alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, 
     including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or 
     abetted paramilitary organizations.
       (B) The Government of Colombia is investigating and 
     prosecuting, in the civilian justice system, those members of 
     the Colombian Armed Forces, of whatever rank, who have been 
     credibly alleged to have committed human rights violations, 
     including extra-judicial killings, torture, or attacks 
     against human rights defenders, or to have aided or abetted 
     paramilitary organizations or successor armed groups, is 
     suspending such members during the course of investigation, 
     and is promptly punishing those members of the Colombian 
     Armed Forces found to have committed such violations of human 
     rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary organizations 
     or successor armed groups.
       (C) The Colombian Armed Forces have made demonstrable 
     efforts to cooperate fully with civilian prosecutors and 
     judicial authorities in cases referred to in subparagraph (B) 
     (including providing requested information, such as the 
     identity of persons suspended from the Armed Forces and the 
     nature and cause of the suspension, and access to witnesses, 
     relevant military documents, and other requested 
     information).
       (D) The Government of Colombia is ensuring that the 
     Colombian Armed Forces are not violating the land and 
     property rights of Colombia's indigenous and Afro-Colombian 
     communities, and that the Colombian Armed Forces are 
     appropriately distinguishing between civilians, including 
     displaced persons, and combatants in their operations.
       (E) The Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial 
     progress in and are severing links (including denying access 
     to military intelligence, vehicles, and other equipment or 
     supplies, and ceasing other forms of active or tacit 
     cooperation) at all levels, with paramilitary organizations 
     or successor armed groups, especially in regions in which 
     such organizations have or had a significant presence.

[[Page 16837]]

       (F) The civilian judicial authorities of the Government of 
     Colombia are making demonstrable progress in dismantling 
     paramilitary leadership and financial networks by arresting 
     and vigorously prosecuting under civilian criminal law 
     individuals who have provided financial, planning, or 
     logistical support, or have otherwise aided or abetted 
     paramilitary organizations or successor armed groups, by 
     identifying and confiscating land and other assets illegally 
     acquired by paramilitary organizations or their associates 
     and returning such land or assets to their rightful owners, 
     by revoking reduced sentences for demobilized paramilitaries 
     who engage in new criminal activity, and by arresting, 
     prosecuting under civilian criminal law, and when requested, 
     promptly extraditing to the United States, new, re-armed, and 
     non-demobilized members of successor groups, especially in 
     regions in which these networks have or had a significant 
     presence.
       (3) Certain funds exempted.--The requirement to withhold 
     funds from obligation pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to funds made 
     available under the heading ``ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'' 
     for continued support for the Critical Flight Safety Program 
     or any alternative development programs in Colombia 
     administered by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State.
       (4) Report.--At the time the Secretary of State submits the 
     certifications required by paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall also submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a report that contains, with 
     respect to each such paragraph, a detailed description of the 
     specific actions taken by both the Colombian Government and 
     Colombian Armed Forces which supports each requirement of the 
     certification, and the cases or issues brought to the 
     attention of the Secretary for which the response or action 
     taken by the Colombian Government or Armed Forces has been 
     inadequate.
       (b) Congressional Notification.--Funds made available by 
     this Act for the Colombian Armed Forces shall be subject to 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (c) Consultative Process.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter 
     until September 30, 2010, the Secretary of State shall 
     consult with internationally recognized human rights 
     organizations regarding progress in meeting the requirements 
     contained in subsection (a)(2).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Aided or abetted.--The term ``aided or abetted'' means 
     to provide any support to paramilitary or successor armed 
     groups, including taking actions which allow, facilitate, or 
     otherwise foster the activities of such groups.
       (2) Paramilitary groups.--The term ``paramilitary groups'' 
     means illegal self-defense groups and illegal security 
     cooperatives, including those groups and cooperatives that 
     have formerly demobilized but continue illegal operations, as 
     well as parts thereof.


 prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation

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


        support of peace process and demobilization in colombia

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

[[Page 16838]]

     on Human Rights to conduct monitoring of the demobilization 
     process.


                       west bank and gaza program

       Sec. 659. (a) Oversight.--For fiscal year 2008, 30 days 
     prior to the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral 
     West Bank and Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall 
     certify to the Committees on Appropriations that procedures 
     have been established to assure the Comptroller General of 
     the United States will have access to appropriate United 
     States financial information in order to review the uses of 
     United States assistance for the Program funded under the 
     heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' for the West Bank and Gaza.
       (b) Vetting.--Prior to the obligation of funds appropriated 
     by this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' for 
     assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State 
     shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that such 
     assistance is not provided to or through any individual, 
     private or government entity, or educational institution that 
     the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, 
     plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist 
     activity nor those that have as a trustee any member of a 
     certified foreign terrorist organization. The Secretary of 
     State shall, as appropriate, establish procedures specifying 
     the steps to be taken in carrying out this subsection and 
     shall terminate assistance to any individual, entity, or 
     educational institution which she has determined to be 
     involved in or advocating terrorist activity.
       (c) Prohibition.--
       (1) None of the funds appropriated under titles II thourgh 
     V of this Act for assistance under the West Bank and Gaza 
     program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing 
     or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have 
     committed acts of terrorism.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds made available by this or prior appropriations act, 
     including funds made available by transfer, may be made 
     available for obligation for security assistance for the West 
     Bank and Gaza until the Secretary of State reports to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     on the benchmarks that have been established for security 
     assistance for the West Bank and Gaza and reports on the 
     extent of Palestinian compliance with such benchmarks.
       (d) Audits.--
       (1) The Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall ensure that Federal or non-
     Federal audits of all contractors and grantees, and 
     significant subcontractors and sub-grantees, under the West 
     Bank and Gaza Program, are conducted at least on an annual 
     basis to ensure, among other things, compliance with this 
     section.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act up to $1,000,000 
     may be used by the Office of the Inspector General of the 
     United States Agency for International Development for 
     audits, inspections, and other activities in furtherance of 
     the requirements of this subsection.
       (e) Subsequent to the certification specified in subsection 
     (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct an audit and an investigation of the treatment, 
     handling, and uses of all funds for the bilateral West Bank 
     and Gaza Program in fiscal year 2008 under the heading 
     ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND''. The audit shall address--
       (1) the extent to which such Program complies with the 
     requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and
       (2) an examination of all programs, projects, and 
     activities carried out under such Program, including both 
     obligations and expenditures.
       (f) Not later than 180 days after enactment of this act, 
     the secretary of state shall submit a report to the 
     committees on appropriations updating the report contained in 
     section 2106 of chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 109-13.


          contributions to the united nations population fund

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


                             war criminals

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


                               user fees

       Sec. 662. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive

[[Page 16839]]

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


                           funding for serbia

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


                   community-based police assistance

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


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 665. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may 
     reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of 
     the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
       (1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
       (2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act; or
       (3) any obligation or portion of such obligation, to pay 
     for purchases of United States agricultural commodities 
     guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export 
     credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29, 
     1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of 
     1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
     501).
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (1) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters;
       (4) does not engage in a consistent pattern of gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights 
     (including its military or other security forces); and
       (5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the 
     application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to the funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``DEBT 
     RESTRUCTURING''.
       (e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance 
     for the purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance 
     to a country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or section 321 of the International 
     Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975.


             authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

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


                            basic education

       Sec. 667. Of the funds appropriated by title III of this 
     Act, not less than $750,000,000 shall be made available for 
     assistance for developing countries for basic education. Of 
     this amount, not less than $265,000,000 shall be provided and 
     implemented in countries that have an approved national 
     education plan.
       (a) Coordinator.--There shall be established within the 
     Department of State in the immediate office of the Secretary 
     of State, a Coordinator of United States Government 
     activities to provide basic education assistance in 
     developing countries (hereinafter in

[[Page 16840]]

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


                        reconciliation programs

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


                                 sudan

       Sec. 669. (a) Limitation on Assistance.--Subject to 
     subsection (d):
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for 
     assistance for the Government of Sudan.
       (2) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for the cost, as defined in section 502, of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan 
     guarantees held by the Government of Sudan, including the 
     cost of selling, reducing, or canceling amounts owed to the 
     United States, and modifying concessional loans, guarantees, 
     and credit agreements.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
     State determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that--
       (1) The Government of Sudan honors its pledges to cease 
     attacks upon civilians and disarms and demobilizes the 
     Janjaweed and other government-supported militias;
       (2) The Government of Sudan and all government-supported 
     militia groups are honoring their commitments made in all 
     previous cease-fire agreements;
       (3) The Government of Sudan is allowing unimpeded access to 
     Darfur to humanitarian aid organizations, the human rights 
     investigation and humanitarian teams of the United Nations, 
     including protection officers, and the international 
     monitoring team that is based in Darfur and has the support 
     of the United States;
       (c) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (b) shall not 
     apply to--
       (1) humanitarian assistance;
       (2) assistance for the Darfur region, Southern Sudan, 
     Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, and 
     Abyei; and
       (3) assistance to support implementation of the 
     Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement 
     or any other internationally-recognized viable peace 
     agreement in Sudan.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``Government of Sudan'', shall not include the Government of 
     Southern Sudan.
       (e) Notwithstanding any other law, assistance in this Act 
     may be made available to the Government of Southern Sudan to 
     provide non-lethal military assistance, military education 
     and training, and defense services controlled under the 
     International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CRF 120.1 et 
     seq.) if the Secretary of State--
       (1) determines that the provision of such items is in the 
     national interest of the United States; and
       (2) not later than 15 days before the provision of any such 
     assistance, notifies the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives 
     of such determination.


                        trade capacity building

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


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

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


 assistance to colombia law enforcement to combat illegal armed groups

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


                                  cuba

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


                         gender-based violence

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


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

       Sec. 675. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' may be used to 
     provide assistance to the government of a country that is a 
     party to the International Criminal Court and has not entered 
     into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 
     98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal 
     Court from proceeding against United States personnel present 
     in such country.
       (b) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive 
     the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (``NATO'') member country, a 
     major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, 
     Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the

[[Page 16841]]

     Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), Taiwan, or such other 
     country as he may determine if he determines and reports to 
     the appropriate congressional committees that it is important 
     to the national interests of the United States to waive such 
     prohibition.
       (c) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive 
     the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a 
     particular country if he determines and reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that such country has 
     entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to 
     Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International 
     Criminal Court from proceeding against United States 
     personnel present in such country.
       (d) The prohibition of this section shall not apply to 
     countries otherwise eligible for assistance under the 
     Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, notwithstanding section 
     606(a)(2)(B) of such Act.


                                 tibet

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


                           western hemisphere

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


     united states agency for international development management

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 678. (a) Authority.--Up to $81,000,000 of the funds 
     made available in title III of this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including funds appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE 
     FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'', may be used by 
     the United States Agency for International Development 
     (USAID) to hire and employ individuals in the United States 
     and overseas on a limited appointment basis pursuant to the 
     authority of sections 308 and 309 of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980.
       (b) Restrictions.--
       (1) The number of individuals hired in any fiscal year 
     pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 175.
       (2) The authority to hire individuals contained in 
     subsection (a) shall expire on September 30, 2009.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority of subsection (a) may only 
     be used to the extent that an equivalent number of positions 
     that are filled by personal services contractors or other 
     non-direct hire employees of USAID, who are compensated with 
     funds appropriated to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, including funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC 
     STATES'', are eliminated.
       (d) Priority Sectors.--In exercising the authority of this 
     section, primary emphasis shall be placed on enabling USAID 
     to meet personnel positions in technical skill areas 
     currently encumbered by contractor or other non-direct hire 
     personnel.
       (e) Consultations.--The USAID Administrator shall consult 
     with the Committees on Appropriations at least on a quarterly 
     basis concerning the implementation of this section.
       (f) Program Account Charged.--The account charged for the 
     cost of an individual hired and employed under the authority 
     of this section shall be the account to which such 
     individual's responsibilities primarily relate. Funds made 
     available to carry out this section may be transferred to and 
     merged and consolidated with funds appropriated for 
     ``OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 
     INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT''.
       (g) Management Reform Pilot.--Of the funds made available 
     in subsection (a), USAID may use, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, up to $10,000,000 to 
     fund overseas support costs of members of the Foreign Service 
     with a Foreign Service rank of four or below: Provided, That 
     such authority is only used to reduce USAID's reliance on 
     overseas personal services contractors or other non-direct 
     hire employees compensated with funds appropriated to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including 
     funds appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN 
     EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES''.
       (h) Disaster Surge Capacity.--Funds appropriated under 
     title III of this Act to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, including funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC 
     STATES'', may be used, in addition to funds otherwise 
     available for such purposes, for the cost (including the 
     support costs) of individuals detailed to or employed by the 
     United States Agency for International Development whose 
     primary responsibility is to carry out programs in response 
     to natural disasters.


                        opic transfer authority

                     (including transfer of funds)

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


                         reporting requirement

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


                       anticorruption provisions

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


                               indonesia

       Sec. 682. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', not more

[[Page 16842]]

     than $6,000,000 may be made available for assistance for 
     Indonesia, until the Secretary of State reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on steps taken by the Government 
     of Indonesia on the following--
       (1) prosecution and punishment, in a manner proportional to 
     the crime, for members of the Armed Forces who have been 
     credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human 
     rights;
       (2) cooperation by the Armed Forces, at the direction of 
     the President of Indonesia, with civilian judicial 
     authorities and with international efforts to resolve cases 
     of gross violations of human rights in East Timor and 
     elsewhere; and
       (3) implementation by the Armed Forces, at the direction of 
     the President of Indonesia, of reforms to increase the 
     transparency and accountability of their operations and 
     financial management.


                    establishment of the growth fund

       Sec. 683. Establishment of the GROWTH Fund.--
       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State, acting through the 
     Director of United States Foreign Assistance, shall establish 
     the Global Resources and Opportunities for Women to Thrive 
     (GROWTH) Fund for the purpose of enhancing economic 
     opportunities for very poor, poor, and low-income women in 
     developing countries with a focus on--
       (A) increasing women-owned enterprise development;
       (B) increasing property rights for women;
       (C) increasing women's access to financial services;
       (D) increasing women in leadership in implementing 
     organizations, such as indigenous nongovernmental 
     organizations, community-based organizations, and regulated 
     financial intermediaries;
       (E) improving women's employment benefits and conditions; 
     and
       (F) increasing women's ability to benefit from global 
     trade.
       (2) Role of usaid missions.--The Fund shall be available to 
     USAID missions to apply for additional funding to support 
     specific additional activities that enhance women's economic 
     opportunities or to integrate gender into existing economic 
     opportunity programs.
       (b) Activities Supported.--The Fund shall be available to 
     USAID missions to support--
       (1) initiatives to eliminate legal and institutional 
     barriers to women's ownership of assets, access to credit, 
     access to information and communication technologies, and 
     engagement in business activities within or outside of the 
     home;
       (2) microfinance and microenterprise development programs 
     that--
       (A) specifically target women with respect to outreach and 
     marketing; and
       (B) provide products specifically to address women's 
     assets, needs, and the barriers women encounter with respect 
     to participation in enterprise and financial services;
       (3) programs, projects, and activities for enterprise 
     development for women in developing countries that--
       (A) in coordination with developing country governments and 
     interested individuals and organizations, encourage or 
     enhance laws, regulations, enforcement, and other practices 
     that promote access to banking and financial services for 
     women-owned small- and medium-sized enterprises, and 
     eliminate or reduce regulatory barriers that may exist in 
     this regard;
       (B) promote access to information and communication 
     technologies (ICT) with training in ICT for women-owned 
     small- and medium-sized enterprises;
       (C) provide training, through local associations of women-
     owned enterprises or nongovernmental organizations in record 
     keeping, financial and personnel management, international 
     trade, business planning, marketing, policy advocacy, 
     leadership development, and other relevant areas;
       (D) provide resources to establish and enhance local, 
     national, and international networks and associations of 
     women-owned small- and medium-sized enterprises;
       (E) provide incentives for nongovernmental organizations 
     and regulated financial intermediaries to develop products, 
     services, and marketing and outreach strategies specifically 
     designed to facilitate and promote women's participation in 
     small- and medium-sized business development programs by 
     addressing women's assets, needs, and the barriers they face 
     to participation in enterprise and financial services; and
       (F) seek to award contracts to qualified indigenous women-
     owned small- and medium-sized enterprises, including for 
     post-conflict reconstruction and to facilitate employment of 
     indigenous women, including during post-conflict 
     reconstruction in jobs not traditionally undertaken by women;
       (4) programs, projects, and activities for the promotion of 
     private property rights and land tenure security for women in 
     developing countries that are implemented by local, 
     indigenous nongovernmental and community-based organizations 
     dedicated to addressing the needs of women, especially 
     women's organizations that--
       (A) advocate to amend and harmonize statutory and customary 
     law to give women equal rights to own, use, and inherit 
     property;
       (B) promote legal literacy among women and men about 
     property rights for women and how to exercise such rights;
       (C) assist women in making land claims and protecting 
     women's existing claims; and
       (D) advocate for equitable land titling and registration 
     for women;
       (5) activities to increase women's access to employment and 
     to higher quality employment with better remuneration and 
     working conditions in developing countries, including access 
     to insurance and other social safety nets, in informal and 
     formal employment relative to core labor standards determined 
     by the International Labor Organization. Such activities 
     should include--
       (A) public education efforts to inform poor women and men 
     of their legal rights related to employment;
       (B) education and vocational training tailored to enable 
     poor women to access opportunities in potential growth 
     sectors in their local economies and in jobs within the 
     formal and informal sectors where women are not traditionally 
     highly represented;
       (C) efforts to support self-employed poor women or wage 
     workers to form or join independent unions or other labor 
     associations to increase their income and improve their 
     working conditions; and
       (D) advocacy efforts to protect the rights of women in the 
     workplace, including--
       (i) developing programs with the participation of civil 
     society to eliminate gender-based violence; and
       (ii) providing capacity-building assistance to women's 
     organizations to effectively research and monitor labor 
     rights conditions;
       (6) assistance to governments and organizations in 
     developing countries seeking to design and implement laws, 
     regulations, and programs to improve working conditions for 
     women and to facilitate their entry into and advancement in 
     the workplace;
       (7) training and education to women in civil society, 
     including those organizations representing poor women, and to 
     women-owned enterprises and associations of such enterprises, 
     on how to respond to economic opportunities created by trade 
     preference programs, trade agreements, or other policies 
     creating market access, including training on United States 
     market access requirements and procedures;
       (8) capacity-building for women entrepreneurs, including 
     microentrepreneurs, on production strategies, quality 
     standards, formation of cooperatives, market research, and 
     market development;
       (9) capacity-building to women, including poor women, to 
     promote diversification of products and value-added 
     processing;
       (10) training to official government negotiators 
     representing developing countries in order to enhance the 
     ability of such negotiators to formulate trade policy and 
     negotiate agreements that take into account the respective 
     needs and priorities of a country's poor women and men;
       (11) training to local, indigenous women's groups in 
     developing countries in order to enhance their ability to 
     collect information and data, formulate proposals, and inform 
     and impact official government negotiators representing their 
     country in international trade negotiations of the respective 
     needs and priorities of a country's poor women and men; and
       (12) technical assistance and capacity-building to local, 
     indigenous civil society for--
       (A) local indigenous women's organizations to the maximum 
     extent practicable; and
       (B) nongovernmental organizations and regulated financial 
     intermediaries that demonstrate a commitment to gender equity 
     in their leadership either through current practice or 
     through specific programs to increase the representation of 
     women in their governance and management.


                            peacekeeping cap

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

                      limitation on basing in iraq

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

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


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

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


[[Page 16843]]


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


                     prohibition on use of torture

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


                    report on indonesian cooperation

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


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

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


      governments that have failed to permit certain extraditions

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


         international monetary fund budget and hiring ceilings

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


                          environment programs

       Sec. 691. (a) Funding.--Of the funds appropriated under the 
     heading ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', not less than 
     $501,000,000 shall be made available for programs and 
     activities which directly protect biodiversity and promote 
     clean energy.
       (b) Climate Change Report.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date on which the President's fiscal year 2009 budget 
     request is submitted to Congress, the President shall submit 
     a report to the Committees on Appropriations describing in 
     detail the following--
       (1) all Federal agency obligations and expenditures, 
     domestic and international, for climate change programs and 
     activities in fiscal year 2009, including an accounting of 
     expenditures by agency with each agency identifying climate 
     change activities and associated costs by line item as 
     presented in the President's Budget Appendix; and
       (2) all fiscal year 2007 obligations and estimated 
     expenditures, fiscal year 2008 estimated expenditures and 
     estimated obligations, and fiscal year 2009 requested funds 
     by

[[Page 16844]]

     the United States Agency for International Development, by 
     country and central program, for each of the following:
       (A) to promote the transfer and deployment of a wide range 
     of United States clean energy and energy efficiency 
     technologies;
       (B) to assist in the measurement, monitoring, reporting, 
     verification, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
       (C) to promote carbon capture and sequestration measures;
       (D) to help meet such countries' responsibilities under the 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
       (E) to develop assessments of the vulnerability to impacts 
     of climate change and mitigation and adaptation response 
     strategies.
       (c) Extraction of Natural Resources.--(1) The Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall inform the managements of the 
     international financial institutions and the public that it 
     is the policy of the United States that any assistance by 
     such institutions (including but not limited to any loan, 
     credit, grant, or guarantee) for the extraction and export of 
     oil, gas, coal, timber, or other natural resource should not 
     be provided unless the government of the country has in place 
     or is taking the necessary steps to establish functioning 
     systems for:
       (A) accurately accounting for revenues and expenditures in 
     connection with the extraction and export of the type of 
     natural resource to be extracted or exported;
       (B) the independent auditing of such accounts and the 
     widespread public dissemination of the audits; and
       (C) verifying government receipts against company payments 
     including widespread dissemination of such payment 
     information, and disclosing such documents as Host Government 
     Agreements, Concession Agreements, and bidding documents, 
     allowing in any such dissemination or disclosure for the 
     redaction of, or exceptions for, information that is 
     commercially proprietary or that would create competitive 
     disadvantage.
       (2) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations describing, for each 
     international financial institution, the amount and type of 
     assistance provided, by country, for the extraction and 
     export of oil, gas, coal, timber, or other national resource 
     since September 30, 2005.


