Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 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 (CONTINUED)
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 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. When the Committee recessed, we were considering H.R. 1950, and no amendments were pending. Does anyone seek recognition for purpose of offering an amendment?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The amendment of Mr. Smith of New Jersey follows:]
86991n.AAB
86991k.eps
86991n.AAD
86991n.AAE
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. We have East Timor, scholarships——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. UNRWA. Right?
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH [continuing]. And assistance to Palestinian——
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. That is it, the Palestinian one.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: ''Page 154, after line 12, insert the following—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Lantos and would ask that the Members wholeheartedly support this amendment. It is a sense of the Congress urging continued reforms at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, often referred to as ''UNRWA,'' for Palestinian refugees.
The amendment complements existing State Department efforts designed to bring pressure and diplomacy to bear on this important but deeply troubled United Nations agency. I would point out that the amendment seeks to expand an existing GAO investigation of U.S. assistance to UNRWA so that we can more closely examine issues which the current GAO analysis is not exploring.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The issue really comes down to this: We are, without a doubt, the prime providers of finances to UNRWA. Since 1950, we have provided some $2.5 billion. In Fiscal Year 2002, we provided $110 million. The resolution notes that the United States' contribution to UNRWA is nearly 10 times that of the entire Arab world, so we are truly committed to the well being and the welfare of Palestinian refugees. But meanwhile, we have got make sure that the textbooks do not contain antisemitic, inflammatory, and hate-filled diatribes that have been carried in the past.
Incitement is a very important issue. We want to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, and, hopefully, that means in totality, that these camps, as well as the schools and the curriculum employed by those schools, are not used to poison another generation of young children. We know for a fact there have been instances in the past where the venue of an UNRWA compound or facility has been used to praise suicide bombers, Hamas, and acts of terrorism, and that is absolutely unconscionable, and it is totally unacceptable. These need to be areas where reconciliation, hope and tolerance are practiced, not where this kind of thing happens.
So, finally, the bottom line of what the resolution does: It sends a clear message that we want more reforms in UNRWA. We want to make sure that the GAO report, so that we get more factual data, points out or discovers, one way or the other, whether or not U.S. assistance to UNRWA is being spent effectively and is not directly or indirectly supporting terrorism, antisemitic or anti-Jewish teachings or the glorification or incitement to violence. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by paying tribute to my good friend and distinguished colleague, Chris Smith, for this important amendment, which I am delighted to co-sponsor.
I have long been concerned about aspects of UNRWA's mission as well as the manner in which it carries out that mission. Last year, I wrote to my personal friend, Secretary General Kofi Annan, expressing my deep unease that UNRWA may be, and I quote from my letter to Kofi Annan,
''UNRWA may be perpetuating rather than ameliorating the situation of Palestinian refugees.''
No doubt, Mr. Chairman, UNRWA does much good. As the second-largest employer of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, it makes an important economic contribution. Nevertheless, one must ask, how high is the cost in terms of increased tensions in Israeli-Palestinian relations and in terms of the overall health of the Palestinian society? Some of UNRWA's problems are performance related and potentially correctable, such as its all-too-frequent indifference to terrorism, even to the exploitation of its own facilities for terrorist purposes or its use of textbooks that promote hatred of Jews and denial of Israel's right to exist.
Others of UNRWA's problems are structural and impervious to change, except in the face of the most thoroughgoing reform. Here, I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, the culture of dependency UNRWA breeds and the fact that UNRWA, by the very terms of its mission, incubates and politicizes the Palestinian refugee problem rather than resolving and ending it.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge the U.N. Secretary General and our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to pursue comprehensive reform of UNRWA, as called for in the Smith-Lantos Amendment, particularly such reform as puts UNRWA clearly on the side of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation and mutual understanding. I, likewise, urge the GAO to pursue a wide-ranging investigation of the uses to which UNRWA puts U.S. taxpayers' dollars, which account for some 30 percent of UNRWA's budget.
More broadly, it may be time to consider carefully the benefits to ourselves, to the Middle East, and to the Palestinians themselves of our continuing to bankroll an organization that . . ., if I may again quote my letter to Kofi Annan,
''. . . perpetuates rather than ameliorates the lowly status of millions of refugees.''
I hope all of our colleagues will join Chris Smith and me in supporting this amendment and sending a powerful message to UNRWA, now in its 2nd half-century of its existence, that it must actively and unequivocally oppose terrorism and finally get its house in order. Otherwise, it risks losing the goodwill and the support of its primary benefactor, the Congress of the United States and the American people. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I support the Smith Amendment calling for an audit of U.S. assistance to Palestinian refugees provided through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The activities of this agency linking it to terrorism and those of its personnel have been a concern of many Members of this Committee for some time now.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Last Congress, we attempted to address this issue in a joint International Operations and Human Rights and Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee oversight hearing on the issue. Letters were sent out outlining our grave concerns, and recently I had the opportunity to raise this issue with UNRWA representatives in my recent trip to Israel.
For the last 50 years, UNRWA camps have become bastions of terror and represent a clear and present threat to civil society. I would like to stress that in the West Bank and Gaza, because those in Jordan, for example, are significantly different due to the behavior and the commitment of the Jordanian Government. And while we continue to pour millions of dollars into UNRWA, this agency has failed to solve the Palestinian refugee problem.
Concurrently, many of its facilities have become safe havens of anti-Israeli and antisemitic incitement, breeding violence and terror against the Israeli people. And I would like to stress that we are not debating the benefits and whether it is efficient use to extend humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or not; that is not the issue. What we are debating are the operations of a U.N. agency, and the representatives of UNRWA will argue that they cannot monitor what textbooks are being used or who is doing what. That has been their defense. However, I am sure that we can all agree that that is a blatant attempt to avoid any responsibility over its operations. If they are not exerting oversight over what is taking place in the institutions run by the agency, then the U.S. must offer its contributions to this agency.
When the Commissioner General of UNRWA attempts to justify anti-Semitic materials, it reflects an unspoken tolerance of such deplorable behavior, and this does not do justice to the Palestinian people, nor to anyone. Rather than promoting tolerance and acceptance of their Israeli neighbors, UNRWA is perpetuating attitudes and policies that run contrary to peace. This cannot continue. This agency must be reformed, and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support the very important Smith Amendment this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. All in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The Chair recognizes Ms. Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Ms. Berkley follows:]
86991ac.AAB
86991ac.AAC
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady's amendment will be——
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Ms. Berkley: ''Page 154, after line 12, insert the following—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that there is an agreement to include my concerns in the report language, so I will offer this amendment and withdraw it, if that meets with your approval.
Chairman HYDE. It certainly does.
Ms. BERKLEY. Two days ago, I met with the Israeli minister for tourism and members of his staff. They shared with me the economic devastation done to the Israeli economy by the dramatic drop in tourism. As a Representative who has Las Vegas in her district, I can assure you, I know something about the devastating effects of a downturn in tourism.
The frustration expressed to me by the Israeli officials was that the United States State Department travel advisories for Israel are overly broad. While the West Bank and the Gaza strip might be the subject of the highest level of caution by the State Department, and rightly so, there are whole regions of Israel that have been practically untouched by violence. This would be analogous to the entire United States suffering from a devastating drop in tourism because there has been evidence of recent terrorist activity in one major city. It would be unnecessary and ill advised to issue travel restrictions or advisories for every State in that case.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My amendment reaffirms the importance of a travel advisory and recognizes its purpose, to protect the health and safety of Americans traveling abroad. However, my amendment also recognizes that it is too easy to give in to overly cautious mentality where the State Department simply issues unnecessarily high threat assessments for unnecessarily broad swaths of geography.
I believe there must be a more sophisticated model for travel advisories, and I believe that it is incumbent that the State Department investigate the possibility of models with a deeper nuance. My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that there may be a better, more sophisticated model for issuing travel advisories and calls on the State Department to investigate these possibilities.
Israel has been devastated economically, militarily, and I think it is time that we help ease these restrictions so that in the safer areas of Israel people can travel and feel and be safe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express my strong support for the initiative of my good friend from Nevada. This is a very serious problem. Having been there just last week, I realize how absurd these travel advisories, in fact, are. As a matter of fact, several of the neighboring countries are suffering from this. The country of Jordan is desperately dependent on foreign aid. Conditions in much of Jordan are perfectly peaceful. The Jordanian Government is in need of tourist income, and certainly the Government of Israel desperately needs its tourism industry revived.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I join her in calling on the State Department to be far more sophisticated in its issuance of travel advisories than has been the case in recent times. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, can I reclaim a moment of my time? Do I have a moment?
Chairman HYDE. You certainly get a whole full moment.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To add some texture to my request, 2 years ago, I helped lead a congressional trip to Israel. We originally had 13 Members of Congress going to Israel. By the time we departed from JFK, because of the concern of terrorism in the Middle East, and particularly in Israel, only 5 of the 13 Members that originally signed up for the trip went. We returned on September 4th. A week later, we experienced the hellacious attack on our country in the World Trade Center.
So it doesn't matter where you are, and I think it brought home to me the fact that I was safer in Israel than I would have been in New York at the World Trade Center at that time. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Does the gentlelady wish to withdraw her amendment?
Ms. BERKLEY. If you give me permission to do so.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. I don't think it is necessary, but——
Ms. BERKLEY. Then I ask unanimous consent.
Chairman HYDE. That is not necessary either.
Ms. BERKLEY. What is necessary?
Chairman HYDE. Just state that you wish to withdraw your amendment.
Ms. BERKLEY. I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Very well. It is so ordered.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the Senate, by a unanimous vote of 96 to 0, has approved the ratification changes to bring in seven new members of NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. And now they have joined Canada and Norway, by their respective procedures, to bring in these seven new members. Now, the seven, plus the earlier three of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, of course, constitute an erasure of the lines drawn across Europe at Yalta.
This is a bipartisan success story. It involves effort by the Clinton and Bush Administrations. I think the House took actually the leading role in the world in initiating the first round, and I want to thank all of you for the support that you gave to the Europe Subcommittee in the process of advancing our own legislation last year in this respect. These 7, really 10, countries, having lived under totalitarian rule for 50 years, understand the importance of freedom, and they have pledged themselves to continued improvement and, in fact, to the protection of the existing 19 under the Mutual Security Pact.
So it is a great day, and it comes on the 58th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Applause.]
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The amendment of Mr. Smith of New Jersey follows:]
86991a.eps
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey regarding East Timor scholarships: ''Page 16, line 21, strike 500,000—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A few years ago, I first met Chenana Guzmau when he was in a Jakarta prison, and he now is the President, as we all know, of East Timor. What a remarkable change has occurred in that country, although it has been ravaged by war. It is believed that a billion dollars in damage was done during the course of that war, and thousands died.
The amendment that I am offering today is an attempt to double, to go from $500,000 to a million, still a very modest amount of money, for scholarships for East Timorees applicants for both undergraduates as well as post graduates. We all know this has been a limited success story primarily because it has been very hard during the course of this transition to democracy to get those candidates, although some have gone to the East-West Center in Hawaii and gotten an excellent education.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It seems to me that right now, as this emergent democracy is on the verge of breaking out, we should do what we can do to help education, and President Guzmau has asked repeatedly—he needs help in the area of education. There was a 2002 UNDP assessment, a report, that found that East Timor's education standards are among the lowest in the world. They need help. This is not a budget buster. Perhaps it even should be more, but at least it is a step in the right direction to say, if we want to help a country matriculate into democracy and to have a robust economy, certainly investments in education are a very important step in that direction. So I would hope that Members could support the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Any further discussion?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my fullest support to the gentleman's proposed amendment concerning offering scholarships to students from East Timor. It was my privilege in the past to personally visit East Timor and see the terrible experience that these people have had under the colonial rule of the Indonesian Government. Some 200,000 East Timorees were tortured and murdered by the Indonesian military.
East Timor now is a fully independent nation, and I cannot emphasize enough what my good friend from New Jersey has mentioned, the fact that the salvation of any society, and especially with this government that has just barely started, that education is the salvation of these people, and we sincerely hope that providing scholarships for the students from East Timor will be an added feature in their development toward greater self-development in various areas that are needful for this government to survive.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I might also add that the former staff director of one of our Committees, chaired by my good friend from New Jersey, is now Ambassador to East Timor, Mr. Reese, and I am sure that this is going to be a real added measure of help, giving assistance to this sorely needed area for development for the East Timor Government, and, again, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Mr. Payne of New Jersey.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, first of all, commend you for the portrait unveiling yesterday, last night. I think it was a very handsome picture. I thought it would be hanging over us today, but I guess it will be coming up soon.
Chairman HYDE. I hope so.
Mr. PAYNE. So, therefore, I suppose my amendment will be in good shape. [Laughter.]
I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The amendment of Mr. Payne follows:]
86991o.AAB
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Payne: ''Page 56, after line 8, insert the following—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a grant to the Africa Society, a private, nonprofit corporation which is the outgrowth of the National Summit on Africa, which was an unprecedented effort to increase understanding to Americans of all ages and walks of life about Africa.
In February 2000, the summit's dialogue and celebration of Africa resulted in the largest, most diverse gathering of Africa-interest individuals in the history of the United States. Over 8,000 delegates and participants representing every state and territory—and a network of over 25,000 Americans and others—engaged in bringing this dialogue to fruition because the dialogue began in each of the individual states.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Africa Society, formed in 2002, following the Summit on Africa and building on its momentum, galvanized an active constituency here in the United States that would create and would help this new relationship between the United States and Africa. It would reinforce already existing ones, and give exposure to African leaders of various sectors. The mission of the Africa Society is to enhance awareness of all Americans on Africa and to create linkages between the two, whether they be educational, business, or trade related.
