Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86–991PDF
2003
THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005
(STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION); AND
THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE U.N.
SHOULD REMOVE THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
AGAINST IRAQ COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT CONDITION
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1950 and H. Con. Res. 160
MAY 7 AND 8, 2003
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Serial No. 108–31
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2004 AND 2005 (STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION); AND THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE U.N. SHOULD REMOVE THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ
86–991PDF
2003
THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005
(STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION); AND
THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE U.N.
SHOULD REMOVE THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
AGAINST IRAQ COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT CONDITION
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1950 and H. Con. Res. 160
MAY 7 AND 8, 2003
Serial No. 108–31
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHRIS BELL, Texas
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member
DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian
LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
C O N T E N T S
MARKUP OF
H.R. 1950, To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and for other purposes
H. Con. Res. 160, Expressing the sense of Congress that the United Nations should remove the economic sanctions against Iraq completely and without condition
AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1950
Amendment offered by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations
Amendment offered by the Honorable James A. Leach, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa
Amendment offered by the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Amendment offered by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Amendment offered by the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendment offered by the Honorable Nick Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan
Amendment offered by the Honorable Robert Menendez, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Amendment offered by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Amendments offered en bloc by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey,
Amendments offered by the Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa
Amendment offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
Amendment offered by the Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada
Amendment offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Amendment offered by the Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Amendment offered by the Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Amendment offered by the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts
Amendment offered by the Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, and the Honorable William D. Delahunt
En Bloc Amendment offered by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde; the Honorable Robert Menendez; the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida; the Honorable Tom Lantos; the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California; the Honorable Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota; the Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York; the Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida; and the Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
Amendment offered by the Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Amendment offered by the Honorable Robert Menendez
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Amendment offered by the Honorable Robert Menendez
Amendment offered by the Honorable Robert Menendez
Amendment offered by the Honorable Cass Ballenger, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina
Amendment offered by the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
AMENDMENT TO H. CON. RES. 160
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Honorable Nick Smith
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement on H.R. 1950
APPENDIX
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement on H.R. 1950
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005
(STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION); AND
THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE
U.N. SHOULD REMOVE THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ
COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT CONDITION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House.
[H.R. 1950 follows:]
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AAB
86991a.AAC
86991a.AAD
86991a.AAE
86991a.AAF
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AAG
86991a.AAH
86991a.AAI
86991a.AAJ
86991a.AAK
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AAL
86991a.AAM
86991a.AAN
86991a.AAO
86991a.AAP
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AAQ
86991a.AAR
86991a.AAS
86991a.AAT
86991a.AAU
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AAV
86991a.AAW
86991a.AAX
86991a.AAY
86991a.AAZ
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABA
86991a.ABB
86991a.ABC
86991a.ABD
86991a.ABE
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABF
86991a.ABG
86991a.ABH
86991a.ABI
86991a.ABJ
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABK
86991a.ABL
86991a.ABM
86991a.ABN
86991a.ABO
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABP
86991a.ABQ
86991a.ABR
86991a.ABS
86991a.ABT
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABU
86991a.ABV
86991a.ABW
86991a.ABX
86991a.ABY
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ABZ
86991a.ACA
86991a.ACB
86991a.ACC
86991a.ACD
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ACE
86991a.ACF
86991a.ACG
86991a.ACH
86991a.ACI
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ACJ
86991a.ACK
86991a.ACL
86991a.ACM
86991a.ACN
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ACO
86991a.ACP
86991a.ACQ
86991a.ACR
86991a.ACS
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ACT
86991a.ACU
86991a.ACV
86991a.ACW
86991a.ACX
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ACY
86991a.ACZ
86991a.ADA
86991a.ADB
86991a.ADC
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ADD
86991a.ADE
86991a.ADF
86991a.ADG
86991a.ADH
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ADI
86991a.ADJ
86991a.ADK
86991a.ADL
86991a.ADM
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ADN
86991a.ADO
86991a.ADP
86991a.ADQ
86991a.ADR
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ADS
86991a.ADT
86991a.ADU
86991a.ADV
86991a.ADW
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.ADX
86991a.ADY
86991a.ADZ
86991a.AEA
86991a.AEB
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AEC
86991a.AED
86991a.AEE
86991a.AEF
86991a.AEG
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AEH
86991a.AEI
86991a.AEJ
86991a.AEK
86991a.AEL
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AEM
86991a.AEN
86991a.AEO
86991a.AEP
86991a.AEQ
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AER
86991a.AES
86991a.AET
86991a.AEU
86991a.AEV
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AEW
86991a.AEX
86991a.AEY
86991a.AEZ
86991a.AFA
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AFB
86991a.AFC
86991a.AFD
86991a.AFE
86991a.AFF
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AFG
86991a.AFH
86991a.AFI
86991a.AFJ
86991a.AFK
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AFL
86991a.AFM
86991a.AFN
86991a.AFO
86991a.AFP
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AFQ
86991a.AFR
86991a.AFS
86991a.AFT
86991a.AFU
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AFV
86991a.AFW
86991a.AFX
86991a.AFY
86991a.AFZ
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGA
86991a.AGB
86991a.AGC
86991a.AGD
86991a.AGE
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGF
86991a.AGG
86991a.AGH
86991a.AGI
86991a.AGJ
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGK
86991a.AGL
86991a.AGM
86991a.AGN
86991a.AGO
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGP
86991a.AGQ
86991a.AGR
86991a.AGS
86991a.AGT
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGU
86991a.AGV
86991a.AGW
86991a.AGX
86991a.AGY
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AGZ
86991a.AHA
86991a.AHB
86991a.AHC
86991a.AHD
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AHE
86991a.AHF
86991a.AHG
86991a.AHH
86991a.AHI
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AHJ
86991a.AHK
86991a.AHL
86991a.AHM
86991a.AHN
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AHO
86991a.AHP
86991a.AHQ
86991a.AHR
86991a.AHS
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AHT
86991a.AHU
86991a.AHV
86991a.AHW
86991a.AHX
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AHY
86991a.AHZ
86991a.AIA
86991a.AIB
86991a.AIC
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991a.AID
86991a.AIE
86991a.AIF
86991a.AIG
86991a.AIH
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of a statement.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Before us is H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations and Security Assistance Bill. This bill, which I introduced with Ranking Democratic Member Tom Lantos, authorizes the funding and activities for the Department of State for two fiscal years, 2004 and 2005. The accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request. The President's request for these accounts is approximately $14.3 billion. The total authorization for this bill, including State Department operation accounts and the security assistance provisions for 2004, is approximately $15 billion.
The proposed amount for FY 2005 is approximately the same as that of FY 2004 with some modest percentage increases for typical cost-of-living adjustments. A significant portion of these increases reflects the need to improve the effectiveness of our public diplomacy programs and our international broadcasting, as well as to strengthen our democracy-building programs overseas.
This bill does carry some foreign assistance provisions, but we have tried to keep these to a minimum. There will be opportunities for further foreign assistance provisions when the Committee considers other bills, such as the Millennium Challenge Account. The measure contains several recommendations from the Administration and Committee Members. Many of the State Department requests are administrative in nature.
This bill incorporates the Public Diplomacy Bill, H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002, that was agreed to by this Committee and the full House during the last Congress. The provisions in this act are focused on enhancing the role of public diplomacy in our foreign policy and specifically places the responsibility for the formulation and execution of these programs on the Secretary of State. These provisions also authorize funding for student and other exchanges, as well as for a number of other public-diplomacy programs, with a focus on countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
H.R. 1950 includes a much-needed reorganization of the decision-making processes of our international broadcasting efforts. These provisions will allow the many innovative plans for this increasingly important element of our foreign policy to be implemented more vigorously and expeditiously, which all observers agree must be a high priority.
This bill includes the request from the Broadcasting Board of Governors regarding the establishment of a separate grantee to run the new Middle East Television and Radio Network. This network will add 24-hours-a-day TV and radio broadcasts to the Middle East and thereby greatly contribute to an enhancement of our efforts to combat the misinformation and propaganda that contribute to the rising anti-American sentiment in the region.
Constructing secure facilities for our overseas missions continues to be a top priority. To that end, we have fully funded State's requests in this area, while also encouraging the establishment of a cost-sharing program. This cost-sharing program is designed to collect funds from each agency that has staff stationed at a U.S. Embassy or consulate. These funds will be used to supplement the construction costs of new facilities.
Last year, the President made the decision to rejoin UNESCO. As you are aware, the U.S. withdrew from that organization 19 years ago and refused to rejoin until UNESCO implemented a series of significant reforms designed to remedy its many abuses. Careful consideration has been given to the terms of U.S. reentry to this organization, and this bill makes well-considered recommendations to that end.
Division B of H.R. 1950 contains four titles which address defense trade and security assistance issues, as well as missile-proliferation policy and laws.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Concerning defense trade reforms, title XI contains several amendments to the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) that will strengthen the terrorist-related prohibitions contained in that law and enhance the ability of our Government to enforce the law should violations occur. Together with measures designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the U.S. Government program for defense trade in title XI, there are other measures, title XII and title XIII, that will improve the administration of export controls by the State Department; reflect new priorities in the U.S. defense trade systems; and facilitate the participation of the U.S. defense industry; and provide modifications to AECA to implement security assistance programs.
Title XIV incorporates an important initiative by the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, which I am pleased to support, aimed at curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles that can be armed with weapons of mass destruction.
I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation we have received in developing this bill, and I hope we can continue this bipartisan approach in the amendment process. We expect to be on the Floor with this bill in June, and I now recognize Mr. Lantos for any comments he may wish to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Before us is H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations and Security Assistance bill. This bipartisan bill, which I introduced with Ranking Democratic Member Tom Lantos, authorizes the funding and activities for the Department of State for two fiscal years, 2004 and 2005.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. The President's request for these accounts is approximately $14.3 billion. The total authorization for this bill, including the State Department Operation accounts and the Security Assistance provisions for FY 2004, is approximately $15 billion.
The proposed amount for FY 2005 is approximately the same as that of FY 2004 with some modest percentage increases for typical cost-of-living adjustments. A significant portion of these increases reflects the need to improve the effectiveness of our public diplomacy programs and our international broadcasting, as well as to strengthen our democracy-building programs overseas.
This bill does carry some foreign assistance provisions, but we have tried to keep these to a minimum. There will be opportunities for further foreign assistance provisions when the committee considers other bills, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.
The measure contains several recommendations from the Administration and Committee members. Many of the State Department requests are administrative in nature.
This bill incorporates the public diplomacy bill—H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002—that was agreed to by this Committee and the full House during the last Congress. The provisions in this Act are focused on enhancing the role of public diplomacy in our foreign policy and specifically place the responsibility for the formulation and execution of these programs on the Secretary of State. These provisions also authorize funding for student and other exchanges, as well as for a number of other public diplomacy programs, with a focus on countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
H.R. 1950 includes a much-needed reorganization of the decision-making processes of our international broadcasting efforts. These provisions will allow the many innovative plans for this increasingly important element of our foreign policy to be implemented more vigorously and expeditiously, which all observers agree must be a high priority.
This bill includes the request from the Broadcasting Board of Governors regarding the establishment of a separate grantee to run the new Middle East Television and Radio Network. This new network will add 24-hours-a-day TV and radio broadcasts to the Middle East and thereby greatly contribute to an enhancement of our efforts to combat the misinformation and propaganda that contribute to the rising anti-American sentiment in the region.