                               uzbekistan

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


    discrimination against minority religious faiths in the russian 
                               federation

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


                          war crimes in africa

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


        combatting piracy of united states copyrighted materials

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


                    oversight of iraq reconstruction

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


                 united nations headquarters renovation

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


                           neglected diseases

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

[[Page 16845]]

     maximize the leverage of United States contributions with 
     those of other donors: Provided further, That funds made 
     available pursuant to this section shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                          assistance for egypt

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

                              {time}  1845


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boustany

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, first let me start by saying I have deep 
respect for the work that Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf have 
done with this bill. I also have shared the major concerns that both of 
you have with regard to the internal Egyptian reforms that you're 
advocating. I share those same concerns. I am also deeply concerned 
about the border situation between Egypt and Gaza and the smuggling of 
arms that's ongoing.
  My amendment takes a step to strike the language in section 699 from 
the bill that I believe unnecessarily places restrictions on the FMF 
funding for Egypt. I believe these restrictions are actually harmful to 
U.S. national strategic interests.
  I have to say that clearly Egypt has been a vital strategic partner 
in the region for many, many years, and this is not the way that the 
U.S. should treat its friends and reward its friends.
  If you look at the record, Egypt has worked with us to expedite the 
processing of our nuclear warships going through the Suez Canal when 
otherwise it would take weeks. Also, the Egyptian Government has shared 
critical intelligence with us across the board, and there has been 
significant military cooperation for quite some time now.
  The other things that have happened is that Egypt has worked hard to 
maintain the March 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. And even as we 
speak tonight, there are plans being facilitated by Egypt to bring Ehud 
Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas together at Sharm el-Sheikh next week. So 
clearly Egypt is trying to do what it can to help facilitate the peace 
process.
  I believe this funding is a critical part of keeping the peace with 
Israel, maintaining balance in this part of the region. And also I 
believe it's in the interest of Israel's national security as well, in 
addition to being in our national security interest.
  The current language in the bill would place, I believe, unrealistic 
restrictions. It requires the Secretary of State to provide certain 
certifications which are going to be very difficult to provide. And it 
may just simply end up being political cover. And in the interest of 
good policy, without browbeating our important ally Egypt in this 
process, I think we can work with them in a more cooperative way as we 
go forward to achieve the things that we're trying to achieve, such as 
getting stability on the border with Gaza, reducing the smuggling or 
arms, and also moving forward on internal reforms in Egypt itself.
  This ally is important. I think we need to work with them. We need to 
understand their timelines, and work with them and respect that 
timeline as we go forward.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment.
  Section 699, as proposed in this Foreign Operations bill, risks 
undermining the significant progress we have made in a vital strategic 
partnership.
  Mr. Chairman, it is critical to remember that our friend and ally 
Egypt led the Arab world in establishing a model for peaceful 
cooperation in the Middle East. The Camp David Accords ushered in an 
unprecedented era of cooperation between Egypt and the United States, 
as well as between Egypt and Israel. This peace has held for nearly 30 
years. The benefits to the world have been very significant, and the 
consequences, particularly to Egypt, have also been considerable, 
including the assassination of former President Anwar Sadat.
  Egypt has been the cultural and historical center of the Arab world 
and is poised to play a significant role in fostering peace and 
maintaining a very delicate balance of stability in the Middle East. 
Even now, as my colleague mentioned, Egyptian President Mubarak is 
preparing for an emergency summit with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, 
King Abdullah of Jordan, and Palestinian President Abbas to address the 
potentially explosive situation in Gaza.
  Mr. Chairman, I had actually hoped to offer an amendment today to 
section 699 to help address the serious concerns involving the 
smuggling of arms, weapons and contraband across the border into Gaza, 
a pressing concern which has become even more urgent given recent news. 
However, this amendment would not have been ruled in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the desire of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee to see progress on human rights and civil 
reform in Egypt. I deeply share this concern as well and eagerly look 
for the right mechanism to achieve this goal. But I oppose the 
methodology of penalizing our diplomatic and military cooperation 
efforts.
  U.S.-Middle East policy is complex and a delicate undertaking, at 
best. And despite the good intentions here, I fear that section 699 
could backfire and harm one of our best and most vital strategic 
relationships in the region.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague. I think he's right on the spot.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, this is a difficult and sensitive issue 
that the House has debated many times before in many different ways.
  We all know that Egypt is an important ally of the United States. We 
all know that Egypt plays a very important role in the Middle East, and 
that role will even be more crucial in the months ahead. We all know 
that Egypt was the first Arab country to have made peace with Israel, 
and that the peace, while not nearly as warm or as forward-leaning as 
many of us would have liked, has held for close to 30 years. That is 
why Egypt has consistently received more foreign assistance in this 
bill than virtually any country other than Israel. And that is true of 
this year's bill as well.
  Nevertheless, there is a frustration level with our very good ally 
over two key issues, the Egyptian Government's increasingly harsh 
response to dissent of any kind and the government's failure to take 
serious steps to stopping the smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.
  When Israel withdrew all of its population and military forces from 
Gaza nearly 2 years ago, one of the biggest concerns was what to do 
about Gaza's border with Egypt. Some in Israel argued that Israeli 
forces should remain at the border to ensure that it did not become an 
opening to allow the smuggling of weapons and terrorists to Gaza. Those 
who argue that Israel

[[Page 16846]]

needed to completely withdraw and that Egypt could effectively play 
that role ultimately prevailed. Israel and Egypt even reworked parts of 
their peace agreement to allow for an expanded Egyptian force on that 
border. Unfortunately, however, those forces have not done the job, 
have not stopped the smuggling.
  As was highlighted so vividly during the recent fighting in Gaza, the 
forces of Hamas are very well equipped. The bulk of that equipment has 
come through that border. Especially now that Hamas has effectively 
taken over in Gaza, it is critically important that Egypt do everything 
within its power, including stopping these armed shipments before they 
even get to the Gaza border, to put an end to this deadly arms trade.
  The language in the bill does not cut aid to Egypt, which many have 
wanted to do, I can assure you. It simply fences off a portion of 
Egypt's assistance, pending a report and certification by the Secretary 
of State that Egypt is taking steps to, one, enact a new judicial law; 
two, to curb police abuses; three, to detect and destroy the smuggling 
network into Gaza.
  I believe it is a moderate and reasonable approach to two very 
difficult and important issues that we have discussed on numerous 
occasions, to no avail, with our good friends in Egypt.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from 
California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Lantos.
  Mr. LANTOS. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I want to speak 
very strongly to support her position.
  The nightmare that is unfolding in Gaza is in no small measure the 
responsibility of the Government of Egypt.
  Egypt has a huge military, and it boggles the mind to assume that the 
Egyptian military would not have been able to seal Gaza from the 
constant flow of drugs, weapons and persons being trafficked into Gaza 
had they attempted to do so.
  Now, we all understand that the prime culprit in Gaza is Hamas, the 
terrorist organization. A secondary culprit is the previous corrupt 
regime of Yasser Arafat, which led to the parliamentary victory of 
Hamas. But the Egyptian Government has a heavy responsibility for what 
is the present situation in Gaza. It is a terrorist-controlled area, 
weapons flowing in, drugs flowing in, trafficked persons flowing in. 
And to have the minimum of a certification by our Secretary of State 
that at the very least Egypt at long last has decided to control this 
very dangerous border is an extremely modest measure. I would have 
preferred far more severe measures in this regard, but I strongly 
support this measure.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to Mr. 
Ellison.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman and commend 
the gentlewoman for her good wisdom and excellent intentions behind 
section 699 which would conditionalize aid to Egypt. However, I must 
rise in support of the amendment that has been brought by Mr. Boustany 
because I believe that the impact of this piece in the bill would 
signal to the region a very hostile and unhealthy message.
  The message that we should be sending to allies in the region is that 
we want to work constructively and productively to seal that border. I 
would point out that sealing borders is no easy enterprise. But I also 
believe that with a greater amount of help and with proper resources 
that the border could well be sealed between Gaza and Egypt.
  This conditionalizing sends a signal that Egypt, that it is criticism 
of Egypt, that Egypt is somehow not putting forth the proper effort. 
Given that Egypt is such a long-standing and important ally, I think 
this is not the right message to send.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that no subcommittee chairman 
presided over the provision of more financial aid to Egypt than I did 
during the 10 years that I was chairman of the subcommittee.
  I think it is also fair to say that I have, on many occasions, tried 
to see to it that when this body looked at questions in the Middle East 
that it looked at the interests of all of the parties fairly. But I 
rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  We have a dilemma. Egypt is an important and welcome ally. I have 
always considered them to be a friend. They have played a very 
constructive role in the Middle East. But in recent years, I am sad to 
say, Egypt has displayed an increasingly brutal repression of freedom 
that is contrary to everything that America is supposed to stand for. 
We have seen the beating of demonstrators in Bull Connor fashion. We 
have seen the jailing of political opponents.
  We have to speak out. Unlike some wildly romantic beliefs of some of 
the neocons in this country, like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the 
Vice President, I do not naively believe that we can force democracy 
down the throats of a region that has had little experience with it. We 
have seen in the case of Hamas how democratic forms can be abused and 
subverted by undemocratic means. But, nonetheless, I do believe that we 
have an obligation to expect that countries with whom we are so closely 
associated will perform within certain norms of decency when it comes 
to the question of human rights.
  To indicate our concern, while still expressing our respect for a 
treasured friend, we have fenced $200 million in military aid until the 
administration can honesty certify that Egypt has greatly improved its 
human rights conduct and has done more to effectively prevent the 
illicit supply of arms from being smuggled into Gaza.
  In my view, this is a balanced approach. It does not cut off aid. It 
leaves options open. It certainly leaves a very large amount of 
military aid to Egypt unfettered in any way whatsoever, enough to 
continue all existing ongoing military contracts.
  It is a balanced approach. It is a nuanced approach. It is aimed at 
military aid, because only the military in the Egyptian government, in 
my view, has the influence to make this come to a responsible and 
friendly conclusion.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment so 
that America can send a message consistent with our values, while still 
recognizing our geopolitical relationships.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
the committee's language. In fact, I think the language is very 
moderate, perhaps even, from my own perspective, a little bit too 
moderate because I think we could have put some other conditions on it.
  Ayman Nour is still in prison. I visited Ayman Nour's wife. He is 
still in prison. He is not very, very well. We have interceded on his 
behalf, the Congress and everyone else. But Ayman Nour is still in 
prison.
  The Coptic Christians. The life of the Coptic Christians is worse 
today than it has been for a long while. So if you're a Coptic 
Christian in Egypt, you're in trouble.
  For the Baha'is, the Baha'is in Egypt just live the most miserable 
life that you can possibly live. They are not even recognized. They 
cannot even get a card for a driver's license. They are a nonentity. 
They are not even there. They are not. So they can't move. They can't 
do anything.
  There is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian editorials and cartoons in 
their newspapers. Just look at what they say. The government controls 
those newspapers. So if a government controls a newspaper and anti-
Semitism and anti-Christian language is in there, does that not mean 
that someone in the government is saying that?

[[Page 16847]]

  Also, the language is moderate. They gunned down the Sudanese. I was 
there shortly after they gunned down the Sudanese. There are many 
Sudanese that live there, and they gunned them down. There is police 
brutality.
  The Gaza. The gentleman, Mr. Lantos, was right with regard to the 
Gaza. They have a powerful military. They could be doing much, much 
more.
  Egypt is a great nation. It is a great nation. They are great people. 
They are our friends. But friends have to be honest with friends.
  Mr. Obey was exactly right. We have given them, Mr. Obey would have 
this figure better than I would, over $15 billion. Martin Luther King 
said, in the end, we will remember not the words that were of our 
enemies but the silence of our friend. As a friend, for us not to speak 
out on this issue, we would be derelict in our duty. We would be 
derelict in our duty.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, 
and in support of it, and would say to the gentlewoman, the Chairwoman, 
it would have sent a very refreshing message if one of the other 
conditionalities had been with regard to the Coptic Christians, who are 
very patriotic people in Egypt and who love their country and who 
always speak proudly of their country and who always honor their 
country; and also if we had conditionality language with regard to the 
Baha'is. But I think Mr. Obey is right. I agree with the Chairwoman. I 
would hope that we would defeat the amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, during times of crisis, the United 
States has always supported her friends. Egypt is our friend. Egypt is 
not only our friend, Egypt is our strategic partner, our peace partner 
and our military partner in the Middle East. It is shameful how we are 
treating our friend with the restrictions on military aid to Egypt in 
this bill. As such, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by 
Rep. Anthony Weiner removing $200 million in military aid to Egypt, and 
in strong support of the amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany allowing 
military support to continue to Egypt without conditions. Egypt and the 
United States have a valuable, key and strategic partnership, one that 
has been underscored by the recent developments in the Gaza Strip. It 
would be toxic to the relationship that the United States has with 
Egypt, and our relationship to those moderate Arab states in the Middle 
East, for this bill to be adopted with these restrictions.
  In April of this year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that: 
``I have long considered Egypt one of America's most important, even 
indispensable, partners. . . Security challenges in the Middle East are 
significant, but can be overcome by Egypt and the United States working 
closely together in the region.'' Just last week, the world saw Hamas 
take over the Gaza Strip. Hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women, 
children, senior citizens, and the disabled are fleeing this region as 
refugees, many ending up in Egypt.
  In response to this crisis, Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, has 
invited Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President 
Mahmoud Abbas, and Jordan's President King Abdullah II for a summit 
this Monday, June 25, 2007 in an effort to negotiate peace in this 
region. I commend to my colleagues the following portion of an article 
dated June 21, 2007 from the Associated Press that goes into more 
detail about the summit:

       Ramallah, West Bank.--Closing ranks against Hamas, Egypt's 
     president invited Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders 
     to a peace summit, officials said Thursday, the biggest show 
     of support yet by moderate Arab states for beleaguered 
     Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
       The meeting will take place Monday in the Red Sea resort of 
     Sharm el-Sheikh, said Israeli government spokeswoman Miri 
     Eisin. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has invited Abbas, 
     Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jordan's King Abdullah 
     II. Jordan confirmed Abdullah would attend.
       Abbas will call for a resumption of peace talks with 
     Israel, arguing that only progress toward Palestinian 
     statehood can serve as a true buffer against Hamas, which 
     took control of Gaza by force last week, Abbas aide Saeb 
     Erekat said.
       ``The most important thing to realize is that time is of 
     the essence,'' Erekat said. ``We need to deliver the end of 
     occupation, a Palestinian state. If we don't have hope, Hamas 
     will export despair to the people.''
       As immediate steps, Abbas will ask Israel to remove West 
     Bank checkpoints that disrupt daily life and trade, and to 
     transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in Palestinian tax 
     funds Israel froze after Hamas came to power last year.
       Also on Thursday, Palestinian dual nationals and foreigners 
     working in Gaza were allowed to pass through Israel for other 
     points. About 60 Palestinian-Americans left Gaza for Jordan, 
     and eight World Bank employees left the coastal strip, an 
     Israeli army spokeswoman said.
       Late Wednesday, 35 Gazans who had been stuck at the main 
     Gaza-Israel passenger crossing for several days were sent to 
     Egypt via Israel, the spokeswoman said. Among those who left 
     were gunmen from Abbas' Fatah movement, their wives and 
     children.
       Hundreds of men, women and children rushed to the crossing 
     after the Hamas takeover, among them Fatah loyalists who 
     feared they'd be harmed by Hamas, despite the militants' 
     offer of amnesty. By Thursday, the passage, rank with the 
     stench of urine and garbage, was nearly empty after it became 
     clear that a mass exit to the West Bank was not approved.
       Earlier Wednesday, Israel took in several of the sick and 
     wounded in the crowd.
       In Washington, Olmert said he would propose to his Cabinet 
     on Sunday that it unlock frozen funds, though he did not say 
     how much money he thought Israel should free. Israel is 
     holding about $550 million in tax revenues it collects on 
     behalf of the Palestinians.
       Despite the talk about peace, however, the Hamas takeover 
     has dealt a setback to statehood efforts, with the Islamic 
     militants in charge of Gaza and Abbas in charge of the West 
     Bank.''

  This Amendment is even opposed by the President. In a statement of 
White House policy, the Office on Management and Budget says:
  ``The Administration opposes the prohibition on a portion of the 
foreign military financing to Egypt contained in section 699. Military 
assistance is critical to our strategic partnership with Egypt and has 
contributed to a broad range of U.S. objectives in the region. Such a 
restriction will undermine the U.S. relationship with Egypt and send 
the wrong message to this important ally in the region.''
  As a former Member of this subcommittee, I personally appreciate the 
challenges that Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Minority Member Wolf not 
only face, but surpass. This bill provides significant funding 
increases for many programs that I have, and will continue to, support.
  My objection is to Section 699 of the bill, a new provision, which 
sets conditions on $200 million of the $1.3 billion in military 
assistance to Egypt. This assistance is pending certification of the 
Secretary of State that Egypt is taking steps toward enactment of a new 
judicial law, including the principal components of the law and 
separation of the budget of the judiciary from that of the Ministry of 
Justice; steps to review criminal procedures and mass demonstrations by 
Egypt's police force; and steps to detect and destroy the smuggling 
network into the Gaza strip.
  The Thirteenth Congressional District of Michigan contains one of the 
highest concentrations of Arabs in the United States. These tax-paying, 
hard-working Americans demand that the United States respect not just 
their homeland, but the past, present and future effort that Egypt has 
made manifest over the years as a strategic partner and toward peace. 
To remove this key support from Egypt, at this point, would signal an 
unnecessary reticence by the United States toward one of the few allies 
we have in the Middle East.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support Egypt, to support peace in 
the Middle East, and to support the amendment offered by my colleague 
from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany and oppose the amendment offered 
by my colleague from New York, Congressman Weiner.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  relief for the hmong and montagnards

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

[[Page 16848]]

     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(B)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``Subclause (VII)'' and replacing it with 
     ``Subclause (IX)''.


                  report on anti-corruption activities

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


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

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

                              {time}  1915


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 20, 2007, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of 
entry, and specifically I believe that we should prevent additional 
countries from joining the United States visa waiver program until we 
have technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. I do 
not believe our Nation can afford to allow more visitors in the United 
States without screening them prior to arrival.
  This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate 
additional visa waiver countries. The State Department should not be 
using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable 
and tamper-resistant biometric identification standards that were 
mandated by the U.S. PATRIOT Act as a cornerstone of the entry-exit 
system are fully operational. We refer to that, Mr. Chairman, as the 
US-VISIT program. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I 
believe it is too risky to negotiate additional countries without first 
having our security screening system in place.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to provide more opportunities for 
terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How much time does our 
Nation have before ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement, the air 
marshals or the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the 
next Richard Reid?
  For example, Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan 
descent, a name we all know very well, actually used his French 
passport, without a U.S. visa, on February 23, 2001. He flew from 
London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City, where he began the flight 
training at an aviation school.
  Fortunately, on August 16, 2001, INS arrested Moussaoui because he 
had remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days that were 
allowed under the visa waiver program entrants and he was in violation 
of the requirement that visa waiver program travelers enter for 
business or tourism. Had INS and law enforcement not been literally on 
top of their game, Mr. Speaker, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 
9/11 attacks. That was his intent. We stopped him, but he was here on a 
visa waiver.
  A more recent example can be summarized in a June 18, just this 
month, 2007, ABC News reported about suicide bombers who were sent to 
the United States and Europe after being trained in Afghanistan. The 
story references this recent terrorist video where the Taliban military 
commander, Mansoor Dadullah, is found saying in this video, ``These 
Americans, Canadians, British and Germans, come here to Afghanistan 
from faraway places.'' This story further confirms, Mr. Speaker, what 
we already know: Terrorist forces are recruiting from the Western 
World, the same countries who are established members of our visa 
waiver program.
  I feel that we cannot continue a loophole that allows homegrown 
European terrorists access to the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver program was only designed to be a 
temporary program for a small and select group of nations, starting 
with the U.K., Japan and France. Now, 27 countries participate in the 
visa waiver program, believe me, enough to keep ICE and TSA exceedingly 
busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add a 28th and 29th country 
to their list of responsibilities?
  I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't 
carry through with our commitment to security first. I ask my 
colleagues, please, support this commonsense Gingrey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, I have mixed feelings about this amendment. I 
don't think that the appropriations bill is the proper place to 
consider issues that are clearly authorization issues, and yet I know 
that there is considerable concern about this program.
  Let me simply say that in the interests of time and because I think 
the equities are split, that we would be willing to accept the 
gentleman's amendment, with the understanding that we would need to 
give the administration an opportunity in conference to express any 
concerns about it and consider any adjustments that might be made that 
would be mutually agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his willingness to understand 
the necessity of the amendment. Indeed, I appreciate it and will agree 
to that, and hope the administration will follow through on the 
amendment. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

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

[[Page 16849]]




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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Tancredo-Chabot amendment would prevent the State 
Department from expending any funds to enforce several arbitrary and 
archaic guidelines that inhibit or altogether prevent U.S. officials 
from communicating with their counterparts in Taiwan. These 
restrictions range from just silly to downright absurd.
  Among other things, the so-called guidelines do not permit meetings 
with Taiwanese diplomats or elected officials in State Department 
buildings, the White House or Old Executive Office Building. They 
prevent executive branch personnel from the Foreign Affairs agencies 
and those above the rank of GS-14 from attending Taiwan's annual 
reception in Washington. They prevent executive branch personnel from 
attending meetings at Twin Oaks, the former residence of Taiwan's 
Ambassador here in Washington. They prevent travel to Taiwan by 
officials above a certain rank from the Defense Department and the 
State Department. They prohibit executive branch personnel from 
corresponding directly with Taiwan officials.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would be 
prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment, with the understanding 
that the committee will continue to investigate the effect of the 
amendment as we take it to conference with the other body later in the 
year.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
will be very brief. I appreciate the gentleman and I don't want to take 
time here. I would just make a couple of points.
  This amendment is long overdue. Taiwan is our friend. It is a 
longtime democratic ally and a major trading partner. Just across the 
Taiwan Strait you have Communist China, with its more than 900 missiles 
pointed directly at Taiwan. China operates under a dictatorship. Its 
human rights record is abysmal. It ignores the rule of law. It 
practices religious persecution. It warehouses political prisoners. It 
carries out an unconscionable coercive abortion policy. Yet when it 
comes to dealing with the two nations diplomatically, we often treat 
Taiwan like a pariah nation and kowtow to the Beijing bullies.
  So I would commend the gentleman from Colorado for bringing forth 
this amendment, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman for 
accepting the amendment.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, as co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan 
Caucus, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long, we have allowed China to dictate our 
relationship with Taiwan. If anything, it should be the other way 
around. Taiwan consistently holds free and fair democratic elections. 
Taiwan respects human rights and labor standards. Taiwan is a free, 
democratic nation.
  As the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we have an 
obligation to support other democracies and nurture them around the 
globe. We must be a beacon, a light to the world, showing the way 
forward for other democracies. Only then, will democracy finally 
flourish--and only if we show the way.
  Mr. Chairman, our priorities are backwards when we place China's 
concerns ahead of a democratic country's. We must end these arbitrary 
and archaic restrictions on our relations with Taiwan. I urge support 
for this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
offer, and I yield back the balance of my time and accept the offer you 
have made to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Herseth Sandlin

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by 
my colleague and good friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, as well as 
Mr. DeFazio of Oregon, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas, Mr. Sherman of 
California and Mr. Tancredo of Colorado.
  The amendment is simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the 
use of funds in the bill to implement the Diversity Visa Program 
otherwise known as the ``visa lottery.''
  The visa lottery program was established in 1990 and awards about 
50,000 permanent-resident visas to foreign nationals by conducting a 
random lottery. In the last Congress, the State Department's inspector 
general testified before Congress that the Office of the Inspector 
General ``continues to believe that the Diversity Visa Program contains 
significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence 
officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to use the program for 
entry into the United States as permanent residents.''
  If for no other reason, national security is too important to allow 
this institutional randomness in our immigration policy. The visa 
lottery injects a level of unnecessary and responsible uncertainty into 
the immigration process. Our amendment is a practical provision that 
will make our Nation safer.
  When the House considered its immigration bill in the 109th Congress, 
the gentleman from Virginia and I joined together to offer an amendment 
eliminating the visa lottery program, and it passed with strong 
bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to provide similarly strong 
support to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota for yielding and for her leadership in bringing forth this 
amendment, which corrects a grievous problem with our immigration 
system.
  This visa lottery program is clearly unfair to lawful immigrant 
applicants who are abiding by our rules and going through the process. 
It pushes 50,000 people chosen totally at random ahead of hundreds of 
thousands of law-abiding immigrants waiting to be reunified with their 
families.
  The program is wrought with fraud. The State Department inspector 
general has said that the visa lottery program is subject to widespread 
abuse, and that identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are 
commonplace.
  A simple click on the State Department's visa lottery Web site is 
very revealing. The first thing you will notice on that Web site is a 
warning in bold red font about fraudulent websites and individuals. 
Indeed, a cottage industry has sprung up of individuals using the visa 
lottery program to take advantage of foreign nationals.
  No skills are necessary to enter the lottery. As we look around the 
country for programs that help meet needs of

[[Page 16850]]

reunifying families or job skills for which there is a shortage in the 
United States, we have a program that gives 50,000 visas based on pure 
luck, and the applicants must only have the equivalent of a high school 
diploma. But the State Department has indicated they often have very 
few resources to make even this determination in countries that do not 
have systems similar to the United States.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is a national security 
threat. This program of selection purely at random makes it possible 
for visa lottery participants to be people who are from countries that 
are known to be state sponsors of terror. Nothing would prevent 
terrorist organizations from submitting numerous names for the lottery, 
and, as long as they don't have criminal backgrounds, they can receive 
not just a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers had, but a permanent-
resident visa to be permanently in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. The visa lottery 
program is based on the absurd notion that the group of people coming 
to the United States are insufficiently diverse. There has never been 
such a diverse group of people.
  The diversity lottery discriminates against those who live in Mexico, 
China or the Philippines on the theory, an absurd theory, that an 
immigrant from Paraguay will add more to American culture than one from 
Mexico. I think it is time to end this absurd cultural discrimination.
  It makes sense for our country to let people come here for family 
unification or because the immigrant brings special skills. The 
diversity lottery admits people who bring neither. They need no family 
ties nor special skills.
  Our other immigration programs require that the person either have a 
job or a family member who will issue an affidavit of support. Those 
coming here under the visa lottery have neither, and therefore are free 
to become a charge to our taxpayers.
  I look forward to having a comprehensive immigration law so that our 
immigration laws make sense, but let's kill the one element of our 
immigration laws that make the least sense now. We shouldn't 
discriminate against those with family in the United States, those with 
special skills, or those from Mexico, China or the Philippines, on the 
theory that somehow we enhance our culture more by admitting immigrants 
from one country as opposed to another.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for a brief 
discussion on the issue of the persecution of Coptic Christians in 
Egypt.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see a subject touched on here and 
would hope that Chairman Obey would be aware that under the State and 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill for 2008, $200 million of the 
$1.3 billion military assistance for Egypt will be withheld until the 
Secretary of State certifies that the Government of Egypt has taken 
concrete steps to reform its judiciary, to curb police abuses and 
address concerns about the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza.
  I strongly support this provision, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 
request that an additional provision, if the chairman would consider it 
at some point, be added to ensure that the Government of Egypt also 
increase protections for human rights according to Egypt's own 
international human rights commitments, including the religious freedom 
of members of religious minorities, such as the Coptic Christians and 
Baha'is, among others.
  I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the committee would 
be so inclined at some point, if we could work with him in any way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, at this point I 
am simply standing in for the subcommittee chair, but I would simply 
say that while I am not frankly as totally familiar with the issue as I 
am with, for instance, the record of the Egyptian Government in jailing 
Mr. Nour and other political opponents, I certainly have seen that 
concern expressed many times, and I would think the conferees would be 
interested in improving human rights records on Egypt's part with 
respect to all groups, including Coptic Christians.

