[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2583
----------
JULY 20 AND JULY 21, 2011
----------
Serial No. 112-119
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESthe following is for the title page
(inside)
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2583
__________
JULY 20 AND JULY 21, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-119
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-499 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
DATES
July 20, 2012.................................................... 1
July 21, 2012.................................................... 515
MARKUP OF
H.R. 2583, To authorize appropriations for the Department of
State for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes............. 2
Amendments to Title I, Authorization of Appropriations, offered
by:
The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida................................ 169
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey............................. 189
The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas....................................... 197
Second degree amendment to the Honorable Ted Poe's
amendment offered by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri 199
The Honorable Russ Carnahan................................ 209
The Honorable Donald M. Payne.............................. 216
The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................. 229
The Honorable Frederica Wilson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida....................... 233
The Honorable Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York............................... 240
The Honorable Brian Higgins................................ 243
Amendments to Title II, Department of State Authorities and
Activities, offered by:
The Honorable Frederica Wilson............................. 246
The Honorable Connie Mack.................................. 249
The Honorable Brian Higgins................................ 256
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida, offered by the
Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................. 259
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 262
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch........................... 292
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch........................... 301
Amendment to Title III, Organization and Personnel Authorities,
offered by the Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Nebraska....................... 305
Amendments to Title IV, Foreign Assistance, offered by:
The Honorable Ted Poe and the Honorable Jeff Duncan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of South
Carolina................................................. 308
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 313
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois...................... 319
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania........... 328
The Honorable Jeff Duncan.................................. 333
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz............................. 337
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas......................... 348
The Honorable Russ Carnahan................................ 354
The Honorable Connie Mack.................................. 360
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Rhode Island, and the Honorable William
Keating, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts............................ 371
The Honorable Ted Poe...................................... 376
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch........................... 383
The Honorable Tim Griffin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arkansas............................... 394
The Honorable Donald M. Payne.............................. 417
The Honorable Jeff Duncan.................................. 426
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 461
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 481
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California.................... 489
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch........................... 498
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher............................. 500
The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry and the Honorable Donald M.
Payne.................................................... 505
The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry............................. 511
Amendments to Title V, United States International
Broadcasting, offered by:
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher............................. 530
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................. 545
Amendments to Title VI, Reporting Requirements, offered by:
The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry............................. 547
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz............................. 549
No amendments offered to Title VII, Proliferation Security
Initative
Amendments to Title VIII, Miscellaneous Provisions, offered by:
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey.................... 551
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in
Congress from American Samoa............................. 553
The Honorable Connie Mack.................................. 555
Second degree amendment to the Honorable Connie Mack's
amendment offered by the Honorable Gary L. Ackerman,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York................................................. 560
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz............................. 564
The Honorable Ted Poe...................................... 567
The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Connecticut................... 571
The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry en bloc amendment........... 575
The Honorable Donald M. Payne.............................. 588
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 594
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith......................... 608
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega........................ 613
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega........................ 617
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith......................... 623
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
Honorable Howard L. Berman............................... 638
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher............................. 650
The Honorable David Cicilline and the Honorable William
Keating.................................................. 653
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith......................... 657
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York, and the Honorable Connie Mack 664
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 669
The Honorable Tim Griffin.................................. 673
The Honorable William Keating.............................. 686
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher............................. 697
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel............................... 701
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith......................... 705
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 709
The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy........................ 713
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith......................... 721
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, and the Honorable
Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana............................................... 724
The Honorable Jeff Duncan.................................. 727
The Honorable Jeff Duncan.................................. 733
The Honorable Howard L. Berman en bloc amendment........... 736
Amendments to Title IX, Security Assistance, offered by:
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 785
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz............................. 803
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly........................... 805
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 807
No amendments offered to Title X, Peace Corp Volunteer Service
Protection
End of bill amendments to H.R. 2583 offered by:
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 815
The Honorable Howard L. Berman............................. 834
The Honorable David Cicilline.............................. 841
Second degree amendment to the Honorable David
Cicilline's amendment offered by the Honorable
Christopher H. Smith................................. 845
En bloc amendment offered by various members............... 867
The Honorable David Cicilline.............................. 909
Second degree amendment to the Honorable David
Cicilline's amendment offered by the Honorable Howard
L. Berman............................................ 918
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel............................... 924
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks............................. 929
Second degree amendment to the Honorable Gregory W.
Meeks' amendment offered by the Honorable David
Rivera, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida........................................... 936
APPENDIX
Markup notice.................................................... 962
Markup minutes................................................... 963
The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Prepared statement............... 965
The Honorable Karen Bass: Prepared statement..................... 972
The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Prepared statements................. 975
The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch: Prepared statements............ 978
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Prepared statement.......... 989
The Honorable Allyson Schwartz: Prepared statement............... 995
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome my colleagues to our markup this
morning.
Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 2583, the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the
text of which was provided previously to your offices. As
members were notified yesterday, this bill is considered as
read and open for amendments by title.
[H.R. 2583 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And after the ranking member and I
deliver our opening remarks, I would be pleased to recognize
other members who wish to speak for 5-minute opening
statements.
All members are given leave to insert remarks into the
record, should they choose to do so.
We will then proceed to consider each title of the bill in
order, which the clerk will designate by number and descriptive
title.
I want to give folks a heads-up that, given the large
number of recent and unknown amendments, I may be routinely
reserving a point of order as each one is called up, and this
does not necessarily reflect opposition to the amendment. It is
just intended to give us a chance to look at the amendment, to
make sure that it is within the committee's jurisdiction and
doesn't expose the bill to unintended problems down the line.
We have enough intended problems.
I also want to give everyone a heads-up that it is
presently my intention to recess temporarily only for floor
votes so that we can get through the bill as expeditiously as
possible. And there may be points in the day when I decide to
postpone and roll recorded votes, but, in that case, I intend
to postpone those votes to a time certain, giving members at
least \1/2\-hour notice before 7 o'clock p.m. and a full hour's
notice after 7 o'clock p.m. so that there are no surprises. We
don't want folks to miss votes inadvertently.
Before turning to the ranking member, I now recognize
myself to speak on this measure.
In my capacity as chairman, my priority has been to ensure
that this committee is fully responsive to the interests and
concerns of the American people. To that end, I have sought to
significantly increase our oversight efforts and promote
greater accountability, efficiency, and transparency in the
agencies, programs, and operations under this committee's
jurisdiction. I have been committed to expanding the
committee's role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and have opened
many committee-hosted meetings to the entire House.
Fiscally, this legislation is based on the bipartisan,
carefully negotiated agreement for the Fiscal Year 2011 budget
that was signed in to law earlier this year. The funding levels
in this bill represent no increase from the Fiscal Year 2011
continuing resolution and will result in billions of dollars in
savings in comparison with the proposed Fiscal Year 2012
budget.
The bill contains a long list of important measures, many
of them resulting from the committee's enhanced oversight and
investigations, and I will mention only a few.