The primary programs and activities of the Africa Society are national interdisciplinary programs for K through 12 and also to the university levels; conferences, seminars, and private meetings on critical topics; exchange programs for legislators, business, and civil society participating; focusing on leadership and development; programs that encourage people-to-people collaboration concerning U.S.-Africa relations; and public policy research that provides succinct and reliable policy analysis in support of policy-making toward Africa; publication and information dissemination through both electronic and print media; and a national data base of persons interested in U.S.-Africa affairs.
The society also partners with media organizations in developing balanced and positive programs that more accurately depict the continent of Africa. They work to promote free and democratic institutions throughout Africa, facilitate private sector initiatives, and facilitate nongovernmental participation and exchanges between Africa and the United States.
The activities of this organization have done a great deal toward building a strong constituency for Africa in the United States, which is absolutely essential to getting more support for Africa here in Congress. Their work has helped to inform Americans about this vast, rich, complex continent, which gets such a bad rap sometimes, and would help create a more balanced image of Africa, one that is more fair and accurate than what is usually depicted.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Africa Society needs financial support for their invaluable work to strengthen and broaden their activities in the areas of education and culture, research, and provisions of Africa related to information, public outreach, and communications. This amendment would give this stellar organization the necessary funds to carry out the mission.
As you know, Africa is becoming one of our top oil producers. We think that, with the work of the Africa Society, we will be able to help countries ward off fundamentalism, which is growing in some of the African countries. As you know, the continent supplies up to perhaps 20 percent of the oil imported by the United States, with new finds in places and gold in other places that produce a tremendous amount of oil.
We think it is in our national interest, and we have gotten support from many people: Secretary Colin Powell, before he was Secretary of State; Jack Kemp; Andy Young, former Ambassador, and many others. So I would urge that we support this amendment, and with that, I will yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend my dear friend and our distinguished colleague from New Jersey for taking this initiative. He has devoted decades of his life to improved U.S.-Africa relations in an extremely sophisticated and substantive fashion.
This is an extremely good proposal. We have been supporting key NGOs in other portions of the world. The Asia Foundation has done useful work in promoting civil society, the rule of law, democracy, the creation of fundamental human rights and better governance in Asia. This is a parallel entity, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Payne's initiative.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey——
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I am sorry. Ms. Watson is recognized.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to register my strong support for Mr. Payne's amendment that would provide funding to the Africa Society. I have had the opportunity to attend functions and seminars sponsored by the society and have been highly impressed.
The mission of the Africa Society is to educate all Americans about Africa and its people and to build bridges of understanding and communication between the United States and the African continent. It is a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank and public organization that has already created a number of impressive partnerships, including the World Affairs Council, UCLA, Discovery Communications, the Ralph Bunche International Center at Howard University, and the State University of New York at Albany.
While many still view Africa as a marginalized continent, its economic and strategic importance to the United States has actually grown immensely since the events of 9/11. The United States military has increased its presence in the strategic port of Djibouti and other regions of the continent which are in close proximity to the Persian Gulf.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
New discoveries of strategic oil reserves in Africa, particularly off the shore of the Gulf of Guinea, may offer a significant alternative to oil in the volatile Middle East. As many of you know, the Administration is actively exploring alternatives to reliance on Middle East oil, and Africa perhaps offers the best alternative.
Moreover, just as we realize that nation building and democracy building are important to the stability and combating terrorism in the Middle East, so should we realize that the African continent has a significant Muslim population, many of whom are young and live in either failed or marginal states. The Africa Society will create and offer important lines of communication between the African continent and the concerned educators, diplomats, and private citizens.
It is critical that we do not forget this important region of the world as we combat terrorism and political instability around the globe. The amount of the request for funding for the Africa Society, by an standard, is modest, whose return on investment, I believe, will be in the multiples of millions of dollars. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Oh, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank the gentleman from New Jersey for this amendment, and very briefly, if there is any continent that is probably misunderstood or not known about at all in the nature that it should be, it is the continent of Africa. And, indeed, the world that we currently live in is much smaller than it was 40, 50 years ago. We have a global economy; therefore, we need global understanding. And what this society, the Africa Society, will do is to help promote that global understanding.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When we look at the public educational curriculum, or any educational curriculum, for that matter, most of the time what is left out is the continent of Africa, so, therefore, that leads to misunderstanding and leads to the United States not being focused on trade and the trade opportunities that we can have there as well.
So this bill, and what the Africa Society will be promoting, is not only beneficial for the Africans; it is beneficial for those of us here in America so that we can see that the opportunities that present themselves there and, therefore, creating opportunity and hope for people there by having a better global understanding. As indicated by the gentlelady from California, it is a method of where we can find oil and other natural resources so that we are not depending upon oil from other places.
It is a bill that I think, with this modest amount, will go a long, long way to improving relations and having a great opportunity for the betterment of both Africa and the United States of America, and I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Payne. All in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. TANCREDO. I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Tancredo follows:]
86991ae.AAB
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo: ''Page 154, after line 12, insert the following—''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I reserve a point of order on this amendment?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman wishes to reserve a point of order. It shall be reserved. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Mr. Tancredo is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the last year and a half or so, a peculiar development has arisen in our relationship with several countries, particularly with Mexico, over the issue of the matricula consular. This is a card that is issued by foreign governments to their nationals. Certainly, every country has the right to use such a document and to issue it to their nationals. This is nothing that is new.
However, what is new is that in the last, as I say, year and a half or so, the Mexican Government has charged the Mexican consuls in the United States, the consular officials living here, 41 or 2 of them, with the responsibility of going out and lobbying State and local governments in order to get them to accept the matricula consular issued by the Mexican Government to its nationals living in the United States.
Now, they are very clear about exactly what it is they want to accomplish. Several members of the Mexican Government have stated on many occasions, and very publicly, that the purpose of doing this, the purpose of using their consular offices in the United States to lobby State and local governments in the United States, is to essentially get around the problem that they face in trying to obtain an amnesty for people living here illegally, for Mexican citizens living here illegally.
In fact, not too long ago, Roberto Hernandez, the General Director of Consular Affairs for the Mexican Foreign Ministry, said in the paper,
''We all know that there will be no migration agreement soon, but we must look for alternatives so that Mexicans already here . . .''
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
meaning in the United States,
''. . . can live in a better manner. It is necessary to push the agreement at all levels,''
he said.
''A little lobbying—pushing for Mayors up to the Governors, then going through congressional Representatives; it is worth the effort,''
he says.
''If there is an accord between the two countries, then it must go to Congress, so why not do this in reverse? We work first with the States and cities, and then it will be easier to push forward with an agreement. In the long run—I don't know if it will be 1 year or 2 years or 10 years—we are going to have a migration agreement because it is a reality. It has already happened,''
he says. And we have many other statements of a similar nature by members of the Mexican Government. They agree. They state publicly that they are trying to use the consuls to lobby State and local governments to get them to aid people to break the law of the land.
Now, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what would happen if it were in reverse. What would happen if an American consular official would go to a state in Mexico and say, ''You know, I would like you to help us do something that would violate the national law,'' because, in fact, really the only people in the United States of America, the only foreign national in the United States that needs the matricula consular for identification purposes are people who are living here illegally.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If you have come into this country legally, there is, of course, a document that you get from us, you know, a visa, a green card, or whatever. You do not need anything issued by a foreign government, and certainly no entity of the United States, no State or locality, should be accepting these for identification purposes.
They can fraudulently be made. We have already arrested someone in Colorado who had three of these cards in his possession, three of them with his picture on them, but, of course, a different name for every card.
So when we are told that we should accept these things because they are valid forms of identification for people who are living here illegally, that is patently untrue. It has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to obtain amnesty for people who are living in the United States and to do so because they cannot get it through the Congress of the United States. They say this is exactly what their purpose is.
So my amendment simply instructs the Secretary of State, through a sense of Congress, that the Secretary of State should engage in ''direct discussions with those governments involved in activities described in this section and request that the governments refrain from using their consular and diplomatic offices in this manner,'' and I reserve the balance of my time. I am not sure if I can reserve.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Menendez.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised by my colleague from Colorado offering this amendment. However, I think that his arguments are really maybe for the Judiciary Committee, where immigration issues are generally held, but the specifics of his arguments are misfounded. First of all, every country has the right to issue to its nationals identification, and now we want to tell the Government of Mexico, and I guess we will begin on a long list of countries, that, no, you do not have the right to issue to your nationals identification, specifically an ID that tells us who this person is.
It seems to me that, for even security purposes, it makes eminent sense that instead of not knowing who the person is, that, in fact, we would know who the person is and that we would have the wherewithal to be able to communicate with that government should this person run afoul of the law in a way in which we would be concerned, but that, in essence, would be an ability for law enforcement to be able to identify this person and pursue their background.
Lastly, most of what this is actually used for is for purposes of opening up a simple bank account. It is for the purposes of instead of having this money in this economy outside of a legal source, to be able to have money in this economy through registered bank accounts, which inures not only to the benefit of those financial institutions but to this country in general, and people are able to pay their taxes legally and otherwise meet their obligations.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is not about amnesty, and everyone knows that any form of legalization of undocumented immigrants in this country can only come through congressional legislation and ultimately the signature of a President. However, it is about treating those who are clearly inside of this country with a certain degree of dignity. It is about security. It is about identifying individuals. It is about having a way in which, clearly, all of those people who Mr. Tancredo would seek to punish, all of those people who are making beds in hotels, all of those people who are putting food and vegetables on our tables, all of those who pick the poultry in Arkansas, all of those who are doing the construction industry in North Carolina, all of those who are in the service industry in California and the East and West Coasts, and many, many others. It is to punish them.
Now, this Administration must come to a conclusion. Does it seek to engage Mexico, as the President has said so many times, in a legalized and regularized form of immigration to this country where the dignity, worth, as well as the interests of both countries are served, or do we simply wish to punish those for which we take advantage each and every day? That is the real issue.
So, therefore, I really urge, if this amendment ends up being an order, to have our colleagues vote against the amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Menendez, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Sure. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GALLEGLY. I would just like a clarification. I understood Mr. Tancredo to say in this issue, and for those of us that have had concerns about the matricula consular, that there is no effort to prohibit the Mexican Government or any other government from producing the document. The issue is whether we would accept a formal document, a document for formal identification purposes, inside the United States issued by a foreign government, other than a passport, that could be used for services or benefits or whatever without any control over the method which they were produced.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter is that there is no Federal entity that recognizes or accepts it, and if a State or a locality chooses to do so, since we believe that the States know best, which I know our Republican colleagues have always told us, the States know best, and we should leave it up to their discretion. It is up to the State or local municipality to make that decision, but there is no Federal entity that accepts it, and obviously no Federal entity could unless an act of Congress took place.
So this is really about punishing millions of Mexicans who are in this country who we say we want to work with the Mexican Government to legalize and regularize their status, but this is really about punishing them.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly, seek recognition?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes. Strike the last word.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GALLEGLY. If I could follow up and enter into a colloquy with Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez, very simply put, could you explain to me and to our colleagues who, other than an illegal immigrant, an international terrorist, or a criminal seeking another form of identification, needs matricula consular as a source of identification in the United States? Is there any other individual or group that would have the need for that document?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, your question is like did you beat your wife today? To suggest that a terrorist is going to be given a matricula consular is insulting to the process and to the Mexican people. Also, the fact of the matter is you could be here pending status, waiting for your adjustment of status, and need to have an ID in the process. So there are people in walks of life in different processes that might need a matricula consular.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, let us rephrase my question, then. I did not mean to offend Mr. Menendez or the Mexican Government or the Mexican nationals in this country. Let us forget about international terrorists or criminals seeking another form of identification. Is there any group, other than someone that is currently illegally in the United States, that would have a need for the use of this document, Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. You could, in fact, be a United States permanent resident. You could, in fact, be even a United States citizen of Mexican descent and seek to have a matricula consular for other purposes, including purposes within Mexico—travel, business, other purposes. So there is a perfectly legal reason for the Government of Mexico to give such identification to people, should they choose to do so.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, the issue really isn't the issuance of the document. The issue is of who needs the document for purposes of use within the United States.
Mr. TANCREDO. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Once again, I draw your attention to the actual amendment. The amendment does not discuss, in any way, shape, or form, whether a country should offer its citizens a matricula consular. That is none of our business. Countries do. We all recognize that. This amendment has nothing to do with the offering. It actually has nothing to do with who is benefitted by it.
I happen to agree completely with Mr. Gallegly that really the only people, or certainly the largest number of people, who could possibly benefit by the use of the matricula in the United States are those people living here illegally. Otherwise, you have identification that this government offers to you when you come in. But this amendment doesn't deal with that issue.
All it says is that we ask the Secretary of State to please register our concern with those governments who are using their consular offices here to go to States and localities to lobby them to get them to take the matricula, accept the matricula. That is the only purpose of this amendment. It has got nothing to do with governments offering them or whether or not people should have them. Those are debates we can and should certainly have, but that has got nothing to do with this amendment. I yield back to the gentleman.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. I will seek my own time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. I would return the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to identify myself strongly with the points made by my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. In my home State of California, these cards have been recognized for a long, long time for identification purposes, to obtain, for instance, a library card. Now, I see nothing sinister in a Mexican individual, seeking to improve his education, to be able to go to the local public library and use this card for the purpose of obtaining a public library card from a community in California. I think the amendment before us would strip from hard-working individuals the ability to engage in normal activities in our society.