                              {time}  1930

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply prevent the 
State Department from continuing to selectively ignore Federal statute.
  The Federal statute in question instructs the State Department to 
discontinue the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to 
citizens of countries who refuse our attempts to repatriate or deport 
their nationals. As I mentioned, the State Department often chooses to 
disregard this statute.
  In fact, some dozen nations around the world routinely refuse to 
accept their citizens who have come here illegally or violated the 
terms of their visas. Iraq is just one example. As a result, Iraqi 
aliens who would otherwise be deported are free to remain in the United 
States.
  Last year, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking why an Iraqi 
national by the name of Gavan Alkadi was not deported but instead was 
released into the public. Gavan Alkadi have been convicted of an 
aggravated felony and has been arrested nearly 70 times in Colorado.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I would yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. As I understand this amendment, it simply indicates that 
the Department ought to enforce the law. I am not really inclined to 
object to that. In the interest of time, I am willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I appreciate the gentleman's offer.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for offering this amendment with me. I'll be brief because I

[[Page 16851]]

don't think many Members here need to be convinced that we need our 
Government agencies to enforce the laws we give them and that they 
aren't arbitrary.
  Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the 
State Department to discontinue the issuance of visas to nations who 
fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered removed by our 
Government.
  Unfortunately, this step by our Government has never been taken. Why? 
The gentleman from Colorado and I joined on a letter to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ask this very 
question. The chart I have here indicates the response we received and 
I quote:

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

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

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

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

                   Amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski:

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the 
funds made available in this bill may be used to purchase light bulbs 
for operation in the United States unless the light bulbs have the 
``Energy Star'' or the ``Federal Energy Management Program'' 
designation. What this means is that light bulbs purchased will have to 
be high-efficiency light bulbs.
  Right now, the most common high-efficiency bulbs are the compact 
fluorescent light bulb, known as a CFL. CFLs use approximately 75 
percent less energy than incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount 
of light. They also last approximately eight to ten times longer. 
Replacing an ordinary bulb with a comparable CFL saves up to $74 in 
energy costs over the bulb's lifetime.
  Today, Americans are rightly concerned about the impact of foreign 
energy dependence on our national security and the effect of global 
climate change on the future of our planet. This amendment helps us 
address both of these issues, while at the same time saving millions of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. In light of the fact that you and the other sponsors of the 
amendment have worked to narrow the scope of the amendment to just the 
funds that are involved to operations in the United States, the 
committee would be happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the chairman 
for accepting this. This is part of what we are working on.
  I introduced a bill to require all GSA buildings to use high-
efficiency bulbs. Mr. Inglis and I introduced this earlier this year. 
It is included in a comprehensive climate change bill which was 
reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday. 
I am very hopeful we can get this done through that piece of 
legislation for all GSA buildings, but this amendment here is a good 
start.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering with my good friends 
from Washington and New York simply shifts $50 million from military 
aid for Pakistan to the Emergency Refugee and Mitigation Assistance 
Account. It would leave $250 million in Pakistani military aid, the 
same level that appeared in the chairwoman's original mark.
  In many areas of Federal spending, Congress has to make tough choices 
amongst important competing priorities. However, the choice between

[[Page 16852]]

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


                             Point of Order

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

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

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

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

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, the conviction of Dr. Haile-Mariam and other members of 
the opposition party is adverse to the principles of democracy, freedom 
and human rights that the United States promotes across the globe. More 
importantly, the conviction of these individuals is contrary to the 
commitment Ethiopia has made in recent years to

[[Page 16853]]

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


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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

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


   LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE INSTITUTE FOR 
                          SECURITY COOPERATION

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It ensures that no 
funds in this bill can be used for programs at the Western Hemisphere 
Institute for Security Cooperation, otherwise known as WHINSEC. It does 
not affect the funds in the Defense appropriations bill where the 
majority of WHINSEC's funding is provided.
  Last year was the first debate on the WHINSEC, the successor to the 
U.S. Army School of the Americas. Since last year, the WHINSEC has made 
a number of very disturbing decisions that bring into question its 
much-vaunted commitment to transparency and democratic values.
  For example, last year's debate brought to light a number of human 
rights cases involving WHINSEC students and instructors. Instead of 
using these cases as an opportunity to review its practices and 
procedures, instead of strengthening the vetting process and fixing any 
problems that might exist, the WHINSEC chose to attack the messengers.
  It asserted that Salvadoran Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz, 
responsible for the notorious 1983 Las Hojas massacre, never attended 
the WHINSEC. I guess they didn't check their own records because here 
is his name on the list of 2003 graduates.
  They attacked the reputation of the current Bolivian Human Rights 
Ombudsman, Waldo Albarracin, saying that he has no recollection of the 
military captain who had him kidnapped and tortured in 1997, the same 
Major Urzagaste who was at the WHINSEC in 2002. When Mr. Albarracin 
heard of this slander, he sent me a letter describing what happened to 
him and the role of Urzagaste.
  Mr. Chairman, like similar cases regarding corruption charges against 
three Colombian officers who attended the school, the WHINSEC dismissed 
the horror of Mr. Albarracin's torture as without merit because the 
courts dropped the case. Are WHINSEC officials ignorant about how 
military officers acted with impunity in Bolivia during the 1990s? Or 
in El Salvador during the 1980s? Are they ignorant of how the Colombian 
military benefits from the worst culture of impunity in the hemisphere 
today? The fact that charges of kidnapping, torture, murder, drug 
trafficking and corruption are routinely dropped is a major problem 
with Latin American militaries, not a virtue. Even more disturbing is 
how the WHINSEC responded to criticism. It chose to build a fortress 
around itself, to make sure that no one in the public, no human rights 
organization, no foreign policy analyst, would be able to review the 
names of WHINSEC's graduates and instructors.
  For the first time in the history of WHINSEC, including the 40-year 
history of its infamous predecessor, the School of the Americas, 
Freedom of Information Act requests are being denied. I have in my 
hands the school's response regarding 2005 graduates. Every single name 
is blacked out. Look at it, 18 pages, completely redacted. Is this 
anyone's idea of transparency? Of open relations with human rights and 
other policy organizations? This was a deliberate choice. The practice 
of secrecy extends to WHINSEC's public relations materials, where not a 
single solitary name of any of its Latin American students or teachers 
appears. So blacking out the names of graduates wasn't a mistake. It 
wasn't an anomaly. It's a deliberate decision to keep information 
secret, to avoid any kind of independent scrutiny or oversight.
  Is this the example we want our Latin American counterparts to copy? 
I hope not, Mr. Chairman.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the ranking member 
for yielding to me.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a security fence around Fort Benning, but 
I would not describe the home of the Infantry as a fortress by any 
stretch of the imagination, as my colleague just referred.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Once more, my good friend, and he is 
my good friend, from Massachusetts has so confused the record that it's 
really tough to know where to begin. But let me try.
  He argues that we need to shut down WHINSEC because nearly 30 years 
ago, several graduates of a different program, the School of the 
Americas, were found to have committed atrocities in their home 
countries, a tenuous conclusion indeed. I wonder if he would argue that 
we should shut down Harvard because the Unabomber actually took some 
classes there. Mr. Chairman, of course he wouldn't. Because my friend 
knows that when a student does something awful years after graduating, 
you can't reasonably hold the school accountable. And to do so would 
let one man's action deny thousands more the opportunity to grow and to 
learn. Essentially it would be throwing the baby out with the bath 
water.
  So let's set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. Over 60,000 members 
of Latin American security forces have trained at WHINSEC and its 
predecessor since the inception of the school; 99.99 percent have 
served their countries with honor and distinction. This is the fact.
  In order to ensure that known human rights offenders are not 
attending WHINSEC, potential participants undergo background checks by 
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy, 
Human Rights and Labor and the Department of State, not vetted by 
WHINSEC.
  So I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that not one single credible 
accusation of human rights violations has been lodged against a 
graduate of WHINSEC. Not one. And I don't want the gentleman or my 
colleagues necessarily to take my word for this. I want to submit for 
the Record a letter from the United States Department of State, 
actually from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Patrick Duddy, in 
response to the Chairman of the Board of Visitors, the school board, 
WHINSEC school board, to Bishop Morlino dated January 7, 2007.


[[Page 16854]]




                            United States Department of State,

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

  Mr. Chairman, every year the gentleman from Massachusetts states that 
participation in WHINSEC is declining as Latin American nations grow 
weary of our influence. However, the numbers tell a different story. In 
2005, 686 students from Latin America attended WHINSEC. In 2006 that 
number doubled, up to 1,217. And we saw Brazil for the first time, a 
fact that can't be overlooked as they have begun to participate, and 
they are the neighbors of who else but Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
  Another important fact the gentleman eschews is that the School of 
the Americas closed in 1999. That school closed. WHINSEC opened a year 
and a half later, in 2001, totally revamped its curriculum. The mission 
for WHINSEC, Mr. Chairman, could not be clearer. It's threefold: to 
provide professional education and training to military personnel, law 
enforcement officials and civilians. Number two, foster cooperation 
among participating nations. Thirdly, to promote democratic values and, 
let me emphasize, respect for human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, WHINSEC has consistently accomplished all of these 
goals, strengthening security cooperation between the United States and 
Latin America. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee recognized 
this as much as 2 weeks ago when we unanimously voted to recommend that 
the Department of Defense continue utilizing WHINSEC to strengthen 
security cooperation in the western hemisphere. The fiscal year 08 
National Defense Authorization Act, which included this provision, 
passed this body overwhelmingly by a vote of 397-27.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman 
hasn't been listening to me. The State Department letter that he is 
quoting is essentially a whitewash. That State Department letter says 
that Cid Diaz, who I mentioned who is responsible for the Las Hojas 
massacre, never attended the WHINSEC. I just showed you right here. 
This is from the WHINSEC. He did. So the State Department was wrong. 
The State Department letter says that the Human Rights Ombudsman in 
Bolivia can't remember who his torturer was. I have a letter here from 
the Bolivian Ombudsman that says he feels he was slandered. So that 
letter is wrong. And I have proof that it is wrong.
  And you talk about accountability. Where's the accountability? This 
is the first time ever that we can't track the graduates. The school 
doesn't want to track the graduates. They say they don't have the time. 
So it has been up to human rights organizations. This is what we get in 
return. How do we know? How does anybody know? We need to do a better 
job.
  So you didn't listen to my statement, I would say respectfully to the 
gentleman from Georgia. What the State Department sent to you is wrong 
and I have the proof.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
and I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering it.
  By prohibiting any funding in this bill from being used for the 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the 
infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, 
Georgia, we can stand up for human rights, we can honor our principles 
and send a strong message to the world.
  The School of the Americas has been associated with human rights 
abuses, with many of its students linked to Latin American coups and 
vicious death squads. In 1989, graduates from the school killed six 
Jesuit priests, a housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. And 
today they have a new name, but they have not changed the school's old 
patterns of abuse and conflict. The institute continues admitting and 
graduating known human rights abusers. Yes, Colonel Francisco del Cid 
Diaz, for example, who commanded a unit responsible for a notorious 
massacre of indigenous people in El Salvador in 1983, then attended the 
institute on our own soil as recently as 2003. And there are others 
just like him. It is clear that the institute continually fails not 
only to fully investigate the prior history of its students but also to 
track their activity after graduation. That is why nations like Costa 
Rica, Argentina and Uruguay have terminated their relationship with the 
institute. It is clear neither those nations nor this one have anything 
to gain by supporting an institution with such a marred, violent 
history.
  One hundred sixty-seven U.S. Catholic bishops agree. They have 
written Congress in support of this amendment and called for the 
institute's closure, recognizing that many of its graduates have 
consistently targeted Catholic clergy and lay workers across Latin 
America. As a Congresswoman, a Catholic and an American, I believe 
every action that we take sends the whole world a clear message about 
our priorities and values as a Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern amendment, make it clear 
we are serious about human rights and that the United States of America 
does not train murderers or killers and that

[[Page 16855]]

we take the loss of human life seriously.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague from the great State of Georgia. The gentleman represents 
Fort Benning in Muscogee County, and it gives me great pleasure at this 
time to yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Gingrey, for doing 
this and his tireless work on presenting the WHINSEC good faith that 
they do.
  Mr. Chairman, it's a shame that every year defenders of the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation have to fight for its 
very existence. But the annual efforts of my colleague, Mr. McGovern, 
and others to close this important institution at least gives us a 
regular opportunity to discuss the great work done at WHINSEC in a 
national forum.
  It also gives Members of the House a chance to show their support for 
this educational institution that spreads American know-how and 
American values to our neighbors and allies throughout Latin America.
  At least since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, presidents and 
congressional leaders of both parties have included promotion of 
democracy throughout our hemisphere and the rest the world as a central 
tenet of U.S. foreign policy. The last 20 years have witnessed 
significant global progress in scores of countries. From the southern 
tip of South America to the northern reaches of Central Europe and 
throughout the Pacific Rim, the oppressed have become liberated.
  From the beginning of our Nation, we have belief that the right to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes not from man or from 
law; those rights are God-given. Thus, we knows as Americans that we 
can't take all the credit for the growth of liberty and human rights, 
but we can take pride that our Nation has served for more than 100 
years as the loudest voice, the greatest advocate and the fiercest 
defender of democracy, liberty and individual determination.
  When we must, we wield the stick. We have fought and shed blood for 
democracy on the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of Vietnam and the 
deserts of Iraq.
  When we can, we wield the carrot. We promote our values to foreign 
students and our world-leading university system by increasing 
development through trade agreements and through targeted foreign aid.
  WHINSEC is a great example of the carrot approach. It's a positive 
influence through soft power. In other words, it's a positive influence 
through education and training.
  WHINSEC is based at Fort Benning, the world's largest infantry 
training center, which is in my district. Fort Benning plays a huge 
role in training the U.S. Army, the greatest fighting force in the 
history of the world. Manuals currently used at WHINSEC are identical 
to those used to train all U.S. Army personnel. WHINSEC operates the 
most advanced and sophisticated military human rights training program 
in the world.
  Comparable training is not available from any other nation or in any 
other American training facility. Without WHINSEC, Latin American 
militaries would not have any access to training in military human 
rights.
  In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen great transition in the 
Latin American countries from the chains of totalitarianism towards the 
freedom of democracy. We have seen democratically elected governments 
become more stable, we have seen progress on free trade and more open 
markets, and we have seen economic growth.
  It's getting better, but challenges in the region remain. Fidel 
Castro and Hugo Chavez remain vocal adversaries to freedom in the 
American values.
  The arc of the universe bends toward justice, and these foes of 
freedom will fail in time, but the United States must continue to be 
the lighthouse among rocky waters. We must cooperate, educate, and 
assist our friends and our neighbors in Latin America. We do that best 
by supporting WHINSEC and the crucial work that is done there.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the McGovern amendment and let freedom 
ring throughout the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disconnect here. Let 
me again try to be crystal clear.
  The problem is that the WHINSEC takes no responsibility for knowing 
anything about the human rights records of their students before they 
come to the U.S. or when they return home. They say the vetting process 
is done by the State Department, and then they say they will not, will 
not, do follow-up after their students return to their home countries.
  How can they then claim that their training is effective? Doesn't 
that require some kind of follow-up or tracking of graduates? Nobody 
has addressed the fact that, up until just now, we would have access. 
There was public access to the people who went to the WHINSEC.
  That's how we knew about those who violated human rights, because we 
had the list. This is now the response that we get from this school 
about the people who attend the school, not just the students, but the 
instructors that they bring in. Where is the transparency? Where is the 
accountability? What's wrong with laying a little sunshine in?
  Look, our standing around the world has never been lower. I hate to 
tell you something, but in Latin America this is one of the most 
unpopular schools that exists in the United States of America. People 
think that this is a school responsible for training or at least 
turning a blind eye to human rights violators, not just from years ago 
but recently.
  But, then again, we really can't tell you accurately and neither can 
you tell me accurately what the human rights records are of these 
people who are attending. Because it's all blacked out. I mean, this is 
not the way a school in the United States that trains for our military 
should operate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it gives me great pleasure 
to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we are speaking about today and not 1983.
  I have had the opportunity, since being a Member of Congress, to work 
in the area of professional military education. I must tell you it's 
important not just for American students, American leaders, American 
service personnel, but it's important for our friends and allies as 
well.
  I have nothing but great respect, great respect for my friend, my 
colleague from Massachusetts. I know how strongly he feels in his 
beliefs. But I must say that we are doing the right thing by keeping 
this school going and going well.
  We do not teach human rights abuse. This school bestows upon its 
students standards. It teaches them military art. It teaches them 
military-to-military relationships. It also instructs in the area of 
human rights.
  I have been to Latin America several times. Three weeks ago, I 
travelled again to the region with Dr. Gingrey and Mr. Conaway, visited 
Colombia and Panama. There we met with President Uribe of Colombia, 
President Torrijos of Panama, and other senior military and political 
leaders. Without exception, the leaders of those countries touted the 
WHINSEC program in Georgia as an exceptional opportunity for their men 
and women in uniform to gain not only technical knowledge but a deeper 
understanding of human rights.
  Furthermore, spending time in the United States gives them an 
opportunity to learn of American values, gives them the opportunity to 
make friends within the American military, with whom they will 
undoubtedly, in days and years ahead, will have the opportunity to 
work.
  I spoke with our American commanders in the field. They reiterated

[[Page 16856]]

what I have heard many times before. Individuals who have been trained 
at WHINSEC performed better on their missions in their host country 
than those who have not.
  Our military commanders also cherished the relationships that they 
have built with their Latin American counterparts who participated in 
the program.
  In addition to comprehending our military culture and its operations, 
the school of graduates often are promoted and rapidly rise through the 
ranks. They understand what it is to have American values, and they 
understand about human rights which are taught there. The message from 
everyone was simple: Please keep that school open.
  Professional military education is so important, but it's also 
extremely important to allow our neighbors, our friends to the south. 
We can't forget them to participate in the professional military 
education of our country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me again make a point here that is 
that last year when we were debating this same issue, an Army officer 
trained at the School of the Americas murdered a DEA-trained anti-
narcotics unit in Colombia. This is still happening every day.
  We were told a little while ago that everything, we are referring to 
the distant past. Well, again, I mentioned the Bolivian ombudsman, Mr. 
Albarracin, who was tortured in Bolivia in 1997, and his torturer, 
Major Urzagaste, went to WHINSEC in 2002.
  Again, I am going to keep on saying this. I don't have a problem with 
training foreign militaries. What I have a problem with is this: the 
secrecy, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency.
  I am going to tell you something. We are going to find out, sooner or 
later, who some of these people are; and we are going to find out that 
they are responsible for atrocities. I gave them an example of somebody 
who was admitted to the school after he had been accused of torture.
  I mean, where is the vetting process? We need to do much better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of 
the subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. For 
years, many Members of Congress and activists, including the Maryknoll 
nuns based in my congressional district, fought to shut down the School 
of the Americas. The school's very existence was undermining United 
States efforts to promote civilian control of the military and respect 
for human rights in Latin America.
  So the Army closed the school of the Americas and reopened it a few 
weeks later with a new name, WHINSEC. Past questions about the School 
of the Americas has still not been resolved, giving us no basis on 
which to build a better, more credible, effective program at WHINSEC. 
We need to shine the light on the past of the School of the Americas in 
order to put WHINSEC on track to be a beacon of light for the 
militaries of Latin America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, how much additional time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
southwest Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who also represents Muscogee County, 
Columbus and Fort Benning.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent Fort Benning; and I represent the WHINSEC, 
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This is a 
fine institution. It's designed and it is functioning, created just in 
2001 in response to the critique that you have heard today over and 
over again to promote professional education and training to eligible 
nations in the Western Hemisphere in democratic principles that are set 
forth in the charter of the Organization of American States.
  You have heard all of this critique, but if you look at the bill 
itself that we are debating tonight, on page 65, language is put in 
here specifically to address these concerns. It says, ``That the 
Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations, no 
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, a report addressing how 
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation IMET program 
for fiscal year 2008 contributes to the promotion of human rights, 
respect for civilian authority and the rule of law, the establishment 
of legitimate judicial mechanisms for the military, and achieving the 
goal of right sizing military forces.''
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute on our side and the proponents' side so the gentleman can 
conclude his thoughts and we can have our last speaker.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of GEORGIA. The points that have been made and the 
critiques that have been made can all be addressed by the legislation 
written by the subcommittee, by the full committee in the bill and 
hopefully will be adopted by the House tonight.

                              {time}  2015

  And so I would urge the defeat of this amendment. I think that we 
need to proceed. We need to continue promoting democracy in our own 
neighborhood in the Western Hemisphere, and I think that the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation does just that, and I'd 
like for us to keep it and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I don't want any more reports. What I want is accountability. I want 
to know whose going there. I want to know what happens to them when 
they go back to their country. I want to know their backgrounds before 
they go to the school.
  You know, we knew, we found out that 19 of the 26 trigger men who 
murdered in cold blood six Jesuit priests in El Salvador were graduates 
of the school because we had access to the names. We don't have access 
to the names anymore. And no report is going to give us access to the 
names.
  We want transparency. We want accountability. There are problems 
here. We need to address them. That's our job.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak 
in opposition to this amendment.
  There are anecdotes for folks who have gone through this school at 
various stages over the last 50 years or 40 years, who have turned bad 
and been bad people. But there are hundreds, literally thousands, of 
men and women who've been trained at these schools, have gone back to 
their country of origin and taken with them the values that they get 
here, the respect for civilian authority. The human rights training 
that's gone on since the WHINSEC was reformulated, that is invaluable.
  I've been to Colombia and Panama recently with my good colleagues, 
Chairman Skelton and Dr. Gingrey and listened to the firsthand reports 
from the men and women who serve in our military who tell us that the 
men and women who are trained in this school come back to those 
countries better prepared to lead their country down a path that we 
would respect and we would want them to lead.
  So I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I have great regard for the gentleman from Texas. But my question is, 
how do you know? Do you track all these people individually? Can you 
tell me that all these people whose names have been crossed out are 
pure, that they are following a code of human rights; that they're not 
guilty of atrocities against their people?
  That's the point here. I'm not arguing against the U.S. being 
involved in training programs. What I'm saying is that there's 
something fundamentally wrong with a training program where

[[Page 16857]]

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

                                   La Paz, Bolivia, June 18, 2007.
       Dear Honorable James McGovern: I am writing to you in 
     regards to the participation of police Captain Filmann 
     Urzagaste Rodriguez in human rights violations in Bolivia, 
     specifically in relation to his involvement in my kidnapping, 
     detention and torture.
       The events took place in January of 1997, while I held the 
     presidential seat of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights 
     of Bolivia (the country's largest non governmental human 
     rights organization). On the morning of January 25th of the 
     aforementioned year I left my residence and hailed a taxi in 
     direction to the University. After traveling approximately 
     300 meters, the taxi was intercepted by two other vehicles 
     from which a group of men dressed in civilian clothing forced 
     me out of the taxi and dragged me into one of the vehicles. I 
     did not have enough time to count the number of people but I 
     estimate the number to be between 8 to 10 men. Once in the 
     vehicle they proceeded to cover my eyes and forced me to lie 
     face down on the floor of the backseat. The vehicle then 
     drove to the outside of the city, I was able to notice the 
     difference as I felt the dust from the road hitting my face. 
     With the vehicle in motion I was subjected to torture by my 
     kidnappers. I could not see their faces and was unable to 
     identify them. By their actions I concluded that the 
     objective was to physically eliminate me or make me 
     disappear. Nonetheless, during the terrorist operative I 
     noticed a sudden change; I could hear an intensive exchange 
     of communications taking place between the men in the vehicle 
     and another source through hand held transmitters or walkie-
     talkies. The vehicle made a sharp turn and seemed to head in 
     a direction back towards the city. After approximately two 
     hours I was placed in a closed room, surrounded by silence. 
     After noticing that I couldn't hear anybody breathing close 
     to me I removed the blindfolds and realized that I was in a 
     police holding cell, thus concluding who had carried out the 
     operation, there was no doubt that the police were 
     responsible.
       Sometime during the night I was taken from the cell and 
     moved to a police administered clinic due to the lesions on 
     my body (I could feel a few broken ribs and I was unable to 
     move my body). Until that point, neither my family nor the 
     other members of the Human Rights Assembly were aware of my 
     whereabouts, but thanks to one of the doctors, whose identity 
     I guard to this day, who was kind enough to contact them over 
     phone on my behalf. Thanks to this information, a lot of 
     people were informed of my whereabouts within the hour.
       Under international pressure and public scrutiny, the then 
     President of the Republic, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, fired 
     the Police Chief. Nonetheless, the government protected the 
     identities of the authors of my kidnapping due to the 
     involvement of Minister Carlos Sanchez Berzain. This is why 
     those responsible have not been brought to justice.
       The then Captain of the Bolivian Police, Filmann Urzagaste 
     Rodriguez, played a role in the events. This information was 
     obtained through the Bolivian police force, given that at the 
     time the event became public, high commanding police officers 
     began accusing one another. Unfortunately the officer [i.e.