In foreign assistance, a key objective is to move countries
from perpetual dependence on foreign donors to sustained
economic growth that will lift their population out of poverty
using innovative, efficient methods and public-private
partnerships. In this regard, the goals of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation serve as a guide, especially the emphasis
on ending corruption and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars do
not fill the coffers of corrupt governments.
Microfinance and microenterprise are vital to achieving
economic growth, which is why the bill urges support for these
efforts and also includes language on micro-credit in sub-
Saharan Africa. An example of what can be accomplished through
bipartisan cooperation are the very important initiatives on
Sudan and micro-credit offered by Mr. Payne, the ranking member
on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.
I want to thank Mr. Payne for his leadership on these issues
and for his commitment to working closely with me and other
members to ensure their inclusion in the base text.
In the area of nonproliferation, by strengthening the
Proliferation Security Initiative, we are enhancing the tools
available to the President by preventing Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other means of
assaulting the U.S. and or our allies. I appreciate Ranking
Member Berman's input in improving this provision in the bill.
The related change in the reporting requirement in the Iran,
North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act, from 6 months to
120 days, reflects our determination to address years of delay
by the State Department in meeting its mandated schedule for
reports on nonproliferation.
The bill continues this committee's long support for human
rights and democracy programs, including provisions offered by
members on both sides of the aisle concerning Vietnam's ongoing
restrictions on religious freedoms, the rights of religious
minorities in Egypt, and strong support for the reunification
of Cyprus.
Among the most important provisions in the sections
regarding U.S. security assistance are the reaffirmation of our
unwavering support for our ally Israel, especially by ensuring
that its qualitative military edge will remain robust and that
our close relationship and cooperation on missile defense will
continue.
The bill also conditions U.S. assistance to Egypt, Lebanon,
Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority. Basically, if Hamas,
Hezbollah, and other foreign terrorist organizations or violent
extremist groups hold policy positions in their respective
governments, they are not to receive U.S. assistance unless the
President determines that it is vital to the national security
interest to allow it to go forward. Our goal is to promote
democratic governments in these countries and ensure that U.S.
taxpayers are not subsidizing groups that seek to undermine
U.S. policies, interests, and allies.
Turning to Pakistan, the language in this bill puts that
government on notice that it is no longer business as usual and
that they will be held to account if they continue to refuse to
cooperate with our efforts to eliminate the nuclear black
market, destroy the remaining elements of Osama bin Laden's
network, and vigorously pursue our counterterrorism objectives.
I think the prospect of a cutoff of assistance will get their
attention and that the games being played with our security
will finally stop.
There are a number of provisions that stem from this
committee's oversight and investigations, such as the reforms
of the State Department Inspector General and the Peace Corps.
A priority in the Peace Corps section has been to address the
sexual assault and abuse that Peace Corps volunteers have been
subjected to and that have been ignored or covered up by
officials for decades. This is based on bipartisan legislation
introduced by Mr. Poe that I was proud to cosponsor and work on
with him.
There are many other reforms and provisions aimed at
improving our foreign relations agencies and programs, but I do
not have time to go in to them here.
From the first, my goal has been to have a foreign
relations authorization bill enacted into law after many years
of failed attempts or simply not trying at all. To ensure that
we do not relapse, the authorization in this bill is limited to
1 year, which will necessitate our addressing it again in order
to ensure that we thoroughly review how State has implemented
the policies and reforms. It is my hope that this bill will
emerge from the committee with the support of a large majority
and then quickly go to the floor. Hope springs eternal.
With that, let's get to work. I now turn to my good friend,
the ranking member, Mr. Berman, for the remarks that he might
care to make. Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Passing a State Department authorization bill is one of the
most important responsibilities of this committee, and I am
actually glad that you are making it one of your priorities.
It is also encouraging to hear that your leadership is
insisting that we pass our authorization bill before the
appropriators mark up the State-Foreign Operations bill. That
is an important first step in making this committee relevant
again.
Having said that, the process that got us to this point
leaves much to be desired and, in the end, severely undermines
the credibility of this legislation. As you know, we received a
first draft of this on July 6th. We appreciate the fact that
you agreed to delay the markup by a week, but, frankly, 2 weeks
is simply not enough to thoroughly review and vet a bill of
this complexity. That is especially the case when the text
keeps changing and changing. The most egregious example is the
title on foreign assistance, which was not added until this
past Saturday night. This is no way to run a railroad.
I can't help pointing out--well, I could help pointing out,
but I choose not to--I choose to point out that when this
committee last did a State bill 2 years ago, you, as the
ranking member, had a draft text 2 full months before the
markup, and the bill was introduced 2 weeks before committee
consideration.
I wish that my concerns about the bill were limited to
process, but they are far deeper than that. I appreciate the
fact that the authorization levels for the State Department and
certain foreign assistance are more or less the same as in the
Fiscal Year 2011 budget deal. But I thought the numbers were
too low when the deal was passed, and I continue to believe
that today.
As our Nation's top military leaders have said repeatedly,
diplomacy and development, along with defense, are the key
pillars of our national security strategy. By shortchanging two
of the three legs of that national security stool, we undermine
our ability to respond to crises, promote stability, and pursue
a wide range of U.S. interests around the world. This will
inevitably result in greater reliance on the military and end
up costing us much more in the long run.
Beyond the authorization levels, I have serious concerns
about some of the policy provisions in this bill. On Pakistan,
you tie all economic assistance to the certification in Kerry-
Lugar that applied to security assistance, toughen the
certification, and eliminate the waiver. I agree we need to get
tough with Pakistan on security assistance, but I fundamentally
disagree with your approach on economic aid. The key to long-
term stability in Pakistan and the only way we will ever get
Pakistan to change its behavior, is by strengthening its
civilian institutions--not weakening them, as this bill will
do.
I have serious concerns about a number of provisions in the
foreign assistance title, and I strongly object to the
conclusion of the global gag rule, which we just learned about
on Sunday night. I am also troubled by the authorization level
for the peacekeeping account, which will put us back into
arrears with the U.N., and oppose the cap on funding for the
OAS, which I believe will only strengthen the hand of Hugo
Chavez. I could go on and on about the other problematic
provisions in the bill--and, unfortunately for the rest of you,
I probably will during the course of the markup--but you get
the point.
Regrettably, I get the sense that what I already consider
to be a bad bill is going to get much worse in this markup and
on the floor. That will simply ensure that this is a one-House
bill.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to make some
sensible changes in the bill: Tough but workable waiver
standards for the Middle East security assistance, and making
technical changes to a number of other provisions. But, in the
end, I remain strongly opposed to numerous provisions in the
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Smith?
If members choose to make an opening statement, I will
recognize them. You are not forced to do so.
Thank you.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Madam Speaker, you said everything so well, I
will pass.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, everything we do here is in context
of what is going on in our country right now. And let's just
note, any money that we approve of spending today, what we are
doing is asking for a policy of borrowing that money from China
in order to give to someone else, so that our children can be
in debt and pay back what we are giving to somebody else right
now. If it is worth it, it is worth it. Well, sometimes you
have to do things like that. But I think we should make sure we
keep that in mind as we start spending our children's money.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. This is a bloody mess. Let's just get to
work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. I will pass.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. I will pass.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Griffin?