Constructing secure facilities for our overseas missions continues to be a top priority. To that end, we have fully funded State's requests in this area while also encouraging the establishment of a cost-sharing program. This cost-sharing program is designed to collect funds from each agency that has staff stationed at a U.S. embassy or consulate. These funds will be used to supplement the construction costs of new facilities.
Last year, the President made the decision to rejoin UNESCO. As you are aware, the U.S. withdrew from that organization nineteen years ago and refused to rejoin until UNESCO implemented a series of significant reforms designed to remedy its many abuses. Careful consideration has been given to the terms of U.S. reentry to this organization, and this bill makes well-considered recommendations to that end.
Division B of H.R. 1950 contains four titles which address defense trade and security assistance issues as well as missile proliferation policy and laws.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Concerning defense trade reform, Title eleven contains several amendments to the Arms Export Control Act (''AECA'') that will strengthen the terrorist-related prohibitions contained in that law and enhance the ability of our Government to enforce the law, should violations occur.
Together with measures designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the U.S. Government program for defense trade in Title eleven, there are also other measures, Title twelve and Title thirteen, that will improve the administration of export controls by the State Department; reflect new priorities in the U.S. defense trade system; facilitate the participation of the U.S. defense industry; and provide modifications to the AECA to implement security assistance programs.
Title fourteen incorporates an important initiative by the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, which I am pleased to support, aimed at curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles that can be armed with weapons of mass destruction.
I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation we have received in developing this bill and hope that we can continue this bipartisan approach in the amendment process. We expect to be on the floor with this bill in June.
I now recognize Mr. Lantos for any opening comments he may wish to make.
Mr. LANTOS. Well, let me first thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our Committee, because of your leadership, is an oasis of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply split Congress and profoundly divided capital.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would like to begin by commending you for the tremendous work you do to support this Committee's leading role in shaping our nation's foreign policy. The United States is truly blessed to have your leadership during a time of this great challenge. Mr. Chairman, based on the work you and I and our staffs have done together, I am pleased to cosponsor the critical legislation before us today, which strengthens the Department of State and improves its ability to promote the foreign policy of the United States, to pursue U.S. national-security interests, and to play the leading role in the development of our policies toward the entire world.
I am pleased that our bill fully funds the Administration's request for the Department of State and contains many of the provisions that Secretary Powell has requested to help him better manage the department. I want to commend the Secretary for his effort to strengthen what has traditionally been one of our nation's greatest resources, our diplomatic corps.
I am also pleased to say that, under the authority provided in this bill, the Secretary's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative will reach its final goal in putting an additional 1,158 new professionals in place to serve our country.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be joining you in the continuing effort to make sure that we quickly reduce the period in which our Embassy employees are left in buildings and compounds that are vulnerable to terrorist attack. In some parts of the world, our Embassies are exposed to physical threats, which are truly dangerous. I just visited our Embassy in Amman, Jordan, which is one of the very first facilities providing maximum security for Embassy staff in a very vulnerable part of the world. We need such facilities throughout the globe.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
To support the goal of Embassy security, our bill provides more than $1,300,000,000 for worldwide security upgrades. Our bill also contains a number of new initiatives that will give our Department of State the tools it needs to promote and protect our national interests in an increasingly complex world.
I am particularly proud to have had a chance to work with our distinguished colleague, Chairman of our Rules Committee, David Dreier, in crafting one such measure, the International Leadership Act of 2003, which has been folded into this bill. The leadership act is designed to give our diplomats the tools they need to ensure that America once again punches at its weight class at the United Nations. It does so by creating a Democracy Caucus to support the U.S. at the U.N. by directing the President to use our influence to reform U.N. rules so rogue regimes cannot gain leadership positions. It is a disgrace that, as we speak, Libya still chairs the Human Rights Commission. It is an absurdity, and it undermines whatever respect there has historically been for this organization. We provide in our International Leadership Act new training for our diplomats for effective, multilateral diplomacy.
An important initiative included in our legislation is the International Free Media Act of 2003, which will help the Department of State to encourage the development of sources of accurate, objective reporting in societies currently polluted by messages of propaganda and hate in state-controlled media. I am particularly pleased that this initiative includes a new, $15 million fund to support independent and ethical journalism, a concept which is nonexistent in many parts of the world.
One final measure I would like to highlight is the Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003. This is designed to confront the alarming spread of offensive ballistic missiles for launching nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads. Our measure commits the United States to seeking a new international mechanism to restrict the trade in missiles, strengthens U.S. sanctions against missile traders, and provides assistance to countries that agree to destroy their missile arsenals.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am very pleased that the bill authorizes all funds necessary to pay our assessed dues upon reentry to UNESCO in full and on time. When my wife, Annette, and I had the pleasure of visiting UNESCO in our longstanding effort to facilitate our reentry to UNESCO, we did not dream that our efforts would be as successful as soon as they have become, and I want to pay particular attention and respect to my friend, Congressman Leach, for his leadership on seeing to it that we reenter the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
At this moment of military tension, Mr. Chairman, it is important to recall the founding motto of UNESCO: ''It is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be constructed,'' and UNESCO is designed as the entity to create an intellectual and educational climate which can create a more peaceful world.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you once more for the extraordinary leadership in working with all Members of the Committee that you have provided in crafting this very good bill. We have tried to include here many provisions that the State Department has requested. We have tried to include, to the maximum extent possible, some of the provisions of Members on both the Republican and Democratic sides. I am sure there will be others added through the course of this markup, but throughout the process you and your staff have been cooperative and collegial, and I look forward to the consideration of our colleagues' proposals and to the passage of this legislation before the end of the day.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much for your generous comments, Mr. Lantos. Without objection, any Member——
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. Just a moment. Without objection, any Member may place his or her opening statements in the record of today's proceedings.
Mr. King, the gentleman from New York, has asked to address the Committee briefly, so for that purpose, he is recognized.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you letting me take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with you regarding funding for the protection of foreign missions and other dignitaries.
As you are aware, the cost of providing security services since September 11th has increased significantly. For instance, New York City's reimbursement costs for 2002 alone were approximately $35.2 million. Unfortunately, the authorization and appropriation levels for municipalities such as the City of New York to protect U.N. Assembly meetings, foreign missions, and officials under the State Department reimbursement program have not kept pace. Under current formulas, for instance, New York would receive only $8.1 million of that $35.2 million, and these costs are projected to run into future years as well.
So in order to keep up with the current costs of providing these necessary protective services and to compensate New York City's repair shortages, I hope we can make necessary adjustments on increased levels as changes are made to this legislation. I look forward to working with you and the State Department on this important issue between now and when the legislation reaches the Floor, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman. The Chair has an amendment at the desk which all Members have before them. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Lantos, which contains suggestions made by 14 different Members on both sides of the aisle and the Department of State. The clerk will report the amendment.
[The amendment of Chairman Hyde follows:]
86991b.AAB
86991b.AAC
86991b.AAD
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991b.AAE
86991b.AAF
86991b.AAG
86991b.AAH
86991b.AAI
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991b.AAJ
86991b.AAK
86991b.AAL
86991b.AAM
86991b.AAN
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991b.AAO
86991b.AAP
86991b.AAQ
86991b.AAR
86991b.AAS
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991b.AAT
86991b.AAU
86991b.AAV
86991b.AAW
86991b.AAX
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991b.AAY
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: ''Page 15, after line 14, insert the following new subparagraph.''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and without objection, the question occurs on the adoption of the manager's amendment. All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there other amendments? Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Leach follows:]
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991c.AAB
86991c.AAC
86991c.AAD
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Leach: ''In title II, relating to—''
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes the establishment of a Diplomacy Museum and conference center and auditorium to be located in the Department of State's headquarters at the Harry S. Truman Building. The authorization for the center that was requested by the Administration and is contained in the version of the legislation now before the Senate.
The purpose of the center is to organize and sponsor educational and outreach programs explaining the role of U.S. diplomats in American foreign policy in advancing our national interests throughout our history and throughout the world. The center is being developed through a partnership with the nonprofit, Foreign Affairs Museum Council, a 501[c][3] organization. The council has already raised approximately $750,000 privately toward the establishment of the center. In fiscal year 2002, the State Department requested and received $950,000 in appropriated funds to support the planning for the center.
Peoples and nations reaching beyond their borders to engage their neighbors is as old as civilization itself. In this pursuit, American diplomacy is unique, reflecting the complexity of the American experience and our evolving role in the world. The Diplomacy Museum will tell this often-unheralded story and inform people how diplomacy shaped our nation and the world.
In conclusion, let me just note and alert the Committee that there is one change to the Administration request, in that the center is designated the Colin Powell Center for American Diplomacy. This designation breaks from tradition, but I think it is particularly appropriate at this time given the leadership of the Secretary in revitalizing the Department of State and upgrading the Department of State's personnel practices, and because of the incredibly important role that diplomacy plays as a living instrument in world affairs today. And so I am hopeful that the Committee will give this their sympathetic consideration.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend my good friend from Iowa, Mr. Leach, for his usual thoughtful initiative. The diplomatic history of the United States is replete with absolutely fascinating events that deserve special recognition, from Benjamin Franklin's mission to France during the American Revolution to U.S. efforts through President Roosevelt's prize-winning work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War to our most ambitious efforts to bring democracy to the Muslim world.
American diplomacy deserves its own museum. I think it is also appropriate that our very distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have the honor of having this important, new museum designated as the Colin Powell Museum of Diplomacy, and I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Leach's amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. The Chair is prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment as a worthy addition to the bill. If anybody wishes to speak, I certainly will recognize them, but we have a very long day and lots of amendments, so brevity is to be encouraged.
All right. The question occurs on the gentleman's amendment. All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[A chorus of nos.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Crowley.
Mr. CROWLEY. Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Crowley follows:]
86991d.AAB
86991d.AAC
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Crowley: ''Page 24, line 11—''
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Mr. Crowley is recognized for 5 minutes in support thereof.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Lantos. I am pleased to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Congressman Lee of California.
This amendment is designed to assist the United Nations Population Fund while strengthening its requirements to doubly ensure that none of these funds will ever be used for abortions or coercive sterilizations, something that everyone on this Committee on both sides of the aisle finds morally repugnant.
While it has been proven time and time again by authorities no less than our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and President Bush's own hand-picked team investigating UNFPA, that the UNFPA program does not fund abortions, abortion services, or involuntary sterilizations, I have drafted this amendment to further clarify this point to reassure every Member of this Committee and of this chamber.
Firstly, my amendment provides $50 million in annual funding for UNFPA for each year over the next 2 years.
Secondly, it clarifies Kemp-Casten to ensure that U.S. funds do not go to the promotion of abortion or involuntary sterilization, while also recognizing that UNFPA provides desperately needed supplies and services for women, men, and children around the world.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
UNFPA is the largest, internationally funded source of population assistance to the developing countries. In 1969, the United States helped establish UNFPA to provide support for population programs in developing countries, and over the past 30 years, UNFPA has provided more than $4.3 billion in assistance to more than 160 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care.
Over the past 30 years, UNFPA has played a key role throughout the world, often working in countries where few other donors provide population assistance, such as Iran and Vietnam.
Make no mistake: The need for UNFPA's services is definitely there. Nearly 600,000 women die each year from causes related to pregnancy. Ninety-nine percent of these women are in the developing world. Many of these deaths could be prevented by providing women with the means or information to choose the size and spacing of their families. This is just one of the areas UNFPA focuses on.