[[Page 16858]]

     Urzagaste] and others benefited by the impunity provided by 
     the powers of the political sphere.
       This is what I can inform in summary of this particular 
     case.
       In my condition as the current Defender of the People of 
     Bolivia [i.e. Ombudsman] and a human rights activist I 
     consider that the work your office has been carrying out to 
     obtain the definitive closing of the institution formerly 
     known as the ``School of the Americas'' to be of great 
     importance. Said entity is marked by a sad and shameful 
     history in our continent, it was there that the main 
     protagonists and authors of some of the worst crimes against 
     humanity executed in Latin America received instruction. I 
     send you my support and express my unconditional solidarity 
     in hopes that the legislative authorities of the United 
     Status attend to your request.
           Sincerely,
                                         Waldo Albarracin Sanchez,
                                Defender of the People of Bolivia.

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

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. With great respect to the Representative from 
Massachusetts, I'd be remiss not to say the following:
  I have seen in 31 years in our military, us be resisted throughout 
this world for the power of our economy and the power of our military. 
But I've watched us be admired for the power of our ideals. And the 
story I'm about to tell I saw many times over.
  In command of a small ship, I pulled into a country. A young officer 
got underway with us. As we pulled back in, after an overnight, he said 
Captain, you treat your men, enlisted men, different than we do. I 
said, what do you mean? He said, you treat them as though they're equal 
to you. I said, they say yes, sir or no, sir. He said, no, you treat 
them as though they're equal human beings. We don't.
  My only comment is, I have seen that so many times, that that picture 
of a GI with the candy bar is true. We do make mistakes.
  But I truly ask, don't close this school. Improve it. It has made 
mistakes. It is needed for engagement of a good men and women in a good 
military to show the ideals of our country.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to 
just yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, once you sift through the mountain of 
misinformation presented on the floor tonight, it's clear that those 
who advocate cutting funding from WHINSEC do so, as I say, in the 
absence of fact. WHINSEC is not the School of the Americas. WHINSEC has 
a spotless human rights record and is exceeding in helping the United 
States develop critical relationships with our closer neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, in fact, it is time to let the School of the Americas 
go, and to give WHINSEC a chance.
  And so I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word, and I'm pleased to yield 
to my colleague, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia, their record 
isn't spotless. We presented five cases last year. I mean, maybe you 
weren't listening to the debate, but we did. And the problem with this 
year is this is what the WHINSEC gave us, so we can't follow up.
  And to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I have great respect for, 
you know, I'm not against military training. And yeah, we need to do 
better. My amendment, by the way, doesn't cut off all funding for the 
WHINSEC. Most of that money is in the Defense bill. It only cuts off 
the money that is under the jurisdiction of this bill.
  And yes, it does need to be improved. I don't know how anybody can 
vote against this amendment in light of the fact that this is their, 
WHINSEC's, example of transparency. How do we follow up on the 
graduates? How can we follow up on whether the people that are going 
there are human rights abusers when we get this in return?
  Even under the infamous School of the Americas, we were given the 
names. That's how I found out that 19 of the 22 trigger men who 
murdered the Jesuit priests were graduates of the School of Americas. 
If I got this I never would have known that. This is what they have 
given us.
  Now, this is not transparency. This is not accountability. You want 
that school to do better, we need to send a message on the floor of the 
House today that we're not satisfied with business as usual, and the 
way to do

[[Page 16859]]

that is vote for the McGovern amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-Lewis amendment. 
Let's take a stand for human rights. If this country stands for 
anything, it needs to stand out loud and four square for human rights, 
and this is one way to prove it. Vote for this amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Lewis 
amendment.
  This important amendment will prohibit funding to the infamous 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) 
formerly known as the School of the Americas.
  We all know the history of this Institute that has long been 
associated with human rights abuses and many of its students have been 
tied to death squads and international coups.
  Despite assurances to the contrary by supporters of the WHINSEC, the 
continuing legacy of blood and terror by these graduates calls into 
question how these candidates are recruited and vetted.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when our occupation of Iraq has greatly 
damaged our credibility and standing in the world, the last thing we 
need to be doing is funding an organization like WHINSEC that is 
drenched in a legacy of secrecy, terror, and violence.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Lewis amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Lewis 
amendment. It is time to close the School of the Americas, or WHINSEC. 
After so many decades of human rights abuses and threats to democracy, 
the U.S. should not be giving a privileged position to Latin American 
militaries by maintaining a special school in the United States just 
for them. Nearly every month in Latin America, a perpetrator of human 
rights crimes, corruption, or drug-trafficking is found to have 
attended the School of the Americas. There's a reason that the SOA has 
been called the ``School of the Atrocities.''
  WHINSEC, as well as current U.S. foreign policies, are making the 
United States lose ground with the people of Latin America. Our 
relations with Latin America are at their lowest ebb in several 
decades. The Abu Ghraib scandal, the doctrine of preemptive war, secret 
prisons and the debate over detentions in Guantanamo Bay are reported 
widely and critically in Latin American media. I have traveled to Latin 
America and seen for myself that the WHINSEC, as the direct heir of the 
School of the Americas, is viewed throughout Latin America as a symbol 
of the U.S. priority of strengthening brutal military regimes instead 
of encouraging development.
  Suspending part of the aid to the WHINSEC would show that the United 
States wants to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Such a move 
would be a significant and positive step forward in repairing our 
damaged image and credibility. It would also be a blow to those who 
have strengthened themselves politically by accusing the United States 
of hypocrisy on human rights and democracy. A more cooperative, less 
unilateral foreign policy, including the suspension of funding for 
WHINSEC, will clearly demonstrate our respect for international human 
rights standards and would help the United States regain influence and 
build connections in Latin America.
  The United States should work with Latin American nations on common 
solutions to common problems, and our programs should invest in helping 
Latin American communities help themselves. Instead of providing funds 
to train human rights abusers, we should provide assistance for clean 
water, vaccinations for children, micro-credit, technical assistance 
for small farmers and small business, shelter for refugees and generous 
disaster relief to build goodwill with our neighbors.
  Just last month Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Oscar Arias, President of 
Costa Rica, announced that Costa Rica would no longer send its police 
to the WHINSEC for training. We should join Costa Rica (and other Latin 
American countries who have withdrawn their police from training at 
WHINSEC) in changing course by withdrawing funding from this criminal 
training ground.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
to close down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 
Cooperation. It is time to stop and examine our history so that we can 
avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Our relations with our 
neighbors in Latin America are at their lowest ebb ever. The people of 
Latin America think the U.S. is more concerned with achieving goals 
through military means no matter the consequences. They think the U.S. 
is not concerned with human and democratic rights in Latin America. We 
need to start winning over the citizens of our planet and show them our 
desire to bring human rights to everyone.
  The time has come for our country to cease our support of this 
Institution, to put down the swords, and instead show our neighbors in 
Latin America that our actions adhere to our preaching. U.S. assistance 
has been increasingly weighted towards harsh and ineffective counter-
narcotics and military aid.
  After so many decades of human rights abuses and threats to 
democracy, why is the U.S. Government still giving so privileged a 
position to Latin American militaries, such that it maintains a special 
school in the United States just for them? Our neighbors need 
assistance for clean water, vaccinations for children, micro-credit, 
technical assistance for small farmers and small business, shelter for 
refugees and generous disaster relief builds good will with our 
neighbors.
  If we end this Institute once and for all, we will show that the 
priorities of the United States are with democratic and civil 
institutions. A more cooperative, less unilateral foreign policy that 
clearly demonstrates respect for international human rights standards 
would help the United States regain influence around the world.
  It is time to sow the seeds of peace; we must stop sowing the seeds 
of war. As a great Nation and blessed people, we must heed the words of 
the spiritual--``I am going to lay my burden down, down by the 
riverside. I ain't gonna study war no more.'' We do not need this 
school. My colleagues, I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

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

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

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

                              {time}  2030

  Instead of becoming part of the solution, Mr. Chairman, the United 
Nations

[[Page 16860]]

Human Rights Council continues to perpetuate intolerance, serving as a 
forum for hateful attacks against Israel by some of the worst violators 
of human rights.
  To cite just one of many examples, the Iranian representative to the 
Human Rights Council stated on December 12 of last year: ``There is an 
Israeli holocaust against Palestinian people here on a daily basis for 
more than 60 years, which was already noted by three special 
sessions.'' This is a human rights activist?
  In contrast, the Council has failed to condemn the genocide in 
Darfur, has failed to condemn the sprawling gulag in North Korea, has 
failed to condemn the political and human rights daily abuses in China 
and the bloody repression in Burma and Zimbabwe.
  Simply put, the U.N. Human Rights Council is a failure. We were right 
to refuse to dignify this poisonous talk-shop with our membership, and 
we must refuse to support it with our tax dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who has taken for many years a 
leadership substance on this issue.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished colleague 
for yielding.
  And I think her comment about the ``human wrong commission'' is 
appropriate, and I think that is a very apt way to explain it. When you 
talk about all the work they did, and she mentioned Darfur, that the 
Human Rights Council of the U.N. was unable to even pass a simple 
resolution dealing with it, that is unbelievable.
  But where did they spend most of their time? That is a good question 
we could ask. Do you know where they spent most of their time? 
Condemning Israel. The Council's sole country-specific resolution 
censured Israel and adopted a decision to discuss human rights 
violations committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories 
permanently and in all the Council's meetings. Every Council meeting 
would discuss Israel's alleged abuses against Palestinians, without 
mentioning Palestinian provocations or their aggression. It is just 
unbelievable. In fact, the Council adopted a resolution that strongly 
condemned Israel for ``violations of human rights and breaches of 
international humanitarian law in Lebanon.'' In Lebanon, without 
reference to provocations by Hezbollah. Talk about a ``human wrong 
commission.'' This is it.
  So I am so gratified that this amendment has been accepted. I have a 
bill, H.R. 225, that outlines this amendment. I had an amendment last 
year on this subject in this appropriations process. We got 163 votes. 
But we lost. And I think a lot of people said, well, the U.N. is 
starting reforms in house. Let's give it a chance with its Human Rights 
Council. So we said, okay, we'll give it a chance. But, by all 
assessment it failed. In fact, the words of Peggy Hicks, the global 
advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, sums it up when she said: 
``The new Human Rights Council must be more than the dysfunctional old 
commission by another name.''
  So from that, to the comment of the Miami Herald when they wrote, 
``Why should these wolves guard the hen house?''
  I ask that we pass this amendment, and I thank my colleagues.
  Take the so-called reforms to the membership of the council. The 
original proposal by the former Secretary General Annan (AH-NON) was to 
reduce membership to enable the council to be smaller and more agile in 
acting against human rights offenses. Indeed, the UN did reduce the 
number of members--from 53 down to 47. These 47 UN members are elected 
to three-year terms on the UNHRC. The new geographic quota system 
ensures a majority of membership slots for the world's least democratic 
regions. The African and Asian regional groups control a 55% majority--
even more than they did on the former commission. Governments that 
routinely violate fundamental freedoms in their own countries shouldn't 
be setting the standards for anyone else.
  Under the new council, a country can be suspended from council 
membership due to continuing human rights abuses only if two-thirds of 
the members of the General Assembly agree to do so. That is the only 
protection against human rights abusers being elected to the council. 
However, in practice this provision is useless. Less than half of the 
General Assembly agreed that Sudan is guilty of any human rights 
violations. If the General Assembly cannot agree on such a blatantly 
clear cut case of human rights abuse, how can we expect them to agree 
on suspending membership of countries that are human rights? The answer 
is, we can't. Known abusers like Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Cuba, and 
Algeria were all elected members this last session.
  Finally, let us look at their actions. Under a General Assembly 
resolution, the Council has responsibility for ``promoting universal 
respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms 
for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal 
manner'' and it must ``address situations of violations of human 
rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make 
recommendations thereon.'' There have been several opportunities for 
the Council to act with numerous cases of human rights abuses around 
the world. In Darfur, there are 2.5 million people displaced by the 
violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two 
million dead in the 22 years of violence. But the Human Rights Council 
was unable to pass a resolution on Darfur. Neither did it act regarding 
the lack of civil and political rights across China, the 13 million 
women in Saudi Arabia who live in fear of beatings if they go anywhere 
alone, or the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in 
North Korea. It also failed to address the Iranian President's 
incitement to genocide or the fact that his country's legal system 
includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation as viable punishments.
  Ambassador Bolton stated at the creation of the new council, ``We 
want a butterfly. We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and 
declare it a success.'' As a result, the Administration announced that 
it would not seek a seat on the council in 2006 but would continue 
financial support, and may seek membership in 2007 if the Council 
proves effective.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I agree with the intention of the amendment and thank my friend for 
raising this very important issue.
  I want to reiterate my support for the United Nations. I strongly 
believe in the mission of the United Nations. That plays an 
indispensable role in the world today. In fact, it has often been said 
that if the United Nations did not already exist, we would surely need 
to invent it.
  The U.N. plays an important role in maintaining international peace 
and security, promoting economic and social development, alleviating 
hunger, championing human rights, and supporting efforts to address 
humanitarian crises.
  However, the U.N. is by no means perfect. It is often too slow to act 
in times of crisis, and too often the U.N. is a reflection of the 
lowest common denominator, rather than the best and the brightest.
  A perfect example of the problems with the U.N. is the Human Rights 
Council. My friend and I agree that there are problems, and I want to 
assure my friend that as we move toward conference that we will ensure 
that none of the funds in the CIO account will go toward paying the 
costs of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
  And, again, I thank my friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my friend (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank our 
subcommittee chairman, Nita Lowey. I think she has done a remarkable 
job throughout the day and during her entire service in the United 
States Congress.
  And to my good friend Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, I want to thank her for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to put an end to the shenanigans at 
the United Nations. While murderous and dictatorial regimes in North 
Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan have starved and burned and raped and killed 
hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen, the United Nations Human 
Rights Council focuses its attention on the only democratic country in 
the Middle East: Israel. Israel, with a free press, a country with free 
elections, a vibrant economy, and an open society; a nation that has to 
defend itself from terrorists and terrorism, terrorists who would wipe 
it from the face of the Earth if

[[Page 16861]]

they had half a chance. Now that is a human rights issue worth looking 
into.
  Mr. Chairman, the United Nations' Orwellian hypocrisy on human rights 
is so well known it has become a cliche. This body must take a stand 
against this mockery of a Human Rights Council. Let us cut off funding 
for this shameful and outrageous organization.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and felony court judge 
in Texas, I tried a lot of cases where the victims of homicide were 
peace officers. Like any victim, these officers came from all ages and 
all races. The murder of a peace officer is one of the most serious 
crimes that can occur in any community.
  Unlike other victims, Mr. Chairman, peace officers carry the daily 
burden of protecting their communities from crime, everything from 
petty theft to the most violent and vicious of crimes. Every day these 
defenders of our cities put their lives on the line. They have asked to 
be in harm's way, and then when one is killed in the line of duty, 
their loss is deeply felt by the entire community.
  There are cases, however, when peace officers are killed and their 
killers happen to be immigrants from foreign countries, some legal 
immigrants, some illegal. And there are many cases where the home 
countries of these immigrants refuse to send them back to the United 
States to face their charges once they are requested to be extradited 
to the United States from their home country.
  In 2002, a Los Angeles County sheriff was murdered by a Mexican 
citizen who was illegally in the country. However, the Mexican 
government refused for 5 years to extradite him to the United States to 
stand trial, and it only occurred this January when the charge was 
reduced.
  The same occurred in Denver in 2005 when a police officer by the name 
of Donnie Young was murdered, and only after the charges were reduced 
was the killer extradited back to this country.
  Killing police officers seems to also be a popular pastime for a few 
immigrants in Texas. In my hometown, a Houston police officer by the 
name of Rodney Johnson was shot four times and killed by an illegal 
immigrant in September of 2006. In fact, the last three law enforcement 
officers shot in Harris County, Texas, were shot by people who were 
illegally here in the United States.
  Fortunately, each of these killers were captured before they fled to 
their home country, and they will have their day in court. But what 
about the ones that don't get caught and flee to some other country? 
This problem is only increasing in States that border Mexico, where 
travel across the border is easy; and now violent drug cartels rule the 
area and certainly have no qualms about shooting at American peace 
officer.
  So this country should not be spending money toward admitting 
immigrants to the United States from any country that refuses to allow 
the United States to try police killers by harboring those killers in 
their country.
  I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me, along with the 
Fraternal Order of Police that has endorsed this amendment, to support 
limiting funds in this bill to be used for issuing visas to nationals 
or citizens of countries that have notified our State Department of 
their refusal to extradite to the United States an individual indicted 
for killing a peace officer in this country. We owe this to our peace 
officers and their families.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express reservations regarding 
the gentleman's amendment.
  I do share his deep concern over the refusal of certain countries to 
extradite to the United States any individual indicted in the United 
States for killing a law enforcement officer. I certainly do not 
condone the refusal of those governments to extradite those accused of 
murdering a law enforcement officer in order to allow the families of 
fallen law enforcement officers to see the person or persons involved 
face justice.
  However, the remedy that the gentleman is proposing is not targeted 
at the central government but at all persons from those countries 
applying for a visa. I just have some reservations about punishing the 
people of a country because their government is doing something 
objectionable that goes against the way we would like to be seen in the 
world.
  But I am prepared to accept the amendment and bring this matter to 
conference.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
chairman's concerns about this amendment, but it will be an effort to, 
of course, get those people back in the United States who are charged 
with the specific crime of killing a peace officer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I know it has been accepted, but this is an important amendment. My 
father was a policeman for 20 years in the city of Philadelphia.
  If a country isn't prepared to send somebody back, then we ought to 
do what the gentleman from Texas said. We ought to deny them the visa. 
And I will push for this when we get to conference. I think this is a 
good amendment.
  We just can't go to all these meetings and say we love our police 
officers and we honor them and then all of a sudden we walk away from 
them. The gentleman is exactly right. Let's pass this. I appreciate its 
being accepted. But I think we ought to pass it because they think we 
are a patsy.
  We also had a young man in my district who was run over and killed 
around Christmastime. And the guy left and went back to El Salvador, 
and that family hurts, are in pain every day, and they can't get this 
guy back. So I think if there is any deficiency in it, it probably 
ought to cover every felon but at least peace officers.
  So it is a good amendment, and it has been accepted. But, frankly, I 
think we should have asked for a roll call vote to get every Member on 
record for it. But since it has been accepted, let's keep it in the 
bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,

[[Page 16862]]

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

                              {time}  2045

  President Reagan not only refused to sign the treaty, he fired the 
staffers that were responsible for negotiating it in the first place.
  More than a generation later, there is talk in the U.S. Senate that 
they may dust off this stale treaty once again and bring it to a vote. 
Before it does, I believe this House has an obligation to take a close 
look at one element of this accord, which will impact the way American 
companies invest in new technology, it will impede their ability to 
produce new energy, and has long-range implications.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk tonight will ensure 
that none of the funds spent in the State and Foreign Operations budget 
are used to support what's called the International Seabed Authority. 
It's a semi-autonomous, unelected body of the United Nations with 
authority to directly levy taxes and fines against American operators 
with or without their approval. Worse still, it would have the power to 
force a direct transfer of minerals and technology rights from the 
American companies that develop them to any competitor it sees fit.
  The Treaty's collision course with autonomous American Government is 
obvious, Mr. Chairman; the Seabed Authority is not only an obvious and 
very direct example of a U.N. effort to raise revenue without the input 
of the United States Government, but the Authority would also 
disincentivize private investment in offshore energy exploration which, 
in our current energy climate, is something this Congress should be 
working to avoid at all costs.
  We need all the energy we can get, whenever and wherever we find it. 
Submitting ourselves to an unelected, unaccountable, international 
ocean bureaucracy when it comes to distributing what American companies 
rightly explore doesn't strike me as the thing to do 25 years ago or 
today.
  Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I've come to the floor to ask my colleagues to 
consider the implications of ceding unprecedented authority to an 
agency of the U.N. without proper oversight, without legitimate 
safeguards, and without a whole lot of concern about the economic and 
security well-being of the United States.
  I urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I rise to accept the amendment, and I thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentlelady for accepting, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $2,956,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I don't pretend to know exactly 
how the billions of dollars in the Foreign Operations bill should be 
exactly split up and allocated, that's the work of the committee. And I 
appreciate the work of the Chair, the ranking member and those Members 
of the Congress who are part of that important committee.
  What I do understand is this: Government spends too much money. In 
fact, if you would talk to the American people, go out and poll the 
American people, talk to the families across this country and ask the 
simple question, does government spend too little or does government 
spend too much, is government too small or is government too big, does 
government take too much of your money in taxes, my guess is the vast 
majority of Americans across this country would say government is too 
big, takes way too much of my money and spends way too much.
  This amendment simply says this: We're not going to cut anything. 
We're just going to say it's appropriate for government to live on last 
year's level, just like all kinds of individuals, all kinds of 
families, all kinds of businesses across this country have to do.
  Specifically it would do this: It would reduce the total 
appropriations in the bill by $2.9 billion, taking it right back, 
keeping it right where it is at last year's spending level, while 
providing discretion for the administration to avoid any reductions in 
funding for the State of Israel. In simple terms it says this: We 
understand that special bond that the United States has with the State 
of Israel, and we're going to protect that; but we also understand 
government spends too much money, and it's appropriate that we say 
enough is enough, we have to hold the line on spending.
  And here's why it's critical: There is a financial crisis around the 
corner waiting for the United States, the people of this great country. 
Read Pete Peterson's book, ``Running on Empty,'' talking about the 
entitlement problems, what's happening with us, if we don't get 
spending under control, what it's going to mean to our economy in the 
future.
  Read today's Washington Post, front page of the business section, the 
entitlement column has pictures of the six leading Presidential 
candidates, three from each party. It says, ``Stumping for Attention to 
Deficit Disorder.'' It talks about this very problem.
  There is a financial crisis around the corner that we have to deal 
with. It's important we start now by simply saying let's hold the line.
  Second big thing why this is so important. Spending inevitably leads 
to tax increases. Spend, spend, spend leads to tax, tax, tax. The 
American people are overtaxed, we don't want to tax them anymore. In 
fact, we need to lower taxes so we can compete in the international 
marketplace we're in right now.
  We've got to deal with the financial situation that confronts us. 
We've got to hold taxes down. That's why it's important for us to start 
here and simply say we're going to hold the line on spending. Millions 
of families, millions of individuals, millions of businesses across 
this country are doing that very thing. It's not too much to ask the

[[Page 16863]]