Ms. Ellmers?
Did I skip Poe? Judge Poe, I apologize.
Ms. Buerkle, do you have any opening statement?
Ms. Buerkle. No, thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Bless you, my child.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, for the record, I associate
myself with the opening statement of our ranking member. And I
look forward to the markup. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the bloody one by Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I just want to say that my reaction from reading it
reminded me of some epic opening remarks before reviewing the
Bush administration's international affairs budget request for
Fiscal Year 2007. In a speech by one of our esteemed former
colleagues, Chairman Henry Hyde, known as ``The Perils of the
Golden Theory,'' Mr. Hyde told us about a paradox lying at the
heart of America's relationship with the world:
``Massively engaging the world while living on an
autonomous island in the global sea . . . breeds
arrogance . . . self-delusion . . . and inevitably
distorts perceptions of the world by insulating them in
a soothing cocoon.''
And I find that this legislation before us is a perfect
example of what Chairman Hyde was warning us about, because, as
our ranking member has indicated, the proposal consists of
sweeping cuts to programs aimed at improving the security
situation in global hotspots, including Lebanon, Pakistan,
Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority. And it also proposes--the
proposal instructs the administration to disengage from, or
remove funding for international organizations, including the
United Nations and the Organization of American States, in some
cases bringing the United States into financial arrears.
To me, that is not wise. And we need to make sure that we
are working in a way that brings this world closer together so
that we can have a better tomorrow than our today and
yesterday.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. I have no comment. Thank you very much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just briefly, you know, we are a great power, and a great
power cannot retreat from its responsibilities. It is a false
choice to say we simply cannot afford to invest in our
diplomacy. The cuts being presented today I think will be
seriously injurious to the interests of our country and to the
ability of the United States as a great power to execute its
diplomatic responsibilities. I believe that that is, as I said,
a false choice, and it is one that I hope my colleagues will
ponder carefully as we undertake this markup today.
And I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. I also just pass just to say that I do have a
few amendments I hope to offer later to see if we can't reach
some bipartisan agreement on a few different points. I think
there will be broader questions, obviously, that will come up
during the course of the day, but I, too, agree that it is a
question of priorities and the degree to which we are a world
power and engage and act as such.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass?
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I also have several amendments which I intend to offer, and
I would associate myself with the remarks of our ranking
member.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Keating?
And Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am extremely concerned about the general course of this
legislation before us today. Of course, I am concerned about
the cap on funding for the U.N. peacekeepers, the decision of
the Mexico City language restricting choice for women, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation's lessened ability to help
people in poor countries, including Haiti. I am really
concerned about Haiti and the U.N. peacekeepers.
My concern with the legislation is that it will not allow
the State Department to play a key role in national security.
Two years ago, then-Chairman Berman said,
``The State Department and our other civilian foreign
affairs agencies have a critical role to play in
protecting U.S. national security. Diplomacy,
development, and defense are the three key pillars of
our U.S. national security policy. By wisely investing
resources to strengthen our diplomatic capabilities, we
can help prevent conflicts before they start and head
off conditions that lead to failed states.''
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said,
``It has become clear that American civilian
institutions of diplomacy and development have been
chronically undermanned and under funded for far too
long.''
Let's support our troops, let's fight for the poor, let's
get a bill that provides the Department of State with the
resources it needs to succeed.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
We will now proceed to consider title I of the bill.
The clerk will designate the title.
Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2583, To authorize appropriations for the
Department of State for Fiscal Year 2012, and for other
purposes. In the House of Representatives, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs. A bill to authorize----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, we will consider
that the title is read.
Are there any amendments to the title?
Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to say,
congratulations for bringing this bill forward and all of your
hard work and dedication to the committee's work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does the member have an
amendment?
Mr. Mack. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of
Florida. In section 102 of the bill (relating to----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
amendment as read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does everyone have a copy of the
Mack amendment at their desk?
Mr. Berman. Reserving a point of order.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, yes.
I will recognize the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And as my position as the chair of the Western Hemisphere,
it has become clear to me that the OAS is an organization in
Latin America that has failed. It is failing not only in the
tradition and the values of America, but it has failed in its
charter to defend freedom and democracy in the Western
Hemisphere. It appears that, every time we turn around, the
OAS, instead of supporting democracies, is supporting and
coddling, if you will, the likes of Hugo Chavez.
So what my amendment does is very simple. It restricts all
funds to the OAS. And for the members on the committee who are
concerned about saving money, this would save about $48.5
million out of this authorization.
Again, Madam Chair, it would be one thing if the OAS was a
value-added partner in Latin America that actually stood for
its charter and that took the hard stands to make sure that
those that want to destroy freedom and democracy don't have an
organization to use in that attempt. And I think that the OAS
has been complicit in the continued down spiral of some of the
countries in Latin America, disappointed that the OAS continues
to turn its back on its own charter.
And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield my time back to you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Mack.
Do any other members seek recognition on the Mack
amendment?
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition--I
don't rise--I sit in opposition to the amendment. I speak in
opposition to the amendment.
This amendment wipes out all funding for the OAS. I was
upset with the cut of $5 million in the base bill. This wipes
it all out. There will be amendments to address that issue
later on. I will be real quick on this.
We have a treaty obligation to pay our assessed dues to the
OAS. This is a unilateral act by this committee, were this
amendment to be adopted, to abrogate that treaty obligation.
This is the only regional organization that brings together the
34 democratically-elected governments of the region, including
the United States and Canada.
The notion that we are going to defund the OAS, undermine
the organization's ability to maintain rank-and-file staff
critical to advancing its important work in key areas, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, decrease our moral
and political standing in the organization, avoid all this--I
can't think of anything that Hugo Chavez would want more.
I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do other members wish to be recognized?
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mack, of course, has enveloped himself in understanding
what is going on in Central and South America. He has obviously
had some experiences with the Organization of American States
which would suggest that the $48 million that we are borrowing
from China in order to give to the Organization of American
States may not be a good investment and may be working contrary
to our interests, not only our interests in terms of
responsible spending but also, perhaps, other interests.
And I would ask Mr. Mack if he could--I would yield to him
the balance of my time so he could explain to us exactly some
of the things the OAS may be doing that make them not worthy of
us borrowing money in order to give to that organization.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman.
And to the point of the ranking member, if you have an
organization that everyone is committed to that continues to
fly in the face of the values of the United States and of its
own charter, it is irresponsible of us to continue to fund such
an organization that gets in the way of democracy, that gets in
the way of the goals of the United States. I think a
continuation of funding of the OAS sends the wrong message to
Latin America. It sends a message that if you want to be a part
of the ALBA nations, the OAS is a perfect place for you to come
and move your agenda.
So I would say to my side of the aisle that there hasn't
been an example of the OAS supporting freedom and democracy.
And I will give you an example. When the former President of
Honduras tried to circumvent its own Constitution, it was the
OAS and Hugo Chavez that attempted to help the President of
Honduras to take over the country in a style only Hugo Chavez
could support. So Chavez was flying on the plane, on the OAS
plane, delivering ballots in Honduras against the Constitution
of Honduras, and the ultimate removal of the President of
Honduras.