UNFPA's priorities include working to increase access to reproductive-health services, improve approaches to adolescent reproductive health, promote safe pregnancy and delivery, reduce maternal mortality, provide emergency assistance to refugee situations, and prevent and treat HIV and AIDS.
UNFPA also supports research and data collection to improve population activities and activities to improve the status of women worldwide. UNFPA has provided emergency reproductive health kits, including equipment for safe deliveries and emergency contraceptives for rape victims, for Kosovo refugees, earthquake victims in Turkey, cyclone victims in India, and women in East Timor.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I know this is a long list to go through, but this incredibly long and incredibly important list is why we must fund UNFPA.
Of course, it is also important to talk about what UNFPA is not and what it does not do. UNFPA provides no support for abortion. UNFPA is not a partisan issue. Secretary of State Colin Powell has publicly commended the UNFPA for its good work. Republicans and Democrats in Congress support funding UNFPA.
Following September 11th and the U.S. military response in Afghanistan, the U.S. provided an emergency grant of $600,000 for UNFPA to provide reproductive-health and safe-delivery supplies and services to Afghan refugees. President Bush initially proposed $25 million for UNFPA. He later increased the funding to $34 million.
The Administration's own blue-ribbon, assessment team sent to China to investigate family-planning programs found, and I quote:
''. . . no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion of involuntary sterilization.''
The Administration's own team recommended a full funding of UNFPA, but the unfortunate reality is that there have been inconsistent interpretations of what Kemp-Casten. My amendment would address that. It says that Kemp-Casten can be invoked if it is found that UNFPA directly supports or participates in coercive abortion of sterilization. That is what we want to protect against, and that is what my amendment provides for.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There have been growing concerns about the actions in China, and this was the justification for the President's withholding of this money in both fiscal years 2002 and 2003. While UNFPA never financed abortions or sterilization, there is some evidence that the Chinese have performed these horrific actions with their own money. Stating that, I strongly supported the fiscal year 2003 omnibus that prohibits any UNFPA assistance from being used in China just as one more firewall to ensure that these funds are used to promote families and not to promote abortions. To argue China is now to argue a red herring.
UNFPA does so much good work while not providing abortions. Again, President Bush's own task force has said this. Now it is time to free up this previously appropriated funding and pass my amendment to allow this program to continue with its core mission, promoting families. The good of UNFPA must be supported. Americans, from Secretary Powell to President Bush, have supported this good and worthwhile cause over the years, and with the exception of UNFPA funding levels, not much has changed since their outright support.
UNFPA still does not support coercive sterilization or abortion, and there is unfortunately still a massive need for UNFPA's services. My amendment deals with saving lives, those of both the mother and of her child, not the reverse, and that is why I call for the passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment, the Crowley Amendment. I would like to ask the maker of the amendment a very simple question. Can he explain social compensation fees as it relates to the PRC's program?
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. CROWLEY. Social compensation fees?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Mr. CROWLEY. No, I can't. In terms of what?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The People's Republic of China's population control program; can he explain it?
Mr. CROWLEY. I am not making reference to that. No, I cannot explain——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I reclaim my time. Let me just say——
Mr. CROWLEY. If the gentleman could explain it for us.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Well, let me just say to my colleagues, to offer an amendment to change fundamental human rights law that has been in existence for 17 years that takes very seriously the horrific practice of coercive population control, including forced abortion and forced sterilization, and for the maker of that amendment not to know what is the integral part of the PRC's process, the population-control program, relies on what they call ''social compensation fees.''
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Now, let me just make a couple of points. Secretary of State Colin Powell made the determination this year, pursuant to the Kemp-Casten language that says, and let me remind my colleagues what Kemp-Casten says, that none of the funds made available in this act may be 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 of involuntary sterilization.
Secretary of State Colin Powell made the determination, after a very significant, a massive, review of what is happening on the ground in China and the complicity of the UNFPA in what was going on, and made this statement, and I quote:
''The PRC has in place a regimen of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and, therefore, amounts to a program of coercive abortion.''
The State Department put out very extensive reporting in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices this year, and I commend it to the reading of my friend and colleague from New York. If you are going to offer an amendment to nullify human rights law, and that is what his amendment does, I would hope——
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No. I won't yield. I will yield at the end of my statement. I would hope that he would know in advance what a social compensation fee is. The State Department points out, after the review of what is going on in UNFPA-sponsored counties, the 32 counties where they operate,
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
''The PRC Government publicly establishes and enforces detailed, planned-birth policies with legal births distinguished from out-of-plan births.''
In other words, children are either legal or illegal, and the state decides those that are illegal are then destined to be killed by the state.
Fines on out-of-state births are typically severe. They are called ''social compensation fees.'' For example, the laws in one of the counties in which UNFPA operates expressly provide that, and I quote:
''The birth of a child which violates government family-planning policy will result in the levying of a fee of two to three times the annual income of both respective parties,''
and then it gets worse after that.
In other words, if you or I and our wives or the women who are on the Committee or anyone in this room were to have a child that was not deemed permissible by the Government of the PRC, we would lose 3 years of my salary and 3 years of my wife's salary, 6 years, and it is called a compensation fee. That is at the core of the one-child-per-couple policy in the PRC, and UNFPA has been lauding this program since its inception back in 1979.
I would point out to my colleagues that the former executive director of the UNFPA has said, when she got an award upon leaving, to show the complicity and the hand-in-glove relationship between a U.N. agency that ought to be on the side of the oppressed but, instead, stands on the side of the oppressor—this is Dr. Sedyk talking, the executive director of the UNFPA:
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
''I have had the honor of being associated with China's reproductive-health and family-planning program for more than 2 decades. I feel proud that UNFPA made the wise decision to resist external pressures,''
and read that, human rights pressures,
''external pressures in its fruitful cooperation with China.''
I would point out to my colleagues that that is standing hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, with the oppressors of women. UNFPA has covered itself with shame, I say to my friend and colleague. The Kemp-Casten language says, get out of China, and then you will get your money. Cease this cooperation with a coercive population-control program.
I commend to my colleagues the State report this year, the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which is very thorough and talks about this coercive regime and the fact that the one-child-per-couple policy is implemented in the 32 counties, birth quotas are used throughout all of China.
Let me ask my friend another question. A new law went into effect in September 2002. Has he looked at it? Is he aware of it?
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would be happy to yield.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in my statement, this bill does not refer to China in that sense. I understand the processes that take place in China. I understand the compensation plan, having been to China in January of this year. I understand that China is not a model nation in this world, and because of that, we are saying, build the firewall and support the firewall——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I reclaim my time and just say to my colleague, you say you understand it. A moment ago, you didn't even know what it was,——
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [continuing]. And I find that outrageous, I say to my colleague, outrageous.
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield? There is no need for the combative nature between——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Oh, combative. We are talking about women who are coerced.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair, for the first time in several years, calls for order.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would be happy to yield.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey still has a few moments left.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just remind my colleagues that, again, in the past, in this Committee, we have not had the votes to defeat this kind of amendment, and it probably will require a Floor fight, which we would welcome, especially to bring some light and scrutiny to the abusive practices of the PRC and those who would aid and abet those abusive practices.
The UNFPA should be out in front, saying that volunteerism is the only way for family-planning and population control, that coercion, in any manifestation, in any manner, needs to be repudiated absolutely.
I commend Secretary of State Colin Powell. What you would take out of the loop in your amendment, if I read it carefully, the President cannot delegate that authority to the Secretary of State. Traditionally, over the last 17 years, that is exactly what has happened, and that is what happened last year. The Secretary of State, who is the prime fomenter and originator and implementer of our U.S. foreign policy, gathered together all of his respective people on this issue and then made a very, very insightful judgment, and I would hope that the Secretary of State would retain that authority as well.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me, at the outset, state that I strongly support Mr. Crowley's amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues, with all of the emphasis at my command, to join me in that effort.
Let me also say parenthetically that our colleague, Mr. Crowley, was the Democratic leader of an important congressional delegation to the People's Republic of China and displayed a degree of passionate commitment to human rights that was extraordinary, and I want to pay public tribute to him at this forum.
As the founding Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I take second place to no one in criticism of China's horrendous human rights record, and I want to pay tribute to my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, with whom I have stood, shoulder to shoulder, for almost a quarter of a century in fighting Chinese human rights abuses. No one has been more articulate, effective, and passionate about fighting China's horrendous human rights record than my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
China's use of forced abortion and forced sterilization to control population growth is a horrendous violation of internationally recognized human rights, and the United States must make every effort to convince Chinese officials to cease these horrendous practices. What is so sad about China's use of coercive family-planning practices is that China could accomplish the same goal, controlling its population, through active promotion of voluntary family planning. That is why it is so critically important that UNFPA operate in China and that the United States contribute financially to the work of UNFPA in China.
UNFPA's program in China is specifically designed to demonstrate to the Chinese Government that voluntary family-planning programs, free of coercion and free of quotas, will effectively control China's population explosion. This is exactly the approach that opponents of the Crowley Amendment should be supporting. Instead, they want to cut all U.S. funding for UNFPA, create millions of more unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions around the world in countries that have nothing to do with China's family-planning program.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, don't just take my word for it. The Bush Administration sent its own team to China last year to investigate the UNFPA's work in 32 countries in which it was operating. This delegation, which, I underscore, was hand picked by the White House, hand picked by the White House, concluded that there was no evidence of UNFPA's involvement in coercive family-planning practices in these countries. The delegation concluded that UNFPA is a positive force in China, promoting voluntary practices and greater respect for individual human rights. Most importantly, the delegation recommended that the United States' contribution to UNFPA, held up by the Bush Administration, be released to the UNFPA.
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the President ignored the recommendation of his hand-picked delegation and refused to give the needed funds to UNFPA. By authorizing $50 million to the program and by clarifying the rules under which our funds are given, the Crowley Amendment, very carefully crafted, will ensure that the U.S. once again supports the exceptional and vital work of this important organization.
I strongly support Mr. Crowley's amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence.
Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am, as you know, Mr. Chairman, like you, a Midwesterner, meaning I am not from New Jersey or New York, so my tone will be a little different and considerably less entertaining, but I am every bit as passionate.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I have worked with everyone who has spoken so far on a variety of issues and have great respect for Mr. Crowley and his passion and the sincerity of his purpose in this amendment, but I would respectfully argue against it, not because I challenge Mr. Crowley's sincerity but, rather, because I truly believe this is about the moral bankruptcy of the UNFPA. As we learned before this Committee in October of the year 2001, the reality of coercive abortion and voluntary sterilization, truly a brutal human rights record on reproductive issues is the reality in China.
The testimony before this International Relations Committee, and I quote now:
''On the first day of our investigation, we interviewed women in a family-planning clinic one mile from the county office of the UNFPA. We interviewed a 19-year-old who told us she was too young to be pregnant, according to the unbending family-planning policy. She was receiving a nonvoluntary abortion in an adjacent room. Her friends told us sadly that she, indeed, desired to keep her baby, but she had no choice since the law forbid it.''
Forced abortion is the reality in China, as so many have already acknowledged.