United States Congress to do the same thing.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is fiscally 
irresponsible, it will harm our national security, and I strongly 
oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority 
whip, the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment is really another test of the Congress' commitment to 
fiscal discipline.
  Today we're considering a State and Foreign Operations bill that is 
close to another record increase. I think it is below the President's 
number, but I've voted on a number of bills over the last several years 
that were below the President's number. And the fact is the President's 
number was too high, 9\1/2\ percent increase over last year's spending 
is too high. We can cut more than that, we can cut back to last year's 
spending, we can cut a percent, we can cut 2 percent, we can cut, go 
maybe even below last year's spending, but 9\1/2\ percent over last 
year's spending is too much money for this bill at this time.
  Not very many American families saw an increase last year of 9\1/2\ 
percent. First, you have to figure out where these massive increases 
are going. Fourteen and 15 percent increases for the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, $203 million, or a 17.6 percent, increase 
for the United States contribution to various international 
organizations.
  Second, you have to look at where this wasteful spending is going. 
We're funding things in this bill at increased levels like the 
International Copper Study Group in Lisbon, Portugal; the International 
Lead and Zinc Study Group at Lisbon, Portugal; the International 
Hydrographic Organization at Monte Carlo; the International Rubber 
Study Group in London, England; the International Tropical Timber 
Organization at Yokohama, Japan. A 9\1/2\ percent increase in a budget 
that American families will pay for, where not very many American 
families got a 9\1/2\ percent increase.
  We're going to have some legitimate debates about increases on 
spending in this country. I think increases on spending in other 
countries at this level are unacceptable. This is an important debate 
to have, it's an important vote to have. I encourage the gentleman to 
continue to make these kinds of principled stands.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I don't 
plan to use all of the 2 minutes.
  This amendment jeopardizes greatly the national security of the 
United States. It devastates program increases in key diplomatic 
functions that the Secretary of State has requested, in particular in 
the State Department.
  This bill is already $700 million below the President of the United 
States' request. And for the gentleman to offer an amendment to cut 
this bill $2.9 billion across the board has profound implications for 
the committee product.
  I would encourage Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill increases funding in the Foreign Operations 
bill to foreign countries almost at 10 percent. And as already stated, 
most Americans did not get a 10 percent increase in their income last 
year, but yet we are going to spend money in foreign countries. And 
much of this money is waste, total waste that Americans should not be 
funding at all. It gives money also to nations that constantly and 
consistently vote against us in the United Nations.
  It's important to note, however, none of this funding decrease will 
affect aid to our strongest ally to the Middle East, Israel; money that 
is well spent for the security of not only Israel, but the United 
States.
  So, increasing funding in this Foreign Operations bill is not 
acceptable. All we're doing in the gentleman from Ohio's amendment is 
to put in it at last year's level, and that's a good idea.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to talk about an 
amendment that I would have offered but won't do so because I 
understand it's subject to a point of order.
  Pakistan is scheduled to have crucial parliamentary elections in the 
fall of 2007 and the early winter of 2008. My amendment would withhold 
a portion of military aid to Pakistan unless those elections occurred 
and were free, fair and democratic.
  Specifically, the amendment would have withheld $175 million out of a 
total of $250 million that's allocated under this bill for foreign 
military financing in Pakistan. These funds would be released when the 
Secretary of State determined, giving due consideration to the 
credible, independent judgment of reliable agencies that elections in 
Pakistan were free, fair and democratic. The amendment also asks that 
all steps of the election process, from voter registration on through 
vote tabulation, be reviewed in reaching any such judgment.
  This amendment would send a powerful message to the people of 
Pakistan about the importance the United States places on the 
democratic process. Instead of just talking about the importance of 
democracy and saying that all peoples of the world should have these 
rights, the amendment quite literally would give Congress a chance to 
act consistently with its word.
  Since the coup in which he rose to power 8 years ago, President 
Musharraf has taken some positive steps, but his record is, at best, 
mixed, especially recently. Today, President Musharraf is fighting the 
most serious challenge to his 8-year dictatorship. The United States is 
supporting him fully, and I guess that means that the message from the 
United States to the Pakistani public would seem clear: The Bush 
administration sees the war on terrorism as topping everything, even 
support for democracy.
  On March 9, President Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was apparently seen as 
threatening to President Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. 
That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, 
followed by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition 
political parties, and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide have 
led marches joined by women's groups, journalists and opposition 
politicians.
  The roots of this crisis go back to a blind bargain that Washington 
made after 9/11 with a general and the army that had, up until then, 
been the main patrons of the Taliban. The administration ignored 
Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al 
Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan 
since 2001, that deal is shattered.
  In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project 
issued a report card noting that Musharraf has made efforts to take on 
the threat of extremism, but has not shut down extremist-linked 
madrassas or terrorist camps.
  Taliban forces still pass freely across the Pakistan-Afghani border 
and operate in Pakistani tribal areas. These border groups gained 
political legitimacy last year when President Musharraf signed a series 
of dubious peace deals with the Pakistan Taliban.
  Extremist madrassas remain, and the extremism only becomes more 
pervasive and dangerous. Madrassa students are burning books, CDs and 
DVDs. Women in Islamabad have had acid doused in their faces for their 
failure to wear burkas, and have been harassed for driving cars.
  The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism. As 
terrorism

[[Page 16864]]

author Ahmed Rashid said, Musharraf promised the international 
community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his security 
service and convinced the Bush administration that his philosophy of 
``enlightened moderation'' was the only way to fend off Islamic 
extremism, but Pakistan today is still the center of global Islamic 
terrorism. Our own State Department concluded the same thing several 
weeks ago.
  Mr. Rashid is correct in saying that instead of confronting this 
threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power. In trying 
to spook the West into continuing to support him, he exaggerates 
grossly the strength of the Islamic parties and warns that they might 
take over his nuclear-armed country.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is the United States would be far safer if we 
supported a truly representative Pakistan government that could 
marginalize the Jihadists rather than placing all of its eggs in a 
Musharraf basket. A better outcome for all would be that everybody 
participate in free and fair elections, and we should act in favor of 
democracy with those policies.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to withdraw the amendment. I know we'll work together on these very 
important issues. The discussion certainly will continue between this 
Congress and the administration as we move forward. I thank the 
gentleman again for withdrawing.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I will just say I appreciate the 
gentleman's speech and his passion, even though it had nothing to do 
with the subject at hand.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
friend from Ohio for yielding.
  It is interesting as I hear this debate, I am a new Member of 
Congress. I have been here 6 months now. I've heard speakers on the 
majority side talk about ``your amendment is irresponsible.'' I have a 
hard time understanding that.
  Quite frankly, coming from Tennessee, holding the line on spending is 
not irresponsible. I heard another speaker talk about cuts. Well, 
actually there is no cut. What your amendment actually does is hold it 
at the levels of last year's spending. That is not a cut.
  I have not gotten used to ``Washington speak'' yet, coming from the 
mountains in East Tennessee. In East Tennessee, a cut actually means 
you spend less money this year than you did last year. Your amendment 
says you're going to spend the same amount of money. We are talking 
about $34.2 billion. In East Tennessee, that is a lot of money. That 
goes a long way.
  Actually, what we are looking at in this appropriation bill is a 9.5 
percent increase in spending. When the rate of inflation is less than 3 
percent, this is a growth in spending of almost three to four times the 
rate of inflation.
  We have men and women all around America right now sitting at their 
kitchen tables trying to decide how they are going to balance their 
budgets. Why in the world are we in Congress trying to grow our budgets 
almost 10 percent when we have people across America that are trying to 
just balance their budget? Gas prices are high. They are worried about 
increases in taxes.
  The least we can do, the very least we can do, is just hold the line 
on spending. That is not a cut. That is not how I learned about cuts 
back in East Tennessee.
  I just hope that we will do everything we can to support your budget. 
I encourage support of your amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do 
so. Still, we are looking at, again, $34.2 billion. I think that is 
enough spending. We need to hold the line. Thank you for your 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I notice as I walk down the halls of the House office 
buildings these easels and these poster boards, I have been seeing 
those for last 3 or 4 years, talking about the national debt and what 
percentage of it is attributed to every man, woman and child in this 
country. I think that national debt is something like $8.77 trillion 
now. It is $29,000 for each man, woman and child.
  Well, the Democrats have come with these 11 spending bills, Mr. 
Chairman, to increase that spending an additional $23 billion. If my 
math is correct, then that raises the amount of debt for every man, 
woman and child in this country from $29,000 to $30,000.
  But wait just a second, Mr. Chairman. The way they are going to avert 
that is, you guessed it, raising taxes. They are going to put the 
largest tax increase in United States history on the backs of the 
American people. That is why the gentleman from Ohio has such a good 
amendment, to just simply say, let's go back to 2007 levels.
  Our hardworking men and women in this country, many of them, if not 
most of them, during this past year probably got no raise. Their cost 
of living went up. It didn't go down. So they are in a negative 
situation.
  Let's not make the matter worse by putting additional tax burden on 
the backs of the American people.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the gentleman that this 
bill is $700 million below the President's request. We all understand 
that the Nation is at war. We have tremendous challenges. This bill 
provides important resources to address these challenges 
internationally. It is absolutely irresponsible, in my judgment. It is 
not in the national security interests of the United States of America. 
I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


               Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

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

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

[[Page 16865]]

money. It is easy here in Washington to lose sight of that fact.

                              {time}  2115

  But it is imperative that we remember with great responsibility and 
act with great reason as we move and spend the hard working American 
taxpayers' money.
  The big picture in this bill is that last year in this area of the 
Federal budget we spent as a Nation $31.2 billion. That is with a B, 
Mr. Chairman, $31.2 billion. The proposal today is to spend $34.2 
billion. That is an increase of 9.5 percent. This amendment would 
decrease that by 1 percent. By 1 percent. One penny out of every dollar 
savings for the American people. A savings of $342 million.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a small step, a symbolic 
step but is an important step, to let the American people know that, 
yes, we do believe that we respect the hard work that they do, and we 
also believe that it is important for Washington to get its fiscal 
house in order.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am pleased to 
have the support of so many of my colleagues in this House on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for 
foreign assistance programs. This is not the way to balance the budget. 
Instead of an overall cut, we should work to decrease instability 
worldwide and address the underlying problems that cause that 
instability.
  The programs in this bill are pivotal to winning back the hearts and 
minds overseas. They address the most difficult problems in the world 
today, HIV/AIDS, famine, disease and disasters. The bill includes 
programs that work to address the root causes of global instability 
that require us to devote so many of our tax dollars to failed and 
failing states to ensure that we protect our Nation. It is these 
problems that have gotten us into the disastrous deficit that we are in 
and it is these problems that the programs in this bill will address.
  This bill is a carefully crafted, bipartisan measure. It is currently 
$700 million below the President's request. We have already cut enough 
from these important foreign assistance programs, and this amendment 
would cut an additional $324 million.
  Think about the most vulnerable and susceptible among us. This 
amendment would take $51 million from addressing global HIV/AIDS. Our 
goal is to turn the tide on this horrendous pandemic, not turn our 
backs. This bill currently has the funding to ramp up treatment, care 
and prevention activities. We can't turn around now.
  I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment. It is not consistent 
with our national security. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. 
However, only in Washington by this majority party can a cut be an 
actual increase of $2.56 billion. Adopting this amendment would result 
in an increase of $2.56 billion. It is just a decrease in the slope of 
the increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and I 
thank him for his leadership.
  Again, how amazing. What an amazing place this is, when you are 
debating whether or not you are going to increase something called 
Foreign Operations 9.5 percent versus 8.5 percent growth, and somehow 
that is called a cut. Only in Washington, DC can you call an 8.5 
percent increase a cut.
  Now, the only thing that I see that is being cut is the family budget 
of hard working American families as our friends on the other side of 
the aisle want to enact the single largest tax increase in American 
history. The average family in America, when this tax increase plan is 
complete, will have to pay an extra $3,000 a year in taxes. Mr. 
Chairman, that is a cut.
  Mr. Chairman, somehow I have heard that this amendment, the gentleman 
from Georgia is irresponsible for offering such an amendment. People 
who work hard for their paychecks in America would be lucky to have an 
8.5 percent increase.
  We are dealing with Foreign Operations here. Maybe we ought to be 
thinking about family budget operations. Already the Federal Government 
is spending $23,289 per American family. Our friends on the other side 
of the aisle now, as we are debating this appropriation bill, have a 
plan to spend an extra $23 billion in non-defense discretionary, on top 
of the $6 billion in the omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in the war 
supplemental, all to be paid for by the single largest tax increase in 
history. And it is irresponsible to only increase Foreign Operations 
8.5 percent?
  Let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget and support 
this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important the record be clear about this 
endless rhetoric about tax increases. Here are the facts: The budget 
resolution that was adopted by the House does not raise taxes in this 
fiscal year or the next on anyone.
  When the tax cuts that the erstwhile majority enacted expire at the 
end of 2009, our budget resolution calls for us to look at the state of 
the economy, the state of the budget and the state of the situation, 
and, unlike the erstwhile majority, make a choice as to what to do. 
There is no tax increase in this fiscal year or the next one.
  What there is in this amendment is a strange sense of 
irresponsibility, that in a world where we are threatened by all kinds 
of threats and difficult problems, in a budget that is going to spend 
less than 1.5 percent out of every dollar we spend in improving our 
relations with countries around the world, that we have an 
irresponsible proposal like this.
  There is no tax increase this year. This amendment should be 
defeated.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are tonight, 6 months under control of the 
Democrat majority, and what has that majority wrought? The largest tax 
increase in U.S. history, an attempt in the past to change the rules of 
the House that have been in place since the times of Jefferson. And, of 
course, last week we saw the creation or attempted creation of slush 
funds to conceal where they wish to spend their increase of dollars.
  The gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke a moment ago said, quite 
candidly, that there is no tax increase this year or next year. What he 
didn't finish in his statement, of course, was, Mr. Chairman, that 
there will be a tax increase within the budget cycle that is before us.
  And these are not just my words, Mr. Chairman. I quote from the New 
York Times, who has looked at the budget that the Democrats have given 
us, and they have looked at that budget increase and the spending 
increase, and they too have said and agree with us that there is a tax 
increase coming on the American public and they even gave us numbers. 
If you are an average family in the State of New Jersey, a family of 
four making $70,000, you will see a tax increase of upwards to $1,500 
on you because of the budget of Democrats who are now in charge.
  In the bill before us, I come to the floor right now to commend the 
gentleman for his modest proposal to simply reduce the increase by the 
Democrats of 1 percent, a mere, in terms of Washington, $342 million.
  Mr. Chairman, we are still looking at an increase in spending for 
foreign aid of almost 10 percent, around an 8.5 percent increase for 
foreign aid. Quite

[[Page 16866]]

honestly, when I go back to my districts and talk to my constituents, 
their interest is in their families here at home, in Sussex County, 
Bergen County, Passaic County and Warren County in the good State of 
New Jersey. They are asking, why are we increasing to such a dramatic 
extent for all this money on foreign aid when we have problems right 
here at home?
  Mr. Chairman, how many times have you heard from the other side of 
the aisle when they rail against spending for our brave men and women 
overseas on our military aid, when they say we should be spending those 
dollars here at home? We concur when it comes to foreign aid, we should 
direct those funds here at home.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) to shed some light on the misinformation that we have been 
hearing this evening about tax increases.
  It seems to me, Mr. Jackson, that we have this huge deficit that has 
been brought about by the Republican majority in the past 10 years, at 
least. Would you like to comment on it for 3 minutes?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  While talking about how we arrived at this deficit for new Members 
who are joining the body can be long and drawn out, but the number of 
tax decreases that we have voted on in this Congress under their 
leadership which greatly contributed to the enormous deficit that we 
presently confront, it would require several hours of discussion and 
probably pull some scabs off of some wounds that aren't worthy of 
discussion.
  I do want to talk about the implications, however, of this particular 
cut on this bill.
  This bill is already $700 million beneath the President's request. 
The last I checked, the President of the United States is not from the 
majority party. The President of the United States is from the minority 
party. He is already suggesting that the bill itself is beneath the 
funding levels that he is requesting for the national security of the 
United States.
  But don't believe me. Believe the ranking member of the committee, 
Mr. Wolf, who said last night that he believes this is a good bill, 
that this bill has the potential to do a lot of good.
  I quote him: ``And I want to say that this bill will help save a lot 
of lives, not only here but around the world. This is the work of the 
Lord. And I know Members are going to come down here, and here they 
come, and they are going to be against this bill. And I hope that we 
can change some of the things to prevent a veto. But this bill 
eventually, when it passes,'' as the ranking member said, ``assuming it 
will be vetoed, is really about feeding the poor, about the hungry, the 
naked and the sick. Almost a better title would be the Matthew 25 bill. 
So it is has the potential to do a lot of good, and I hope to work with 
Chairwoman Lowey to ensure that the State Department has what it needs 
to do these things, the war on terror, to provide humanitarian 
assistance to the most needy, and to improve human rights around the 
world.''
  And the gentleman offers a cut to the ranking member's acknowledgment 
of how important this product is.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if this is the Matthew 25 bill, according to 
Matthew 25, which I repeated earlier, and these gentleman who obviously 
have come down here at the 11th hour to message on this bill, they 
missed this part of the statement when I read it earlier, but I will be 
happy to read it again:
  Then the king will say to those on the right: ``Come you who are 
blessed by my father. Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for 
you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me 
something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I 
was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed 
me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to 
visit me.''
  Then the righteous will answer him: ``Lord, when did we see you 
hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? When 
did we see you a stranger and invite you in? Or needing clothes to 
clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison go to visit you?''
  The king will reply: ``I tell you, whatever you have done for the 
least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.''
  Reject the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment goes to 
the heart of this bill, which is designed to feed the hungry, clothe 
the naked and liberate the captive.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had not wanted to take any more time this evening, 
but I was in my office and I heard several silly suggestions that 
somehow bills like this are going to seriously add to the deficit and 
require a tax increase and all of that other frothy nonsense.
  I would simply like to quote from a document by the Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities, one of the most respected organizations in this 
country in terms of keeping everybody honest about budget facts. This 
is what they said in a report issued today:
  ``The main dispute between the administration and Congress is over a 
$21 billion difference in domestic appropriations. The administration 
proposes to cut these programs $16 billion below the 2000 levels after 
adjusting for inflation and threatens to veto bills that do not contain 
these cuts. Congress would reject these cuts and instead provide a 
modest increase to these programs of $5 billion or 1.4 percent.''
  The report then goes on to say the following: ``Some 81 percent of 
the increases in appropriations under the emerging bills consist of 
increases for military and homeland security programs that the 
President himself requested. Less than one-tenth, or $5 billion of the 
funding increases reflected in the congressional targets for the 2008 
appropriation bills, are for increases for eight domestic 
appropriations bills.''
  Then it goes on to say, ``Under the planned appropriations, those 
bills would increase a modest 1.4 percent above the Congressional 
Budget Office baseline.''
  Then, get this: ``In real per capita terms, that is, after adjustment 
for both inflation and population growth, funding for these programs 
would barely increase at all.''
  And as for the nonsense that somehow these bills will require a tax 
increase or add to the deficit, the report goes on to say, ``As a share 
of the economy, funding for these programs would actually edge down 
slightly.'' Then it points out also that the increases in these bills 
rise more slowly than the expected increase in revenues.
  What that means, for anybody who has been through second-grade math, 
is that you cannot add to the deficit, if that is the case, unless you 
decide to pass further tax cuts paid for with borrowed money, as the 
former majority so blithely did over the past 5 years.
  I would also say one other thing. It is easy for any citizen and any 
Member to demagogue foreign aid. I chaired that subcommittee for 10 
years. And let me tell you, there is no piece of legislation that this 
Congress passes each year that saves the lives of more children than 
this bill. If you take a look at what we do for children's health, if 
you take a look at what we do through immunizations and these other 
programs, there is no program that we pass that saves the lives of more 
children.
  We spent a lot of time talking about the right to life today. Well, 
this bill is a whole lot more effective than lectures from politicians 
about celibacy or any other matter. This bill actually delivers the 
goods in terms of the practical things we can do to help our fellow 
creatures on this planet.
  I want to say one other thing. My religious values teach me that we 
are not Americans because of any special merit that we have. We were 
just lucky enough that God decided to infuse our soul in a body born in 
the USA. He could just as easily have made us a child born in 
Bangladesh, Sudan, or any of the other most troublesome spots in the 
world, the most agonized spots in the world.

[[Page 16867]]



                              {time}  2130

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask a parliamentary 
inquiry of the Chair, if the Chair might opine as to words that might 
offend and be inappropriate to the decorum of the House being spoken, 
and the Chair might want to admonish individuals to refrain from making 
those kind of statements.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members to refrain 
from any disparaging remarks of a personal character against another 
Member.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I thank the Chair for that.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think you are able to get time on your side. 
I don't believe I have time to spare.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia controls the time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do appreciate the chairman's passion and also appreciate his 
reference to ``frothy nonsense.'' I would suggest that frothy nonsense 
in my district and across this Nation comes due in the form of a tax 
bill when we increase spending across this Nation and that my 
constituents, and I suspect constituents around this Nation, would 
prefer that we decrease the frothy nonsense going on here in 
Washington.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is quite a debate that we are 
having tonight, and I appreciate the vigor and the energy that 
colleagues on both sides are bringing to this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I do have to stand and really oppose some of the things 
that are being said here. How interesting it is that we are hearing 
spending reductions called irresponsible, that we are hearing that it 
is jeopardizing our foreign operations, that it is devastating.
  You know, what we may want to do is reframe this debate. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Georgia for trying to make a 1 percent 
reduction.
  Now we heard this referred to as the Matthew 25 bill. Maybe we should 
make it the Genesis 1:1 bill and go back and look at the beginning and 
talk about how did we get where we are today.
  They want to talk about deficits. Well, it is historically what my 
colleagues on the left have done to grow a huge bureaucracy that 
continues to need to be fed and programs that grow and grow and grow.
  Now one of the things that we have heard is that we are going to have 
to fix this now. My colleagues only want to talk about today, yesterday 
or the day before. They don't want to go back and talk about previous 
administrations where we have piled on, we have piled on, we have piled 
on, and now we want to grow this budget 9\1/2\ percent. We want to pay 
for it with the largest tax increase in history.
  I would offer to my friends that, yes, indeed, let's go back and make 
it a Genesis 1:1 bill and look at the very beginning. You tax too much; 
you spend too much. And it is right that we would choose to find a 1 
percent reduction. What we are irresponsible to is the American 
taxpayer who is sick and tired. They are truly ill and fatigued when it 
comes to paying more and more of their budget.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman.
  I just cannot let this go. Pile on and pile on and pile on? Let me 
tell you what has been piled on, $3 trillion in debt, piled on by the 
other side.
  Growing government? The other side was in charge for the past many 
years. Their party ran the White House, the Senate and the House of 
Representatives; and they piled on $3 trillion of debt.
  And now we hear the unmitigated audacity of suggesting that we are 
the problem. Mr. Chairman, we are not the problem. We are trying to 
solve the problem.
  And I would say with all due respect to the gentlewoman and to those 
on the other side who believe that this foreign operations bill is too 
expensive, is the gentlewoman advocating cutting by 1 percent foreign 
military financing or international military education and training? Is 
the gentlewoman suggesting to her constituents that we should slash 
budgets to professionalize other militaries to assist us in the global 
war on terror, to make sure that they have the technology and the 
equipment to help win the global war on terror?
  Because if you are suggesting a 1 percent cut or 2 percent cut or 3 
percent cut in this bill, you are suggesting a cut in our national 
security. You are suggesting reducing the amount of military 
assistance, education, and foreign military sales that we are providing 
to our allies around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, they are costing their own congressional districts 
jobs, defense contractors who are part of this Nation's defense. We 
will lose revenues because of these cuts to foreign military financing.
  This is not just a foreign operations bill. This is a national 
security bill. It is a homeland security bill. They go hand in hand, 
and we should not be advocating slicing off one of those hands while we 
are fighting a global war on terror surrounded by threats.
  We Democrats believe that we need a robust ability to meet that 
threat, not cut defense budgets as the other side is suggesting.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 
to finish her speech.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, what an incredibly wonderful debate we are 
having. It is a philosophical debate. Government is not the answer. 
Government many times is the problem. More spending is not the answer. 
It is priorities and where you choose to put that money. That is where 
you find your answers in this.
  Now one of the things that we are saying is make a reduction. My 
goodness, look at the States. Many of our States have made across-the-
board reductions. You know what? Across-the-board reductions work.
  My State of Tennessee, oh, my goodness, we were going to have to have 
an income tax. Oh, my goodness, they were going to shut down every 
program in the State, had to have it, had to raise taxes. You know 
what? We defeated that income tax, Mr. Chairman. The people of our 
State said, no, we have had it. We are not putting another penny into 
the State treasury.
  Now what we see is a, believe it or not, Democrat Governor who came 
in and took what we Republicans had said and made across-the-board 
cuts. Not 1 percent. Not 2. Not 5 percent. 9\1/2\ percent. 9\1/2\ 
percent. And I would encourage my colleagues to know that greater 
efficiencies were there, that they now have record surpluses.
  One of the things that we have to realize, the American taxpayer is 
tired of sending money to Washington and see it go into a bureaucracy 
and know that they are not seeing the results that they get.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe it is because I have the old Davy Crockett 
district. I know that what you have to do is be very careful with the 
money that you have to spend. You have to make priorities.
  And yes, indeed, national security is a priority. We know that. We 
know that border security is a priority. We know that. But what we have 
to realize is we have to be a good steward of the taxpayer dollar.
  Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to start to tighten its belt. 
Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize it cannot grow. Maybe 
it is time for the

[[Page 16868]]

bureaucracy to realize we need to be responsible to the taxpayer and 
reduce what we are spending at the Federal level. They are tired of 
paying for the largest tax increase in history. They know that 
government spends too much. They know that this budget is bigger than 
it ought to be, and they don't like it, and we are hearing about it.
  What my colleagues and I are saying is, you know what, let's find 
some ways to make some reductions. Let's make certain that we are good 
stewards of every dollar that comes our way.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield that minute to my good 
friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the learned 
orthopedic surgeon from Georgia for yielding me this time.
  I want to say something to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. When he was talking about an idiot can offer a 1 percent cut 
amendment, I certainly hope he wasn't talking about my good friend from 
Georgia.
  Now if you want to talk about fuzzy math and idiots, we can do that 
here tonight. Because this bill increases the spending 9\1/2\ percent. 
What the learned surgeon's amendment does is cut that by 1 percent.
  Now you can say this isn't going to cause a tax increase, you can say 
it is not going to cost people more money, you can say anything you 
want to, but the people of this country are smarter than that because 
they know every day that if they spend more money it is going to cost 
somebody at some point.
  So they can say anything they want to. They can talk about all of the 
fuzzy math, whether it is going to be a tax increase or not a tax 
increase. But when you spend 10 percent more money, somebody is going 
to pay for it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 
already exercised the prerogative of striking the requisite number of 
words and was recognized for 5 minutes in that regard.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each 
side be granted an additional minute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  We are having a debate here about whether we should cut spending. 
Most American families go through a process of trying to decide what it 
is they can afford in their family budget. The American people send us 
here to make the same kind of decisions. But when we just add spending 
and add spending and add spending, which we have done all year, guess 
what, we don't have to make decisions.
  That is exactly what is happening here. The majority wants to 
denigrate this amendment because they think it is frivolous. They think 
it is an across-the-board 1 percent cut; you don't have to think.
  The point I am trying to make and my colleagues are trying to make, 
we are sent here to make decisions; and if the majority isn't going to 
make decisions, we are going to try to make the decisions easier. Let's 
just have a 1 percent across-the-board cut, bring this budget in line 
with what the President requested on behalf of the American people.
  I have been hearing all year from my friends on the other side that 
we heard the electorate and we heard the message they sent to us. Well, 
I have to tell you that one of the messages they sent to us is that we 
here in Congress need to be more fiscally responsible.
  We are going to have a debate over spending all summer. We are going 
to have a debate over spending all fall. Because, at some point, how 
much government do we need? How much of the American family budget to 
we need to take in taxes?
  I think my colleague has a very good amendment here. I urge my 
colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, talk about crocodile tears. This bill is $700 
million below the amount requested by the President of the United 
States. The other side cries about the fact that it is $2.9 billion 
over last year, and they say this is the baby that is going to break 
the bank.
  This is the same crowd that has supported over $600 billion, all 
borrowed money, to pay for the most misguided, misbegotten, destructive 
war in the modern history of the United States, all paid for with 
borrowed money.