If I may bring the argument to a broader level, relations between the United States and Mexico have rarely been as strained and as unstable and as fragile and as hostile as they are today. I think it would be a gratuitous and most unfortunate slap in the face of the Mexican people, the Mexican Government, and Mexicans living in the United States to approve this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject it. Thank you.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield, the gentleman from California?
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Lantos, you mentioned the fact, and we are both Californians, and we have lived there for a major part of our lives, a long time—I am a native Californian. Would you not say that one of the real reasons the relationship with our friends and neighbors to the south in Mexico, one of the principal reasons that that relationship is strained is by the fact that there are probably, depending on whose numbers you use, somewhere between nine and 13 million people illegally in the country, and in the State of California probably there is half of that number, or at least a third of those in California? Would you say that that may be one of the major reasons that the relationship is somewhat strained with our friends?
Mr. LANTOS. If my friend will yield.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. Or did I yield to you? We will yield to each other.
I might say to my friend from California that there is a whole complex set of reasons why relations between the United States and Mexico are strained as we speak, and it would take a long seminar of a whole day to, at least, begin to explore the complexity of that relationship.
My point is a different one. I take it from my friend's comments that he agrees with me that relations between the United States and Mexico at the moment are extremely strained. If they are strained for the reason my friend indicates, I don't see nine or 13 million, or whatever your figure is, people suddenly disappearing. So we are dealing with a fact of life.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My purpose is to attempt to ameliorate relations between the United States and Mexico and not to aggravate them. Approving this amendment would clearly be a very negatively perceived action, and while I think there are many complex factors in U.S.-Mexico relations, there is no reason at this moment, gratuitously, to add yet another aggravating fact to an already difficult relationship, and I again urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair would like to deal with the point of order earlier reserved by Mr. Berman. The point of order really should be and would be sustained. However, the author could offer his original version, which was filed before 5 o'clock, I am told, yesterday, which is in order, and then a colleague could offer the pending amendment as a substitute.
So we could get from here to there using that route, and rather than waste time, the Chair would urge the gentleman from California to withdraw his point of order.
Mr. BERMAN. Could I also get recognized to speak against the amendment at the same time?
Chairman HYDE. You can get recognized any time you want.
Mr. BERMAN. I would like to be recognized, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BERMAN. I withdraw my reservation, although I do point out that, under the scenario that Mr. Tancredo would have to use in order to get to this point, were I to insist on my point of order, it would require him to find another colleague willing to offer this amendment, and I am not sure he would be able to. But notwithstanding that, I withdraw my point of order.
I would like to speak very strongly against the amendment for a number of different reasons on the substance and then one political observation. Mr. Tancredo says this isn't about the merits of this card. This isn't about who the primary beneficiary is of this card. This is about, in a sense, the outrage that the Mexican Government is using its consular and diplomatic resources to lobby State and local governments to authorize the utilization of these cards for certain particular purposes.
He says, how would the Mexicans feel if we spent our resources asking Mexican entities to adopt certain measures? Well, as a Congressman from California in Los Angeles County who has had the District Attorney of Los Angeles, the Sheriff of Los Angeles and representatives of the State legislature come to me to try and get our State Department to lobby the Mexican Government and its officials to extradite prisoners. The Mexican Constitution says they cannot extradite anybody to a jurisdiction where that person might get the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, I would suggest that every day we are trying to get our State Department to use its resources to lobby the Mexican Government and entities within Mexico to change the situation so that Mexico will not shield people accused of the most heinous kinds of crimes from being brought to justice in this country.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is nothing outrageous about it. It is totally appropriate, and——
Mr. TANCREDO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. Not yet, but I will at the end.
Secondly, who is the primary beneficiary of this? Mr. Tancredo, while saying his resolution isn't concerned about that, states that the primary beneficiary of this activity are people living in the United States illegally. Well, the process for getting one of these cards is that the Mexican Government checks the applicant for one of these cards, goes to find his birth records in Mexico, verifies that, in fact, these are the birth records, and this is where this person is from, and that this card reflects that person's true identity.
Who benefits from that information? Local law enforcement agencies all over this country, who want to know when someone complains about a crime who that person is and wants the true identity of that person. This is one way, one readily available way, of confirming the true identity of that person, which means that many people who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes are more willing to come forward to local law enforcement and provide information about the crimes, so law enforcement benefits from it.
Our security interests benefit from it because we are sure a heck of a lot better off when people reveal their true identities than when they give the phony Social Security cards and the phony documents to the employers in Mr. Tancredo's district who are picking crops and maintaining services and providing hospitality services and tourism services using the efforts of undocumented people in this country and undocumented workers. So our security interests are enhanced by the existence of this card.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The banking industry, which now knows the true identity of a person seeking to take an account out and use the banking services rather than the usurious loan sharks who are charging incredible amounts of money to cash the pay checks of many of these hard-working people in order to provide remittances back to the home country and to just afford the basic necessities of life, they are primary beneficiaries of this card.
There are a lot of important and legitimate interests and institutions in the United States, many of them governmental, which benefit from the existence of this card.
Now, the partisan part of me would like to have this come to a vote, and there will be a rollcall vote on it if it does, to see what the majority party wants to do on an issue like this where a card that is not used by Federal agencies and not recognized but is only utilized by State and local agencies that have decided that it is in their interest, that they are better served by doing this. We are going to pass a resolution telling the Mexicans we don't trust our State and local governments to make wise decisions, and they have to stop their lobbying activity to get them to make those decisions because these easily manipulated agencies don't know what they are doing.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield back.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Who else seeks recognition? Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in favor of the amendment, and I would like to also inform the Committee that if we had been forced to follow the point of order and had the original amendment introduced, I would have been glad to offer this amendment to the amendment.
I support this because it doesn't seem to be overwhelming in that it is merely asking our officials to discuss this and hopefully influence them away from talking to the State and local governments about using these cards. So, to me, it seems rather modest, and I do think the immigration problem is out of control. So, therefore, I am going to vote for this, and I don't think it is quite as extreme as it is being painted. As a matter of fact, I think at times there seems to be some distortion of what it really does, and at this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is completely appropriate for one government to lobby another government to get them to change their law in the case that my colleague has just cited, especially in terms of extradition treaties, perfectly appropriate. No one is arguing that. What I feel is inappropriate is for one government to use its consular officials to try and get other States and localities to help them avoid the law, to help people break the law, and that is exactly what is happening here.
There is a law that says you cannot come into this country——
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. TANCREDO. No. I will not yield. There is a law that says that you have to get the permission of the United States to come into this country legally. If you do so in any other way, you are violating the law. When you reward someone for doing that by accepting a card given to them by their government for purposes of identification, then, of course, I think it is inappropriate. It is especially inappropriate for consular officials to be going into States and localities, as they do, and as they admit to doing, for purposes of obtaining that kind of arrangement.
It is also important to understand that these are not verifiable, that these are documents that are sometimes handed out in vans parked in certain localities. You can go up to the van, in relatively few minutes, and you show them some sort of documentation to say you are so-and-so. They will provide you with a card within a very short period of time. It is not verifiable. It is not something so foolproof that all of these organizations and police departments should have any comfort in taking.
We, as I mentioned earlier, already arrested someone in Colorado that had three of these cards, all of them with his picture on but all with different names, and all issued by the Mexican Consulate in Denver. So there is certainly nothing that would make me feel comfortable about the validity of the card.
And it also important to reiterate, because we keep talking about the issue of matricula in and of itself and the issue of illegal immigration and all the rest of it, which is certainly an issue I like to talk about. I like to get involved in a good, healthy debate, but it is really not connected to this particular amendment. This has got to do with the propriety of using the resources of the Mexican Government in the United States, their consular offices, to act in a way which I think is totally improper. And when, by the way, I brought this to the attention of the Secretary of State when he was here in front of our Committee, he indicated that he had a concern about it. We have written him about it. There is a concern about using that in this way. I yield back.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PAUL. Okay. Thank you for yielding back, and I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Paul. I find it interesting because there appears to be kind of a partisan bend to this, but I would like to remind my colleagues that the City of New York, New York City—and Mr. Crowley might correct me if I am wrong, but I still think that it is the largest city in the Nation—voted by a large margin to not accept this document for all of the reasons that have been expressed in this meeting, and I don't think that the City of New York is known as a bastion for conservative politics. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the Ranking Member for understanding what a dangerous amendment this is. To ask the Secretary of State to involve himself in discussions with a foreign government and their way of supplying identification for those who intend to go to the United States treads in a very tenuous area.
I have heard illegal, illegal, illegal. If there is an issue whether people coming into the United States from over our southern border are illegal, this is an INS issue.
What people need in California, where we have the largest number of Spanish-speaking people outside of Mexico, is a way to identify themselves. You can't get on a plane. Forget about driving a car. Today, we need ID, whether they are here legally or illegally.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What this bill should be doing is encouraging the INS, and I don't know if it is the province of this Committee or not, to look into these issues, not to ask our Secretary of State to go to foreign governments and ask them not to use an identification that will assist their people. I think this is the wrong place for this, and it is going in the wrong direction.
As a former Ambassador, these issues are the province of our United States if we issue them and the province of another government. If there is something illegal, we should go to the INS on this issue.
So I would ask Mr. Tancredo if he would please withdraw this particular amendment. It sends the wrong message, and if you want to stop illegals, this is not the way to do it. But we need identification for people who are within our country and on our streets. And so I would request that, Mr. Tancredo, you withdraw this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Would the gentlelady yield? Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. WATSON. I am finished.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Would you yield your remaining time?
Ms. WATSON. Yes. I certainly would.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I just want to say I am really stunned by the statement, and maybe it was a misinterpretation by myself, but that the Mexican Government is intentionally advocating—its advocacy in behalf of its citizens in this country is intended to violate United States law.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TANCREDO. You heard it right.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I heard it right. Well, I am glad I heard that publicly because I would presume that the Government of Mexico would find that very insulting.
I have served on the Committee on the Judiciary, as the Chair knows, since I arrived here in Congress some 7 years ago. The findings, and clearly they have jurisdiction of this particular issue, the findings that the primary beneficiary of this activity are people living in the United States illegally has never been addressed by that Committee that I am aware of, and maybe Mr. Berman has other information. There is absolutely no data, no evidence other than anecdotes related by the gentleman from Colorado.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It is wrong, and I will yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Napolitano.
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Watson. I sit here in awe because I have heard the rhetoric over and over again as a Representative from California that lives with this every day, as do my California colleagues, and now many other Representatives from throughout the United States are dealing with the same issues: Identification. We have spoken to the California Sheriff's Department, to highway patrol, to banks, and, without exception, all of them are in accord. They want people identified so that they can follow through whenever the issue comes up before them.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the Los Angeles area, we were informed by the Mexican Consulate that they have been issuing matriculas for over 4 decades and have yet to have law enforcement have one complaint on the issuance of those, the types of forms that have been used; in other words, whether or not it has been used illegally.
Now, insofar as they are being replicated and misused, that happens with Social Security, driver's license. You can just go on. In fact, if INS puts out a card, within 10 days, I can assume that the fraudulent perpetrators are going to duplicate it. The fairness of it is no fairness.
My concern is that we are talking about a group of people, and as my colleagues have stated before, they have no way of being identified within society today that requests their identification for any kind of move you make, any kind of purchase. If it is a car you are going to purchase, they want identification.
In our own area, we heard that some 90,000 cases of INS applications were destroyed by INS. How about those people? What are they going to do? They refile. In the meantime, there is no way to identify themselves other than matriculas. And for the information—I am sure that Mr. Tancredo already understands—that they have a long process. They ask for the birth certificate, whether they have done their service in Mexico. They ask for the baptism records. These are thoroughly checked by the Mexican Government and not issued willy-nilly, if you will.
Now, banks have, just within the last couple of years, found out that this is a boon. If they accept the matriculas, they are getting millions of dollars deposited in their bank accounts, and yet we are saying, no, don't do it. Well, I can tell you, if I am in a car, and I get in an accident with an immigrant, I will be glad to have law enforcement look at his matriculas to find out where he lives and an ID because it does carry a thumb print on it.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So the arguments are, again, as my colleague, Mr. Menendez has stated, they are punitive. It is only aimed at Mexico. It is only aimed at matriculas, and it is only aimed at people who are trying to help this United States of ours become an even greater country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, while I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for offering his amendment, I don't believe that the consequences of this amendment are going to be positive. I yield my time to my good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, is the State Department represented at the hearing today?
Chairman HYDE. I see some suspicious-looking people. [Laughter.]
Mr. BERMAN. I, myself. Do they have ID, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.]
Would I be allowed, would it be permitted, would it be acceptable to you to ask them a question on this issue?
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The staff is objecting. [Laughter.]
Mr. BERMAN. I withdraw my request, well, because I don't want the Chairman to have to choose between me and the staff.
Chairman HYDE. I need them. I don't need——
Mr. BERMAN. I understand. [Laughter.]
You said you needed me like a hole—no. In any event, where is that portrait? [Laughter.]