This organization is not supporting the ideals of America
or freedom and democracy, and we cannot continue to support
such an organization. I would suggest to the gentleman, the
ranking member, that--why would we continue to fund an
organization that is intent on destroying the exact things that
this committee is working hard for in Latin America?
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, let me just note, $48.5 million,
well, let's let Mr. Chavez pay for it. I mean, he is spending
$48 million here and there to undermine our interests, putting
money into revolutionary movements. Why should we finance all
of this? And let's let Mr. Chavez pick up that----
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, yes, I would.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. The fact is that there is--I thought there was
only one, but if we pass this amendment maybe there are two
governments that are actively and systematically trying to
weaken the OAS. That one government was Venezuela. Why? Because
it is the only regional organization that has called Chavez on
the carpet repeatedly on democracy, on human rights, on free
expression.
We are joining his side of this debate. He keeps trying to
set up alternative organizations to the OAS. We are doing his
work for him.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much for that
insight.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman, I know that you would like to be recognized,
but Mr. Connolly was quicker on the draw.
Mr. Connolly is recognized, and then we will go----
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, I certainly would yield to
Mr. Ackerman and then reclaim my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Be glad to.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Very kind of you.
I am sorry, Howard, I don't like Chavez. I've got to agree
with Mr. Rohrabacher. These people are just not worthy of us. I
mean, the whole world is not worthy of us. I mean, none of them
are really worthy of us. I mean, we know what freedom is. They
don't like freedom.
I think I--you know, at the proper time I might just offer
an amendment to just pull out of the world and put all this
money into digging a moat around the United States and putting
a big dome over the thing and----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman have an
amendment?
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. Keep us--I will see if I can
have staff draft that.
I mean, this thing is getting awful ridiculous. I mean, we
have to borrow from the Chinese to help people in our own
hemisphere? I mean, what are we degenerating in to? What are we
becoming?
Complaining that, you know, we are borrowing from the
Chinese? Well, let me tell you something, the Chinese are
investing more than $48.5 million in each and every one of
those countries and all over the world. That is our real
competition. We are competing on this planet for the hearts and
minds of people who should be looking toward us because of the
value that you claim we represent, and indeed we do, but we are
not representing it to others.
We should be extending our hand and trying to cooperate and
bring them to a better place, the place that we see and the
place that we know is a good place. They look to us for
leadership and inspiration. And here we are, for a lousy $48.5
million, willing to symbolically turn our back on our own
hemisphere.
And the people who look to us as brothers for a little bit
of understanding and sympathy--and if we turn our backs on the
people in our hemisphere, there is no hope. There is no hope
for us winning the hearts and minds of people anywhere in
places that are in trouble, where people are in distress, where
they feel there is no hope for the future generations, and they
will look to others who do help them and do want to extend that
hand.
This is folly. It is more than folly, it is dangerous. We
are approaching the precipice of leaving this planet. And if
that is what you want, that is what you are going to get. And
you have the votes to do it; that is the frightening thing. But
what you should be looking at is opportunities to be helpful,
to make this world a better place. And what better place to
start but in our own hemisphere?
Forty-eight-point-five million dollars. If you want to do
away with it, you have the power. Let's see what you do with
it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton is recognized.
I thought he was going to claim his own time. Would you
like to have the full 5 minutes? I think he just ceded his
spot.
Mr. Connolly. I was just going to claim my own time, that
is right, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Burton is recognized.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield my time to
Mr. Mack.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman.
To my colleagues, this is no joke. We continue to fund an
organization that does not support the ideals of America. We
continue to fund an organization that is bent on being a
roadblock to democracy in our hemisphere. This isn't a joke.
This isn't putting a moat around the United States. And it is
offensive that someone would make that analogy.
Why would you continue to fund an organization that has no
intentions on even ensuring its own charter? So, in effect,
what you are doing is you are hurting the people of Latin
America by supporting the OAS. You can't give an example of
when the OAS has fought for democracy. It has done everything
it can to be a roadblock for democracy. There have been more
opportunities for the OAS to stand up for its own charter, and
it has failed to do so.
So I would suggest to other members, this is not a joke. If
you want to continue to fund an organization that you can't
defend other than saying, ``Well, we should put a moat around
the United States,'' is laughable.
I would suggest to the members that there is a better way,
moving forward, in Latin America than the OAS. And that is the
United States will stand with our friends and our allies, to
support free-trade agreements, to pass free-trade agreements.
If you really want to care--if you really care about the people
of Latin America, then let our allies know that if you are a
friend of the United States, that we will be a friend of yours.
Stop blocking the free-trade agreements.
That is the way to move forward in Latin America, not to
continue to fund an organization that is destroying the
opportunity for democracy. And that is what you will be doing
if you do not support this amendment. You will support an
organization that is destroying the hopes and dreams of Latin
America. If this committee and if this Congress is serious
about supporting our friends, we will pass the free-trade
agreements, and we will defund the OAS.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton, would you like to----
Mr. Burton. Yes, I will yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, just a note, that when $48 million
that we will borrow from China in order to give and finance the
Organization of American States is referred to as a lousy $48
billion--or million--pardon me for mixing the M's and the B's
there--a lousy $48 million, let me tell you what $48 million
can do in my district.
Forty-eight million dollars can take care of the needs of
our veterans in my district who are coming back from the war
and need help. And now we are in such a bad financial situation
that we are struggling to come up with that money. Forty-eight
million dollars could provide all of the schools in my district
the--how do you say--taking care of their own--the maintenance
of their facilities that they now are in desperate need of.
That is what a lousy $48 million can do.
Now, why are we borrowing money from China in order to put
our children in debt when we have needs like that at home? And
I take it that Mr. Mack is an expert. He is the chairman of the
subcommittee, and so I am taking his concerns very seriously,
rather than just looking at $48 million as just a lousy $48
million. No, it is really an important $48 million.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Madam Chairman, I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I speak in
opposition to this amendment.
You know, we have just been presented with a lot of false
choices. Somehow, support for an organization this country
created and founded, an organization than stood with President
Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis unanimously against the
emplacement of nuclear-tipped missiles 90 miles from our
border, an organization that has been useful on a multilateral
basis to U.S. foreign policy and to our relationships in
building democracy in this hemisphere is somehow tantamount to
actually doing the opposite of all of those things. And, oh, by
the way, it is a deficit-reduction measure.
That is a false choice. This is a great country. The fact
that any multilateral organization doesn't bend to our will 100
percent is to be expected. That is why we roll up our sleeves
and participate in the arena, in the international arena. This
amendment is nothing but a retreat from our international
responsibilities as a great power, with false arguments to back
it up.
This committee needs to stand tall. We are the Foreign
Affairs Committee of the United States Congress. We are not
going to tolerate any retreat by the United States in terms of
its responsibilities, especially in our own backyard.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Rivera is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it has been made pretty clear by the sponsor of the
amendment and by others that the OAS is simply an enemy to the
interests of the United States and an enemy to the interests of
hemispheric security. Not only that, they have been an ally to
the enemies of freedom, the enemies of freedom and democracy in
the hemisphere.