                              {time}  2145

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia 
rise?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Are comments not supposed to be addressed to 
the Chair?

[[Page 16869]]

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

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


                       ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, this debate has gotten very interesting. 
There are some of us in the Chamber, Mr. Chairman, that have been 
concerned about fiscal discipline for a long time. We have been called 
things like budget hawks. Mr. Chairman, we were willing to take on our 
own party on that issue and we were also willing to take on our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because, Mr. Chairman, when 
I think about this debate tonight and I think about the national debt 
being over $8.8 trillion, you know, I would have to think that there 
are people around this Nation tonight watching this debate and 
wondering why in the world Congress, and there have been many mistakes 
in the past, why Congress can't get serious about the way we spend 
taxpayers' dollars.
  My amendment would offer an across-the-board cut. And I know that has 
been criticized by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but, you 
know, sometimes an across-the-board cut makes a lot of sense. And I am 
interested to think about spending levels where we cannot cut 50 cents 
out of each $100 that we spend.
  I offered an amendment that was not accepted in the unanimous consent 
agreement that would have highlighted one of the more egregious forms 
of waste and abuse of the funding in this bill, and this was an article 
in the Boston Globe that I read, and they broke a story last February 
about the former executive director of the Global Fund and how he used 
Global Fund dollars. I want to tell you what the Global Fund is 
supposed to do. It's an organization that is supposed to combat global 
diseases like AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis.
  Let me tell you how he spent our American tax dollars. He spent 
between $91 and $930 a day for limousines in London and Paris and 
Washington and San Francisco, averaging almost $400 a day for 
limousines. He spent $1,695 for a dinner for 12 at the United States 
Senate Dining Room here at the Capitol. Then he spent $8,780 for a boat 
cruise on Lake Geneva in Switzerland; $8,436 for a dinner in Davos, 
Switzerland; and then they had champagne and expensive meals. I wonder 
if the American taxpayer thinks that this is frivolous nonsense. You 
know they do. They would be outraged to think that they get up, go to 
work every day, work for their children, work to pay for their home, 
work to buy the college education for those kids that they dream of, 
and people are spending their tax dollars like this.
  You know, I think an across-the-board cut sounds great. I would like 
a larger one, but I'm asking for a modest half of 1 percent, 50 cents 
out of $100. You know, when you look at your children and you look at 
your grandchildren, Mr. Chairman, and you think about that debt, and I 
don't care who you want to blame it on, Republicans, Democrats, 
Republican Presidents, Democrat President, we at this time in history 
have an opportunity to be responsible with the American taxpayers' 
dollars and cut this increase in this budget from 9.5 percent to 9.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 16870]]


  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we have expressed our real concerns about 
these cuts and I strongly oppose this amendment.
  In addition to the cuts that have been mentioned by my colleagues, I 
wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado in particular, really understands the impact of this 
across-the-board cut.
  First of all, this bill has already been cut 2 percent from the 
President's request. Two percent. Now you are recommending another half 
percent.
  You support a $120 million cut for Israel, Mrs. Musgrave? You support 
a $120 million cut in aid for our ally Israel? You support a $250 
million cut for HIV/AIDS?

                              {time}  2200

  You support $200 million for foreign military financing; and my 
colleague, Mr. Israel, talked about the impact on the military that 
these cuts would cause.
  My colleagues, this is a bill that is in the national security 
interest of the United States of America. We have heard many people on 
the other side of the aisle that we have to fight it over there. We 
don't want to fight it over here.
  Well, when you are funding HIV/AIDS, when you are preventing avian 
flu, when you are funding our colleagues in the war on terror, we are 
fighting it over there rather than fighting it over here.
  I strongly, strongly, would not support the cuts which you are 
recommending. I strongly oppose them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a statement I 
made. I referred to a cut.
  My amendment would take a 9.5 percent increase in funding in this 
bill over the last one to a 9 percent increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for 
bringing this creative amendment to the floor.
  While I address the Chair, let me also acknowledge there may be 
others looking in. I want to be very clear on the point that what we 
are asking here is for this foreign operations budget to get by on only 
a 9 percent increase instead of a 9.5 percent increase.
  Back in Indiana, we just call this a haircut. But it is a haircut, as 
the gentlelady from Colorado said, that is a reduction of the increase.
  As I listened to the distinguished majority leader, who I enjoy and 
admire more than anyone else in this Chamber, he said if the shoe fits, 
wear it.
  I understand the frustration of looking across the aisle and seeing 
many of my colleagues in my party who voted for an awful lot of 
government programs over the last 6 years complaining about government 
spending, but then there is another saying that says if it does not 
fit, you must acquit.
  I would offer that for many of us asking for this very small haircut 
tonight, it does not fit us. We fought these budget increases. We 
fought the creation of new entitlements. Now we are coming before this 
majority in a spirit of collegiality and asking might we not do with 
$171 million less. Might we not do with just, instead of a 9.5 percent 
increase, how about a 9 percent increase.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you the time remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes remaining; 
the gentlewoman from Colorado has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to thank my colleague from New York and 
also my colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, it's interesting to have that discussion 
about what is a haircut. At this very time this would lead, if I am not 
mistaken, this actual amendment would lead to about a $150 million cut 
to assistance in Israel. At no time is there a more precarious moment 
in Israel's history since the founding of the State of Israel, since 
you have now a war in Lebanon that is affecting the security of the 
State of Israel. You have the Gaza strip, which has been turned over to 
Hamas, an enemy of the United States. There is no time that is a more 
precarious moment in Israel's security.
  You have what's going on in Lebanon on its northern side. You have 
what's going on in Iraq, Jordan, dealing with over 1 million Iraqi 
refugees; Gaza being taken over by Hamas, which is committed to 
Israel's destruction.
  And what do our Republican colleagues recommend? A cut in assistance 
to the only democracy in the Middle East that is facing its most 
serious threat on its northern border, its southern border and, in 
fact, what's going on to its near eastern border. This is a precarious 
moment in Israel security.
  I do believe there can be cuts. I find every time we want to cut 
assistance to big oil companies, you guys can't find the will. But when 
it comes to cutting assistance to Israel, you find the will to do that. 
When it comes to cutting assistance, when it realizes with our military 
commitment to our allies around the world, you know what, since 
everybody wants to make a quote, talk is cheap. Talk is cheap when it 
comes to standing next to your allies. We must put our resources to the 
only democracy in the Middle East.
  This would directly affect Israel. It would directly affect Egypt. It 
would directly affect the countries we rely on as the bulwark against 
the spread of terrorism in the Middle East.
  I would hope you understand. I see the politics. I know a little bit 
about politics. I see the politics in a simple half-percent cut. It 
happens to be politics at the expense of our allies who are on the 
front line in the fight against terrorism.
  I would think better of you, of what you have always said 
rhetorically on the floor about your commitment to democracies in the 
Mideast.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it perfectly clear 
that if you had read the amendment you would see that no assistance to 
Israel is cut. We have common enemies, we have common values, and I am 
a strong supporter of Israel.
  If the gentleman who just made the remarks would look at the 
amendment, he would see there are no cuts to Israel.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for 
offering this amendment, which is offered as one of a series of 
amendments put forward by the fiscal conservatives in this House in a 
modest effort to try to restrain spending when the new majority has 
adopted a budget that assumes the largest tax increase in history by 
assuming that the Bush tax cuts are going to go away.
  On the contrary, the President's budget, which we are trying to stay 
within, assumes that those tax cuts are going to stay in place.
  So it's important, Mr. Chairman, for everyone listening to know that 
these cuts, which we are offering in spending, which are very modest, 
can also be seen as tax cuts. Every dollar we save in this 
appropriations process is a dollar that will not be spent in the 
future, which the Democrats assume in their budget is going to come 
from the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
  So I applaud the gentlewoman from Colorado for offering this 
amendment, and it's important to remember, also, as we go through this 
debate, that all of the Members who are offering these amendments voted 
against most of those big spending increases over these last many 
years. I, for one, got re-elected because I voted against most of those 
big new entitlements and spending increases.
  I know that the gentlewoman from Colorado, the gentleman from 
Georgia, my colleague from Georgia, my colleague from Indiana joined 
me, along with many other members of the Republican Study Committee, in 
voting against those big spending increases. So the shoe indeed does 
not fit these conservative Members.

[[Page 16871]]

  We are proud to stand up here to try to do our best, one brick at a 
time, to control the out-of-control spending by Congress and to prevent 
the biggest tax increase in American history.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to put a little bit of a face on this across-
the-board cut, squeeze and trim, the sort of idiotic approach to 
spending here in this United States government, particularly in this 
budget.
  We happen to have a global war of terrorism going on. In that global 
war, there are a lot of people that don't like the United States.
  But there is a program that the United States has that they very much 
like. They like it because countries are asking at an all-time high, 
send us more; we want more. More countries signing up wanting more 
people.
  What is that program? It's the Peace Corps. And guess what? It's 
funded in this program.
  You know what? The American public out there wants to join the Peace 
Corps at an all-time high. No, it doesn't matter. Just cut the program. 
Cut the program. Don't separate the good from the bad. Just cut it.
  Well, this is why it's also idiotic. Because, as you have heard, this 
program funds an international military education program.
  A few months ago at this roster, we had a Joint Session of Congress; 
and giving that address was King Abdullah of Jordan. Guess where King 
Abdullah found his love for the United States? Studying at the Naval 
postgraduate school in Monterey, California, where 500 foreign officers 
come and study along with our officers every year.
  But, no, that doesn't count. We want to work on trying to get mutual 
understanding to our allies. Cut that program. Cut it across the board.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard from a lot of cut, squeeze and 
trim fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle tonight. I 
would hope that their hometown press is looking whether they, example 
of leadership, are cutting their own budgets from what they have spent 
last year. If they have done that in their own offices, cut their own 
spending, then they have a leg to stand on. But to come up here and 
tell everybody else we ought to cut across the board foreign aid is a 
danger to Americans all over the world.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rothman.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, what would my Republican friends have said 
if the Democrats had offered to cut the President's requested spending 
on foreign affairs by $700 million last year when they were in the 
majority? They would have said that the Democrats were irresponsible.
  This year, now that the Democrats are in the majority, we are 
proposing to cut $700 million from President Bush's request for 
spending on foreign aid. The Democrats, to cut $700 million from 
President Bush's request for spending, and that's what we are 
proposing.
  But my Republican friends, who were in the majority all those years 
rubber-stamping the out-of-control Bush budgets every single year, 
rubber-stamping those budgets, they say that this year, when the 
Democrats want to reduce President Bush's spending on foreign aid 
versus his request by $700 million, should be doing it another $170 
million more if we Democrats were really serious.
  I think people can see through that as the political argument that it 
is, the partisan attack when there is nothing else going for you.
  Because, after all, this is the same group that says there is going 
to be a tax increase under the Democratic majority this year. They say 
it over and over again.
  But, of course, that's not true. So why would someone keep repeating 
something, attacks on the Democrats, saying we are raising taxes this 
year, when it's not true? Why would the Republicans continue to say 
that time and time again?
  Well, you would have to say, well, they must not have much else to 
talk about, other than to make up something that's not true.
  Well, how about this for values, my friends? They talk about values. 
The Democrats' proposal on foreign aid will fund training of foreign 
troops to help us fight the war on terror, aid our allies like Israel, 
fighting HIV/AIDS all over the world and feeding the hungry all over 
the world. And they say we cut $700 million from the President's 
request, we should cut even more if we are responsible, when they 
rubber-stamped their President's high budgets before.
  They are criticizing $170 million in spending, which we think is 
essential. They are spending $50 billion, not $170 million, they are 
spending $50 billion on tax cuts for Americans with incomes of $1 
million a year. Americans with $1 million a year get $150 billion in 
tax cuts. I think the values are wrong on the other side.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
  Mr. Chairman, the other side has been very good tonight, as they are 
most every night since they have been in the majority of retelling and 
retelling over and over the sins of the past.
  Quite frankly, those sins are hard to deny, given the empirical 
evidence is there. We have spent a lot of money and raised the size of 
this government.
  That being said, though, my colleagues' arguments seem to rest on the 
premise that, because the Republicans were spending more and screwing 
this thing up, that somehow this gives the Democrats, gives them some 
license to continue that process, to continue building on this growing 
government and spending more money in fiscal 2008 than we will bring 
in.
  Now, we have heard some arguments that this is not deficit spending, 
but, quite frankly, there will be more money spent under this budget in 
2008 than we will take in. In the simplest form, that is a deficit.
  I am not, personally, a big fan of across-the-board cuts. I agree 
with some of the arguments said on the other side that it's mechanical, 
but, quite frankly, we need to start somewhere on the path to fiscal 
responsibility, and this is a modest start down that path.
  I urge support for that amendment.

                              {time}  2215

  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I think that we're all beginning to figure 
this out now. When this original amendment was offered, it was 
advertised as a cut to the foreign assistance budget, despite the fact 
that Democrats already cut the foreign assistance budget.
  Then we were told, oh, except it doesn't really include Israel. We're 
exempting Israel.
  Then we were told, oh, it's Israel, and also, any appropriations that 
are not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a 
provision of law.
  And so we start off with a cut, and then we say, well, not really a 
cut. We're going to void this and ignore that and sequester this and 
sequester that.
  We're down to Secretary of State licensed chauffeur, my colleagues. 
That's what we're down to. We're down to the linens at state dinners. 
If you want to do a cut, do a cut. If my colleagues want to do a cut, 
do a cut. But don't try and fool the American people.
  All we've heard from the other side is we have to ferret out waste, 
fraud and abuse, except we can't exactly find it, so we'll let you 
figure out.
  Well, the American people have figured it out. You said you don't 
want to hurt national security, and yet this is a cut to foreign 
military financing.

[[Page 16872]]

  You've said you want to win the global war on terror, and yet this is 
a cut to international military education and training.
  You've said you want to cut, but not here, there, or anywhere else.
  As our distinguished majority leader said previously, the truth is 
important, and it ought to be tried every once in a while.
  What we have heard over the past several minutes is nothing but a 
hoax on the American people, and they're not going to fall for it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, some people would not call it a hoax if 
we save 50 cents on every $100 dollars that we spend, that the 
hardworking taxpayers of this country have provided for us.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I love coming down and listening to the majority 
leader when he comes down. You know, I was a real estate salesman. I 
felt like I was a pretty good real estate salesman. And a good salesman 
loves to hear another salesman. And I think the majority leader could 
sell an Eskimo ice cubes.
  But let me say this. He made a statement that the Republicans did not 
fool the people in November. We didn't. Y'all did. And I think the joke 
is up. I think the gig is up. I think the foolish is up, because now 
the ratings of this Congress are at 13 percent, which is about half of 
what they were when the Republicans in charge.
  So you're right. You can fool some of the people some of the time, 
but you can't fool all the people all the time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I would like to recognize the ranking member.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I 
would like to recognize, if I can, Roy Blunt for whatever time he may 
consume. And I will ask to strike the last word to do so.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd like to yield to my colleague, Mr. 
Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And this is a good 
debate. It's a little more spirited at moments than I think it could 
be. In fact, I didn't mean to speak again on this until I heard the 
second-grade math explanation from my good friend, Mr. Obey. And I did 
pretty good in second-grade math. I even did fairly good in 12-grade 
math. And I did okay in college math. But second-grade math was a 
little bit of a stretch, I thought, because I tried to follow the 
second-grade math outline we had on why this was actually, according to 
some group, a cut in spending.
  According to my friend, Mr. Obey, if I heard this right, if you took 
inflation, and then you took the population growth of the world, I 
thought that was an interesting element to the equation, and then if 
you took the deficit as a percentage of the economy, that that actually 
might be a cut.
  This spending is 9\1/2\ percent over last year's spending. I've never 
seen the President's numbers so praised by our friends on the other 
side as it's been tonight. It may be the only time that the President 
had either a perfect number or a number that was just slightly too 
high.
  In fact, I understand this is $700 million less than the President's 
number. That's a lot of money. But it's not as much money as the $2.6 
billion this is over last year's spending. That's a lot more money.
  Now, this is a 9\1/2\ percent increase. And somebody else said, is 
this going to be the baby that's going to break the bank? Probably not. 
But if every one of these bills goes up, it's going to have a big 
impact.
  And my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, said the government today is larger 
than the government you inherited, pointing at us. And then I guess the 
point is, and we're going to make it bigger. I didn't get that at all. 
The government's larger than the government you inherited, he said, 
pointing to us. So we're going to increase these spending bills, this 
one by 9\1/2\ percent.
  Very few American families got a 9\1/2\ percent increase last year. 
And almost none of them got to take the rate of inflation, the 
population growth somewhere, and whatever they had as a percent of the 
entire national economy and decide how that number added up.
  This is a 9\1/2\ percent growth in the foreign assistance part of the 
budget. This amendment says, let's just do a little less than we did 
last year and see if we can't make up with that with efficiency. One of 
the other amendments said, let's just do what we did last year.
  But this is a $2.6 billion growth. Let's not anybody be confused that 
that's a cut, or it relates to some complicated formula, or somehow if 
you didn't understand second-grade math, you would realize this wasn't 
a real increase. This is an increase. This is too much of an increase.
  We need to start doing the kinds of things on this bill and the other 
bill that hold the line, as we did hold the line on the discretionary 
non-defense budget in the past Congresses. We looked at the entitlement 
programs in the past Congress. None of that's happening in this 
Congress. So those programs are going to grow until we're told the 
budget's balanced.
  And by the way, in 35 of the last 39 Congresses, the budget wasn't 
balanced. And in seven of those, that was our fault, and the 
circumstances we dealt with. In the other 28, the majority party's 
party was in control.
  We need to be doing better. We need to start now. This is real growth 
that families couldn't just pass off as some complicated formula. We 
shouldn't either. We should be able to cut this budget by the one-half 
of 1 percent that the gentlelady from Colorado has suggested.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, tonight I again am amazed that our 
President's numbers have been so highly esteemed by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. And I don't believe I've ever heard a 
debate where so much Scripture was quoted by the folks that constantly 
talk about the separation of church and state. So it's been quite an 
amazing evening here.
  When the American people see all this, perhaps their heads spin as we 
talk about all these things, and maybe they don't understand everything 
we say because we're in this political arena. We're serving in 
Congress. And they're working hard every day trying to provide for 
their families.
  But I think what the American people would understand, Mr. Chairman, 
I have 2 quarters in this hand. This is 50 cents. In this other hand I 
have a dollar bill, a $100 bill. The American people know that 
government spends too much money. All I'm asking for in this amendment 
is for us not to spend this 50 cents.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the 5 minutes. But let me say 
that I find it rather humorous that our good friends on the other side 
of the aisle would utter not one peep when this President decides to 
spend over $600 billion on a war in Iraq which he misled the country 
into, which he didn't have a clue of how to get out of, and now he's 
asking us to make a commitment that will lead over the next 20 years to 
the expenditure of at least $1 trillion more for that same misguided 
cause. Not a peep; most of their buttons wired right to the White 
House, wired right to Karl Rove's desk.
  And yet, it's the same crowd that will then make a Federal case out 
of the fact that when we cut the President's budget for foreign aid we 
didn't cut it quite enough. And so they're making a Federal case out of 
one-half of 1 percent.
  My good friend, Archie the Cockroach observed once, ``Remember the 
importance of proportion. Of what use is it for a queen bee to fall in 
love with a bull?''
  Think about it. If you do, you'll realize just how silly and 
misguided this debate is, because this is a crowd who spent willingly 
$600 billion on the most damaging war in recent American history, and 
yet are now objecting to the President's request to fund a bill which 
is traditionally meant to repair our relationships around the world and 
to

[[Page 16873]]

pay a little bit of the cost of citizenship on a planet where many 
millions of people are a whole lot less fortunate than we are.
  I'm also amused by the fact that we hear a constant cry from the 
other side of the aisle, ``We need bipartisanship. Politics ends at the 
water's edge.'' And then when we try to demonstrate a little 
bipartisanship by giving the President most of what he asked, but not 
all, we then get the White House complaining because we've cut this 
bill too deeply, and we get their supporters in this House crying that 
we didn't cut it deeply enough. I get whiplash trying to follow the 
direction of a party that is that schizophrenic.
  So with all due respect, we understand that this is a marginal 
debate. It is a debate ginned up to try to find any excuse whatsoever 
to bring down this bill.
  It's not going to do it. Let's get on with the public's business. 
Let's be responsible. Let's reject this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

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

                              {time}  2230

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


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

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

[[Page 16874]]

future sessions, that these amendments may not be necessary on the 
floor; and I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman in the future to 
incorporate such language similar to this in the actual underlying 
bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. We are happy to work with you in the future on this 
amendment or any other amendments, and I am pleased that we are 
accepting this amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


                           DEFICIT REDUCTION

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

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pence

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today includes in various 
ways tens of millions of dollars that would be directed to advancing 
U.S. interests in areas known as the West Bank and Gaza.
  Given the recent violent and tragic events in the Palestinian 
territories and the strong commitment of this body to prevent taxpayer 
funding from reaching the hands of terrorists, I offer an amendment 
that reinforces previous prohibitions on funding Palestinian terrorist 
organizations and offer it for my colleagues' consideration on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states: ``None of the funds made 
available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the 
Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.''
  So what is existing law? The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was 
amended by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act last year, in 2006. It 
was signed into law in December. It states that, ``No ministry, agency 
or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority effectively controlled 
by Hamas'' would be eligible for funding unless it meets the basic 
preconditions of civil society, namely, recognition of Israel and the 
renunciation of violence.
  The purpose of this amendment today is to clarify that assistance may 
be provided to the Fattah elements of the PA government, assuming such 
elements are not engaged in the terrorism or compromise by the 
terrorism of Hamas. Concern about the application of this provision may 
have led the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mrs. Lowey, to put a 
hold and request information from Secretary Rice about her intent to 
release funding to the PA.
  Now, these safeguards and other relevant laws are critical because 
they prohibit assistance to terrorists, including to a Hamas-controlled 
Palestinian Authority, but they permit assistance to a PA government 
that is in compliance with the principles of recognition of Israel, 
previous peace agreements, and a renunciation of violence.
  Why is it necessary? Well, because, given the systematic instability, 
we simply don't know what shape the Palestinian government will take in 
the coming months. Large portions of the Palestinian territories are in 
virtual anarchy at this moment. Even worse, Gaza is completely 
dominated by Hamas, a universally recognized terrorist organization. We 
cannot permit one red cent of U.S. dollars to find its way to Hamas.
  After lengthy discussions with the Department of State, including 
Secretary of State Rice herself, I would like my colleagues to know 
that this amendment is not opposed by the State Department. In fact, I 
had a warm and candid conversation today with the Secretary of State, 
and I told her then that it is critical that we clarify that the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 is still the law of the land and 
reiterate its intent, namely, to deny funding to terrorist entities 
within the Palestinian leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot permit any ambiguity to exist on this 
subject. This body should be on the record today, as we have before, 
that no American tax dollars can be delivered to any authority within 
the Palestinian territories that is compromised or even tainted by 
Hamas or other terrorist interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.
  It is my understanding that it reiterates the restrictions on direct 
aid to the PA that are already in current law that are clearly included 
in this bill. I certainly expect the administration to abide by these 
restrictions, and I thank

[[Page 16875]]

the gentleman for his amendment. In fact, I am wondering why the 
gentleman is offering the amendment if it is already included in the 
bill.
  I also understand that my good friends on the other side of the aisle 
are whipping against this bill. This bill provides millions of dollars 
for Israel and for many good causes all around the world. So for those 
who are standing up as friends of Israel and want to protect Israel, I 
wonder why you are whipping against a bill that is providing millions 
of dollars for Israel.
  And I thank the gentleman for your amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for yielding.
  He makes a good point. I am actually for this bill coming forward, 
but we need to send an important signal.
  The administration has said that they are going to provide direct aid 
to the Palestinian Authority and provide $40 million to the U.N. Relief 
and Works Agency in Gaza. U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to 
finance a culture of ``welfare terrorism.''
  This morning, Secretary Rice agreed to work with us in upgrading the 
auditing regime of UNRWA, and we hope that that will include an end to 
Cash Assistance payments to terrorists and martyr families, with a full 
independent audit of UNRWA programs outside the U.N. structure.
  We have looked in the past at our errors, in the 1990s, when the U.S. 
poured hundreds of millions of dollars into assistance for the Yassar 
Arafat government and the return on taxpayer investments was very low 
indeed. In haste, we should not repeat our errors made just a few short 
fiscal years ago.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for her 
support of this amendment. Let me also say to the gentlewoman that I 
intend to support the underlying legislation and appreciate her strong 
work in support of Israel.