I just want to make one point regarding my comments earlier. I don't want to make light of the underlying issue that Mr. Tancredo is raising here. Even though he says it is not the underlying issue, I believe it is the underlying issue, which is the issue of people coming into this country illegally.
I just suggest that the more sensible sense of Congress resolution to pass at this particular point, if one wanted to address that issue here rather than in the Judiciary Committee or rather than through the Department of Homeland Security, would be to do the things we need to do to make it as difficult as possible to enter this country illegally. For example, to have our State Department and other Federal officials working with the Mexican Government and other governments, particularly, on the migration issues that were heralded in the original Bush-Fox talks. They should come to an agreement that allowed different work force issues to be met through the use of legal, temporary workers to come to a sensible recognition of the fact that there are eight to 10 or 11 million undocumented people in this country, that many parts of our economy are dependent on them, that for the most part, they are a group of people who are abiding now with U.S. laws, paying taxes, and working hard, making very essential contributions. We should find a sensible process to deal with that rather than seeking to go after one little manifestation of this issue, which has so many beneficial effects in terms of our law enforcement interests, in terms of the financial interests. I think that would be a better approach than the approach taken by this resolution, and I would urge the Committee to defeat the resolution, a sense of Congress.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. I am going to suggest that we move to a vote. We are going to have several votes very shortly on the Floor, and then we want to come back here. We will skip lunch, if we can. Grab it on the run, if you must, but there is a Subcommittee meeting at 1:30 that some of you must attend, and we would surely like to finish this bill this afternoon. So I would appreciate expedition from here on in.
So the question arises on Mr. Tancredo's amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Will the clerk call the roll?
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. I pass.
Ms. RUSH. Pass. Mr. Bereuter?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
[No response.]
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes yes. Mr. Smith of Michigan?
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes yes. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes yes. Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mrs. Davis?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Weller?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence?
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PENCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes. Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes. Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. Pass.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes passes. Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no. Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Meeks?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes no. Mr. Blumenauer?
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no. Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no. Mr. Smith of Washington?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum?
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MCCOLLUM. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no. Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes no. Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. I vote yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. I vote no.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Faleomavaega? Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS. I vote yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of Washington.
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Have all voted who wish?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Hold that. Mr. Janklow.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. JANKLOW. Janklow votes no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes no.
Mr. JANKLOW. Excuse me. Yes. Janklow votes yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. There are 17 ayes and 23 nos.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is not agreed to.
The Committee will stand in recess until right after the final vote, and I ask you to return promptly. We have more work to do, and I would appreciate the Committee's attention. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., a recess was taken.]
Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Delahunt. Do you have an amendment?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The amendment of Mr. Delahunt follows:]
86991p.AAB
86991p.AAC
86991n.eps
86991p.AAE
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Delahunt: ''Page 143, after line 9, insert the following—''
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require a one-time report on the state of democracy and democratic institutions in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the United States and Canada. A description and evaluation of current democracy-promotion efforts would also be mandated.
I offer this amendment because I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the lack of attention to the region, a sentiment that was recently expressed by several Senators at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. I should note that this also included the Chair of the Senate Committee, Senator Lugar.
The reality is that not only are we confronting an unprecedented wave of anti-American sentiment, but the situation in Latin America continues to deteriorate, and doubts about the benefits of democracy are increasing among the people of that region.
We boast that all of our neighbors, except Cuba, are democracies since they have elected civilian governments. But elections alone do not ensure genuine, healthy democracies. Transparent, accountable governance and respect for the rule of law; without these, the benefits of democracy are not realized. That is the case today in Latin America.
As the President's special envoy to Latin America, Otto Reich, recently noted, more than one-third of the people in Latin America earn less than two dollars per day and are poorly housed, poorly fed, and poorly educated.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
By these criteria, many of our neighbors fall short. We frequently hear of the abject poverty in Haiti and the political deadlock there. The deep divisions in Venezuela and the stresses on that democracy are reported frequently. But it should also be noted that the middle class in Argentina has all but disappeared. That Paraguay has been a one-party state since 1947. In Nicaragua, there has been a recent report of a government takeover of a political party radio station. In Peru, the Toledo Government has concluded an agreement with campesinos to end coca-eradication efforts. Guatemala has been decertified. It is considered a drug traffickers' haven. Respect for human rights is deteriorating, and there is increased activity of clandestine criminal groups in that particular country. Demonstrators protesting government policy in Bolivia were recently fired upon, and some 30 people were killed.
In fact, there are few countries in the region that are stable and that are meeting the needs of their people. More and more people are speaking of the good old days of the populous caudillo.
To reverse this backsliding, the development of institutions must be an urgent priority. As a recent GAO report indicated, democracy-promotion efforts in Latin America have, and I quote, ''yielded modest results.'' In part, according to this report, this is because there is no strategic approach to the issue, so there is often no long-term sustainability to these efforts.
While the Administration speaks almost exclusively to its priority of a free-trade area of Americas, there is no complementary, comprehensive effort to promote and deepen democracy and democratic institutions in the hemisphere. Unless there is a truly democratic area of the Americas, a real free trade area of the Americas will never exist.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have had a school of hemispheric militaries, the so-called ''School of Americas,'' but there is no equivalent school for hemispheric democrats, which, I would submit, sends a disturbing message to a region with a history of coups and juntas.
I intend to introduce legislation in the near future, along with other Members, to create a School for Democracy in the Americas. It will focus on educating civilian leaders in developing and nurturing democratic institutions and encourage a healthy exchange of ideas. I would envision having a campus, a faculty, a board of trustees, a regular schedule of classes that would be year round and permanent, and it should be developed in coordination with our neighbors so that they have a stake in it from the beginning, and we do not make our old mistake of telling them what to do and how to manage their affairs.
As I said, it would be a permanent, lasting institution, a functioning symbol of our nation's long-term commitment to promoting genuine democracy, and this amendment is a first step in that regard. The information it will generate, I have no doubt, will help flesh out the School of Democracy for the Americas concept. It is a simple step but, I believe, one that is critical to the future of this hemisphere, and I urge its adoption, and I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of Mr. Delahunt's amendment. As the Ranking Democrat on the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Delahunt is one of our most active Members on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, and his interest for the hemisphere is incredibly refreshing. It is something that we try to get more of our colleagues to focus on, and he has done so.
This report is really very timely. We spent millions, actually billions, of dollars in Central America, for example, trying to fight communism and promote democracy, and after we won those efforts, we walked away. We look at Latin America in the context of troubles, but we don't look to take the seeds of democracy that we have planted and nurture them so that they grow and strengthen.
In many parts of this hemisphere right now, I believe that we are losing the effort to convince that democracy, open markets, trade will ultimately bring a better quality of life and is ultimately the way that people should vote for. And I think that, when you look at the combinations of what is happening in Venezuela, in Colombia, what is happening in Ecuador, what is happening in so many of the countries, some of which Mr. Delahunt has already mentioned very eloquently, we have a real concern, right here in our own front yard, about what is happening.
And I think that when we look at all of the issues that Americans care about, whether it is about legal immigration, whether it is about health care—we have looked at some issues along the border in which we had eradicated certain health care challenges, and today we face them again—whether we look at biodiversity, whether we look at energy, whether we look, of course, at narcotics; so for all of those reasons, I think this is a very timely amendment, and I really urge the Committee's adoption of it.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. On the right. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, sir, and I am glad I am recognized on the right.
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Delahunt, I have traveled with him many times, and we have discussed this old idea of teaching the countries of the Western Hemisphere about democracy, and I would like to throw an example in. When Ms. Chimaro became President of Nicaragua, she kept talking to us about there was no way to educate their children, that every time a plane came in from Cuba or from East Germany, they were taking their children back and educating them about communism and dictatorship and so forth, and nobody was talking about democracy. And so she said, Is there any likelihood you could help us out?
And so Congressman Houghton and I volunteered, and we said that the first thing you have to do is give us students that will speak English and that won't fail, and so she did, and Congressman Houghton took 10 students and sent them to community college. I took two girls and sent them to universities in North Carolina. We educated them. They are both back. My two are back in Nicaragua founding their own business, being very successful.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I would just like to say that the idea of somehow educating the people of Central and South America on the values of democracy and the values of the human rights that have been so neglected in many cases down here, I think, is a very positive thing. Thank you, sir.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Delahunt has been a mover on Western Hemisphere issues ever since he came to this body. This is another one of his serious, carefully thought-through ideas. I think it deserves strong support, and I am delighted to endorse it.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. I would just like to ask Mr. Delahunt a question. Mr. Brown. I am sorry.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I rise in support of the amendment. Just 2 days ago, I believe, or yesterday, actually, May 7th, in Haiti—this is a country that has had its ups and downs certainly. It has had a series of elections where a President three different times has been elected in the last 10 years and where peaceful transfer of power is something that did not happen in that country. There has been a coup in the last 10 years and it has dismantled its military, has continually had sort of paramilitary violence.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As I was saying, just yesterday, there were two security guards at the hydroelectric plant in the central highlands not too far from the village of Pelegre and not too far from Canje, where there is the most important, largest health clinic in the country. Two security guards were killed at the hydroelectric plant by men dressed in fatigues, likely paramilitary people that have opposed the Aristid regime, then soon after, they kidnapped a group of health care workers that were on their way to the clinic in the highlands in Canje.
I think it is important that Delahunt, that his efforts are timely, especially in light of that and in light of the comments from my friend, Mr. Menendez. I think it makes sense that we move in that direction, that we especially support those countries where there are democratic elections. Haiti was the second independent country in the Western Hemisphere after the United States in 1804. Our history with them is checkered, but I think that support from our Government and a continued move toward democracy in Haiti is obviously the right way to go, and I support the amendment and yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by——
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, if I may, for unanimous consent, request, on page three, on line 22, it reads, ''a description of efforts.'' I would like to just simply add, ''a description and assessment of efforts.''
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the modification is accepted.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Delahunt Amendment, as amended by Mr. Delahunt. All those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Flake follows:]
86991l.eps
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Flake: ''Page 88, after line 6, insert the following section—''
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I need not tell anybody on this Committee that we have a horrible situation in Cuba. At the moment, more than 80 human rights protestors, peaceful, democracy advocates, have been thrown into prison and sentenced to, in many cases, prison terms up to 28 years. Three hapless hijackers for a Cuban ferry were executed. I think the only surprise is that anybody is surprised by this behavior. It has been going on for 40 years now.
The problem is Fidel Castro has the only microphone in Cuba, or one of the problems. Americans aren't allowed to travel there unless you are a politician or unless you are a movie star or a director like Oliver Stone. Unless you wear Armani or rose-colored glasses, it is tough to get there from here, and so too few Cubans actually know the situation and what is going on, and too few Americans realize what is going on. So we have that situation.
The backdrop is we have tried to allow for that, or help that situation out, by creating an institution, Radio and TV Marti, that, in the tradition of Voice of America and many of our other radio and television programs, can help inform ordinary Cubans of the situation in their country and alternatives and to help them out, just to give them information.
The problem is that that institution that we have created isn't working very well. After spending about $160 million over the past 12 years, not one Cuban has ever watched 1 minute of TV Marti, yet we continue to spend the money and create a show that nobody can watch because it is easily blocked, easily scrambled, and because of other international broadcast agreements, we can only broadcast between the hours of 3 a.m. and 8 a.m., I believe. So we desperately need a change there.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Radio Marti reaches some people, but the programming is so bad that the market share has slipped to virtually nothing, and we need to revamp that program as well.
The purpose of this amendment is to move the money we are currently spending on TV Marti over to Radio Marti, where at least some good can be done with it, because no good is being done at the moment.
Since I introduced this amendment or filed it, I have had discussions with Members of this Committee, in particular, the gentlelady from Florida. She has a long-held commitment to improve the situation at Radio and TV Marti. I would like to work with the Administration on this to see what can be done. In that light, I yield a few minutes to the gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. It is always a pleasure to work with him, and I thank him for highlighting the fact that the unfortunate reality that Castro has sentenced 80 dissidents to 15, 20, 25 years in jail, shot by firing squad, 3 people who tried to escape from Cuba.
This was just his recent acts in a long list of atrocities, but I will tell the gentleman that I look forward to working with him, if he withdraw his amendment, to having Mr. Ballenger, and he has agreed to hold a hearing, perhaps on May 20th of this year, where we can talk about the improvements in Radio and TV Marti. We have a new Director, a new Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Administration has put forth proposals to improve the jamming of TV Marti, and we know if we would eliminate TV Marti, he would then just jam Radio Marti. But we look forward to working with the gentleman of Arizona on this proposal and on this hearing, and we will bring up the witnesses to tell us what plans they have, concrete plans, to eliminate the jamming of transmissions of TV Marti. And I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Delahunt and I visited the offices of Radio and TV Marti a year ago and came out of there convinced that it needs a change. I think everybody realizes that and to the extent that we could have a hearing and air these concerns, and meet with the Administration, then I will agree to withdraw the amendment and thank the gentlelady.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, and I thank Mr. Delahunt as well. Thank you.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Would my friend yield just for a minute? I did note also, and I am glad that the gentlelady has agreed to a hearing. I am sure it will be interesting, but I also note that there is a new Director. I wonder, you know, if he could come before us?
He did indicate that he respects diversity of opinion. I remember during the course of our hearing last year when I spoke to the former Director and indicated to him that I know there is diverse opinion in every community, whether it be the Irish-American community or the Cuban-American community, and he indicated that he would be happy to sit down in this case with Mr. Duran. That never happened.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would hope that we can discuss that during the course of the hearing, and I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Chairman yields to himself 5 minutes. I have a series of amendments at the desk which I ask unanimous consent be considered en bloc and be considered as read.