A lot has changed since that unanimous vote in 1962, where,
yes, the OAS did stand with the United States. But in
contemporary events, we can see that there is a huge difference
in the OAS. We see what happened in their treatment of the
forces of democracy in Honduras. And we see what has happened
with their treatment toward the forces and enemies of democracy
and freedom in Cuba.
Just in recent years, in recent times, the OAS has voted to
allow Cuba, a nation that has been designated a sponsor of
terrorism by the United States, voted to allow them back into
the OAS. In fact, the person leading that charge, Mr. Insulza,
Secretary of the OAS, was quoted as saying, ``One of the
greatest sources of legitimacy of the Cuba system is Fidel
Castro. And I say this with very much respect and an admiration
for this individual.''
Well, maybe Mr. Insulza didn't understand the reality of
what is going on in Cuba: That there are no human rights, no
civil liberties, no free elections. Maybe he didn't understand
that the Castro dictatorship murdered four Americans in
international airspace in 1996, unarmed civilians, murdered
Americans, murdered in international airspace.
Maybe he didn't understand the fact that Cuba is harboring
fugitives from U.S. justice, including cop killers. And I know
we have my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Sires,
here, who could probably speak to that better than I can
because it happened in his State--cop killers being harbored in
Cuba by the Castro dictatorship. Fugitives from justice in the
United States, dozens and dozens of them wanted by the FBI.
Maybe Mr. Insulza and others in the OAS didn't realize that
right now, as we speak, there is an American being held hostage
in Cuba--an American citizen, Alan Gross, being held hostage by
the Castro dictatorship.
Or maybe Mr. Insulza didn't understand what is going on
with the opposition movement, the human rights activists in
Cuba, people like Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who was killed by the
regime after being on a hunger strike. And just in recent days,
in the last few weeks, his mother came here to Congress and
demonstrated the blood-soaked shirt that her son was wearing
when he was murdered by the Castro dictatorship.
So when we talk about the treatment of the United States
toward international organizations, really what we need to talk
about is the treatment of these international organizations
toward the interests of democracy and security in our
hemisphere.
It kind of reminds me of that scene in ``Animal House''
where the college pledge is pledging the fraternity, and as
part of the ceremony to become a member of the fraternity he
has to get paddled, and every time he gets paddled, he says,
``Please, sir, may I have another?'' How much longer are we
going to say to the OAS, ``Please, sir, may I have another?''
I understand a little bit about Stockholm Syndrome, where
the hostage becomes enamored with their persecutor. And I don't
know if that is going on with this administration or with some
who support involvement in the OAS, but maybe it is. But the
time for the abuse is over.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Rivera. I will in just a moment.
The time for the abuse is over. What we need to do is
engage. This is not isolationism. This is engaging our allies--
with free trade, with supporting democratic reform, with
supporting civil liberties in the hemisphere.
When someone gives me the answer to exactly how the OAS is
supporting our interests, supporting the interests of
democracy, freedom, human rights, in the hemisphere, then
perhaps we can consider funding the OAS.
And I will yield my time for that answer.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is recognized for 15
seconds.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
The gentleman does know that Cuba is not a member of the
OAS and gets none of its money, does he not?
Mr. Rivera. They voted to allow the OAS--to allow Cuba into
the OAS, and Cuba can become a member----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The time has expired. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. No.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Ackerman, I will yield to you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne, you can yield the time to
Mr. Ackerman. But Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes. Each
member is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, we are each entitled to our
opinion, and I do respect yours. And----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wait.
Mr. Payne, you had already given him the time?
Mr. Payne. Yes, I yield a portion, a small portion.
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. And I appreciate your usual
fairness, but I was making a point, and there were 10 seconds
left, at least on my clock. I assume they are all synchronized.
But I was just making the point that Cuba is not a member and
does not become a member, cannot become a member, unless they
become a democracy, which is what I think we all hope.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time. And I will yield some time
to Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. The OAS is our enemy? I don't know--we are
really living in two different worlds.
There has been no area of the world where the transition
from military dictatorships and authoritarian rulers to
democracy has been greater than in Latin America. Since 1962,
Cuba has not been a member of OAS. Cuba can only come back in
to the OAS if they accept the democratic principles of the OAS.
The OAS has existed and worked during the entire time of
this incredible transition. Remember what was going on in Chile
and Argentina and Brazil and throughout--and Central America? A
lot of us were here in the 1980s.
This has not been a failure of American foreign policy;
this has been a triumph of American foreign policy. Yes, we've
still got a few bad actors there and we have to stay vigilant
about them. But this is not a basis for leaving the OAS.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I certainly oppose this amendment. I think it is very
shortsighted.
You know, we keep talking about Honduras and how this
government went and took this--wrestled democracy back from
this President. Yeah, they wrestled it back with the army with
fixed bayonets taking him to the border and throwing him out of
the country, which is usually a coup d'etat.
However, we can forget that. That is past as prologue, so
we are not going to deal with this tremendous democratic and
judicial way that Hondurans dealt with the President. They sent
him out of the country, with the army dropping him off at the
border. So, so much for democracy in Honduras.
Let me just say that I think that we are totally
shortsighted. I agree, maybe it won't be a moat, but maybe it
will be the great wall--China tried it--and we will be safe
because we will keep everybody out.
Our country has more people coming from OAS countries than
any country in the world. We are going to turn our back on
countries where our new Americans are coming to the U.S., where
they will continue to have relationships. We are going to say,
we don't really believe in being involved in this organization
where your parents live because we are better than that, and
therefore we are going to withdraw.
I hope someone in Quebec doesn't say anything bad about the
United States because I guess we will cut Canada off, you know,
just build a wall around them too.
We are about as fickle as--I could see anything being
happened. Someone says something and we say, let's take our
ball, because I own it, and let's run home and lock the door.
It doesn't even make sense.
You got Brazil now dealing with the new--we are talking
about, open up free trade. Brazil is dealing with the South
Africa-India deal, which Turkey is starting to get in, and we
are going to be shut out. You know what? They are going to tell
us, take our free-trade agreements, they don't need us when we
continue to treat people in a paternalistic way, that we don't
want to deal with you, you are right on our borders, but we
don't like one or two persons in your group of states.
So I think that we are going in the wrong direction. I
always hear about it and I see all those great things that they
could do in Mr. Rohrabacher's district, but those things have
come up in the regular budget and they have been voted down.
So, all of a sudden, we love fixing up schools and helping old
women and feeding little children because we want to take the
money that China is lending us away from those evil South
American countries. You know, this may become very hilarious.
It is better drama than you see on Broadway.
I think my time has expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chabot is recognized.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you. Actually, I will just take a few
seconds. I want to be clear about the facts, because we are all
entitled to our opinion but not to different facts.
The fact is that, in 2009, the OAS voted to provide for the
Castro dictatorship's reintegration into the OAS system. And
leading the charge for that was Secretary Insulza, who stated,
``I want to be clear: I want Cuba back in the inter-American
system. I think it was a bad idea to remove Cuba in the first
place.''