                              {time}  2245

  The reason for bringing this bill, to answer the gentlelady's 
question, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. In recent days, the State 
Department has indicated its intent to ``lift restrictions on aid to 
Palestinians.'' And the Pence amendment today will simply say that any 
aid that would go to the Palestinian Authority must, with an 
exclamation point, only go to the Palestinian Authority under current 
restrictions in current law. That is my sincere intent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I also 
am delighted to know that you will support the bill. It is a good bill. 
The ranking member and I worked very closely in a bipartisan way. I 
have the greatest respect for my friend and ranking member, Mr. Wolf. 
It was really disappointing for me to hear that the whip's office was 
working against the bill.
  I thank you so much. It's a good bill. I appreciate your support, and 
I'm happy to accept this amendment because the current restrictions, 
which you rightly suggest, are in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the 5 minutes. I simply want to 
say that I appreciate the fact that the committee has accepted this 
amendment. But let me simply make one point.
  Because we have heard on this side of the aisle that the minority 
party is whipping against the bill, let me simply say that I would hope 
that there are no Members of this House who would engage in an act 
which would give hypocrisy a bad name by voting for this amendment, 
which in essence simply repeats existing law, and then use that as 
cover as an excuse to then vote against the bill in final passage. I 
don't think that friends of Israel would be conned by that. And I would 
hope, and I have full confidence, that no Member of this House would 
engage in such hypocrisy.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to associate myself with 
his efforts though I believe it does not go far enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues when we will learn 
from our mistakes?
  Did we learn anything when Arafat took our money and stashed it in 
his Swiss bank accounts instead of providing for his own people?
  Did we learn anything when Fatah was exposed as nothing but a corrupt 
gang of thugs?
  Did we learn anything when Abu Mazen refused to rout Hamas when he 
had the chance and showed that his backbone is no stronger than a wet 
noodle?
  Did we learn anything when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza 
and Fatah failed to build one school, one hospital, one road, did one 
thing to improve the lives of its own people, but still came to us with 
their palms open for more money?
  Did we learn when the Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad 
admitted that hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid had been 
siphoned off, thanks to corruption and malfeasance?
  Mr. Chairman, let's stop throwing good after bad. We should cut off 
funding to the corrupt and ineffectual Palestinian Authority. If I have 
learned anything it is this: If the U.S. gives Abu Mazen 50 cents or 
$50 million or $500 million more dollars he will be incapable of 
uniting the Palestinian people, leading the Palestinian people or 
bringing peace to a very troubled part of the world. I thank the 
gentleman from Indiana again for addressing this important issue and I 
yield back.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Berkley

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Berkley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


             PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSISTANCE TO SAUDI ARABIA

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
Ferguson and myself to offer an important amendment to cut off funding 
to the Saudi Arabian regime.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that we need not be sending 
foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. First, Saudi Arabia does not need our 
money. They are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with a 
GDP of over $286 billion a year. With poor countries begging us for 
help, why are we giving money to this oil-rich kingdom? Is not 60, 70, 
$80 a barrel enough?
  Second, Saudi Arabia exports and funds terrorists and terrorism. Need 
I remind anyone in this body that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? 
But the story goes on. By 2005, over 2,500 Saudi

[[Page 16876]]

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


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

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


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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment is a fairly simple amendment. It goes into the section 
and limits the funds for travel by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives to countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. And 
it simply says none of the funds may be used to support travel by the 
Speaker to the nations specifically of Cuba, Iran, North

[[Page 16877]]

Korea, Sudan or Syria. And the reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that 
there are two constraints on the Speaker of the House. One of them is a 
constitutional constraint that vests the authority of foreign policy 
into the President of the United States. And that's clear. And that's 
established in the Constitution and codified by our founders 
specifically so there wouldn't be a division of messages, that we would 
speak with one voice on foreign policy.
  And when they had problems with that even after the ratification of 
the Constitution, then they passed the Logan Act, which has been in law 
for over 200 years. And the Logan Act prohibits anyone representing the 
United States, without the authority of the administration, to conduct 
foreign policy. And it's clear that's what happened in Syria, and it 
was reported in newspapers all over this country in April.
  And so this legislation, this appropriation, without my amendment, 
would allow taxpayers' dollars to support what I believe is 
unconstitutional behavior and statutory violations.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my good friend 
from Iowa for providing comic relief at this late hour of this debate.
  This carefully constructed, exquisitely constructed absurdity 
masquerading as an amendment, and on the west coast there are still 
children watching this program, and I hope they are watching it because 
this is a rare moment in the history of the Congress of the United 
States.
  There are 435 Members in this body, every single one of us elected by 
our constituents. The Speaker of the House, at the moment, happens to 
be the Representative from the Eighth District of California. Now, if 
the gentleman were to offer an amendment saying that 434 Members may 
travel to Cuba and Sudan and Iran and Syria, but the Representative 
from the Tenth District of Illinois or the Seventh District of Texas 
may not, he would be laughed out of court. But that is precisely what 
this so-called amendment purports to do. It says nothing about any 
other Member of the Congress of the United States.

                              {time}  2300

  We are free to travel to Syria. We are free to travel to North Korea. 
But one of our colleagues, who happens to represent the Eighth District 
of California, may not.
  Now, San Francisco happens to have two Representatives; Ms. Pelosi, 
who represents the Eighth District, and I represent the Twelfth 
District. The absurdity that you pretend is an amendment allows the 
person representing a part of San Francisco to travel to North Korea, 
to travel to Syria, to travel to Sudan, but the person representing the 
other part of San Francisco may not.
  Now, I really don't think that this amendment can be taken seriously 
at its face value. There is a hidden message here. That hidden message 
is a low blow, a pathetically low blow, aimed at our most distinguished 
Speaker of this body.
  I was with the Speaker on her visit, not only to Syria, but to 
Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. She represented the United States with 
eloquence, dignity and distinction. It turns my stomach that this 
sickening partisan attempt to get at the Speaker's performance of her 
legitimate duties is presented here as an amendment.
  Let me, however, deal with the underlying issue. The underlying issue 
relates to travel to countries with which we disagree. May I point out, 
Mr. Chairman, that beginning in 1981, at the height of the Cold War, I 
was appointed chair of our Parliamentary Liaison to the European 
Parliament. It became obvious to me that most of our colleagues in 1981 
had never traveled in the Soviet Union or behind the Iron Curtain. So, 
every year I took it upon myself to lead a congressional delegation to 
the Soviet Union and to all the Communist countries of the Soviet bloc.
  Many of my colleagues at that time had no passport. But as a result 
of year after year after year going to these Communist countries, many 
Members of this body became familiar with the circumstances. Their 
commitment of anti-Communism was enhanced, and their understanding of 
the Soviet Union and the Central and East European satellites became 
much clearer.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the primitive, absurd, stupid notion that we should not 
allow Members of Congress to travel to countries with which we have 
disagreement is really beneath contempt. This know-nothingism has no 
place in this body. The discriminatory approach of allowing 434 Members 
of the House of Representatives to travel to the Sudan, to look at 
Darfur and the tragedy unfolding there, but not to allow the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives to see with her own eyes the genocide 
which is taking place in Darfur is not worthy of this body.
  I hope that my friend from Iowa will withdraw this pathetic absurdity 
masquerading as an amendment. It is not an amendment. It is a low blow 
at the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. I hope 
that if the gentleman does not withdraw it, it will be overwhelmingly 
defeated.
  This body is a body of adult men and women who are prepared to go to 
Syria, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, and, if the Iranians will let us in, 
to Iran. At this moment, the Ahmadinejad government does not offer 
visas to any Member of Congress. I have been attempting to go there for 
well over 10 years. I hope, one of these days, a group of us will go 
there.
  But the notion of proposing an ostrich policy aimed at the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, that she may not go to Cuba, while scores 
of Republicans and Democrats go, while scores of Republicans and 
Democrats go to the Sudan and to Syria, is a cheap partisan blow. Days 
before we went to Syria, three Republican colleagues were in Syria, and 
I salute them; days after we went there, another Republican colleague 
went there.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think after that 
speech, there is absolutely no need to say anything more. The amendment 
says a whole lot more about the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) than it 
says about the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment for three reasons. One, I would 
hope in the next Congress we have a Republican Speaker, and so I 
wouldn't want to see that side limit our Speaker. That is number one.
  Number two, Senator Sam Brownback and I were one of the first ones to 
go to Darfur. I wish more Members would go to Darfur. I think it is 
genocide. I think one of the problems is that this place hasn't moved 
fast enough because people haven't seen it. They couldn't smell it. 
They just couldn't feel it. And so to say you couldn't go to Darfur 
where there is a genocide taking place now is just not a good idea. I 
have been to Sudan five times. Certainly you couldn't limit the Speaker 
to go some place that I, as a lowly Member, could go to.
  The third reason is that I was one of the Members who went to Syria. 
Now, I am not a weak person. I used to go to the Soviet Union during 
the days of Communism and speak out for the dissidents. Chris Smith and 
I went into Perm Camp 35 and interviewed Sharansky's cellmate and did a 
lot of things that really made a difference.
  When I went to Syria, here is what I said to Assad. With me was 
Robert Aderholt, not exactly a liberal Member of the House; Joe Pitts, 
again, God bless him, a very conservative Member of the House, a good 
person. Here is

[[Page 16878]]

what we said to Assad four times, and it was good that he heard it. I 
said it twice, and Mr. Pitts said it once, and Mr. Aderholt said it 
once. We said, one, stop allowing foreign fighters to come and transit 
your border. I am not saying it is because of our effort, but 2 weeks 
after that, the Commanding General in Afghanistan said that the foreign 
fighters had slowed down. They actually saw the results.
  Secondly, Israel's right to exist. Assad should have heard Members. 
More Members should go tell Assad, Israel has the right to exist.
  Thirdly, I said stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. We were 4 feet 
from him. We looked at him directly in the eye and said no more 
support. We know and they know where Hamas and Hezbollah have their 
offices. They're in Damascus.
  Lastly, we said to them with regard to this, stop interfering in 
Lebanon's right to exist.
  So, I am of the mind, and I may be in the minority of my party, I 
take the Ronald Reagan approach. Ronald Reagan, when he called the 
Soviet Union the evil empire, his greatest speech was to the National 
Association of Evangelicals, Orlando, Florida, 1983. He called them the 
evil empire. But as he called them the evil empire, he sent people out 
to talk.
  If you recall his speech he gave at Danilov Monastery, where he 
talked about freedom, Gorbachev was there. Ronald Reagan defeated the 
Soviets because he went and engaged, not in weakness. He put the Cruise 
Missiles in in Europe in 1983 when people complained. But he was able 
to do it.
  So, one, I hope we have a Republican Speaker, and I would hope 
everyone on our side agrees when we have a Republican Speaker in the 
next Congress.
  Two, I went to Sudan. I think everybody in this body ought to go to 
Sudan. They ought to go to Darfur. Maybe it was because of the failure 
of people to go to Rwanda. Maybe that wouldn't have taken place.
  Lastly, intellectually it would be impossible to say this was a good 
idea if I was one of the ones that went. I think by going I served the 
interests of our Government. I was criticized. I had people criticize 
me.

                              {time}  2315

  But I thought it was good that Assad heard that.
  Lastly, I met with the leading dissident in Syria, and I said, 
``Should we put your name in our release?'' And he said, ``Please, put 
my name in.'' Sharansky used to tell us, ``When you spoke out for me, 
when you said things for me, my life got better.''
  This dissident said, ``Mention my name. Mention my name. I will stand 
with you,'' because, he said, ``nobody else is coming to meet with me 
and stand with me.'' We stood with him, and when we left Syria, after 
we left, the Syrian Government criticized us for the tone of what they 
thought we said.
  But, God bless, I would hope that every Member of this body would go 
to Syria and sit down with Assad and say, stop the foreign fighters; 
Israel's right to exist; stop the support for Hezbollah and Hamas; and 
stop messing around in Lebanon and let these people who want freedom to 
have freedom.
  For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that no one here that has traveled to 
a foreign country has announced a new foreign policy but the Speaker of 
the House. No one here has pointed out how it is you can contravene the 
Constitution. We all take an oath, solemnly swear to uphold this 
Constitution. And no one here has pointed to a law that supersedes the 
Logan Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to my good friend from California 
who knows I have a great deal of respect for him, this is not a 
sickening or pathetic amendment. It is not primitive, stupid or absurd, 
as it was described. It is not an ostrich amendment. And this is not a 
low blow, nor is anyone saying that the Speaker of this House is not an 
eloquent speaker and Representative as she goes forward out into the 
world as Speaker of this institution.
  Nor would I tell my colleagues, is this an amendment about Member 
travel. No one says that we should not be about educating ourselves so 
that we can better effect public policy here in our roles as Members of 
this Congress and as Representatives of the constituents that elect us.
  What this is about is about travel by an individual who is second in 
line to the President of the United States. Like it or not, for the 434 
others of us, it does mean something different when the Speaker of the 
House goes somewhere.
  As my friend from Iowa indicates, all reports say when the trip to 
Syria occurred, that somehow it was perceived on the ground and in the 
region that somehow the United States was embarking upon new foreign 
policy.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would say from Iran's hot pursuit of nuclear 
weapons to Syria's eagerness to stir violence against our interests in 
the Middle East, America faces a growing list of terrorist states, as 
my good friend from California is well aware. And amidst such threats, 
the United States must speak forthrightly and with one voice.
  Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, they all are feeble states 
whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. Their regimes are 
vulnerable to international sanction, and they will not change until 
America and its allies apply enough pressure to endanger their regimes.
  I would just say when the Speaker of the House goes to these nations 
and it is perceived that somehow we are capitulating, it goes against 
our interests. That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to conclude.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I take us to this path where we are, 
and I haven't heard the response to the issue of the constitutional 
constraints that we all have.
  I have traveled foreign and I have sat in there in diplomatic 
discussions and debates and I have heard us get off track. I have heard 
us put our national security at risk, because sometimes the people that 
were there on the codel weren't tuned in with the administration's 
policy. I have not seen us take us to the crisis moment, but I have 
seen the precipice of the crisis moment.
  But our founders understood this clearly and that is why they laid 
that responsibility in the hands of the President of the United States 
to conduct our foreign policy. That is why he appoints the Ambassadors. 
That is why he negotiates the treaties. That is why 200 years of 
tradition and history and constitutional law takes us down this path.
  And if we can ignore our oath to the Constitution, then on top of 
that, how can we ignore the Logan Act, which is the only controlling 
Federal statute that we have? The Logan Act says no citizen of the 
United States shall take foreign policy into their own hands.
  Our Speaker clearly traveled to a terrorist-sponsored state against 
the express wishes of the President of the United States.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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


[[Page 16879]]

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

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Boustany of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
  An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 52 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Pence of Indiana.
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boustany

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

[[Page 16880]]



                             [Roll No. 535]

                                AYES--74

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

                               NOES--343

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

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

                              {time}  2347

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


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 536]

                               AYES--203

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

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)

[[Page 16881]]


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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Christensen
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  2352

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 268, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 537]

                               AYES--152

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

                               NOES--268

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

[[Page 16882]]



                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  2356

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


            Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 538]

                               AYES--168

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

                               NOES--252

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  0001

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 241, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 539]

                               AYES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick

[[Page 16883]]


     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--241

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  0005

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pence

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 390, 
noes 30, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 540]

                               AYES--390

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

[[Page 16884]]



                                NOES--30

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  0009

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


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 541]

                                AYES--84

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

                               NOES--337

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

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


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  0013

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

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

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the 
Appropriations Committee for putting together a bipartisan bill that 
provides assistance for such important issues as global health, 
humanitarian assistance in Sudan, the environment and peacekeeping 
operations around the world.
  The 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill reinforces 
the notion that foreign policy is about more than the use of military 
force and that foreign assistance and humanitarian aid are important 
components of foreign policy making.
  The bill provides $949 million for Sudan, of which $210 million is 
for critical humanitarian and peacekeeping programs in Darfur. The 
remaining funds are for development assistance and to strengthen 
democratic institutions in southern Sudan.
  Global health efforts also receive funding in this bill. The bill 
provides $5 billion for HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention and care 
programs around the world.
  The bill also includes $501 million for clean energy and biodiversity 
programs worldwide. Educational and cultural exchanges receive more 
than $500 million to fund participation of over 42,000 individuals in 
educational, cultural, and professional exchange programs including 
Fulbright exchanges.
  The bill also contains funding for programs in many countries around 
the world, including Pakistan.
  The U.S. appreciates Pakistan's effort in the fight against global 
terrorism. However, President Musharraf's decision to enter into a non-

[[Page 16885]]

aggression pact with tribal leaders in the Waziristan region appears to 
have provided a safe haven for the Taliban and has led to an increase 
in Taliban and al Qaeda attacks inside Afghanistan. We should encourage 
the Pakistani Government to reconsider this policy.
  As we provide additional support to Pakistan, we must also make it 
clear that we stand with those calling for free and fair elections. The 
firing of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Muhammad Chaudhury 
raises serious questions about President Musharraf's commitment to an 
independent judiciary and the rule of law. The U.S. must make clear to 
the people of Pakistan that we support the democratic process and 
expect President Musharraf to honor his pledge to abandon his dual role 
as both head of state and head of the armed forces.
  The United States has long stood as a beacon for human rights, 
democracy, and the rule of law. That beacon has been dimmed as a result 
of the Bush administration's blunders and abuses in places like Iraq 
and Guantanamo Bay. These practices have created a perception that the 
United States has a double standard when it comes to the rule of law 
and the promotion of democracy. We must speak with a clear and 
consistent voice on these issues or we will continue to lose our 
credibility, erode our ability to influence decisions, and weaken our 
national security.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and also to 
congratulate Chairwoman Lowey for her impressive job in crafting a 
spending bill that meets our important commitments to the international 
community.
  I would especially like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and the State-
Foreign Operations Subcommittee for including language in the Committee 
Report that I requested regarding the science and technology literacy 
and capacity in the U.S. Department of State. Additionally, the 
Committee Report includes language I requested supporting the variety 
of science fellowship programs in the Department of State, including 
the science-diplomacy fellows of the American Association for the 
Advancemnt of Science (AAAS), the professional society fellows, and the 
recently established Jefferson Fellows Program.
  The Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of 
State (STAS) has played an important role at the Department of State 
since 2000. As the chief scientist at State, the Adviser has brought 
greater visibility to ``science for diplomacy'' and ``diplomacy for 
science.'' STAS has increased the number of PhD scientists and 
engineers employed at the Department, including AAAS fellows, 
professional society fellows, and most recently, Jefferson Science 
Fellows program.
  I am glad that the Committee Report includes language applauding the 
work of the STAS for continuing to promote the essential role of 
science and technology in diplomacy. More importantly, the committee 
strongly encourages the Department to continue to increase science and 
technology capacity and literacy within the Department and the role of 
science and technology in our Nation's foreign policy. And the 
committee requests that the Secretary of State be prepared to report 
during hearings on the Fiscal Year 2009 request on progress made during 
the 2008 fiscal year.
  I look forward to working with the State Department and the 
Appropriations Committee to ensure that advances are made to achieve 
these stated goals during this upcoming fiscal year.
  Second, language included in the Committee Report supports the JSF 
and the other science fellowship programs in the Department of State 
and makes clear that the committee believes they are valuable programs 
that should be expanded in the years ahead.
  As a former AAAS science fellow I know first hand about the important 
role that science fellows serve in helping policymakers better 
understand and are able to advance science and technology as a major 
component of diplomacy.
  One such program, the Jefferson Science Fellows (JSF) program was 
established Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2003. By providing 
1-year fellowships to tenured academic scientists and engineers from 
our Nation's colleges and universities, the JSF program works to 
incorporate the American science, technology, and engineering 
communities into the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign 
policy. Each Jefferson Science Fellow is hosted during their fellowship 
at the Department of State or a foreign embassy abroad. Jefferson 
Science Fellows are now contributing their scientific expertise to such 
challenging problems as nuclear non-proliferation, assessments of 
nanotechnology, pandemics like avian flu, and extreme weather. As the 
JSF program matures, this growing cadre of practicing experts with 
first-hand knowledge of the workings within the Department of State 
will be an increasingly important resource throughout the government.
  Again, I would like to thank the committee for including this 
language and I look forward to working with the committee as we build 
the role of science in our Nation's diplomacy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal 
2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and to express my 
appreciation for the significant increase in funding for trade capacity 
building.
  This bill raises the Federal appropriation to $214 million, $87 
million more than the administration requested.
  Regardless of one's position on trade, helping our trading partners, 
particularly those in developing countries, with the financial 
assistance to improve enforcement of their labor and environmental laws 
is a good thing.
  I would encourage the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee to 
consider holding a hearing to assess how these funds have been 
effective at building capacity in these developing countries.
  I think there is a good story that should be told.
  Looking forward, however, we have several free trade agreements that 
we will be asked to consider in the next few months, Peru, Panama, 
Colombia, and Korea.
  Three, Peru, Panama and Colombia, are with developing countries that 
are eligible to receive trade capacity assistance.
  And while none of these agreements is a done deal, Colombia appears 
to be the one with the greatest level of concern.
  A number of our colleagues are rightly concerned about Colombia's 
record on human rights and the alarmingly high number of labor leaders 
that have been killed in recent years.
  Given this concern, I would like to see this appropriation clarify 
that some portion of the $214 million should go specifically to the 
Colombian Government, the attorney general's office, which is charged 
with investigating these killings and bringing the perpetrators to 
justice.
  The attorney general has is no easy task.
  President Uribe's effort to disband the paramilitary groups and bring 
about a peace agreement with the insurgents has made progress, but it 
has also overwhelmed the attorney general's office and the courts with 
a backlog of petitions to adjudicate.
  Thousands of cases of former paramilitary soldiers and insurgents 
must be investigated before any seeking amnesty can be pardoned.
  Only those proven innocent of any human rights abuses are granted 
amnesty.
  I understand that the killing of labor leaders is being investigated, 
but the progress is slow and complicated by competing demands to clear 
the backlog of requests for pardons and amnesties.
  I think Colombia would welcome our financial assistance to expedite 
the investigations into human rights abuses and killings of labor 
leaders.
  I also think an offer of assistance would be a tangible demonstration 
of our willingness to help them address our concerns.
  I encourage you to consider this request when you begin your 
discussions with the Senate on a final conference agreement.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly 
object to the reduction in assistance to Colombia and the significant 
redirection of funding for counternarcotic programs in this 
legislation.
  Now is not the time to turn our backs on one of our most important 
democratic allies in the Western Hemisphere. We need to reaffirm, not 
dismantle, our commitment to these programs, to the people of Colombia, 
and to American citizens.
  The drug trade in Colombia is a major factor in the instability in 
Latin America; it is killing Americans every day, and is a source of 
funding for terrorism in the hemisphere.
  I have traveled to Colombia several times over the past few years and 
can say firsthand our significant investment is beginning to pay 
dividends. Under the leadership of President Uribe, Colombia has 
experienced success in fighting narcoterrorism and bringing democratic 
stability to the country.
  Now is not the time to cut funding--when progress is being made.
  We must recognize the difficult work of President Uribe and the 
challenges he faces with guerillas, paramilitary groups, drug 
traffickers, and terrorists.
  Despite these difficulties, Uribe has rescued his country from a 
near-failed-state status and has reestablished state presence in areas 
of the country that for decades lacked it. Drug traffickers are being 
captured and extradited to the U.S. for prosecution, kidnapping rates 
have decreased significantly, and the Colombian people finally feel 
safe traveling within their own country.