China itself has recognized the contribution of the UNFPA. Mr. Smith, my good friend from New Jersey and co-laborer on many of these issues, pointed out the quote for Ms. Sedyk, the UNFPA executive director from 1987 to 2000, but when she spoke glowingly of the honor that she felt being associated with China's reproductive policy, she did so, accepting from the Chinese Government the International Cooperation Honorary Prize on January 12, 2002. So China certainly thinks the UNFPA has been supportive, and the UNFPA have themselves spoken very plainly.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Sven Burmister famously said, in August 2001,
''For all of the bad press, China has achieved the impossible,''
and he would say to the French press a few months later,
''China has had the most successful family-planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity, and with that, China has done mankind a favor.''
Speaking of human life as quantity is deeply offensive to the sensibility, I believe, of virtually every American and certainly everyone who has spoken on this panel so far. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has been alluded to already, said, in a letter to Congress, July 21, 2002,
''The UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese Government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.''
And so I respectfully would encourage my colleagues to oppose the Crowley Amendment, not because of its lack of good intention but, rather, because this is an organization that has consistently, through a variety of its leadership and through testimony before this Committee, demonstrated a level of moral bankruptcy. That we should simply continue to maintain this current prohibition on the expenditure of the funds of the American people who find these policies and any who would promote them, anyone who would speak favorable of them in the world community, deeply and morally offensive, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank my colleague, Mr. Crowley from New York, for his hard work and his leadership in putting together this very well-crafted amendment to restore vital, life-saving, and that is what this is about, life-saving, UNFPA funds and to clarify the intent of the Kemp-Casten provision.
Today, women all over the world are suffering because of the misapplication of Kemp-Casten and the Administration's unjustified decision to unilaterally cut off UNFPA funding. The suspension of U.S. funds, to the tune of $34 million in fiscal year 2002 and $35 million in fiscal year 2003, has caused UNFPA to begin major program cuts across the globe.
Now, what kind of programs are we talking about? We are talking about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment initiatives. We are talking about voluntary family-planning programs, maternal and child health care programs. UNFPA does not, and let me repeat this, it does not provide assistance for abortion, abortion services, or abortion-related equipment or supplies as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
Now, what is the impact of these cuts in terms of the impact on its programs? It is estimated that the elimination of U.S. funds could result in, could result in, mind you, 552,000 abortions, over a million unintended pregnancies, over half a million wanted births, thousands of maternal and child deaths, and nearly 2.7 million women going without modern contraception.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This is not about China, Mr. Chairman. This has nothing to do with China. This has to do with UNFPA and not punishing women as a result of our cutting these funds. We must avoid these devastating consequences by restoring this funding. We must also maintain and reaffirm the protections in the Kemp-Casten while clarifying its intent, and this amendment achieves that objective by prohibiting U.S. funds from going to UNFPA only if, and the amendment says, only if it directly supports—it prohibits U.S. funds, prohibits, if it supports directly or participates in coercive abortion or sterilization.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is written into this amendment. It is very clear. So contrary to the claims that we are hearing today, UNFPA's presence in China is having, as Mr. Crowley saw this year, having really positive, not harmful, effects.
So on behalf of the unnecessary, and really unjustified, suffering of poor women all across the globe, I urge adoption of this amendment and to do it in a way that helps to save lives and helps to accomplish all of the things that I know both sides want to accomplish. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The Governor seeks recognition.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be extremely brief in my comments.
As I read the Kemp-Casten provisions, the operative language says that the President of the United States has to determine that an organization supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. If that is unclear, there is no way you can write anything in the English language to make it any clearer. That is as clear as language can be.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I don't care what somebody is on the abortion issue, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, but I have met very, very few people in this country who say that they support in any way anything that participates in a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. Well, we have had involuntary sterilizations in this country where it pertained to the mentally ill. There has been a huge amount of outrage and an outcry that has come up from our citizenry.
So, to me, it is not a question of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life; it is a question of whether or not we are willing to allow our funding, taken from the taxpayers of this country, to support organizations that participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. That language is as clear as any language in the English language can be. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The question occurs on the amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have been here a long time, and I have learned to respect people on both sides of the aisle. I have learned to respect the point of view of my new friend from New York, but I have also worked many, many years with my friend, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, on this particular issue. It is pretty hard for us not to have faith in Chris Smith on this issue, although I have ample respect for my newfound friend on the other side of the aisle on this. But I think I would like to hear Mr. Smith's retorts to some of the things that have been said on this, so I yield my time to Mr. Smith.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank my good friend for yielding and for his very kind comments.
Let me just make a couple of points again. I believe wholeheartedly that this amendment absolutely trivializes the horrific human rights abuse, a crime against humanity, that is practiced daily—it is commonplace; it is prevalent, including in the 32 counties where the UNFPA operates—and they are coercive population control, forced abortion, and ruinous, draconian fines that give a woman no other choice but to walk into that clinic. That is the situation on the ground, and I would hope that Members would be aware of it.
The UNFPA has covered itself, I say, with all due respect to my colleagues, in shame. For over 2 decades, they have provided a whitewash of these crimes against humanity—against women and against children. The one-child-per-couple policy relies, first and foremost, on a social compensation fee, and if that doesn't work, other more draconian measures are incrementally levied upon that woman until she gives up the ghost and has that abortion because she has nowhere else to turn.
We have had numerous hearings, as you know, Mr. Chairman, right here in this Committee room and have heard from women who have been coerced into having abortions. We have talked to women who have had their babies on the run, only to be finally apprehended by the family-planning cadres, and severe punishments were meted out against them.
This amendment, make no mistake about it, isn't about clarification at all. We always want to clarify. It is a nullifying amendment, pure and simple. It is clever, but it is a nullifying amendment nonetheless.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me just say, in response to my colleagues about this money not being used for family planning via the UNFPA. Secretary of State Colin Powell, back in July, when he tendered his letter to Congress, made it very clear that, dollar for dollar, all $34 million would be given over to reproductive-health and family-planning programs elsewhere, and that effort was blocked by those who are enamored of the UNFPA, who said, no, only the UNFPA.
So that money is sitting fallow, gathering dust. The State Department would love to provide that money to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to help the women who are suffering right now on the ground, but that reprogramming has been blocked by the pro-abortion side of this debate. I say that with sadness. I want that money lifted and out the door and to those people who need it so badly. So when you talk about women who are in need, this money is available, but it is being blocked.
Let me also say, when we talk about the language in this bill, and this is where the ''cleverness'' comes in, it kind of now puts a legal intent, that they have to knowingly. The UNFPA has said there is no coercion in China for 2 decades. We are not going to have a court of law. This isn't a criminal proceeding. This is about who gets grant money that U.S. taxpayers provide via their taxes to the Federal Government.
It is grant money, and I would want our Secretary of State and our President and our State Department to have the flexibility and the law, the backdrop of a law, that says we do not want to support any organization, not just the UNFPA, any organization, that supports or participates in the management of a coercive, population-control program. Coercive, population-control programs to the women, and they are the ones who bear the most serious brunt of that kind of brutality, with forced abortion and involuntary sterilization, are crimes against women, are crimes against humanity. We don't want to in any way enable or facilitate those kinds of crimes.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So let me remind my colleagues, every dollar of the $34 million would go to family planning and reproductive health if the Administration were given the ability, which it has not been given by the pro-abortion Members, to do so.
So I strongly urge Members not to send a message to the dictatorship in the PRC that coercion doesn't matter. That is what the Crowley Amendment does. Maybe it is unwittingly because we can talk and rhetorically talk about we are against coercion, but for the woman who is suffering a coercive, population-control policy—forced abortion or forced sterilization—talking about legal intent—What did they know? When did they know it? Are they doing it? Is the consequence that the program is made more effective in its coercion or not? That is what the Secretary of State concluded. I urge opposition to the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley. All those in favor say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay. No.
[A chorus of nos.]
Chairman HYDE. The Chair is in doubt and asks Ms. Rush if she will call the roll.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes no. Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes no. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no. Mr. Smith of Michigan?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes no. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes no. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no. Mrs. Davis?
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Davis votes no. Mr. Green?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no. Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no. Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes no. Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no. Mr. Lantos?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes yes. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes yes. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes. Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes yes. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes. Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes yes. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Green of Wisconsin?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green is not recorded.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GREEN. No.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WEXLER. Wexler, Robert Wexler.
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. WEXLER. How am I recorded?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler is not recorded.
Mr. WEXLER. May I please vote yes?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. McHugh, John McHugh.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. How am I recorded?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh is not recorded.
Mr. MCHUGH. I vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Menendez.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez is recorded as voting yes.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee. The gentlelady is recorded as yes. I watched very carefully. [Laughter.]
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. PAYNE. I would like to know how I am recorded.
Chairman HYDE. Don't you remember, Mr. Payne? [Laughter.]
Mr. PAYNE. No. [Laughter.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who is trying to slow this down? Mr. Ackerman, of all people.
Mr. ACKERMAN. At my advanced age, I have forgotten if I voted or not. How might I be recorded?
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Tell Mr. Ackerman he voted no. No, he voted yes. I am sorry.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. How did I vote?
Ms. RUSH. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. All right. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote, there are 23 yeses and 22 nos.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, all right. [Laughter.]
Congratulations to someone and condolences to others.
I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
[The amendment of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991e.AAB
86991e.AAC
86991e.AAD
86991e.AAE
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: ''Add at the end the following new title and—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, what basically this amendment does is permit the President of the United States to set the regulatory policies toward the export of satellite technology to other countries.
Today, we have placed all of our satellite exports on the U.S. munitions list, which is very, very restrictive, and I support that restriction to countries that could be adversarial and hostile to the United States.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would.
Chairman HYDE. We expect some Floor votes very shortly. We are certainly prepared to accept this very fine amendment, if the gentleman will take yes for an answer.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The answer is, yes, I will. If it needs further explanation, I will be happy to do so. This takes care of American security while making sure we can export to our friends while keeping restrictions on our potential enemies. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega seems to have something to say.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No. I just wanted to seek immediate——
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. You were agreeing. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Lantos follows:]
86991f.AAB
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991f.AAC
86991f.AAD
86991f.AAE
86991f.AAF
86991f.AAG
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991f.AAH
86991f.AAI
86991f.AAJ
86991f.AAK
86991f.AAL
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991f.AAM
86991f.AAN
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos. At the end of division B of the bill, add the following [and conform the table of contents accordingly.]
Mr. LANTOS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the room is not in order.
Chairman HYDE. Could we have order, please? It is a very important amendment, very significant. I would like to have everyone's attention. Thank you. The gentleman is recognized.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of some hope, cautious hope, in Israeli-Palestinian relations. However bright or dim that glimmer of hope may be, it is our responsibility in Congress to make sure that it shines as brightly as possible and into the right places. The amendment that I and my good friend from New York, Mr. Ackerman, are proposing will do exactly that, and I would like to explain it.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, I was in Ramallah, and I met with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Massin, and I had a long and very candid discussion with him. I made it clear to him that he will have the support of the Congress and the American people if, in fact, he undertakes the task of effectively terminating terrorist activities against the people of the state of Israel.
I made it clear to him that this can be done by only one method. It cannot be done by negotiating a cease fire with the terrorist organizations like Hamas or Islamic Jihad because a cease fire would give us a momentary respite, which would be received by most with euphoria, and when negotiations turned difficult, terrorism would resume with intensified fury, and the process would collapse.