This is unprecedented, never happened before. Of course,
before that, since 1962, the Castro brothers were spreading
revolution throughout Africa and Asia and Latin America. The
Castro brothers were allowing Cuba to be used as a surrogate
enemy stronghold of the Soviet Union--different times.
In modern times, this is unprecedented, that the OAS would
make these unilateral concessions to the Castro dictatorship--
unilateral because there has been absolutely no movement
whatsoever toward democratic reform, as outlined in the OAS
charter, toward promoting human rights and civil liberties in
Cuba, none whatsoever. And yet, unilaterally, the OAS Secretary
and the Organization voted to give this concession to Cuba--a
vote by the OAS, a unilateral concession to the terrorist
dictatorship of the Castro brothers in Cuba.
So, again, I would like someone on this panel to please
address the question I posed earlier. What has the OAS done to
promote freedom and democracy and to promote the interests of
not only the United States but of freedom-loving people all
over the hemisphere?
And I will yield back to Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot [continuing]. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Number one, everything that I am hearing on the other side
strikes of isolationism. That is what it is. You know, you can
go and say that it is not, but everything that you are saying
is saying that the United States wants to be isolated from
everyone else, especially in our hemisphere.
You make it sound as though the OAS is some organization
that is just flying in the air. The OAS has members. It has a
democratic process, also. And those members include our allies.
I have not heard Colombia say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I
have not heard Mexico say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have
not heard Peru say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have not heard
Brazil say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have not heard
Argentina say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' All of these are
allies of ours. They are all part of the OAS. They, each and
every one of them, have a vote in the OAS. It is not some
individual, by him or herself, that is a dictator that tells
the OAS. It is our allies, the same ones you say you want to
trade with, the same ones that we have agreements with. Those
are our friends. And by saying that we don't want to support
the OAS, we are, in fact, slapping them in the face. Those who
support us the most, we are slapping them in the face.
We say we want trade agreements? Well, the President said
he wants a trade agreement. Pass TAA, and we will have those
trade agreements done. We are ready to move.
But to say that we are going to just turn our backs on all
of our friends in this hemisphere after all that they have gone
through. And when you look at the OAS, for example, the
elections in Haiti, and when you look at how they helped with
reference to these trade agreements, to formulate some of these
trade agreements, to implement some of these trade agreements,
these are the kinds of things that we need.
It reminds me of what I said in my opening statement with
reference to the words of the former chair, Henry Hyde, when he
said, ``massively engaging the world while living on an
autonomous island.'' That is what we are trying to do, live on
an autonomous island in the global sea. What does it breed? It
breeds arrogance and self-delusion. And if we cut off payment,
our dues, or paying our dues, or forcing ourselves to go into
arrears, what we are doing is we are becoming arrogant and
self-delusional, which is not the way that we should be moving
in this time on our own hemisphere, when we are talking about
getting past the post-Cold War period and working closer
together.
You don't just throw away the whole barrel of apples
because maybe there is one or two you don't like. We figure out
how we fix it, how we work together. We work with our allies.
There are votes that take place. That is what we should be
talking about.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Meeks. When I finish, I will yield.
What we need to be focused on is, how do we continue to
work with our allies in this hemisphere? And without the OAS,
we are saying to them, ``We don't want to work with you.''
And I yield to the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Obviously, there is a difference as to the
value of the OAS. Let me just note that bilateral approaches
are not isolationist approaches. What we are talking about is a
multilateral approach versus a bilateral approach.
But if you do support a multilateral approach, which you
currently do, and the OAS is an example of that, perhaps you
could give us three examples of what the OAS has accomplished
in the last 5 years that you think would be worthy of this $50-
million-a-year investment in OAS.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Well, I will tell you one: The elections in
Haiti, first of all. I think that was a good thing.
I also believe when you had the craziness in the Honduras,
you know, with what was going on back and forth, working with
those nations and how we were putting that together, that is
number two, you know, just right quickly off the top of my
head.
Number three, when we talked about--even when we were
working with Peru, and their helping with the implementation of
that trade agreement. The OAS was part of that also.
I further would say that, despite what was said earlier,
you know, when you talk about the nations coming together, even
with regards to Cuba, they didn't say, let Cuba in. They said
that Cuba had to adhere to the democratic charter. In other
words, that puts pressure on Cuba to say that, ``You have to
become a democracy. You want to be part of us? Then you have to
have a democratic organization. If you don't have a democratic
organization, you can't be a part of us at the OAS.''
Those are three quick things that I can tell you right off
the top of my head.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have been listening very carefully with these statements
that have been made on this very important issue. I do want to
say that I do have the utmost respect for the gentleman who
offered the amendment. He is the chairman of our Subcommittee
on the Western Hemisphere, for which I respect his opinions.
As I was listening to the comments made, why we should not
authorize $48.5 million to the funding of the OAS, I just have
to respectfully disagree with my good friend, the chairman of
our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, for this one
reason: I think it has been clearly recognized that our
relationship with Latin America or the Western Hemisphere has
been one of indifference. We have never really committed
ourselves to the point where we really look at the Western
Hemisphere not only as a very important ally in this part of
the region of the world, but we never really seem to be serious
enough in taking up the issues affecting hundreds of millions
of people living in this part of the world.
One thing that I want to share with my good friend, the
chairman of our subcommittee, if we look at OAS as a regional
organization the same way that we look at the United Nations, I
cannot--OAS has an excellent report card saying that we have
done everything in terms of our own expectations. Our
membership in the United Nations is a classic example where
members are not necessarily democracies. We have countries that
are not democracies at all that are members, and we are members
of this global organization, the United Nations.
We talk about--treat this issue clearly and in a way that
is of an equal basis, if I want to put it in those terms. And I
have to agree with my good friend from New York that we ought
to take Chairman Hyde's statement and observation very
seriously about what exactly is the position or what role the
United States has to play with our global community.
I say we ought to continue the engagement process. We may
not necessarily agree with some of the policies or positions
taken by some of our friends who are members of the OAS, but
that is part of the deliberative process as a member of a
regional organization like the OAS, the same way that we are
members of the United Nations but we don't necessarily agree
with some of the positions taken by some of the countries that
are members of the United Nations.
So I suggest to my good friend, this proposed amendment
really is almost like, ``It is either my way or the highway,
buddy.'' And I don't think that is really the approach that we
should take in terms of how we should be treating other members
of a regional organization like the OAS. And for that matter, I
respectfully have to object to my good friend's proposed
amendment.
I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Madam Chairman? Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are you yielding back, Mr.
Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield to my good friend from
Indiana.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton is recognized.
Mr. Burton. I was just wondering if it would be in order to
move the previous question. We have a lot of amendments, and we
have been on this one for well over an hour.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think that--thank you, Mr.
Faleomavaega. We will----
Mr. Burton. I will withdraw that, but I just think moving
on the previous question is not a bad idea.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Please withdraw that.
Mr. Faleomavaega, would you yield back your time?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And I do apologize to Mr. McCaul. It was our turn at bat,
and I had not seen you.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So I apologize. And you are
recognized.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. And no apology necessary.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. And I thank the gentleman.
A few observations.