The amendments are as follows: Mr. Engel, reduction in funding level for National Endowment for Democracy for programs in primary Muslim countries;
Mr. Menendez, statement of policy expressing concerns about Iran's buildup of its nuclear weapons program;
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, incitement amendments to Free Media Provision;
Mr. Hyde, change reports relating to terrorist activity in which U.S. citizens are killed;
Mr. Lantos, police training. Longstanding restrictions on police training abroad and now makes available police training through the Foreign Assistance Act in areas of human rights, rule of law, strategic planning, counter narcotics, promotion of democracy and combating corruption in trafficking in persons;
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Lantos, Afghanistan democracy. Sense of Congress relating to the need to enhance security in Afghanistan;
Mr. Sherman, about the Iran World Bank. This is a sense of Congress that directs the Secretary of State to consult with officials in certain countries to express concern about World Bank lending to Iran;
Ms. McCollum, sense of Congress relating to violence against women;
Mr. Meeks, Africa conflicts. It requires a report on action of the U.S. in seeking peaceful and immediate solutions to the internal and interregional conflicts in the Great Lakes region;
Mr. Wexler requires that in the course of preparing students for their study program abroad there is a training component on safety issues in the country to which they are going;
Mr. Faleomavaega, sense of Congress expressing concern about the environmental impact on Soviet nuclear weapons testing of Kazakhstan;
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, technical fix with the Secretary of State reporting requirement on WEOG, that is Western Europe and Other Groups;
Mr. Lantos, to prohibit elimination of broadcasting to eastern Europe.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[A chart depicting the en block amendment and the amendments follow:]
86991m.eps
86991r.AAB
86991r.AAC
86991r.AAD
86991r.AAE
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991s.AAB
86991s.AAC
86991c.eps
86991d.eps
86991s.AAF
86991s.AAG
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991t.AAB
86991u.AAB
86991u.AAC
86991v.AAB
86991v.AAC
86991e.eps
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991w.AAB
86991f.eps
86991g.eps
86991x.AAB
86991y.AAB
86991y.AAC
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991z.AAB
86991z.AAC
86991z.AAD
86991z.AAE
86991z.AAF
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991z.AAG
86991z.AAH
86991q.AAB
86991q.AAC
86991q.AAD
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991q.AAE
86991q.AAF
Chairman HYDE. I would like to point out Mr. Lantos' police training amendment modifies, but does not restrict, as listed in the description.
Is there any discussion? Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I realize the timing is late. I will just take a minute. I do so only with respect to Afghanistan.
Last year you made a call. To my amazement, the Congress adopted by a vote of 400 an amendment I introduced concerning expanding security beyond Kabul to the whole of Afghanistan. This measure deals with this same issue.
I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues what we are dealing with. The United States has a vital interest in promoting Afghanistan's transition from chaos, civil war and disorder to an increasingly prosperous and hopefully democratic state, yet today Afghanistan remains under the threat of terrorism, insurgency, widespread crime, banditry, intimidation, rape, suppression of minorities and women and other grave violations of human rights, especially in areas that do not have the routine presence of U.S. or international security personnel.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Recruitment and training of the Afghan National Army is seriously behind schedule. Police training is almost non-existent. Disarmament and reintegration of militia has not begun. The International Security Assistance Force, soon to be taken over by NATO, and I am delighted with that, will not increase in size or capability nor operate outside Kabul.
Mr. Chairman, unless we address the security concerns immediately, Afghanistan will spiral downward into chaos and insecurity and again become a safe haven for terrorists. We cannot and must not allow this to happen.
Our measure on Afghanistan directs the President to ensure that there is adequate security along the length of major highways connecting major Afghan urban centers, to terminate and deter acts of banditry, illegal checkpoints, flagrant human rights abuses and terrorism and intimidation against both Afghan and foreign civilian and military personnel and to take immediate steps to support the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of Afghan militias and irregulars. My amendment calls on the President to expand the International Security Assistance Force or take other steps as may be necessary to promote security in a wider area.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we are still just beginning to deal with the security situation in Iraq, it is important that we do not have a miserable example for our performance in Iraq in our performance in Afghanistan. We have run out of time. Afghanistan will be an example to the rest of the world; either one of democratic, peaceful and prosperous new democracy or confirmation in the minds of many of us that we talk the talk of commitment to democracy in the Muslim world, but it is little more than empty rhetoric.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When we helped liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban, it was one of our great victories, and many Afghans cheered us. Now they are demonstrating against us. We must do more or lose all credibility throughout the region.
I thank you for your commitment to this issue and for working with me on this critical measure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
If there is no further discussion or questions——
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to compliment Mr. Lantos for a commitment to stronger peace keeping in Afghanistan. It is a scandal what is not happening in Afghanistan. We are not providing, nor is the international community providing, the kind of security that country needs to flourish to allow a return to the rule of law and to even think about promoting an eventual building of democracy in Afghanistan.
About a year and a half ago a number of Pennsylvania Members of Congress met with the President. I suggested to him when we were talking about Afghanistan that we needed to do more with peacekeeping, and he said quite forcefully well, we are fighters. We are not peacekeepers. I think we need to be both.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are seeing in Afghanistan what happens when we do not follow through. After a tremendous military victory in Afghanistan, we have not provided sufficient support for security outside of Kabul to give President Karzai the support he needs to return the rule of law to that country. It is a scandal. It is, as Mr. Lantos suggests, a terrible example of what can go wrong. As we move toward the need for better security in Iraq, we have not done the job in Afghanistan.
I share Mr. Lantos' excitement that NATO is willing to provide for peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but they are not assuming a large enough role, as the amendment points out, and we should urge the President to urge NATO to do so.
We must act on this. I really applaud the gentleman for bringing it up, and, of course, I will support his amendment. I yield back my time.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. If not, the question occurs on the en bloc amendments. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it. The en bloc amendments are agreed to.
Mr. Paul of Texas?
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Paul follows:]
86991ag.AAB
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Paul. At the end of section 113——
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nineteen years ago, Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in UNESCO, and at the time he cited egregious financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism and UNESCO's anti-freedom policies.
Today, the U.N. has been under fairly constant attack by many Americans and by this Administration for its seemingly lack of cooperation with the problems dealing with Iraq, so it seems like it is an unusual time that in one sense we are attacking the United Nations and its policies. Now we are deciding to refund a program of questionable value that we have not been dealing with for 19 years.
UNESCO undermines American interests, values and sovereignties for several reasons. It meddles in the education affairs of its member countries and continues to attempt to construct a global school curriculum for American schools, including radical notions of the family and a bizarre sex education program. It has been fully supportive of the United Nations' populations fund in its assistance to China's brutal coercive population control programs, which include forced abortion.
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the United States, covering more than 70,000,000 acres without congressional consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions on the use of public lands.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
UNESCO's World Heritage Convention has allowed UNESCO to designate some of the most treasured American public monuments to be World Heritage sites. These include some of the most treasured sites like Independence Hall, Statute of Liberty, President Thomas Jefferson's home and many others. It is UNESCO, not the United States, that develops the policies and the regulations that control these sites.
UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands, including in places like the Everglades, by establishing management policies without congressional consultation or approval. UNESCO in the past has promoted global tax on the internet and other global taxes.
UNESCO has also been on record as being not friendly toward the family. Since its founding, it has also shown a special and troubling interest in educating American children. They want to create not American citizens, but global citizens loyal to the United Nations.
Here are some quotes from UNESCO's own statement publication toward world understanding. These are quotes:
''One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society.''
''As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should, therefore, use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism.''
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
''The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part in a child's education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can prepare the child for membership in the world society.''
UNESCO is also on record a few years back as not being friendly to a free press. A few years ago, UNESCO proposed a ''new world information order'' under which it sought to license and regulate journalists. I just cannot understand why at this particular time in our history we have to restate our support for these aims and the goals.
I am sure the opposition is going to point out all the wonderful things that UNESCO can and will be doing and that these statements are taken out of context, but they are written. They are real. We are talking about moving toward world government. When they talk about world taxes, the American people and especially the Congress ought to be alert, wake up to and know what is coming.
I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment, believing that this is not an appropriate time and is not an appropriate program, and it is time that we give serious consideration to protecting the sovereignty of this county.
I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I listen with great interest to my colleague's comments, which contain a melange of asserted half-truths, former truths and items with which I find myself in agreement.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think the gentleman from Texas is correct in saying that when President Reagan withdrew the United States from UNESCO membership he did the right thing. Most of us on this side—I presume all of us on this side—supported President Reagan because UNESCO at that period was in fact guilty of many horrendously inexcusable policies and statements, including attempted restrictions on the media that my colleague from Texas talked about. I want to recognize that many of the things that my friend talks about are historically accurate.
The reason I oppose Mr. Paul's amendment as emphatically as I possibly can is because many of us have been working for years behind the scenes with UNESCO leadership to correct those mistakes, and UNESCO to a very large extent, to an overwhelming extent, has done so. As a matter of fact, I want to pay tribute to President George Bush for making a powerful statement supporting Mr. Leach's and my initiative to have us rejoin UNESCO and for including $60,000,000 in the President's budget for funding our rejoining of UNESCO.
Now, many of the things that Mr. Paul talks about are difficult to deal with because if UNESCO designates Independence Hall as a World Heritage site I view that as a positive phenomenon. They have zero organizational, operational, management or any control. This merely indicates that some of our historic sites or some of our scenic sites are so valuable, so important, so significant from an environmental point of view, from an aesthetic point of view, from a historic point of view, that the whole world should recognize them as unique places. I do not view these as negative phenomena.
I do not believe that UNESCO has black helicopters that basically run our lives. I do not believe that UNESCO basically is the secret government that runs society. I truly believe that to have the United States of America, which is subjected to some justified and some unjustified criticism for unilateralism, not participate in the one global educational, scientific and cultural organization after that organization has made heroic efforts to correct the mistakes of its own past and now satisfies the litmus test of the Bush Administration in 2003, to have the Congress reject the leadership the President has acknowledged in this matter and return to a historically irrelevant period of criticizing UNESCO activities which are no longer present, it in my humble judgment is absurd.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, I would also like to suggest that UNESCO reflects the globe as it is—good, bad, ugly, indifferent, inspiring, what have you. It will not change the climate of the world by itself. I have no such illusion. Not in my lifetime, not even in the lifetime of the youngest person in this room.
On balance, at the moment it is a constructive force, and for the United States of America not to spend 25 cents per person a year to participate in the work of an important international organization, the only one of global scope, I think would be criminal, so I urge all of my colleagues to reject the amendment.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. I will be very brief. I certainly respect the gentleman from Texas' view, but I would just add a couple of things partly to the period of criticism.
When one says UNESCO did this or that, one has to be very careful about that because UNESCO as a policy making body acts under unanimity. What is the case is that members of UNESCO advocated certain what might be described as anti-freedom policies fighting with journalists, journalism codes of ethics, which we find an anathema to our Bill of Rights.
We were able to block those as a policy of UNESCO. Some members of UNESCO were critical of Israel, but UNESCO itself could not take a position in that direction because it operated under consensus.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now we have a very interesting phenomenon. Do we as a country believe in empty chair diplomacy? How does the interest of the United States get represented when we refuse to attend? It is a very simple thing. If you believe in American sovereignty and protecting the American interest, you want to be represented.
As far as this particular time is concerned, given our activist role in the world, I would think this is a timely rather than untimely time to engage, and I think it is particularly interesting the idea of whether we want to raise the American flag or refuse to raise the American flag in the City of Paris. I think this is a good time to raise the stars and stripes.
Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to oppose this amendment.
I think even the President has made the statement that he seeks to reengage in UNESCO and understands that it has been reformed sufficiently that this Administration is seeking to engage and understands the value of UNESCO.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would be happy to yield to the Ranking Member for his further comments on this.
Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate my friend for yielding.
When UNESCO was formed well over a half a century ago, we were at the conclusion of the Second World War. The founding motto of UNESCO went as follows:
''Wars begin in the minds of men, and it is the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be constructed.''
When UNESCO was founded at the conclusion of the Second World War, we viewed UNESCO as we viewed the World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, a number of the subsidiary organizations of the U.N. system, as specific instruments for moving us toward a more civilized and less violent and less hate-filled world.
We certainly have had plenty of disappointments during this half a century period first because of the existence of the Soviet Union and the global communist system which we succeeded in defeating. Many thought, like Francis Fukuyama at the end of the Soviet Union's existence, that we have reached a point that can accurately be described as the end of history; that there is global acceptance of the notion that democracy and the market system are the proper mechanisms for people to organize their lives.
The events of international terrorism, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of totalitarian states, rogue states like Iraq, have taught us otherwise. We are living in a singularly turbulent period.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It was not too long ago that on the Floor I offered an amendment, you may recall, to denounce the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was in power, for destroying Buddhist statues which had been there for centuries in a mindless, hate-filled gesture against a religion they detested. These are the kinds of things that UNESCO ideally fights against. It fights for religious tolerance, acceptance of a variety of views on issues of all types, the recognition that there are certain common modalities of civilized behavior.
In the late 1970s/early 1980s, UNESCO profoundly got away from its original purposes, and that is why, as I indicated a minute ago, President Reagan had enormous bipartisan support in the United States and in the Congress. I do not recall if the gentleman was a Member of Congress at that time. I was, and I strongly supported President Reagan when he withdrew us from UNESCO. It was the right thing to do.