The only way Abu Massin will be able to lead his people, who so richly deserve an infinitely better life than their current leadership has given them, is to destroy the terrorist mechanism, and this will clearly be possible only by confronting Hamas, Islamic Jihad by force, confiscating their weapons, arresting their leaders, and destroying their infrastructure. Unless Abu Massin is prepared to do this, we will continue to see suicide bombing and the justified retaliation and the tragic anguish of both the Palestinian and Israeli people.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Abu Massin's words were encouraging. He wrote to me in a letter following our meeting: ''I believe that terrorism is wrong, on both religious and moral grounds, because it damages our cause.'' Nevertheless, Abu Massin's and the Palestinians' success will be determined by performance, not by statements. Abu Massin understands, and he and I discussed this at great length, that no progress can take place unless the new Palestinian Authority puts an end to terror and violence by totally dismantling the terrorist infrastructure.
Our amendment seeks to reward positive Palestinian performance. It foresees a day when the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security will be more than a dream. Our amendment makes it clear that the United States will recognize and provide significant assistance to the Palestinian state, and it will go beyond even that. Our amendment calls on our Secretary of State to organize a vast, international assistance program for the Palestinians, based, as a first step, on an international donors conference. At the same time, our amendment ensures that the United States will undertake all of these initiatives on behalf of the government of a future Palestinian state only if it has ascertained that that state has earned those benefits.
To do so, broadly speaking, Mr. Chairman, that state shall have made permanent peace with the state of Israel, it established that it has dismantled all terrorist infrastructure, and is otherwise effectively combating terrorism. It has reformed its government along the lines set out by our President in his landmark speech of June 24, in particular, by establishing a democracy that features the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and transparency in all governmental actions. All of the criteria for U.S. recognition and assistance, set out in greater detail in our amendment, are rooted in these principles.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our amendment is inspired by the classic, carrot-and-stick diplomacy. On the one hand, it sends a clear message to the Palestinian people that they can have no better friend than the United States Congress, but it sends an equally powerful message that they must be deserving of that friendship by terminating terrorism once and for all.
I am honored to join my good friend, Congressman Ackerman, in sponsoring this important amendment. I am deeply grateful for your support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting it. It is my fondest wish that it will be an incentive for peace, that it will serve the interests and fulfill the dreams of both the Israeli and Palestinian people and that, at long last, will bring peace, stability, and a civilized life to that long-suffering part of the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Pence.
Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to strongly support and admire the Lantos Amendment and express my appreciation for Mr. Lantos's extraordinary leadership in this area on behalf of the United States.
As an evangelical, Christian conservative from the Midwest, I have a passion for the dream that is Israel. It has been a dream that has been a reality this last half-century, and there are little buckboard churches that dot the landscape of my heartland district where that dream and that passion is every bit as real as the precincts that Mr. Ackerman and the esteemed Mr. Lantos represent.
Mr. Chairman, if the Palestinian militants put their weapons down today, there would be no more suicide bombings, there would be no more innocent students killed, civilians killed at sidewalk cafes. If Israel were to put its weapons down, there would be no more Israel. It is, therefore, only logical that we support the Lantos Amendment, which expresses a Palestinian's first approach to concessions in the road map for peace that Secretary of State Powell will begin to implement when he arrives in Israel this weekend.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In some sense, Mr. Chairman, I am not entirely certain we even need a road map for peace. What we do need, as Mr. Lantos has said again and again on the national and international stage and even to the new leadership of the Palestinian Authority, we need Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist, which is a blood-bought right established with six million souls, an American and Allied military power a half-century ago.
Now, we need this approach particularly, Mr. Chairman, because Palestinian militants have made it clear that they want no part of this road map for peace. They have one goal in mind. Hamas Spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantesi has even said,
''We will strike the Zionist enemy in each and every corner of Palestine until the end of the occupation, rejecting the road map for peace.''
He even called Prime Minister Habas's plea for an end to suicide bombings ''strange and unrealistic.''
I also want to associate myself with Mr. Lantos's call that the Prime Minister must not only crack down on terrorism, but he must also crack down on the infrastructure of terrorism within the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others. If he cannot control the terrorist factions and their infrastructure from within his own people, it is difficult for this Midwesterner to see how he can possibly be able to negotiate a peaceful, long-term solution under a road map.
I support the Lantos Amendment to this Department of State authorization and strongly and urgently encourage every Member of this Committee and this institution to do the same.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, a co-sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the amendment and urge all of our colleagues to do so as well. I want to express my great appreciation for Mr. Lantos and his staff, as well as Chairman Hyde and his staff, for working so diligently to come up with the language that was acceptable to all parties in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the victory of coalition forces in Iraq has changed the facts on the ground in the Middle East and provided the United States with a new momentum to pursue peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians have appointed a new Prime Minister, with whom I had the opportunity to speak with over the phone last week and came away with the same very cautious degree of new optimism in this process. As we know, Abu Mazen, the new Prime Minister, appointed a new cabinet, ousted much of Arafat's cabinet, and they together must undertake the hard and necessary work of stopping terror.
The Government of Israel has said numerous times that if terror stops, then Israel is ready to make the painful concessions for peace. Secretary Powell is on his way to the region to try to move that process forward.
Now is the time when the Congress should be heard. We should speak loudly and clearly regarding how we will help the Palestinian people when they have forever renounced terror and truly fight it, when they establish a transparent and accountable government, and when they reach peace with Israel. As President Bush has said,
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
''If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts.''
This is our opportunity to support the President's words and his efforts.
The amendment does two basic things. First, it highlights the President's vision of peace in the Middle East by authorizing the full range of economic and development assistance to a new Palestinian state that the United States commonly provides to other developing nations, but it does so after the Palestinian people elect new leaders not compromised by terror, after the Palestinian people create new democratic and transparent governing institutions and have reached peace with Israel.
The second thing the amendment does is further emphasize the concerns that many of us have, which were expressed in a letter sent to the President, which was signed by over 300 House Members, that the peace process remain a performance-based initiative. The amendment does this by urging the President not to recognize a Palestinian state until they have achieved the goals that he laid out in his June 24, 2002 speech.
I thank all of the Members for cooperating on this, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of the amendment, and I want to commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Ackerman, and the Chairman for their initiative.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
President Bush, I think, is the first President to say we will have no peace between Palestine and Israel until we have a separate Palestinian state, and he has reiterated that on a couple of other public occasions, and I think that is exactly right.
The certification requirements that the gentleman has crafted here, I think, are entirely reasonable, responsible, and sufficiently comprehensive that it provides the carrots, the incentives, and the limitations necessary, and I just think it is an extraordinarily fine effort, and it should move us along if the parties are willing to be moved. And so I strongly support them and commend them for their effort. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California to work with us on this very important amendment. The idea here is to send a signal, and we hope it is a signal that won't be ignored. What we are trying to say is if the Palestinians follow through, they will be embraced by the United States. We will provide support. We will seek support for them from others, and we are going to permit aid to flow to a provisional Palestinian state even before a final peace treaty is signed that helps the Palestinians meet the President's and the world's standards as expressed in the road map.
I hope we will be heard loudly and clearly and that responsible Palestinians will heed us, and I am going to ask that we do this by voice vote.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ENGEL. Engel.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
Chairman HYDE. Just a moment, Mr. Engel. We will adjourn, recess, to cover the vote. There are three votes on the Floor, three post offices that must be named. [Laughter.]
And so we will go over and do that, grab a bite to eat, wolf it down, and come back by, let us say—1:15 p.m.—and then we will finish this amendment and other amendments of equal import. The Committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, a recess was taken.]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. If we could close the doors? Thank you. That keeps out the walk-in trade, which can be disruptive.
When the Committee recessed, the Lantos amendment relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 2003 was pending, and the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I commend the work that you and Mr. Lantos have done on this very important amendment, and I support the tone, the framework and the overall text of the amendment. We are all hopeful that a secure and lasting peace will become a reality and soon.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This amendment clearly sets out the conditions established by President Bush in his June 24, 2002, speech requiring an end to Palestinian terrorism as an unconditional, over arching prerequisite for a two state solution.
However, I would like to simply note some concerns that I and others have about a few of the changes made to the text prior to its submission as an amendment such as the waiver section, which is now at a lower threshold by allowing the President to waive if it is merely in the national interest rather than vital to the national security interest of the United States. However, I know that we can work on these in the coming weeks as we prepare the bill for Floor consideration.
I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, on these issues, and that is why I hope our Committee adopts the amendment as is, and we will move forward as we continue to draft the bill on to the House Floor consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support, of course, in support of this excellent and balanced amendment.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think it really says what all of us believe—that we hope and pray that there will be peace. And there will be ultimately a two state solution and that everyone understands that terrorism cannot be used as a negotiating tool. It lays out very, very distinctly what the Palestinian side, as well as the Israeli side, has to do in order to have this kick in.
I want to emphasize that it is the sense of Congress, and I quote:
''. . . that a Palestinian state should not be recognized by the United States until the President determines . . .''
and it goes on. One is:
''A new leadership of Palestinian governing entity not compromised by terrorism,''
and talks about:
''. . . has taken appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of terrorist infrastructures and the confiscation of unlawful weaponry.''
To me, the terrorism issue is key, and I believe that the Palestinian side needs to show that it is ending terrorism as a negotiating tool and proactively going after terrorists. That needs to be the bottom line that needs to happen first before the road map can be implemented. I do not think that you can have any party sitting and negotiating as long as terror is going on.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think we have to keep in mind the many reasons why Oslo failed, and to me the primary reason why Oslo failed is because Arafat's feet were not held to the fire. He was allowed to constantly wink and say one thing in Arabic and quite another thing in English and look the other way, and everybody so hoped for there to be a peaceful settlement that everybody did not hold his feet to the fire. We will not make that same mistake again.
There is a new Palestinian Prime Minister, and while we are all hopeful that he will follow a different path, I do not think the euphoria should happen just quite yet. I hope that he will be able to curb the violence. I hope that Mr. Arafat will not continue to undermine him, but again I want to say that we need to stop the terror first.
I also want to mention that I think the road map needs to be performance based and not time based. I think that the Palestinian statehood in 2004 and 2005 should come about again only if the Palestinians meet their obligation. You do not move from step one to step two and then from step two to step three unless step one and step two have been fulfilled, and we need to make clear that that is the situation. I think this amendment does that, and that is one of the reasons why I support it.
Again, I believe the curbing of terrorism is the key. Let us not forget that Yassir Arafat walked away from an agreement that the Israelis accepted that was negotiated under the previous Administration, which was very, very generous. It gave him 100 percent of Gaza, 97 percent of the West Bank, a Palestinian state, billions of dollars of international aid.
He walked away, did not offer a counter proposal, which showed he was not really serious about coming to a signed agreement. He then used the Intifada as a negotiating tool to perpetuate the violence to further his ways. I think we have to keep that in mind.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think this again is an excellent amendment, and I fully support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will be extremely brief.
When the meetings were held in Oslo, everybody was excited. Everybody was enthusiastic that now the corner would been turned. When the meetings were held in Dayton, people thought that now maybe the corner will be turned. When peace was made with Jordan and Israel, and Sadat sat down with the Prime Minister of Israel, and they were able to work out many—not all, but many—of their problems, the world was hopeful.
Now we are down to the point where once again we see certain steps being taken on the Palestinian side, and we also hear words which make us all feel that once again it is time to be hopeful. Now the time has really come to match the hopeful words with the hopeful deeds.