No one is suggesting isolation. And that is just a fantasy
that some are putting up on the other side. In fact, what we
are saying is, let's engage with our allies and our friends,
but let's not continue to support an organization that is
perpetuating some countries' ability to destroy democracy.
So we can have relations with Colombia and Panama. We could
pass free-trade agreements right now. One of my friends on the
other side said, ``Well, if we would just do the TAA.'' Every
time we get close on the free-trade agreements, the President
or somebody comes up with another hurdle that has to be
crossed.
My friends on the other side really, I think, are confused
about what is happening here. We are not saying, let's not
engage in our hemisphere. What we are saying is, let's not
continue to support an organization that doesn't want to help
us in engagement in our hemisphere.
I continue to say to my friends that you can't point to an
example of when the OAS, in recent times, has supported the
ideals of democracy in our hemisphere. My good friend used the
example of Honduras. Let me remind you, it was Insulza who was
helping distribute ballots to Honduras. It was the OAS that was
helping Zelaya to try to take over the Constitution and the
country. Their Constitution clearly said that you cannot do a
referendum, yet the OAS was helping to do just that. So the
example that my friend used is an exact example of the
opposite, of why we shouldn't be continuing to support the OAS.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Mack. Let's strengthen our relationships with our
allies. Let's pass the free-trade agreements. Let's support our
allies in their missions for their democracy and their freedom.
But let's not continue to fund an organization that is bent on
destroying any hope for democracy in Latin America.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
Mr. Mack. And, with that, I would----
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. I yield.
Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
And I was wondering if--the gentleman from Florida could
correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the OAS is
the only regional organization that has ever, and frequently,
criticized Venezuela under Hugo Chavez for their human rights
treatment.
I was wondering if the gentleman could tell me if I am
wrong in believing that the Truth Commission of Honduras just
declared what the Honduran military did a coup, as was
described by the gentleman from New Jersey.
And I am wondering if the gentleman from Florida could tell
me whether I am wrong in believing that the OAS is the one
that, through its own mediation and intervention, stopped the
outbreak of a war between Costa Rica and Nicaragua and got the
dispute referred to the International Court of Justice for
resolution there--as three specific examples, the kind that Mr.
Rohrabacher asked about, of positive work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So it is Mr. McCaul's time.
Mr. Berman. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if Mr. McCaul will allow Mr.
Mack to answer.
Mr. McCaul. And I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack, 1 minute.
Mr. Mack. I thank you.
Again, I think it is kind of funny. Just because a
commission is called the Truth Commission doesn't mean that
there is any truth with it. Just because you call it the Truth
Commission doesn't make it true.
What is interesting about the Truth Commission, there was
one big lie in the Truth Commission, and that was calling it a
coup. And I remind my friends, it was Insulza and it was the
OAS who was helping Zelaya, who, by the way, was attempting the
real coup in Honduras by trying to take over that country and
take away the right of its citizens to elect a President. It
was----
Mr. Berman. A preemptive coup.
Mr. Mack [continuing]. It was the OAS who was helping in
that. You can't point to an example of when the OAS is standing
up for democracy in our hemisphere.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack. You yielded
your second to Mr. McCaul.
And, Mr. McCaul, your time is up.
Mr. McCaul. My time has expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we are ready to vote. But,
first, does the ranking member withdraw his reservation?
Mr. Engel. Madam Chair?
Mr. Berman. I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. Engel. Yeah, I move to strike the last word, Madam
Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Engel is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I think it is incumbent upon me, as the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the former
chairman of the subcommittee, to comment.
Mr. Mack and I have worked very well together, both when I
was chair and now that he is chair. And, in fact, we share a
lot of the same principles, and we see the region the same way,
I would say, 95 percent of the time. But I don't agree with
this amendment, and let me just say why.
If you take the countries together, if you say that we are
going to do this, you know, you take Venezuela--countries like
Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and now the United States, that is
a strange-sounding list. Because if this passes, that is the
list of countries in the region that want to weaken the OAS,
the Organization of American States. And I think that is a
mistake.
I think that this elimination of funds for the OAS does
more than just weaken the OAS; it plays into the hands of those
countries in the region that wish to strengthen opposite-minded
organizations, that wants to be against the United States.
The OAS, with all its flaws--and I share some of the
frustrations of Mr. Mack; he and I have talked about it a great
deal--but it is still the only organization in the region that
brings together all 34 democratically elected governments in
the region. And let's see what would happen if funding were cut
and the OAS were to collapse. As the strength of the OAS wanes,
alternative regional organizations, such as UNASUR and ALBA,
which are the Chavez-inspired leftist alliances and the Castro-
inspired leftist alliances, they stand to gain. As the OAS goes
down, those other organizations stand to gain.
And these are organizations, by the way, which were
deliberately formed to exclude the United States and Canada as
members. That is the way they formed it. But it has Venezuela,
Bolivia, and other less friendly nations.
So I think this is a mistake, because I think what this
will do, it will strengthen the hands of Hugo Chavez. It will
collapse the OAS, over which the United States has much
influence, and will make these other organizations, UNASUR and
ALBA, the preeminent organizations, which we have no--virtually
no influence, and make Chavez's organization the preeminent
organization.
So I just think that, while I share the frustrations and I
think there are many, many ways we can let the OAS know that we
think that it is not a perfect organization and we want to push
it in the direction, I think that this is not the way to do it.
Although my friend, Mr. Mack, knows that I respect him greatly.
And, again, we work together on so many things.
But I just think the OAS is the best game in town, as
flawed as it may be. We have influence. Yes, we have spent
money there, but that we have influence. Unfortunately or
fortunately, money buys influence. We would have much less, in
my opinion, if the OAS were weakened.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And let me just say to my friend and colleague, Mr. Mack,
Chairman Mack, nobody has more respect for him. He has done
yeoman's work not only on Cuba, but also on Honduras. His
hearings, I think, have been extraordinary in shining a light
on the misdeeds of the OAS vis-a-vis Honduras.
I do rise, or will in speaking today, with a conditional
no. I will vote no on his amendment, but it is a conditional
no. I think he is sending a very serious shot across the bow of
the Organization of American States. He is bringing light and
scrutiny as never before to the OAS. And I think many of us are
taking that second and long look at the OAS to try to determine
whether or not it has truly lost its way irreparably.
It also puts the OAS on notice that it needs to seriously
reclaim its promotion of fundamental human rights and democracy
and to cease its drift toward the socialist side of issues.
Otherwise, I do believe, you know, if Mr. Mack, or Chairman
Mack, brings his amendment back in the future, there would be
much more support for it. But at this point, I will be a
conditional ``no.''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for making the
strong and legitimate points about the OAS. He has legitimate
concerns. And as the gentleman from New Jersey says, he has
really shined a light on some of the problems there. But I
think this is not the way to go with regard to this amendment,
I would submit.
And I am concerned about the trend with regard to
international organizations, that when they are not doing
exactly what we want, when they have their flaws, which are
many, that we, instead of engaging and being there at the table
like a great country with the power our ideas, with the
strength of the partnership of our allies to make them better--
that is, I think, when our country is at its best.