It was not an easy task for the decent members of UNESCO, and they covered the waterfront from New Zealand to Norway, to work meticulously, painfully to get rid of their appalling fiscal practices and their appalling statements on a wide range of issues. The current Secretary General of UNESCO is a singular, distinguished, Japanese, intellectual scholar/historian who is doing an outstanding job in improving the organization.
I cannot speak for Mr. Leach. He will speak for himself. But I can say that when the amendment Mr. Leach with my support introduced last year, we were delighted that the body accepted our amendment and it became part of the legislation, and we were even more delighted that the Bush Administration embraced our proposal. George W. Bush is not particularly known as one who is passionately in front in fighting for international organizations. That is not his image. He changed that image at his U.N. speech by endorsing the re-entry of the United States into UNESCO.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If for no other reason, I am appealing to my Republican colleagues not to slap the President in the face by telling him that as he reaches out for an international institution with global membership that Congress does not tell the President he should not do so. The President deserves praise, recognition and commendation for his courageous leadership on this subject, and I hope that this body will overwhelmingly reject Mr. Paul's amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield some time to my colleague, Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you for yielding.
I would like to point out that I believe the opponents of this amendment have been very objective, and I appreciate that because they did not in any way want to deny the problems that have existed in the past. I think that, as a matter of fact, has surprised me and intrigued me that you are willing to admit its many shortcomings of the past.
I think it boils down to one of two things—faith in government and faith in freedom. Most people realize I do not have a whole lot of confidence in government accomplishing the wonderful things I think we all want accomplished.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If you go back to the problems that we had in the early 1980s and the 1970s that you admit to, if you go back a little bit further it sort of tells you a little bit about the atmosphere that existed in this organization for a long time because the first Director General was Julian Huxley. Some may say well, he was a wonderful socialist and different things like that, they might argue, and a good internationalist, but he was also a great proponent of eugenics, so it really got off to a bad start, did not do well.
You concede that it was a bad organization in the early 1980s, and here we are really at odds in many ways with the United Nations at such an inappropriate time to recommit taxpayers' dollars to an organization with such a poor record.
I would say that yes, let us seek some of these goals, but without the confidence in a bigger government, which is a world government organization, with the use of American taxpayers' dollars to accomplish these wonderful things. I urge a yes vote for this amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Paul. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote. He shall have one.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes no.
Mr. Bereuter?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce?
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Michigan?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes no.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes yes.
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.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Mr. Janklow?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown?
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Meeks?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes no.
Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no.
Mr. Schiff?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum?
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MCCOLLUM. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes no.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I am not recorded. I vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I vote no.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr.GALLEGLY. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. McHugh?
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Pass.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Ms. RUSH. Did he say pass?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I vote yes, I think.
Chairman HYDE. A qualified yes.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. I vote yes.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Have all voted who wish?
[No response.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will announce the rollcall.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Aye.
Chairman HYDE. Votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Ms. RUSH. You are not recorded. Mr. Payne is not recorded.
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no.
Chairman HYDE. All right. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 14 ayes and 26 noes.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3.
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez follows:]
86991ah.AAB
86991ah.AAC
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 197, after line 24 insert the following——
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address an unfortunate situation that has arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu, India, and involves several American companies doing business there.
Essentially seeking to provide additional electrical generating capacity, the Tamil Nadu Government sought to induce foreign companies to design and build power plants there. Several American companies accepted this proposition and constructed four projects that generate approximately 800 megawatts of electricity.
Each entered into a long-term contract for the purchase of the electricity generated with the Tamil Nadu Government at an agreed upon price. After getting these plants on line, after this inducement to create these opportunities for the people of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Government then began a systematic underpayment of each of the contract terms and in one case ceased all payments.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Chairman HYDE. I understand both the author, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey have a strong interest in insuring that United States companies based in New Jersey are compensated for work they have done in the Indian State of Tamil Nadu.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am sympathetic to their case, but I would rather this be handled without legislative action at this time, and I would ask Mr. Menendez to withdraw his amendment with the understanding that if progress is not being made in making these companies whole, you may wish to revisit this issue when the bill comes to the House Floor in June.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may have 1 more minute, I would be happy to accede to the Chairman's request.
Chairman HYDE. I thank the gentleman, and I assume you are withdrawing the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. If I may have 1 more minute on the amendment before I withdraw it?
Chairman HYDE. You may.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts. Right now these companies are owed approximately $150,000,000, and there has been no movement whatsoever.
Now, I and many others consider ourselves strong friends and allies of India, but we cannot have a set of circumstances where American investment takes abroad, American companies meet their obligations, and then they are in essence shortchanged in every way without any actions on their own. Even the Indian Parliament has indicated the necessity of getting these companies paid and the necessity of the difficulties that exist in getting additional investment into the country for such infrastructure.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Indian Government has reached out to us through their representatives. I hope that the presentations that they have made from the Federal level to go work on this so that future investments can take place in India will in fact take place, Mr. Chairman.
With the understanding that I will reserve the right to offer this hopefully with Mr. Smith on the Floor should we not have significant process that we expect, I would be happy, before I withdraw it, to recognize Mr. Crowley on my time and then withdraw the amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman.
I want to thank my friend from New Jersey and make the Members aware of the conversation that I have had with the Indian Embassy regarding the situation. The Embassy has informed me that the Indian Foreign Minister has been trying to resolve the situation with the state Government of Tamil Nadu.
I have received assurances that the Government of India is using all of its influences over the state to see that the State of Tamil Nadu pays these American companies back. I cannot say for certain when this will be done, but from what I have been told they foresee it in the near future.
I look forward to working with Mr. Menendez on this issue to see if these companies are paid the money that they are owed, and I yield back to him.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman. This has been going on for some time, so we are going to need some significant progress, but with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Without objection. Thanks for your cooperation.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2.
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez follows:]
86991ai.AAB
86991ai.AAC
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991ai.AAD
86991ai.AAE
86991ai.AAF
86991ai.AAG
86991ai.AAH
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991ai.AAI
86991ai.AAJ
86991ai.AAK
86991ai.AAL
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 215, after line 6 add the following and conform the table's contents accordingly. Title 16——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I hope to work with the Chair on, as well as the representations made to me by my colleague and friend, the Chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
I will seek to withdraw it in a moment, but this amendment is based simply on a few propositions that it is in essence to pursue our interest in Latin America, but in a way that is meaningful, when we made a commitment as we did in Central America during the 1980s to fight the spread of communism, spending billions of dollars. We need to follow through on that commitment with foreign policy engagement that both reinforces and strengthens that commitment and our policies.
What we simply seek to do in this amendment and in these efforts is something we have been working on for quite some time here on the Committee; is in essence to create a social investment fund for the Americas. We understand that trade is incredibly important, but trade alone will not resolve the problem when we have 40 percent of the hemisphere's population below the poverty level.
Continuously we shortchange this part of the world in our foreign assistance and in our development funds, and we find ourselves that this is an area of the world in which we have so many immediate concerns.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My colleagues who are concerned about undocumented immigration to this country should look to stabilize those countries and help develop markets. We would sell more products and services to those markets to the growing middle class. We would have less health consequences right here in our own country if we were dealing with some of these issues. We would also have less energy problems.
There is a whole host of reasons why in fact we should make a major investment in Latin America, and we consistently shortchange it in our efforts. This is an effort to create at least a floor of investment that matches and helps trade be realized, and we look forward to an opportunity, Mr Chairman, that I believe we will have to have a separate discussion, debate and markup on this amendment.
I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Ballenger, who asked me to pursue this course of action in terms of withdrawing this amendment, and I hope that we will be able to have the markups that he talked about.
Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his initiative. He has been a tireless advocate for the Western Hemisphere, and it has been my privilege to have him serve as the Ranking Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
I agree with him that we need to do more to help our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. I will schedule an early hearing to review this proposal to create a social investment fund for the Americas. I'll also schedule a markup of a bill to create that fund of the Americas. I'll works with the gentlemen from New Jersey to ensure its passage.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DELAHUNT. Would my friend from New Jersey yield me some time?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I really want to commend Mr. Menendez. I mean, he has persevered and persisted in this particular concept. He has truly been a visionary, and it comes at a particularly critical moment in time.
As I indicated, it is my own assessment that the situation in Latin America is critical. In fact, reading through the testimony of the Secretary Designate for the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Noriega, he concurs with that. I just want to quote what he said:
''Mr. Chairman, any successful strategy must be based on the realistic appraisal that today the hemisphere is in trouble. Current growth rates are inadequate to generate sufficient jobs for growing populations, let alone address chronic poverty. In some countries, these factors have combined to produce violent outbursts, which relatively weak institutions or governments are hard pressed to control. What are our objectives in the Americas? We want a thriving partner with democratic, stable and prosperous economies and political systems.''
It is about time we moved in that direction. It is long overdue. What we do not want to see occur is a hemisphere that is imploding, and at some later date we are discussing the reconstruction, not just of Iraq and Afghanistan, but myriad countries in this hemisphere.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This particular proposal really deserves our full attention and support, and I yield back and congratulate the Ranking Member.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take a minute.
First I want to commend my friend, Bob Menendez, for a carefully thought through proposal. I want to commend my good friend, Mr. Ballenger, for his longstanding and similarly impressive work in the hemisphere, as well as Mr. Delahunt.
I think the Administration would be well advised to recognize that this Committee is very serious about this proposal. We intend to move on it, and we would like to do so in harmony with the Administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman?
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. PAYNE. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. The other gentleman from New Jersey.
Chairman HYDE. Right.
Mr. PAYNE. Let me just say that I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. Menendez, also and for Mr. Ballenger's interest in pursuing this.
I think that this hemisphere has lost interest and prominence. I recall we had the Alliance of the Americas in the 1960s, and we had a series of programs that through the decades have had a focus on Central and Latin America, but we have seen a lot of that go away. The Caribbean is here, South America, Central America, and I would hope that we could work toward having a real serious focus.
I ran into Mr. Ballenger and his delegates in the codel in the Dominican Republic. They have problems. Problems abound. As we move to free trade areas in certain parts of Central America we need to be sure that our friends in the Dominican Republic are not left out. We might want to look at the locking, staging somehow of including the D.R. in some of the new free trade for the Americas.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I look forward as a Member of the Committee to also working with the Chairman and the Ranking Member. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. Would the gentleman execute his pledge of withdrawing this amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.
We have one more amendment, and we have about 25 minutes before another vote, so again expedition is the word.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez follows:]
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991aa.AAB
86991aa.AAC
86991aa.AAD
86991aa.AAE
86991aa.AAF
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 154, after line 12 insert the following——
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.
Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment that I do not intend to withdraw, so I want Members to know that I seek to ask for a vote on it.
This is in essence an expression of the sense of the Congress regarding migration issues between the United States and Mexico. In February 2001, the first Bush Administration/Fox Administration joint communique stated that both sides sought to ''constructively address migration and labor issues between our two countries.'' More than 2 years have passed, and I believe the time has come for action.
This amendment is a straightforward proposition. It simply asks that we address the reality on our borders, both the United States and Mexico. We have established a very long record of rhetoric on this matter in a series of joint statements. Now the time has come to match our rhetoric with that reality, to match that rhetoric with results.
First, we ask that the United States and Mexico, as soon as is practicable, conclude a migration accord that is as comprehensive as possible and which addresses the key issues of concern for both nations.
Second, we ask the Bush Administration to send Congress, as soon as is practicable, legislation based on such a concluded migration accord that would encourage new and realistic approaches to migration to ensure it is safe, orderly, legal and dignified, including matching willing workers with willing employers, serving the social and economic needs of both countries, respecting the human dignity of all migrants regardless of their status, recognizing the contribution migrants make to enriching both societies and shared responsibility for ensuring migration takes place through safe and legal channels.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When President Fox visited the United States in September 2001, the two Presidents renewed their commitment to ''continue our discussions instructing the high level working group to reach mutually satisfactory results on border safety, a temporary worker program and the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States.'' Let me repeat that later statement. It said that we should reach mutually satisfactory results on border safety, a temporary worker program and the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States.
In November 2002, at the conclusion of the Mexico-United States Binational Commission, Secretary Powell stated that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this is a priority for President Bush, just as it is a priority for President Fox. He went on to say that no schedule had been established for such an accord, but he confirmed that the United States and Mexico wanted to come up with a series of migration initiatives over the course of the next 6 months to a year.
Now, this is incredibly important in our respective relationships. I have heard the President say time and time again of the importance of our relationship with Mexico, of the contributions of Mexican-Americans to this country and to the need for real migration accords. Mexicans have contributed greatly to this country. They have a long history in this country, going back several hundred years, and in doing so they have contributed much.