This proposed amendment goes right to the heart and core of what it is the government really ought to be doing, and that is to encourage other governments. I should say this Committee and this Congress. That is to encourage other governments to settle their disputes in a peaceful manner, to settle their disputes in a sensible manner.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Not long ago I was in Israel. As a Member of this Committee, we took a tour of Israel. It was just incredible that I saw a Palestinian mother and a Jewish mother sitting side by side in the basement of a shopping center filling out their forms to get free gas masks. Here were two mothers, one a Palestinian and the other a Jew, trying to figure out how to get their forms filled out so they could get free gas masks for their children. If they can sit side by side to make sure that their families are safe, they can all work side by side to figure out how to bring peace.
For too long we have lived in a world, we have really lived in a world where people are measured on the basis of their nationality or their race or their color or where they happen to come from. It is terribly important that the additional steps now be made by the right people in the Palestinian and the Israeli world to truly do what they can to bring peace to the area.
This is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and I am enthusiastic about being able to say that I support it and I believe in it. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me note that I have not always supported different efforts that portended to be in this direction and the direction that this amendment is all about. I have not found that the only cause for the problem in the Middle East has been intransigence on the part of the Palestinians or the Arabs.
I have found there are people with hearts that are filled with hate on both sides of this conflict. I have found that in the past, just as there are certainly many Palestinians and Arabs who have suggested that the right of Israel to exist—that they denied the right of Israel to exist in the strongest of terms, but I will have to say that among my Jewish friends and Israeli supporters I have also found a commitment by many people whose hearts are hardened that the Palestinian people just do not exist, and they do not have a right to exist.
This type of notion and mind set on both sides I think has created a horrible catastrophe for the Middle East, the people of Israel and the Palestinian people. I believe that now, after our President has made the commitment that he did months ago to free and liberate the people of Iraq and that we made ourselves activists in this region, we now, because of the success of the operation in Iraq, have a tremendous opportunity to end this impasse between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
I think this legislation is a positive step forward in trying to end that impasse. I think that in this piece of legislation, and I might add, Mr. Chairman, I did not sign onto the letter that went to the President which only stressed the things the Palestinians must do in order to end the impasse. I received some criticism because of that.
Let me note that this bill also suggests some things that Israel is expected to do and will do under certain preconditions, and the preconditions are totally justified, and that is, of course, the ending of terrorist acts, et cetera.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would hope that nobody is waiting for the other side to move and that both sides begin to move simultaneously toward doing those things that will end this horrible blood letting and this impasse that has paralyzed that part of the world.
In this amendment, we see for the first time and I believe this will be the first time that a Committee of Congress has voted that there will be a recognition of a State of Palestinian if certain preconditions are met. As I say, I believe the preconditions are reasonable.
Also, I note in here that it mentions fulfilling a peace agreement that also is consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and 338. These resolutions are not often quoted by supporters of Israel.
Let me note that is a tremendous step forward, and I would hope that people in the Arab states and the Palestinian people note this as a very positive step, and then we need to see from them the positive steps that are talked about from them in this bill, which is a no tolerance policy for the killing of Israeli women and children in order to try to terrorize the State of Israel into one policy or another or try to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. What we need now is both sides, the good-hearted people on both sides, to take a step forward, and I believe this amendment is a major step forward.
One note as well. I understand that there is some possible movement on the part of Syria. I would encourage all the players in the Middle East, the Syrians and the Palestinians and the Israelis and the people from Lebanon and Egypt. All of them now should look at this as a window of opportunity to try to end the conflict and to try to establish a new order which will permit Israel to live side by side in peace and security with the rest of the countries of that region, and thus that region will prosper, and that region will be at peace.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is no better gift than we can give to all of the people—Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Palestinians, Israelis, you name it—than to try to bring about peace in that region, and I am deeply in support of this as a step forward in that direction.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it unanimously, and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Nick Smith is recognized.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which I had intended to offer when the Hyde-Lantos amendment was pending. My intention was to make clarifying changes in that part of the amendment dealing with the international ag biotechnology program.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The amendment of Mr. Smith of Michigan follows:]
86991g.AAB
86991g.AAC
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I apologize. I was not prepared to offer it at that time, and now I do have the text prepared. It is before the clerk, and I would ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment and that it be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan. Page 154, after line 12, and——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, very briefly. The title has changed. Instead of the Department of State, we say the Secretary of State. Instead of cooperation, the Secretary of State is instructed to coordinate. Instead of cooperate with, make certain instructions.
If there are any questions, I would be glad to——
Mr. LANTOS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I would certainly yield to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend from Michigan for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I carefully studied the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a well thought amendment, and I strongly support it. We accept it on our side.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Thank you very much.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Smith amendment. All those in favor say aye?
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez of New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, amendment 1, at the desk, and ask that it be——
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez follows:]
86991h.AAB
86991h.AAC
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991h.AAD
86991h.AAE
86991h.AAF
86991h.AAG
86991h.AAH
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Add at the end of title VII the following. Section 726——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple, yet important, proposition. The United States, the nation with the most at stake in climate change, should lead in climate change, not shrink from the issue, which in time will only become more prominent and its effects more pronounced.
Now, President Bush is fond of saying that we should lead in the world. I agree, and I ask my colleagues what are we afraid of in terms of leading on climate change? I say let us be responsible. Engage and lead. Let us re-engage in good faith in international climate change negotiations.
The resolution before you is similar to the one I sponsored and passed in this Committee as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorizing Act in 2001. It was subsequently included in the bill passed by the House. It is also similar to amendments that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accepted unanimously in 2001 and again just a few weeks ago in its markup of this bill.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I do not need to impress upon you the importance of addressing global climate change. The National Academy of Sciences, in a special report requested by President Bush, has confirmed the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are steadily warming our planet. If allowed to continue, this warming trend poses grave consequences to both the environment and the economy of the United States.
In a report last year to the United Nations, the Bush Administration described the potential impact of climate change on various regions of our country—greater storm surges along our coast, reduced snow pack and water supplies in the west, declining water levels in the Great Lakes, stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather events and greater risk of both flooding and drought.
Now let me make it clear. I am not here to advocate the Kyoto protocol. Other nations are moving forward on that agreement—Japan, Canada, the European nations. Virtually every one of our closest allies has ratified the protocol, but the President has made it clear he has no intention of submitting the protocol to our colleagues in the Senate, and I take the President at his word.
Rejecting Kyoto in no way absolves the United States of its responsibility to work with other nations to address climate change. If anything, it makes it all the more incumbent upon the United States to show leadership and creativity in forging a truly effective, long-term response.
Mr. Chairman, we should not forget that the first President Bush helped launch the international effort against climate change nearly a dozen years ago when he signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and submitted it to the Senate where it was swiftly ratified. This landmark treaty was a start, but it was only a start. It is our job now to help lead the world further down the path of climate protection.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
What happens after Kyoto? The commitments taken on by other nations under the protocol run only from 2008 to 2012. Negotiations toward a new round of commitments are to begin the year after next. These negotiations present a critical opportunity to build a fair and effective long-term agreement.
Will the United States be a leader in those negotiations, or will it sit on the sidelines or, worse yet, be an obstacle? Will the United States bring ideas to the table for reducing emissions and encouraging strong, sustainable prosperity, expanding growth worldwide?
Climate change, of course, poses risk not only to the United States, but to every other nation as well. Similarly, the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming do not originate from just one country. They arise from fossil combustion and deforestation and a host of other activities around the globe.
In these and other ways, Mr. Chairman, climate change is quintessentially a global challenge, and this challenge will be met only when we and other nations agree on an effective, long-term global response.
A vote for my amendment is a vote for active U.S. leadership toward a treaty that truly addresses climate change, protects the economic interests of the United States and recognizes a responsibility of all countries in meeting this profound challenge.
It is in line with the Administration's own report. It is in line with the Administration's own comments. It has been supported by this Committee in the past, unanimously in the Senate, ultimately in the last reauthorization, and I believe we should continue on the course again. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Lest the impression persist that we are doing nothing—having rejected Kyoto, I would cite last month's CBO study, The Economics of Climate Change, A Primer, where on page 49 it says,
''The Bush Administration, having withdrawn the United States from subsequent protocol negotiations, has largely continued the previous Administration's level of climate related expenditures. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 proposed $4.5 billion of climate related spending with $1.7 billion dedicated to climate science.''
That ought to be taken note of.
Over the next several weeks, the energy bill will be debated in the Senate, and several amendments are expected on the issue of global climate change. This, in my view, is the appropriate place to consider changes to our current energy related policy.
Inclusion of the Menendez amendment now pending is not only unnecessary, but I think it is unwise. A climate change provision of this type will jeopardize the enactment of this bill. Two years ago, a similar provision was removed from our pending State Department measure at the insistence of House leadership. This bill is too important and its provisions too timely to put at risk, especially in the consideration of an extraneous measure that will be fully debated and considered by other appropriate Committees.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Furthermore, the President has made clear he is opposed to the Kyoto protocol. Why should we pass this amendment that would seek to have the U.S. engage in yet another binding treaty on climate change?
There are enormous costs associated with any proposals like the Kyoto agreement to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions as high as $400 billion for the U.S. alone. To meet the goals set under the Kyoto protocol, it has been estimated that Illinois, my State, alone would have to spend at least $1 billion per year, and the Illinois Government would stand to lose up to $6.5 billion each year in tax revenue as a result of slower economic growth.
Since the adoption of the Kyoto agreement, many nations have admitted they will not be able to meet the amendments to emissions reductions. At a time of global recession and budget reductions, let us not put the U.S. on a track of negotiating yet another failed treaty and in the same position as many nations who cannot live up to their commitments, so I respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment.
Does anyone else wish to——
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement which, due to the pressure of many additional amendments, I will not read. I would merely like to commend my good friend from New Jersey for proposing his sense of the Congress language. I support him in this.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think it is reasonable for us to urge the Administration to make good on its own commitment to work with the international community to tackle the threat of global climate change, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Smith of Michigan?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes no.
Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis?
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. No.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes no.
Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes no.
Ms. Harris?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes yes.
Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks?
[No response.]
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Ms. Napolitano?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. Watson?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes yes.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. McCollum?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes yes.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Mr. Ballenger.
Chairman HYDE. The rollcall has not been completed. Would the gentleman withhold?
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde?
Mr. BALLENGER. I am sorry.
Chairman HYDE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ballenger?
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. BALLENGER. I would vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Burton votes no, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Chairman HYDE. If all have voted let us announce the roll.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote there are 20 yeses and——
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. You are not recorded as voting.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Now let us announce the roll.
The clerk will withhold announcing. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I apologize. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. You are excused.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. LANTOS. And forgiven.
Chairman HYDE. Lock the doors, please.
Ms. RUSH. On this vote there are 21 yeses and 18 noes.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to commend you and the Ranking Member for your work on this legislation. I am particularly pleased to see the bill's emphasis on U.S. international broadcasting. I am offering with Mr. Schiff an amendment that will complement these efforts.
Our amendment expresses the sense of Congress that Radio Free Asia's broadcast to North Korea be increased to 24 hours each day, and because of the problem of access to suitable radios in North Korea, this amendment requests a report detailing the steps that the U.S. Government is taking and needs to take, including the provision of radios, to maximize North Korea's access to foreign broadcasts like Radio Free Asia.
[The amendment of Mr. Royce follows:]
86991i.AAB
86991i.AAC
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROYCE. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I chair the U.S.-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange, and over the April recess, Mr. Schiff and I, along with other colleagues, traveled to Seoul to hold the exchange with our South Korean counterparts in the National Assembly. This amendment was developed from that trip, which included a visit to RFA facilities in Seoul.