[[Page 16886]]

  We are also seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication, 
and Plan Colombia's efforts have produced record reductions in coca 
cultivation and in the destruction of drug labs. Each week brings news 
of new seizures of cocaine and heroin--interdictions that are usually 
the result of U.S. supplied intelligence.
  Of course obstacles remain, and progress may be slower than my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like it to be.
  But now is not the time to turn our backs on this battle which is so 
intrinsically tied to our war on terrorism and the scourge of illegal 
drug use. The Uribe administration is committed to this war but it 
needs U.S. assistance to improve mobility, intelligence, and training.
  Congress must continue to provide sustained funding for Plan Colombia 
and Andean Counterdrug Initiative programs and approve a free trade 
agreement.
  The administration requested $589 million for promoting development 
and fighting drugs in Colombia.
  Full funding of programs coupled with a free trade agreement is 
critical to sustaining our success in Colombia, fostering development 
and investment, and protecting our interests in Latin America.
  It's simple, Mr. Chairman, we cannot win this war on drugs and drug-
supported terrorism without the proper tools and resources.
  Colombia is a key ally in an increasingly anti-American region--we 
must do everything we can to ensure it remains a political and economic 
partner.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2764, the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2008 and to 
commend Chairwoman Lowey for her exceptional leadership in shepherding 
this bill through the legislative process.
  I strongly support this legislation because it is an indispensable 
measure in restoring America's international prestige and leadership 
position in the global community. Equally important, this legislation 
reflects what is good about America: its generosity, its concern for 
the less fortunate, its commitment to protecting the weak and uplifting 
the downtrodden, and the recognition that we live in an interdependent 
world. You will recall the wise counsel of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., who said, ``we will either live together as brothers or we 
will perish as fools.''
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 2764 because it rests upon a solid 
foundation supported by four pillars or guiding principles: (1) the 
United States must respond to humanitarian suffering and health crises; 
(2) the United States should set an example for the world in providing 
development assistance because development efforts play a crucial role 
in increasing global stability; (3) the United States must continue to 
make addressing global HIV/AIDS a key priority; and (4) the United 
States must increase its efforts to support its allies in the global 
war on terror. This legislation accomplishes all of these goals and 
does so in a fiscally responsible manner. In fact, the $34.2 billion 
dollars appropriated in H.R. 2764 is substantially less--$700 million 
less--than the amount requested by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, as founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's 
Caucus I am constantly reminded of the importance of programs to 
enhance the health of women and children the world over. In fact, the 
best way to improve the life chances of poor children living in the 
poorest countries is to elevate the quality of maternal health of their 
mothers.
  In Sub-Saharan African countries, 1 out of every 14 girls entering 
adolescence will die before the end of her childbearing years. More 
than 11 million children will die before reaching their fifth birthday 
from preventable causes like pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and 
malnutrition. That translates to about 30,000 children deaths a day. It 
is unconscionable to lose these lives when they can be saved with low-
cost interventions.
  Mr. Chairman, during my last visit to the United Nations I was proud 
to attend the United Nations Special Session on Children, where I 
pledged my commitment to improving the lives of children over the next 
decade. H.R. 2764 takes a big step toward fulfilling this commitment.
  The bill provides $1.9 billion for the Child Survival and Health 
Programs Fund, intended to reduce infant mortality and to improve the 
health and nutrition of children, especially in the poorest nations. 
This is an increase of 25 percent over the administration's short-
sighted request. In addition the bill allocates $750 million in grants 
to organizations that support basic education programs, $300 million 
for safe water programs, and $501 million for environment and clean 
energy programs.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps nowhere on earth is America's commitment to its 
fundamental values more on trial than in the crucible of human misery 
and suffering that is Darfur in Sudan. Since 2003, we have witnessed a 
systematic campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, mass murder, and 
terror in the Sudanese region of Darfur. In the years since the 
conflict began, we have commemorated the 10th anniversary of the 1994 
Rwandan genocide and the 60th anniversary of the liberation of 
Auschwitz, but promises of ``never again'' ring empty as genocide is 
allowed to continue in Sudan. As violence persists despite peace 
treaties and African Union peacekeeping efforts, now is the time to 
follow admirable rhetoric with definitive action to stop the violence 
in Darfur.
  The Government of Sudan, through both support of the Janjaweed 
militia and direct military action, is responsible for systematic 
assaults against civilians belonging to the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit 
ethnic groups. In the past 4 years, the genocide in Darfur has claimed 
more than 450,000 lives and has displaced well over 2 million 
civilians. While some of these have made their way to over-crowded 
refugee camps in neighboring Chad, most remain trapped within Sudan. 
These displaced persons are completely dependent on international aid 
for their survival, the arrival and distribution of which has been 
impeded by the Sudanese Government.
  It has been nearly a year since the United Nations Security Council 
adopted Resolution 1706, authorizing the deployment of 20,000 U.N. 
peacekeepers to bolster the 7,000-strong African Union force already 
active in the area. It has now been over a year since I traveled to 
Chad and walked across the border to Sudan. I had the opportunity to 
meet with these African Union troops, who pleaded for expanded 
peacekeeping authority and the resources to protect the refugees from 
violence.
  In addition to the ongoing suffering of civilians within Sudan, the 
violence has now spilled across the borders into both Chad and the 
Central African Republic, and is undermining any prospects for 
stability in the entire region. Relations between Chad and Sudan have 
rapidly deteriorated, and, in addition to the flood of refugees moving 
across the border, the two nations have become locked in a proxy war. 
Chadian rebel groups, based in Darfur and supported by the Sudanese 
Government, have been launching cross-border attacks on civilians in 
Chad since late 2005. Similarly, fighting between rebels and government 
troops has displaced over 70,000 people in the northeastern region of 
the Central African Republic. The situation in these neighboring 
nations has deteriorated to the point where the United Nations is 
working towards the deployment of a peacekeeping force to these two 
countries.
  In short, the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan also 
continues. International observers, including the Bush administration, 
have determined what is taking place in Darfur is genocide. As we 
demonstrated in Kosovo, once roused to act in the face of evil, America 
will be resolute and triumphant. That it is why I am so pleased that 
H.R. 2764 provides $210.5 million for critical humanitarian and 
peacekeeping programs in Darfur, which is 90 percent above the 
President's request.
  The bill also provides an additional $738.8 million, $4 million above 
the President's request, for Sudan, primarily for development 
assistance to build the economic base and strengthen democratic 
institutions in southern Sudan. The bill prohibits any funds for the 
Sudanese Government unless the Secretary of State certifies that Sudan 
has ended all support for Arab militias attacking black Muslims in 
Darfur and unless Sudan allows unimpeded access for humanitarian 
assistance.
  Likewise I welcome the $1.3 billion in funding provided in the bill 
for U.N. peacekeeping missions. These funds will support peacekeeping 
operations throughout the world. The bill also provides $293 million, 
which is 31 percent above FY 2007 and 33 percent above the President's 
request, for targeted peacekeeping operations, missions that are of 
particular interest to the United States. This total includes an 
additional $100 million, not requested by the President, to provide 
critical support to the African Union Peacekeepers in Darfur.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to HIV/AIDS, we are talking about a 
tragedy of epic proportions, domestically and internationally. In my 
home State of Texas 3,298 new AIDS cases were reported in 2006, fourth 
highest in the country. Texas also claims the fourth largest population 
living with AIDS, nearly 30,000 people or 14.7 per 100,000. Of these 
new cases in Texas, nearly 42 percent involved African Americans. HIV/
AIDS is an issue that affects all of us, according to the U.N., 2.9 
million people died of AIDS in 2006; further there are now 39.5 million 
people living with HIV around the world.
  The $5.1 billion provided in H.R. 2764 for HIV/AIDS prevention, 
treatment, care programs, TB and Malaria assistance programs is 
desperately needed to resolve human suffering. It is also 33 percent 
above FY 2007

[[Page 16887]]

and 13 percent more than the President requested.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the 
Middle East and South Asia, I know how important it is for the United 
States to be engaged in the quest for peace in the Middle East. That is 
why I am pleased that the bill provides $2.4 billion in assistance for 
Israel, our strong ally, and the only flourishing democracy in that 
region.
  Another key ally, Egypt, warrants our continued assistance. H.R. 2764 
provides $1.3 billion for military grants and $415 million in economic 
assistance. However, the bill withholds $200 million of the military 
grants until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt is taking 
steps to address human rights concerns by reforming its judiciary and 
training its police, as well as addressing concerns about smuggling of 
weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Since Egypt has proven itself over the 
years to be a reliable friend and partner in the search for peace, I am 
confident that the Secretary of State will soon be able to make their 
required certification.
  While there will be those who have the view that the war in 
Afghanistan is over and we should shift our view, the truth is that 
Afghanistan is as vital to our Nation now as it was shortly after 
September 11. Operation Enduring Freedom was a success in removing the 
Taliban leadership and giving the Afghan people new hope; however our 
work there is far from done. We must ensure that Afghanistan has a 
bright and productive future ahead of itself, in which peace and 
prosperity will be possible. The bill provides $1.1 billion in 
humanitarian, reconstruction and related assistance to Afghanistan--
including $235 million in counternarcotics funding and $75 million for 
programs specifically related to helping women. The measure withholds 
all but $225 million of the economic support funds until the Secretary 
of State certifies that the national and local governments in 
Afghanistan are fully cooperating with U.S.-funded narcotics 
eradication and interdiction efforts.
  Although there is legitimate concern about what appears to be the 
Pakistani Government's disappointing progress in the area of democratic 
governance and the rule of law, we must remember Pakistan has proven to 
be a strong ally during both the cold war and the current global war on 
terror. Pakistan's strategically important location and the firm 
support of President Musharraf have played a major role in toppling the 
Taliban regime and preventing it from regaining power in Afghanistan. 
Pakistan is an important part of our national security and critical to 
regional stability. The bill provides $350 million for general economic 
assistance and $300 million in foreign military financing for Pakistan.
  Additionally, through various cooperative efforts between the United 
States and Pakistan, there has been a marked improvement in such fields 
as economic trade and investment, health care, democracy human rights, 
education, and science and technology.
  Colombia is a vital partner and ally of the United States. 
Recognizing the strategic importance of Colombia as I do, I strongly 
support the $530.6 million provided for drug interdiction and 
eradication efforts in Colombia, coupled with economic development 
assistance for drug-affected communities in Latin America.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me speak approvingly about the bill's 
funding of key State Department operations. H.R. 2764 fully funds the 
President's request of $1.8 billion for ongoing security upgrades to 
ensure that our embassies remain safe and secure for the tens of 
thousands of military and civilian staff serving in roughly 260 posts 
worldwide. Additionally, the bill provides $501 million, which is 11 
percent above FY 2007 and 3 percent above the President's request, to 
fund the participation of over 42,000 individuals in educational, 
cultural and professional exchange programs worldwide. I know the value 
of these exchange programs. In fact, last year I attended the 6th 
Annual Doha Forum in Qatar as an invited panelist at a special 
symposium focusing on this very subject.
  To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2764 because it is 
an indispensable measure in restoring America's international prestige 
and leadership position in the global community. I thank Chairwoman 
Lowey on her fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the 
House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to two destructive 
amendments to the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2008.
  First, I oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts.
  This amendment will strike an essential provision in this bill for 
preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS around the world. Mr. Pitts' 
amendment would strike a provision included in the bill which give the 
President greater flexibility and the ability for U.S. funded HIV/AIDS 
programs to better respond to the epidemics in each country.
  This does not have to be a pro-choice or pro-life debate. In fact, it 
is short-sighted for us to think of it that way. This debate should be 
about prevention. It should be about providing necessary tools for 
proper prevention including providing contraception, ensuring access to 
condoms and providing educational information to those in need.
  We have the ability to reduce the number of cases of HIV/AIDS around 
the world by allowing for greater flexibility in how we implement 
prevention funding. Instead of taking an approach where we require that 
one-third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds be spent on abstinence only 
programs, that are not only ineffective in preventing sexual activity, 
but in fact harmful to the health and well being of young women, we 
should be allowing for greater flexibility in how we allocate these 
essential funds.
  The statistics on the number of cases of HIV around the world are 
startling. In 2006, there were 4.2 million new HIV infections. 
According to UNAIDS, women and girls make up half of all HIV infections 
worldwide. And according to the World Health Organization, unprotected 
heterosexual sex is the leading cause of HIV infections around the 
world and 80 percent of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Clearly, calls for abstinence alone are not working. We must admit to 
ourselves that young people, whether by choice or through coercion, are 
engaging in sexual activity. We have the tools to prevent less 
unintended pregnancies. We need to use them efficiently and 
effectively.
  In order for any HIV/AIDS prevention program to be successful, we 
must make sure that we use proper prevention tools like condoms and 
contraception. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment.
  Further, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered 
by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith and my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
  Access to contraceptives and condoms is essential to stop the number 
of cases of HIV/AIDS around the world. With good reasons, the 
Subcommittee under the leadership of Ms. Lowey from New York has 
included a provision that will allow foreign organizations that are 
currently prohibited from received family planning assistance under the 
global gag rule to receive in kind contributions of condoms and 
contraceptives.
  I believe that the global ``gag rule'' is onerous and should be 
lifted because it not only bans foreign non-governmental organizations, 
NGOs, from using their own funds to engage in free speech and assembly 
activities on a woman's right to choose, but it also prevents health 
care providers from counseling the world's poorest women about all 
their legal health care options.
  But the provisions in this bill do not lift the global gag rule. What 
these provisions do is promote proper family planning information and 
services. As a basic prevention form of healthcare, family planning 
services can improve maternal and child health in developing countries, 
lead to better diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted 
diseases, and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and 
abortion. The global gag rule has stopped U.S.-donated contraceptives 
from reaching 16 countries with people in desperate need in Africa, 
Asia and the Middle East. Simply allowing access to contraceptives is a 
small and necessary step in prevention.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2008 
State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, through which this 
Congress and this government speak to the world about our international 
priorities.
  The past decade has seen this nation pull into a shell like a turtle, 
something the rest of the world took as not caring about the 
fundamental challenges elsewhere in the world . . . before those 
challenges became full-fledged hot spots. We are a great Nation, a 
leader among nations. We must only act in that fashion. Today, we begin 
a new direction in foreign policy.
  While this Foreign Operations bill deals specifically with our global 
footprint, it also has benefit for those that live near international 
borders. For instance, I am pleased the bill includes $15.5 million for 
the Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation, a matter my border 
colleagues and I have been working on for several years.
  These funds will allow the International Boundary and Water 
Commission to begin repairing and restoring the 270 miles of levees 
along the Rio Grande River. This is only a first

[[Page 16888]]

step to fully restore the integrity of the levees, the cost for 
restoration is estimated at $125 million. These funds were requested by 
the South Texas Delegation, including Congressman Hinojosa and 
Congressman Cuellar.
  Over the last few years, budget limitations have not allowed the IBWC 
to properly maintain the levees. Used by Border Patrol to patrol the 
border and farmers to manage their land, the levees have severely 
deteriorated to the point that some areas are flat. In their current 
form, the IBWC is unable to certify the levees meaning the 1.3 million 
residents along this area are in danger of severe flooding. Hurricane 
Katrina showed us the awesome and dangerous power of Mother Nature. 
This funding is critical to prevent an international flooding disaster 
. . . a disaster that will remain possible until all the levees are 
repaired so IBWC can certify them. This is--quite literally--the least 
we can do to begin to fix this damage.
  I thank the appropriators for including this funding and their 
recognition of the danger that is as far away as a powerful flooding 
event. I urge the House negotiators to keep this amount of funding 
included in this bill through conference.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the realignment of 
funding for Colombia in the FY2008 State and Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill. I would like to begin by thanking Chairwoman Lowey 
for her leadership on the issues facing Colombia and for crafting such 
a forward-thinking piece of legislation.
  I visited Colombia a few years ago, and learned so much about that 
beautiful country. On that trip I heard chilling accounts of the 
tragedy that our policies have created. A lot has changed since my 
trip, but many of the fundamental problems still exist, and in some 
cases, have worsened.
  I heartily support the new balance of aid in the FY2008 Foreign 
Operations bill. As outlined in the bill, now 55 percent of aid for 
Colombia will go toward military functions while 45 percent will go to 
rural development, social development, and strengthening the judicial 
system. This new approach is a dramatic change that will help remedy 
the problems that our policies have caused.
  Just this month, the Office of National Drug Control Policy announced 
that more than 387,900 acres of coca were detected in Colombia in 2006, 
an increase of 32,120 acres from the previous year. The increase in 
coca production is a huge blow to the proponents of Plan Colombia, 
which was created in 2000 to reduce drug cultivation.
  This Foreign Ops bill recognizes the failure of past policies--
especially our counter-drug initiatives, and moves U.S. policy in the 
right direction. The funding in this bill will help families persecuted 
by paramilitaries, farmers struggling to grow crops other than coca, 
those displaced by fighting, and the Colombian justice system, which is 
valiantly struggling to bring justice to victims of violence.
  Thank you, once again to Chairwoman Lowey. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2764, the FY08 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 
related appropriations Act.
  I am pleased that the bill includes $75 million in funding for 
programs that address the needs of Afghan women and girls including the 
Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the Afghan Ministry of 
Women's Affairs, and women-led nonprofit organizations in Afghanistan. 
The Committee directs $15 million of these funds to be made available 
as grants to support training and equipment to improve the capacity of 
women-led Afghan NGOs as well as their activities. This funding builds 
upon funding for Afghan women and girls included in an amendment that I 
offered to the FY2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and 
funding included in subsequent appropriations bills.
  During the past several years, the United States has invested in the 
reconstruction and development of Afghanistan both because it is the 
right thing to do and because it is critical to our security. However, 
I, like many of my colleagues, am troubled by the circumstances facing 
women in Afghanistan. We have heard from Dr. Sima Samar, head of the 
Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, that Afghan women are 
losing ground. Many women continue to endure hardships including 
targeted violence, limited mobility, illiteracy, and a high rate of 
maternal mortality. I also am very concerned about reports that schools 
continue to be targeted for violence, including dozens in the past 
year. Clearly, we have more work to do.
  While I hope that all the aid for Afghanistan will help women, I 
commend the Appropriations Committee for continuing to recognize the 
needs of Afghan women.
  I would also like to commend Chairman Lowey for her commonsense 
approach to refining the Global Gag Rule. Though I support a full 
repeal of this harmful policy, the Lowey provision is a first step 
toward eliminating the Gag Rule altogether--it will allow organizations 
to receive contraceptives which are proven to prevent unintended 
pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, It makes sense and it's 
the right thing to do.
  As a co-chair of the Human Trafficking Caucus and a long-time 
proponent of increased efforts to combat this global human rights 
travesty, I am pleased to note the language regarding trafficking in 
the report that accompanies this bill. Earlier this year, I sent a 
letter to the Department of State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
expressing my support for these critical initiatives to combat 
trafficking. The committee report includes a recommendation that the 
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Office at the Department of State retain 
control of the monies appropriated for TIP programs and not be subject 
to decentralized influence of field posts and to enable the TIP Office 
to disburse the necessary anti-trafficking funding to grantees more 
quickly. The committee also recommends the addition of six full-time 
equivalent (FTE) positions to the TIP office so that it can effectively 
monitor its anti-trafficking grants and can effectively fulfill the 
vital, congressionally assigned responsibility given to the Senior 
Policy Operating Group, which it chairs, of monitoring and coordinating 
the domestic and international anti-trafficking grants and policies of 
all U.S. agencies.
  The committee also has directed $14,000,000 to the Trafficking in 
Persons program, which is $5,300,000 above the President's request, and 
$6,000,000 in INCLE (International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement) funding for activities to prevent trafficking in persons. 
I have worked closely with Ranking Member Wolf on this issue over the 
past few years, and I thank him for his leadership in the fight against 
trafficking and human rights abuses worldwide.
  Finally, as a co-chair and co-founder of the Hellenic Caucus, I am 
pleased that the committee has restored funding for the Greek desk at 
Voice of America. Because Greece is located at the crossroads of 
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, maintaining this critical program is 
vital to U.S. interests in this important region of the world.
  I commend Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf for their work in 
bringing this bill forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed by the votes on issues related 
to abortion and foreign aid.
  I joined with all but 12 of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and 
25 Members of the Majority in voting against legislation that would 
overturn what commonly is known as the ``Mexico City'' policy.
  First enacted by President Reagan and sustained by the first 
President Bush, this policy has been, for the past 6 years, the policy 
of our country under our current President. Put simply, the policy says 
this: Federal resources provided to international family planning 
organizations cannot be used by them to pay for abortion or efforts to 
overturn pro-life laws in the countries where such groups operate.
  This is entirely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits 
the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in our own 
country.
  Yet now, only 6 months into the new Congress, the majority has 
decided that tying federal funding of abortions in other countries to 
family planning assistance is somehow acceptable.
  Moreover, my friends across the aisle have enacted within the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill a provision that would make optional the 
requirement that 33 percent of all prevention funding be used for 
abstinence and marital fidelity programs.
  Mr. Chairman, abstinence and faithfulness to your spouse are the only 
sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and a large number of 
sexually transmitted diseases. Yet now we are giving programs and 
groups that work against such diseases the opportunity to rely more on 
condoms than common sense and commitment to sexual probity.
  Additionally troubling is that the State/Foreign Operations bill 
contained $2.4 billion for the State of Israel. This funding is 
especially imperative given the fact that Hamas has just gained control 
of the Gaza Strip.
  I voted against the Foreign Operations bill because of its strange 
insistence that American taxpayers fund overseas abortions. That's 
morally wrong. It affronts the convictions of tens of millions of our 
fellow citizens. It is an expression of ideology, not sound foreign 
policy.
  Mr. Chairman, Israel has no stronger supporter in Congress than me. I 
have cosponsored legislation to counter Iran's efforts to obtain 
nuclear weapons and another measure

[[Page 16889]]

recognizing the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and 
calling upon the President to begin the process of relocating the 
United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I have worked closely 
with my friends in Idahoans United for Israel and am proud of my 
association with supporters of Israel across the political spectrum.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge you to bring a clean bill to the House floor so 
that my colleagues and I can vote for Israel and for funding for our 
State Department and its vital mission and for so many other important 
foreign relations-related programs.
  The American people are weary of the legislative process being used 
to score political points. Both sides are guilty of this kind of 
maneuver and it needs to change. Support for Israel is too important 
for it to be held up by the vagaries of domestic politics. Let's have a 
clean bill and a clean vote.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foreign 
Affairs Appropriations bill passed last week, which included language 
authored by myself and Congressman Mark Kirk ordering the State 
Department to report to Congress on the feasibility of restricting 
gasoline to Iran. Restricting refined gasoline to Iran is one way to 
pressure the regime to give up its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
  Due to economic mismanagement by the Iranian government, this leading 
OPEC nation now heavily depends on refined gasoline from abroad to run 
its economy. One Dutch company, Vitol, is the main broker of Iranian 
gasoline imports and one British company, Lloyd's of London, insures 
most of the tankers transporting gasoline to Iran.
  I have long advocated for economic sanctions against Iran as part of 
an international diplomatic effort to halt the regime's pursuit of 
nuclear weapons in defiance of the United Nations. An international 
restriction on the supply of gasoline would serve as a critical 
diplomatic tool to deny Iran the ability to further its efforts to 
acquire nuclear weapons. Therefore, I strongly urge the State 
Department to advocate for a gasoline embargo on Iran as a sanction at 
the United Nations Security Council.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2764) 
making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, 
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
for other purposes, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 542]

                               YEAS--241

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

                               NAYS--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

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

                              {time}  0031

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

[[Page 16890]]



                          ____________________