We have human capital being used to pick our fruits and vegetables throughout the west and south, to go ahead and put poultry on our tables, to go ahead and provide labor for the service industry on the east and west coasts, to nourish the construction industry in North Carolina, and I have only touched the tip of the iceberg. The fact of the matter is we need to get on with a migration agreement that will be important for national security, that will be important for this economy and which we can infuse the resources.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The President often says that he is a man of results. I believe he has called himself a reformer with results. This amendment asks in a nutshell that the President produce a result on this issue and that he do it soon. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute amendment for the Menendez amendment at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Ballenger follows:]
86991ab.AAB
86991ab.AAC
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
86991ab.AAD
86991ab.AAE
86991ab.AAF
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will designate the substitute.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Ballenger to the amendment——
Mr. BALLENGER. Move the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BALLENGER. While I agree with the Ranking Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee that the United States and Mexico need to address the problems we both face with immigration, I do not believe this amendment goes far enough.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is vital to the national interests of the United States and Mexico to reach an accord that matches willing workers with willing employers and that serves social and economic interests of both countries and respects all human rights for all people. However, we must work at these goals with great care. An ill-conceived effort to achieve these noble ambitions will not only fail; it will, no doubt, have tragic consequences for our two nations and the global economy.
Any plan that grants blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants from Mexico or any other nation is simply unwise. The full consequences of such a disaster can only be known if it actually occurs. However, it is clear that, first of all, the sudden infusion of labor and demand for services will have a chilling effect on the recovery from the recession in my district and elsewhere. By extension, this will slow the growth of employment opportunities for both U.S. citizens and immigrants.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security's apparatus for inspecting and documenting lawfully admitted aliens is stretching to the breaking point already. A blanket amnesty would most likely result in a complete breakdown of that apparatus. Allowing amnesty to those who have broken the U.S. immigration laws only violates the human dignity of those who are here illegally, but, most importantly, it violates the human dignity of those who have immigrated legally and are waiting to legally immigrate in search of a better life.
I much prefer a guest worker program which allows employees access to temporary laborers to meet cyclical shortages of skilled and unskilled laborers—this works very well in North Carolina at the present time—without risking permanent displacement of U.S. citizens. An effective guest worker plan will dry up the demand of illegal alien labor, thus offering the formerly undocumented workers with the full protection of the U.S. labor regulations.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A guest worker program also is better suited to meet the demands required to maintain a healthy national economy. The interest of the American worker, persons from other countries seeking to better their lives and the improvement of conditions in the countries from which these workers come, are all better served by a guest worker program than they are by the amnesty program alluded to in this amendment.
Providing the acceptable accord on migration will be difficult. Both sides must work hard to ensure that there is an equal benefit to both parties. My amendment simply requires that any accord reached between the United States and Mexico on migration should include a provision by which Mexico opens it state owned Pemex Oil Company to U.S. investors as Pemex is inefficient, some say corrupt, and cannot as currently structured meet the energy needs of both Mexico and the United States.
Since we are not allowed to drill in Alaska, we need somehow to protect the usage of oil in our country. If the U.S. is willing to take on tough issues of immigration, then Mexico should be willing to meet us halfway and take on the tough issue of opening its oil monopoly to the kind of investment that is needed to ensure a steady supply of gas and oil to keep both of our economies strong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman yield? Would my colleague and friend yield?
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes. Sure.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I have great regard for him in our work that we do together, but I am not sure what part of the Western Hemisphere you are visiting with me today on.
I would ask the gentleman to point out in my amendment where is it that I speak of an amnesty plan or, for that fact, any plan? I have no statements whatsoever about, as you describe, a total blanket amnesty. I would ask the gentleman to show me.
Mr. BALLENGER. May I return my time? Your basic statement in this says that we should not have gone to Afghanistan. We should not have gone to Iraq. We should have been involved in Central America, in Mexico.
In speaking to President Fox when he was here, I spoke to him about the idea of paving across the Rio Grande and having everybody come back and forth, back and forth. I used my little company in North Carolina and said I have two Salvadorans, two Costa Ricans, seven Guatemalans and five Mexicans. Now you want to pass a law that takes care of the five Mexicans. What about the rest of the people that are coming into this country?
He said, and this is the point that I was trying to bring across. He said you have a terrible problem. I think that is the point I am trying to bring up.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BALLENGER. Sure.
Mr. BEREUTER. I ask this question in the context of having observed the gentleman voted in favor of Mr. Tancredo's earlier amendment.
I am wondering would it be in the same conversation or different conversations that our State Department officials would tell the Mexicans to quit lobbying us to adopt the matricula consular card and how to run their oil industries? Would those be in the same conversations or different ones?
Mr. BALLENGER. Well, it is up to you. Whichever one you want.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?
Mr.GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr.GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to Mr. Ballenger's substitute at the desk.
[The amendment of Mr. Gallegly follows:]
86991b.eps
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report the amendment to the substitute.
Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Ballenger to the amendment.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.
Mr. Gallegly is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr.GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is very straightforward.
We have had even in earlier discussions in this meeting today the problem with the issue of extradition of criminals that have committed murder or other heinous crimes in the United States that have escaped to our neighbors in Mexico, and the lack of cooperation on extradition has presented a tremendous problem for law enforcement and justice in this country.
In fact, just last year someone handed me a letter that some of us had sent to President Bush. In fact, this letter was making an appeal to the President to work with Mexico on this issue of extradition and the problems that we face every day with issues like David March, the L.A. County Sheriff who was killed execution style at a normal traffic stop a little over a year ago by a suspect and a Mexican national, by the name of Armando Garcia. In fact, this letter was signed by several Members on this Committee and my friend, Grace Napolitano, Diane Watson, myself and others. It was dated June 27, 2002.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would just ask that Mr. Ballenger's substitute be amended by incorporating the following statement: That as a part of any migration agreement between the United States and Mexico, the issue of extradition of violent criminals and law enforcement cooperation between the two nations be addressed.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield to me for one moment?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I would yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. To let you know how important this issue is, this is not just something that we are doing here to play some sort of mental chess game over the issue of illegal immigration or legal immigration or migration or however you want to talk about it.
People are dying. People are being killed. There are 60 murderers in Mexico right now, people who have murdered people in southern California, and they are in Mexico now. We know where they are, and the Mexican Government will not extradite them.
I am right now involved in writing legislation that will prohibit any Export/Import Bank loans to be given to any project that will be built in a country that does not extradite murderers or capital offenders back to the United States.
What Mr. Gallegly is trying to do is vital and necessary, and we need to address this issue. People are being killed in our country.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. Would the gentleman yield?
Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. I think the gentleman from California's amendment makes great sense, and I without objection would like to make it a part of my amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman reserves the right to object.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Speaking on my reservation, and I will withdraw my reservation, but I want to speak on it for a moment.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers have given us the perfect example of why entering into a migration agreement and negotiation would bring up many issues, including legitimate issues that are part of a migration agreement—not a trade agreement, but a migration agreement—including the desire to extradite fugitives from the United States, and so all the more reason why the underlying amendment that I have offered, which is to move beyond the rhetoric and move to action, as has been stated in these communiques, is desirable.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
However, while this particular amendment, Mr. Gallegly's amendment, is a perfect example why we want to enter into a migration agreement, the underlying amendment of Mr. Ballenger's is not. Mr. Ballenger's amendment clearly goes ahead and guts the purpose of my amendment.
First of all, there is nothing in my amendment that speaks to any form of amnesty, and that is a red herring. There is no amnesty mentioned whatsoever.
Mr. BALLENGER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No. When I am finished, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
There is no amnesty mentioned whatsoever, and I do not know what the references to Iraq or any other place were. If one reads the amendment, it simply says let us conclude a negotiation as expeditiously as possible with the interest of both countries observed, and let us submit legislation to Congress to implement that agreement. That is all it says. Nothing about a blanket amnesty. That is a red herring. That is for those who are xenophobic.
Also, this is the Haliburton amendment because what are we going to do? We are going to get into Mexico's petroleum industry when in fact this is about a migration agreement. This is about a migration agreement. Now you want to get into Mexico's petroleum, which may be a legitimate negotiation in commercial enterprise or in a trade enterprise, but I am not worried about the Vice President's former company getting engaged in the Mexican petroleum industry or other Texas companies that may be friendly with the President getting involved with Mexico.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is about U.S.-Mexico relationships. This is about millions of people in this country. This is about this President, who has said time and time again——
Mr. BALLENGER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ [continuing]. The great contributions of Mexican-Americans to this country. That is what this amendment is about.
Lastly, the gentleman guts my amendment, including extraneous issues, which I think may even be objectionable under the rules, by saying that we will commence it as soon as is practicable when this has been going on for 2 years. We say we should submit to Congress as soon as practicable legislation.
So this basically tells the Mexican Government and Mexican Americans in this country who seek family reunification. We really do not care, do not want you, do not want to be engaged with you. By the way, while we do not want you and do not want to be engaged with you, we are concerned about our American companies getting engaged in your petroleum industry, and for that we certainly are willing to go ahead and consider the amendment.
The underlying amendment clearly should be defeated. I have no problem with Mr. Gallegly's amendment. It only goes to prove that we need a migration accord.
Mr. BALLENGER. The gentleman I guess yields in the fact that you can read in your amendment regardless of status I think two or three times in there, and I think that is a general amnesty, unless I am mistaken.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. No. That is the nature. The gentleman would have to read that as that is the nature of coming to an agreement as to what people may be in the process of an adjusted status. People may be in the process of having some worker permit. That is not about a general amnesty.
Now, if we want to be xenophobic, if we want to appeal to xenophobia, then we certainly can refer to this as general amnesty.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. MENENDEZ. There is no word in this amendment that talks about general amnesty. This is about U.S. foreign relations with the Government of Mexico and engaging in what the President—our President—has said is in fact a primary interest.
I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. We obviously have a disagreement with you what that means. Many I think could read that as being a general amnesty.
Several times during your statement you referred to Mexican-Americans, that we were going to negotiate about Mexican-Americans. Are you not insulting people by equating Americans of Mexican descent with illegal immigrants, people who are——
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I am referring to the desires of Mexican-Americans to have family reunification and the desire of Mexican-Americans to see people treated with dignity who are picking the fruits and the food that sits on your table.
Lastly, the findings that I referred to that you are saying are about amnesty are findings from the Bush Administration's statements that were issued publicly. Maybe your issue is with the Administration, not with me, because ultimately those statements come directly quoted from the Administration.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Just a moment. Let us focus on the Gallegly amendment, which I believe the gentleman from New Jersey agreed——
Mr. MENENDEZ. I withdraw my reservation on that.
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Could be made a part of the Ballenger substitute.
Do I state the state of play properly?
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Correct, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my reservation that I had on the Gallegly amendment.
Chairman HYDE. All right. Without objection, the Gallegly amendment is adopted——
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. To the Ballenger substitute.
Now we are reduced to the Ballenger substitute——
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. For Menendez.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Tancredo.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interestingly, in the discussion we had in this body a short time ago with regard to my amendment, it resolves continually around the issue of immigration, even though, of course, there was nothing in my amendment that had anything to do with immigration.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There were continual complaints from the other side that my amendment dealing with immigration, although it did not, should not be brought up because, of course, this is not the proper place for it. Well, of course, that is exactly what the Menendez amendment deals with. It is immigration.
Whether you call it a migration accord or not, this is not an issue with which the State Department is necessarily involved. Certainly it is not an issue with which this Committee should be involved. This is an immigration issue and should be properly debated and discussed in the Judiciary Committee.
Some of the statements in regard to that, by the way, in terms of what kind of a migration accord should be developed, one that ''ensures safe, orderly, dignified . . .'' Well, you know there is presently a safe, orderly and dignified way to come into the United States of America. We do not need a migration accord to establish it. There is a process.
You come into the United States of America legally one of two ways. You either come in as a visitor, or you come in the process of trying to become a citizen. That is it. There is a way to do that. We have had it for a long, long time. We have that relationship with Mexico. No other kind of migration accord is really necessary in order to achieve the goal of safe, orderly and dignified.
In fact, the problem, as we all know here, is the people who choose to disregard the safe, orderly and dignified process for coming into the United States that we are trying to deal with. It is those people who decide to come into the United States illegally, and whether or not for whatever purpose that they are engaged to pick crops and build and all the rest of the things that we know that they do, it is totally irrelevant to the fact that they enter the country illegally. It is against the law.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is the only thing to which this whole thing is directed; some way to change that, some way to pretend that that is not the case and that all the people who have come here illegally should be treated differently, treated with respect and all the rest.
I certainly believe every human being in the United States of America, everywhere, deserves to be treated with respect and certain basic freedoms need to be guaranteed, but the reality is when you come into the United States illegally there are things that you should not be able to achieve or attain.
If we simply wish to, why do we not go ahead and add something to this amendment that says let us actually do what we really and truly are trying to get at through things like this amendment and move to the elimination of borders, open borders, remove ports of entry, forget about the process entirely? That would even be better actually because it is a much more truthful way of trying to get to the same place here.
If you could point to something wrong with the present immigration laws in the United States, something that says, you know, we are not allowing enough people to come in from Mexico, we should expand the number of people coming into the country from Mexico, fine. Let us debate that. You see, you keep suggesting that there is something happening here different with Mexico than any other country.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANCREDO. I will yield in just a second.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the end of the day, what we are really talking about here is in fact an amnesty proposal. If you wanted to clarify your statement instead of saying regardless of their status, you could do so by saying regardless of their status as a person seeking permanent status in the United States but here legally, but you do not. You say regardless of their status because what we are really talking about here are undocumented people in this country, illegal aliens.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Tancredo makes some very good points, and the fact that what we hear, the rhetoric that we hear from the other side of the aisle talking about this as migration as if there is some sort of natural flow of things that are happening here. No. What we have here is a problem with illegal immigration, and after listening to what has been presented us today, I do not want to have a negotiation with the Government of Mexico as to whether or not we are going to enforce our immigration laws or what our immigration laws should be.