What is clear is that North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems poses a grave threat to the U.S. and our allies in Asia, and it is also clear that North Korea currently has the worst human rights record in the world, so the stakes on the peninsula are great.
I just thought I would share with you a former North Korean military officer's story of one of the official policy meetings there where during a debate one member of their cabinet shouted to another,
''You must listen to the radio coming from the outside world because if you do, then you will know that we have been living like frogs in a well. North Koreans have been living with blinders on.''
This is an opportunity, frankly, to get information in to the policy makers in that regime and to the people because, in order to ensure his survival, Kim Jong Il has put an iron grip on all information in North Korea. Control of information is absolutely crucial because the system is based on lies, and the propaganda is so great that defectors report that they believed that their country was wealthier than South Korea, even though they had close to 3,000,000 people starving to death there.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We are making progress. Last week, NPR interviewed Chinese ethnic Koreans who had recently traveled into North Korea. They reported that there is a gradual change inside North Korea. Not everyone is continuing to believe the regime's propaganda. Even some party officials now say they know their own government of Kim Jong Il is responsible for their woes.
Surveys are indicating that North Korean defectors are listening to the minimal broadcasts that we have today. There are cracks in the armor. It is surely time that we multiply our broadcasting effort, that we learn from what Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa have told us, and that is that the biggest factor in changing attitudes behind the Iron Curtain was the ability to listen to Radio Free Europe's broadcasts. This will give a similar type of coverage and at a critical period on the Korean Peninsula.
In wrapping up, I would just say Mr. Chairman, that Radio Free Asia is a key tool to bring about change. We are not sufficiently using it enough. This amendment lays the groundwork for an effective broadcasting strategy to North Korea.
I ask my colleagues for their support, and I would yield the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the Royce initiative to increase U.S. international broadcasting into North Korea. I want to compliment my good friend for his longstanding leadership in this general field.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The United States has provided hope to captive people throughout the globe through the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and all of our other broadcasting efforts. We can and must apply the same successful formula to North Korea, whose people suffer and are under a brutal Stalinist regime.
I urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this initiative, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Royce Amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to speak also in support of this amendment.
During the codel with Chairman Royce, Xavier Becerra and Madeleine Bordallo, we had the opportunity to sit down with North Korean defectors, some ordinary citizens of North Korea who managed to escape during the winter over the frozen Yalu River, as well as a relatively high ranking North Korean defector. All of them provided chilling accounts of the nature of the North Korean regime and life in the north. It is probably the most insular nation in the world, the most cut off from the outside world, the most repressive regime anywhere.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
To the degree that we can penetrate that hermetic seal around that country and spread information to the people of North Korea of life outside the north, it will have enormous benefit in educating the North Koreans that there is a better way of life. The fact of the disparity between North and South Korea has to be the most graphic example of both the success of one form of government and the failure of the other.
To have one people under two very separate forms of government, one prospering, one democratic, one an economic powerhouse, the other stagnant, starving. There are three groups of North Koreans—the members of the military who are fed first, the third of the population that is a member of the party that is fed second, and then the other third, the potential subversives who are fed third, if at all.
I compliment my colleague for his initiative for years now in support of this effort and want to add my voice to those of others who recognize that information is probably the most powerful weapon we have in changing the nature of the regime in North Korea and improving the life of North Koreans and, over the long term, in diminishing the likelihood of any kind of nuclear escalation on the peninsula.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman?
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am going to support this amendment because of the tremendously good intentions of the sponsors who are on the right track emotionally.
I think I might be the only Member of the Committee that has actually been to North Korea. I may be mistaken about that, but I think that is so. I can verify what they are saying about all the bad things in North Korea. It is probably a lot tougher than they have described.
The reality is there are very few people that have electricity, let alone radios, and the people who have it are basically, you know, a dozen or so party officials. We are going to have to think through how we are really going to do this. This is the sense of the Congress resolution. We are not really spending money broadcasting 24 hours a day to nobody who is listening except the people in South Korea who are the defectors and the South Koreans who can hear us on regular radio.
We are going to have to figure out a way if we are going to really penetrate that hermit nation and the isolation they have built around themselves to figure out how to actually get radios in. It is very difficult to even make contributions.
Mr. ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted to.
Mr. ROYCE. You are right on the point here. This amendment requests a report detailing the steps that the U.S. Government is taking and needs to take, including the provision of radios to maximize that coverage.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me add one thing. Right now, across the border between China and North Korea, there is a vibrant trade in smuggling radios. The percentage of defectors who have listened to radio broadcasts have gone up markedly in the last 2 years.
The other point I was going to make is that key policy makers within the administration in North Korea, within that regime, are all listening to these broadcasts, and one of the reasons you have the high ranking level of defections that you have had, and I have now talked to a number of senior military as well as civil servant defectors, is because they have listened to these broadcasts, and they are discussing internally in much the way that Boris Yeltsin or Vaclav Havel in the party used to talk about whether these broadcasts could be true? Are people living better on the outside? Are these lies they are telling us about what is going on in our country?
Not only are they beginning to reach the countryside because of the efforts of groups to smuggle radios across that Chinese border, but also you have the mid and upper level civil servants and military now listening to the broadcasts. Does everyone listen to them? Certainly no, but the percentage of population has tripled that are now monitoring these conversations.
Part of this legislation is not just the 24 hour broadcasts, but it is to develop a plan to figure out how we get more radios across that border and other ways to get that information through. One might be——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Just reclaiming my time. Leave me 30 seconds. You can have the rest.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you very much. I agree with everything you are saying. The number of radios will increase exponentially at the beginning. That is still not even, you know, a real number. It is a very limited number of people.
The 24 hour broadcasting in your amendment is part of the sense of the Congress aspect of it, so we are really spending no money on that, and I think wisely so, until what you do require in the bill as law should this be an amendment that passes, and I hope that it does, is that report.
I think what we have to do is sit down together, analyze that report, all of us, and try to figure out a way how to effect if we are going to be broadcasting and how to get radios to the people that are going to be listening to those broadcasts.
Mr. ROYCE. If the gentleman would yield again?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Certainly.
Mr. ROYCE. These are transistor radios, so in that sense they do not——
Mr. ACKERMAN. So there is an after market here?
Mr. ROYCE. Exactly.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ACKERMAN. I like that.
Mr. ROYCE. Secondly, the power outages in the north have made it very, very difficult for the north to jam the broadcasts as they used to do. Our technological advances make it a lot easier for us to overcome those jammings than they do in China, for example.
Everything points to the fact now with this massive movement of transistor radios across the Chinese border, and the desire for information in the north that this is an opportune time to move this legislation.
I would just close by asking my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Royce amendment. All of those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Hoeffel.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the strike the last——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had intended to offer an amendment today. I had really wanted to offer an amendment today to establish a modern day Marshall Plan for Eurasia and the Middle East. I have been persuaded by the bipartisan leadership of the Committee that this may not be the right time to do it, so I will not offer the amendment. I would like to make a few comments about the need for a modern day Marshall Plan.
I think all of us on this Committee recognize that the reality of significant poverty and corruption and human rights instances in areas such as Eurasia and the Middle East pose a tremendous threat not only to the peace and well being of people living there, but to our own national security. The threat of terror that can arise when there is not just poverty, but an absence of hope and utter hopelessness among a population, is obviously a very real problem for us.
The Marshall Plan following World War II was America's finest hour, a full contribution that we made to fight the prevention or the spread of communism and to stimulate growth in western Europe and those regions after World War II. The Marshall Plan recognized a direct link between economic growth and political stability, and that is a direct link that we need to remember today. We have the power to do something about the economic growth and opportunity in these parts of the world, and some day soon we need to do it.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Marshall Plan understood the importance of the recipient nations being part of the planning process, determining a plan of action to recover their economies that they had to put into place before assistance was granted. We ought to do the same thing for Eurasia and the Middle East.
Now, the amendment that I was going to offer had an appropriation of $50 billion. That may be one reason why the leadership asked me not to push forward. $50 billion.
Mr. LANTOS. Are you accusing us of being pecuniary in our orientation?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I am acknowledging that wiser heads have prevailed.
The $50 billion figure would grow our foreign aid to the .7 percent of GDP that 30 years ago the United Nations suggested countries earmark for their foreign aid. We give about $10 billion right now in outright foreign aid grants, which is .1 percent of our GDP. We are not getting the job done, and we need to think about this. We need to look for ways to improve this.
I will not offer this amendment. I will be offering it as a bill. I am sure we will have a chance in the future to talk about this. I really do thank both the Chair and the Ranking Member for their cooperation and forbearance.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield for 20 seconds?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I would be delighted to yield.
Mr. BROWN. I would add, and I thank Mr. Hoeffel for offering the idea of this. I would add that Kofi Annan had asked the wealthy nations of the world to devote .7 percent of their GDP to anti-poverty and infectious disease efforts around the world.
Only four nations reached the 7/10 of 1 percent of GDP. They were, I believe, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden I am pretty sure. The United States was last among the 20 some countries that—somewhat less than .1 percent, 1/10 of 1 percent of our GDP.
I think Mr. Hoeffel makes a very good case that we need to look in a different direction.
I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair would just like to comment about the last colloquy, which is quite interesting and has merit, but whenever we are painted as being cheap in terms of foreign aid I always wonder if you added in the nuclear umbrella—protecting Japan and Germany and the rest of the world, the military maintenance that we, because nobody will do it, maintain. Add all those things in. Add in Food for Peace and all the other programs.
I think we are a pretty generous country. It makes an interesting topic for a seminar sometime.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOEFFEL. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman HYDE. Yes, surely.
Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the Chair, and I completely agree with the Chair regarding the wonderful contributions we make through our military security and national security efforts around the world. We do deserve great credit for that. Unfortunately, I do not think that addresses that sense of hopelessness and so forth that economic aid also needs to do.
I thank the Chair. He has been very cooperative today. I hope we will keep talking about this in this Committee. This is the right forum. If we do not address this stuff, nobody else will.
Chairman HYDE. Well, we certainly have an ample supply of sensitivity here on these issues.
Mr. Chris Smith is recognized.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I am offering on behalf of myself and Mr. Berman, and I would ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en block. They are the refugee amendments.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The amendments of Mr. Smith of New Jersey follow:]
86991j.AAB
86991j.AAC
86991j.AAD
86991j.AAE
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991j.AAF
86991j.AAG
86991j.AAH
86991j.AAI
86991k.AAB
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendments.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith. Page 49, after line 19——
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered, and the gentleman's motion to consider the amendments en block is also granted.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Last week, the House responded to one of the most serious humanitarian situations the world has ever seen by passing a $15,000,000 bill designed to alleviate the suffering of over 30,000,000 people in our world living and dying from HIV/AIDS and to stop the spread of that dreaded disease.
The amendment to this bill is designed to address another world crisis that often does not get the kind of visibility it deserves, and that is the plight of the 15,000,000 refugees around the world, many whom have fled some of the same egregious persecution—religious, political and otherwise—in their home countries and today who suffer amidst poor conditions of squalor in refugee camps. There is no doubt whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, that there is a significant shortfall in terms of the donor nations and the money that is available to alleviate this suffering for those who are living in refugee camps around the world.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As a matter of fact, I would ask my friends and colleagues to look at a briefing note put out by the U.S. Committee for Refugees in which they cite some 60 examples, many of those examples in Africa, some in Latin America, in Asia, but most of them in Africa, where there is food shortages, medical shortages, shelter shortages in one camp in one country after another. As a result, obviously many children and women and men are living lives that are deprived of these basic necessities.
Let me just point out to my colleagues that this amendment has three major components. The first would require the State Department to solicit the support of non-governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations to assist in refugee identification and preliminary processing.
The amendment simply says where applicable, the State Department should utilize the resources of well-respected NGOs and private voluntary organizations who have extensive experience in dealing with refugees who meet the areas that the State Department has classified P–2s, P–3s and the like, people who are of concern who right now because of the overburdened UNHR status they do not have enough people that can do this work so that this job can be done by other competent people.
Secondly, the amendment calls on State to expand the processing of refugees in the situations of greatest need, and, finally, the amendment does increase the program's authorization to a level of $927,000,000, $580,000,000 of which would go or would be envisioned in going directly to the camps and to the refugee situations around the world.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The concern there is that there is just far too little money available now. The need can be demonstrated. There is no doubt about that. I have spoken over the years many times both in Geneva and here, as well as in site visits to refugee camps, and the shortfall is appalling. The per capita spending, for example, for African refugees falls far below that which is compared to other refugees. That can be ameliorated; maybe not solved with this amendment, but at least we can provide some additional funding for it.
I would hope the Members could support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, first once again the gentleman from New Jersey has demonstrated with this amendment an enduring commitment to America as a refuge for the refugees for the people persecuted for political reasons around the world without regard to region or area. I want to commend him, and I am happy to be associated with him. He has done tremendous work in this area.
Secondly, the present situation has become, I do not think out of any malice, but for a variety of reasons, a number of which Mr. Smith just made reference to, scandalous. The notion that at a time when there are tremendous refugee needs our authorized limit is down to $70,000, which in and of itself can be challenged as inadequate to do the job. It is significantly lower than it was a number of years ago.
More importantly, even out of that $70,000 I believe in the first 6 months of this fiscal year that we are now in, less than 9,000 refugees have been admitted. Now, September 11 increased scrutiny in terms of security. All of these understandably played a role in the initial days after September 11, but the notion that this has continued on 18 months later for a variety of reasons, many of which have no relationship to security checks, is scandalous.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
What Mr. Smith here is doing is saying we have NGOs around the world committed, dedicated to going through this process of processing, of interviewing, of qualifying people. We should take advantage of those resource to try and come to even our stated commitment, which, as I mentioned before, may be less than adequate to do the job right now.
I think it is a very important amendment. It authorizes resources. It authorizes bringing in wonderfully qualified groups to help the rule that the UNACR and the overseas processing entity now engage in to try and do this job. I think a lot of people's lives will be tremendously improved, and America will have done well to adopt this amendment and implement this with its additional resources. I urge its adoption.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Smith amendment. All those in favor?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. As I do this, however, I think it is important to recognize that he has clarified a few positions and issues related to jurisdiction of the Committees and agencies, and that is a very helpful step on his part.
Of course, we have the reduction in the refugees primarily because of security concerns post 9/11, and so while we are hoping to enhance the kind of personnel capability that would be available to the Secretary for refugee relief, the PBOs and the VROs, of course, have special responsibility to assure that they are fully mindful and respect the security requirements and that the kind of processing that they do is adequate to assure that there will be no abuse because of the additional manpower that we are bringing to bear here. That is the warning or the admonition to the PBOs and the VROs that might be involved. The Secretary, of course, has the discretion because it is always there where applicable.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
With that kind of concern expressed and admonition to the VROs and PBOs and assurances to the Secretary that he has full authority to scrutinize these organizations rather carefully to see if they have the competence, I am supportive of the gentleman's effort, and I urge support of it.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I will be very brief. I tried to speak on several others. I figured I better speak up a little louder.
I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for this amendment. I think that there are tremendous opportunities for us to increase the number of refugees coming into the country. I hear about the scrutiny of the PBOs and all the rest, and I think that is important.
However, I do not know if people have been to refugee camps. They are usually people who come over a border with practically no clothes on, barefooted, starving, sick, many times fearful and afraid, and probably you have the least opportunity of any people who are subversive and out to get us type of mentality.
I think that we need to be concerned that we are not allowing people who may be a part of an undesirable organization that dislikes our country, but I would just like to say that if you have traveled around refugee camps like I have done for the last 25 or 30 years, you find people who are really in need and so I think that that is less of a problem than those who come in under normal, you know, business type, the sort of folks that we saw on 9/11 who were wealthy, educated persons who just had the al-Qaeda awful mentality. I would hope that we keep that in mind.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I need to have a few points clarified before I can vote on this.
Mr. Smith, does this in any way increase the number of people who will be legally entitled to enter the United States of America?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would answer my friend that no, that is not, frankly, under the jurisdiction of this Committee.
Every year in a collaboration between the Executive Branch and Congress, and that is usually done through the Judiciary Committee, that number is picked.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Right now it is 70,000.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So this bill would not in any way——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. No. This has to do with additional monies for refugee protection, coupled with an enhanced effort to try to identify and assist those people who would be eligible for refugee status.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As Mr. Berman pointed out, the number year to date is 9,000, far below the 70,000 ceiling which, if we butt up against, obviously we would not——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. We need to make sure that that is understood; that we are not talking about an increase in the legal number of immigrants coming into the United States.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Would the gentleman further yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Go ahead.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And I know he knows this, but so it is absolutely clear this has nothing to do with immigration flows. The overwhelming majority of the people who come into the U.S. are immigrants, as opposed to refugees.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Traditionally it is less than 10 percent.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, let me just note that for the average American citizen the difference between a refugee and an immigrant is pretty well indiscernible. It is someone from another country who has now come here who now legally resides in the United States.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me note that I have so often heard this equation about how the United States is not generous enough, as we heard a few moments before. Let me note that never takes into consideration, as the Chairman noted, the price of stability in the world, which the United States contributes hundreds of billions of dollars more than anyone else on the planet in terms of our military's ability to step in and create stability, which enhances peace and enhances prosperity.
Also, which fits into the discussion of what we are talking about here, we have an enormous amount of legal immigration into our country. We permit more legal immigration into the United States of America than all the other countries of the world combined. If that does not indicate some sort of charity and some sort of good heart, I do not know what does.
On top of that, of course, there are probably 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 illegal immigrants pouring into our country, if not more, every year, and that, too, is not taken into the equation of those who would paint us as a cold-hearted country. I think we are a very warm-hearted country.
I will be supporting the amendment. It is aimed at helping the most——
Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly I will.
Mr. BERMAN. Some of us do not view the regulations governing legal immigration as charity. We think of it as part of building the strength of our own country.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think there is a dual purpose, and I am voting for this amendment because it does reach to those people who are living in hopeless conditions.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. All in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to seek consideration of H. Con. Res. 160 relating to the removal of economic sanctions against Iraq in the House under suspension of the rules, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute which the Members have before them is considered adopted, and the preamble and title are amended. It is without objection.
[H. Con. Res. 160 and the amendment in the nature of a substitute follow:]
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
86991aj.AAB
86991aj.AAC
86991aj.AAD
86991h.eps
86991i.eps
86991j.eps
Chairman HYDE. In order to ensure completion of the measure tomorrow, I ask unanimous consent that all Members submit any further amendments to the Committee by 5 p.m. today. Without objection, so ordered.
Next, Mr. Faleomavaega?
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments.
[The amendments of Mr. Faleomavaega follow:]
86991l.AAB
86991m.AAB
86991m.AAC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I ask for unanimous consent that they can be considered en block.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, the——
Chairman HYDE. Let the clerk designate the amendments.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment en block offered by Mr. Faleomavaega. Page 143, after line 9——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the en block amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is in reference to our country's relationship with Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about cross border terrorism and the threat of nuclear proliferation in South Asia.
Although we are appreciative of Pakistan's post September 11 assistance in the war against terrorism, tensions in the region are still rising. Only 6 days after the Bush Administration declared on March 14 that it had ''carefully reviewed the facts relating to the possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea.'' Only 4 days after President Bush exercised his sanctions waiver authority to remove coup-related sanctions as assistance to Pakistan for FY 2003, the Pakistani Foreign Minister made a declaration that this war that we waged against Iraq was unjustified and vowed to oppose it in any way.
Shortly thereafter, on March 23, some 200,000 Pakistanis took to the streets in Lahore to demonstrate in opposition to the U.S. led attack on Iraq. The day after, Pakistan and China signed a memorandum of understanding for the construction of a second Pakistani nuclear power plant. The same day, some 24 Hindu villagers were shot and killed by Muslim extremists in India Kashmir.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
On March 26, Pakistan and India tested and fired short range ballistic missiles. On the same day, Prime Minister Jamali said that Pakistan and China will strengthen their defense ties. On March 30, again some 200,000 Pakistanis once again took to the streets in Peshawar to demonstrate opposition to the U.S. led attack on Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, in April of this year the U.S. State Department announced that on March 24 the U.S. imposed nonproliferation penalties on Konn Research Laboratories, a Pakistani entity. Two year penalties ban all U.S. trade with KRL for having received missile technology from a North Korean entity.
As a result of increasing tensions in the region, the State Department recently advised all but essential U.S. diplomats in Pakistan to depart the country. Although the State Department modified its travel advisory in mid April, Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage is en route to Pakistan to begin the high level diplomatic discussions.
In the interim, Mr. Chairman, we are authorizing aid to Pakistan with no strings attached. I know I am not alone when I say that I have deep reservations about U.S. foreign policy in South Asia. I want to once again reiterate that I believe Pakistan should be commended for assisting our country in its efforts to hunt down al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives and for allowing the U.S. military to use bases within its country.
But we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Pakistan has not closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Pakistan has not prohibited the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the line of control into Indian Kashmir. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that General Musharraf promised Deputy Secretary Armitage that infiltration would cease, and the fact is it has not ceased.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Since 1989, more than 60,000 men, women and children have died in Kashmir's feud. Since the September 11 catastrophe, Islamic militants from Pakistan have crossed the line of control and claimed the lives of innocent men, women and children not once, not twice, but three times, committing egregious acts of cross border terrorism on each and every occasion.
Mr. Chairman, I submit India has not crossed the line of control since 1972. In fact, India has exercised incredible restraint in not waging full scale war to defend itself against these terrorist acts.
Although I believe we are fortunate that neither country has not yet resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, we also should be very concerned that both Pakistan and India test fired short range missiles on March 26 of this year, which, incidentally, is the same day that Prime Minister Jamali said that Pakistan and China will enhance their defense ties.
Given the seriousness of this situation, I am offering this amendment, Mr. Chairman. It simply requires the Secretary of State or the President to prepare and transmit to Congress a report that contains a description of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorism camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistan held Kashmir, establish a serious and identifiable measure to prohibit the infiltration——
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega, your time has expired. We are prepared to accept your amendment——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. If you will accept our acceptance.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I fully accept it with the indulgence of my colleagues.
Chairman HYDE. May I make a request that you withdraw the one amendment having to do with Kazakhstan? We have not had a chance to look at it. We will look at it, but we are not prepared to accept that yet. We accept the other one on Pakistan.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I gladly will.
Chairman HYDE. We will look at Kazakhstan.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We will continue——
Chairman HYDE. Do you ask unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment on Kazakhstan pending further consultation with the distinguished Chairman and my colleagues of the Committee.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Faleomavaega. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
There are three votes pending on the Floor, an hour's worth of votes I am told, so we will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m. the Committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2003.]
Next Hearing Segment(2)