I do not want to negotiate with Mexico as to whether illegal immigrants from Mexico in the United States should be entitled to Social Security or not. I do not want those type of discussions to take place because what we need to do instead is to draw a line and to make sure that we are enforcing our laws. This is not to be done in a compromise back and forth with the Government of Mexico.
Thank you very much. Mr. Tancredo, you can have the balance of the time.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TANCREDO. I will reclaim my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. The phrase in this amendment that apparently draws such ire is the notion that we would respect the human dignity of all migrants regardless of their status. Is the other side surely taking issue with those words? You can try and read and construe anything you want into it, but the words are clear. Respecting human dignity of all migrants.
Maybe that is an agreement that when people who have an unauthorized presence in the United States are rounded up, they are not housed 50 people to a little room with inadequate services. Maybe it involves other aspects of human dignity. Your reaction to it is so defensive that it is quite stunning.
Now to the notion of safe, orderly, legal and dignified. I have been in this place for 20 years. Only 8 of those years have the evil Democrats held the White House. In the other 12 years, under the system that Mr. Tancredo praises as safe, orderly, legal and dignified, we have 8,000,000 to 11,000,000 unauthorized workers holding up a number of different industries in this country without any legal status subject to exploitation here, correctly put, in violation of the laws.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The system of migration to this country is not safe, orderly, legal and dignified.
Mr. TANCREDO. Would the gentleman yield to answer a question?
Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to after I make my point.
You can rail all you want about what to do. We can put and we have been putting more and more money into meaningful border enforcement, but let me tell you an agreement with Mexico that recognizes that illegal immigration undermines both issues of sovereignty and very specific interests whereby Mexico plays a greater role in helping to police the border from their side of the border. It is an agreement with Mexico which involves them deploying some resources to help us deter that kind of migration. It is also an agreement with Mexico which says that there are certain seasonal industries in this country where temporary workers from outside of the United States can fill a market that otherwise is only going to be filled by undocumented workers and provides adequate protections and housing and decent wages so it does not just become a vehicle to fill American jobs in order to get cheap labor, those things are in America's interest.
Why you are getting so obsessed with the notion of a situation being made worse when you all acknowledge how terrible it is right now. All Mr. Menendez is doing is recognizing what George Bush recognized from the beginning of this Administration. This system is broken. We have to try and find a realistic, practical way working with our neighbor to the south to meet interests of both countries economically and politically to solve this problem.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You guys are reacting like all of a sudden this is coming out of some whacko field in a situation where you all know the present situation is just intolerable for all kinds of reasons—law enforcement exploitation of human beings, unauthorized workers without real Social Security numbers. It is a disgusting and corrupt system. Let us try to rationalize it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BERMAN. Sure.
Mr. TANCREDO. Can the gentleman identify a single person who has come into this country from Mexico or anywhere else for that matter through a legal process, applied for a visa from any other country where that is required, come across to Mexico through a port of entry, did it in the way in which it is prescribed?
Can the gentleman identify a single person who has been harmed in that process, a single person that has been killed, died in the desert? Have any of the things happened that you suggest occurred in the present process?
The gentleman is absolutely correct. I agree certainly that there is something wrong. One of the things that is wrong is the fact that we choose not to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders, but suggesting that there is something inherent in the migration process that would cause someone to have their human dignity and human rights abused is inaccurate. If you come here legally, you will not face any of those horrible consequences.
Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I accept the gentleman's premise and believe he has made my point. In a system which has a rational, sensible and generous legal immigration system, as ours does, and I recognize it is the most generous in the world, the fact that——
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has long since expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute just to finish up here.
Chairman HYDE. I would terribly like to finish this bill. The gentleman has one additional minute.
Mr. BERMAN. In a system which has laws, what do you mean we are not trying? We are putting billions of dollars every year into border patrols and airport checks and doing everything we can to try and stop and deter illegal entry. In that situation and with those laws, we have an acknowledged 8,000,000 to 11,000,000 to 12,000,000 unauthorized workers in this country. This system is broken.
Human dignity? We afford people accused of heinous crimes the human dignity——
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time again has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. The fact that we are not going to deprive people of human dignity as a retaliation is a horrendous notion, and I support Mr. Menendez's opposition to the substitute.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is pushing the envelope.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. I think we have been instructed by everybody enough on this amendment. I think we are ready for a vote if you do not want to come back tomorrow.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Delahunt.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. And I promise I will not yield to Mr. Berman.
You know, this is very simple. I think that what we are about here is providing feedback to President Bush. I have full confidence that the Administration, in negotiations with Mexico, will have as its priorities American national interests.
The Administration, during the course of hearings in the Senate again before Senator Lugar, and I am going to read into the record the words of the Assistant Secretary Designate in charge of the Western Hemisphere. Unlike Mr. Tancredo, it would appear that Congress does have some role to play here, and that also appears to be the conclusion of the Administration. They are seeking advice and counsel from us.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In response to a question by Senator Lugar to Secretary Designate Mr. Noriega, and this is Senator Lugar speaking:
''The need to move, it seems to me, on the Mexican-American immigration front is imperative for a whole host of reasons.''
In response, the Secretary Designate indicates:
''Clearly, the Congress has an extraordinary important role to play in migration policy.''
Anything that we would seek to do would have to be in close consultation with you and your colleagues, with those that are directly involved in making immigration policy so that we know what the market would bear up here, meaning this institution frankly.
What we want to do is send a message to the President, to the Department of State, that Congress does support negotiations by the President with the Mexican Government to resolve all of the issues that have been alluded here today.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know I want to vote on this bill as well, but this is an issue of major importance in this country.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Two quick points. The reason that this is pertinent is because we are talking about bilateral negotiations between two countries, about migration agreements, which we do with other people in the world. It is because it is also about a binational commission that has the Secretary of State represented on it, as well as the Mexican Foreign Minister, so it is fitting and appropriate to be in this bill, unlike the previous amendment that Mr. Tancredo talked about.
Now, if you want to reject the President, my colleagues on the other side can do so. The language that you rail against is the language that President Bush put in his communique of September 6, 2001. In that communique it was President Bush who says:
''. . . to renew our commitment to forging new and realistic approaches to migration to ensure it is safe, orderly, legal and dignified.''
That is President Bush. It is further President Bush who says:
''This includes respecting the human dignity of all migrants.''
If you have a problem with the President so be it, but that is his communique. That is his words. That is what we used in this resolution.
Lastly, if you in fact go ahead and adopt the Ballenger amendment, you will have gutted the Menendez amendment. You will not have made it about the migration accords that this President has said he wants to achieve. You will not have made it about regularizing and creating safety along the border. You will have made it about oil.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If that is what this Congress wants to go on record in our relationship with the Mexican Government and the Mexican people that what we care about is oil at a time in which various questions are being raised in this county about companies associated with this Administration, I think that is shameless.
I urge people to vote against the Ballenger amendment and then vote for the Menendez amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs——
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Payne is seeking recognition.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Yes. I would like to echo Mr. Menendez in strong support of defeat of the Ballenger amendment and the support of the Menendez amendment.
I think the things that Mr. Menendez has pointed out make a lot of sense. Mexican authorities say that there could be controlled immigration into the United States. They could put the number at 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 a year rather than the 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 that come across simply by having their authorities work with our authorities. They know where they are coming. They know when they are coming. It could be an orderly process. We could have these persons come in and go back when the seasonal work is done. There can really be an orderly process.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On September 6 several years ago, before September 11, the President had begun to unfold this plan that the U.S. and Mexico would be working together. However, when September 11 came and our whole policies changed and anti-immigration and anti-foreigners came into effect, it had the impact. That is the major impact on this whole plan.
I think that what Mr. Menendez is proposing could work. I think that if our authorities really wanted to work with Mexico to contain and work in a cooperative manner we could have the 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 that we know can come in and be absorbed legally to do the work that other people will not do. That is the only reason they keep coming.
I would say that to tie in the oil and a state run entity I think is just unjust. It is just wrong. I urge the defeat of Ballenger's amendment and the support of the Menendez amendment.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Ballenger substitute to Menendez. All in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
{Chorus of noes.]
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will call the roll.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo?
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TANCREDO. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Michigan?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Michigan votes yes.
Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes yes.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. Aye.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes yes.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. DAVIS. Pass.
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis passes.
Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. Yes.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Mr. Janklow?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris?
Ms. HARRIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Harris votes yes.
Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes yes.
Mr. Lantos?
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes no.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes no.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Crowley?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes no.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Blumenauer votes no.
Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Berkley votes no.
Ms. Napolitano?
Ms. NAPOLITANO. No.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Napolitano votes no.
Mr. Schiff?
Mr. SCHIFF. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes no.
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes no.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of Washington votes no.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. No.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes no.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes no.
Chairman Hyde?
Chairman HYDE. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith of New Jersey votes yes.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis? She passed.
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Yes? Mrs. Davis votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 24 ayes and 22 noes.
Chairman HYDE. The amendment is agreed to.
The question occurs on the Menendez amendment as amended. All those in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, no?
[Chorus of noes.]
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 1950, favorably as amended. All in favor say aye?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HYDE. Opposed, nay?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California?
Mr. LANTOS. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman HYDE. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach?
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Gallegly votes yes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes.
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. ROYCE. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King?
Mr. KING. Aye.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. King votes yes.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Tancredo votes yes.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Paul?
Mr. PAUL. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Smith of Michigan?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. PITTS. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pitts votes yes.
Mr. Flake?
Mr. FLAKE. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Flake votes no.
Mrs. Davis?
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
Ms. RUSH. Mrs. Davis votes no.
Mr. Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Green votes yes.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Weller votes yes.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. PENCE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Pence votes yes.
Mr. McCotter?
Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. McCotter votes yes.
Mr. Janklow?
Mr. JANKLOW. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Janklow votes yes.
Ms. Harris?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. RUSH. 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 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Engel votes yes.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. LEE. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley?
Mr. CROWLEY. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Hoeffel?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
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.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Watson?
Ms. WATSON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. Watson votes yes.
Mr. Smith of Washington?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Aye.
Ms. RUSH. Ms. McCollum votes yes.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Bell votes yes.
Chairman Hyde?
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Ms. RUSH. Chairman Hyde votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. The clerk will report.
Ms. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 42 yeses, three noes.
Chairman HYDE. The bill is adopted.
The question occurs on the motion. All right. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule XXII.
Without objection, staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
The Chair thanks the Members for their excellent service.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Democratic Members we want to express our deep appreciation to you for your fairness and leadership on this issue.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, and the very same to you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. I just wanted to announce that we will proceed with the joint Subcommittee hearing in this room just as soon as we can clear the room, so I appreciate the cooperation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:17 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ADAM B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
H.R. 1950
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill to reauthorize the State Department. In these troubled times, it is more important than ever that that we vigorously support diplomacy, development aid, and humanitarian aid throughout the world. I thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their leadership and hard work in crafting this important bill.
One area of particular concern to me is working to ensure that terrorists do not have easy access to weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. All-too vulnerable supplies of highly-enriched uranium or HEU—suitable for use in nuclear weapons—and fuel and waste from decommissioned reactors throughout Russia and the former Soviet Union pose grave threats to American security.
I am pleased to have worked with Committee staff to ensure that this bill contains language that directs the State Department to use a significant portion of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund (NDF) to reduce stockpiles of dangerous highly-enriched uranium (HEU). This action will reduce the direct and very real threat posed by stockpiles of HEU, a component of nuclear weapons and the fuel for over 100 research reactors worldwide in more than 40 nations, including Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Latvia, and Uzbekistan. Because this material poses a grave threat as a terrorist weapon, there is an urgent need to deal with the small, insecure stocks of HEU used as fuel in research reactors. Operators of these reactors often do not have the financial resources to adequately protect this dangerous fuel, and there is grave danger that it could fall into the wrong hands.
The essence of the problem is as follows: HEU is the most likely source material for a terrorist or outlaw group seeking a nuclear weapon. Such groups are not likely to produce this material on their own, but will instead look to divert HEU from some of the many vulnerable stockpiles in numerous facilities around the world. Yet, currently, there is no single, coordinated U.S. government initiative working to secure and clean-out these international facilities of their HEU stocks.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Non-proliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), within the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Nonproliferation, is a unique and flexible entity that is well suited to take on the challenge of a global HEU clean-out. This fund's objective is to permit rapid response to unanticipated or unusually difficult, high priority requirements or opportunities to halt the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, destroy or neutralize existing weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related sensitive materials; and to limit the spread of advanced conventional weapons and their delivery systems. Thus, this fund is an entirely appropriate mechanism for dealing with the issues of HEU clean-out and stockpile reduction.
Thus, this section of the bill increases total authorized funding for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF) by $25 million annually, and directs the State Department to use that additional funding for the mission of HEU cleanout.
I am confident that this provision will strengthen the State Department's ability to mitigate a critical weakness in our national security by proactively working to reduce the threats posed by stockpiles of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.
I am also pleased to support Mr. Royce's amendment, which calls for an expansion of Radio Free Asia transmission to North Korea from the current four hours per day to 24 hours per day. This amendment calls upon the Secretary of State to report to Congress on ways to increase the number of radio receivers in North Korea.
Overall, this bill will provide the State Department with the funding and direction that will enable it to effectively promote United States interests abroad, while providing much-needed foreign assistance and humanitarian aid, promoting cultural exchanges, and advancing national security goals.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2