And if we do go forward with this, I think we will see a
weakened OAS, it will be worse, and I think alternative
regional organizations could also be worse. Problems could also
be more complex and more expensive.
So I would respectfully submit that this is not the way to
go. I appreciate the work the gentleman has done, but I would
urge folks to vote no on this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Sires is recognized.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you for including rights of
religious minorities in Egypt and the recognition that we need
to recognize minorities, religious minorities in Egypt.
And in terms of my friend, Connie Mack, we share a great
deal of ideas regarding the OAS. My biggest complaint with the
OAS is the same thing with the U.N. commission. They do not
speak up enough about the people that are being hurt in all
these countries.
The best part about this argument today, as I sat here and
listened to everybody, is I think we articulated all the
problems that are going on in Cuba better than we have done in
the long time--the abuses that are going on, the beatings, the
beatings of the Ladies in White that die and the people in
prison. We have articulated those issues, and yet the OAS does
not speak strongly enough about this or the abuses in any other
country.
I don't think that taking the money away from the OAS is
the answer. I think they have to be revamped. I think they have
to be more up front with all the other countries and talk about
the abuses and the lack of democracy and the lack of respect
for human rights in some of these countries. They don't do that
strongly enough. They haven't done it for many, many years.
That is the frustration that I share with my colleagues who
don't want to vote for this money. It is in your charter, just
like it is that we have to comply with our agreement, our
contract to give them the $48 million. So if they don't comply
with the charter on human rights, on abuses in all these
countries, they have to change.
And I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am just looking around to see if
anyone would like to be recognized.
And, if not, Mr. Mack has requested a roll call vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Sherman is here.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman, you are not recorded.
Mr. Sherman. I record a no vote.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, there are 22 ayes and 20 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments on the desk?
Mr. Berman. On title I?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. We are going title by
title.
Mr. Payne is recognized.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. The amendment on the contributions for
international peacekeeping activities, 28.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
New Jersey. In section 103, strike ``$1,735,382,277'' and
insert ``$1,920,000,000''. In section 103, add at the end of
the following:----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And let me say that I have listened over the years about
criticisms and praises for international organizations, as we
have just gone through on the OAS. However, I think that if it
were not for international organizations, the world would be in
a much worse place.
And I would have to say that I think that one of the very
strong aspects of the United Nations, an idea conceived by the
USA first with the old League of Nations and then with the
U.N., is that they have been able to minimize outright wars,
have been able to negotiate in places where combatants might
have gone to war. And I think that one of the strong
contributions has been their use of peacekeeping around the
world. And so, the resolution that I have here asks to restore
the initial amount to $1,920,000,000 and strike the
$1,735,000,000, which reduces the peacekeeping operation.
When we were interviewing new Secretary-Generals for the
United Nations, one of Ban Ki-Moon's only requests as he was
being considered was that we continue to support peacekeeping,
because he felt that peacekeeping was really the hallmark of
the U.N., it was necessary, and it saved so many lives around
the world.
And with us reducing the peacekeeping amount, I think that
we have--and we, at that time, agreed that we would continue to
support peacekeeping since it was so vital. Other parts we had
questions with--the political part, et cetera, et cetera--but
peacekeeping was something that we did make an agreement with.
I think that it would be unfair for us now to turn our back on
our, really, sort of, the candidate that we supported because
we thought he would do the best to reform the United Nations.
So, over the past few years, the United States has returned
to good financial standing at the U.N. by honoring its
financial obligations and fully funding its peacekeeping dues.
A full funding for the U.N. peacekeeping budget ensures that
the world body can carry out its vital work, stabilizing
conflict zones and promoting democratic governance.
Peacekeeping missions have played an important role in
international conflicts and bringing about international peace.
Peacekeeping missions have continued to keep American soldiers
out of numerous international conflicts, as well as save
American taxpayer dollars in the long run, while maintaining
focus on the United States' long-term foreign policy goals. As
we know, peacekeepers are throughout the world--in Iraq and
Afghanistan, places that we have a very strong interest. And
because peacekeepers are there, it saves the United States our
manpower and dollars.
Recent negotiations have changed the amount necessary for
the United States to provide for peacekeeping missions. One-
point-nine-two billion is necessary for the United States to
appropriate in order to fulfill its requirements to the United
Nations peacekeeping missions.
The measure also authorizes an additional $60 million for
peacekeeping missions in Sudan. Current conflicts in Abyei,
South Kordofan, and Blue Nile states have created an immediate
need of attention from the international community and the U.N.
peacekeeping. And had it not been for the U.S.'s interest in
South Sudan with President Clinton and then with President Bush
appointing Senator Danforth and so many of the supporters from
the Republican side of the aisle, in particular in our U.S.
Senate, with Democrats, perhaps South Sudan would not be a new
nation. And I credit, you know, President Bush for continuing
to push that forward, as President Obama.
The United States has invested significant time and
resources in that struggle. The U.S. votes for each and every
U.N. peacekeeping mission on the Security Council; it should
also pay them. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security
Council, the U.S. plays a leading rule----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne [continuing]. In authorizing the peacekeeping.
And if one of my colleagues, when our time comes, would
yield me about 1 minute----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sure they will.
Mr. Payne [continuing]. I will be able to complete----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. First Henry Hyde is quoted, now Bush
is being thanked.
Mr. Payne. I am throwing you--you know, I am name-dropping.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And first off, I would like to point out that this would
increase the level of authorized appropriations for U.S.
assessed contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping to nearly $2
billion.
My good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Payne, on Africa,
Global Health, and Human Rights, has made an impassioned plea
to increase the amount authorized, not just to meet the
request, which assumed a rate of assessment at 27.14 percent,
but to increase it by an additional $60 million, so that we can
pay for a peacekeeping mission that does not yet exist.
While I am sympathetic to the need to secure the border
regions between Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan--and the
violence there has been deplorable--but I would like to point
out to the author of this amendment that the administration's
request for the Sudan mission that recently was terminated was
well-padded.
There is more than enough left over from the UNMIS request
to cover the new mission in South Sudan and the mission in
Abyei. We know that the United Nations currently is holding
some $436 million in credits or overpayments for U.N.
peacekeeping; $13.9 million of those credits are for Sudan.
These credits can be used to offset any shortfalls that may
arise due to the new needs in Sudan.
Further, the administration's request included funding for
the Somalia mission that has been moved to another account. The
adjusted request factoring out of the Somalian mission is
another $1.82 billion. Yet the amendment goes beyond and above
the request by $160 million.
I would like to point out that, in this budgetary
environment, we simply cannot justify authorizing
appropriations at levels above and beyond which even the U.N.
is asking at levels which are beyond the statutory cap and at
levels that assume needs that are not yet known.
And so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I would like to yield my
time to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
As I was getting ready to conclude, I do think that, first
of all, the $60 million is a contingency fund. We are saying
that we should it set aside; that if, indeed, it is necessary,
that we would therefore move into that fund.
And I certainly appreciate the interest and the accuracy of
which the previous speaker spoke and her interest in trying to
be just. And I do agree that we certainly have budgetary
problems. I think this, though--U.N. peacekeeping--first of
all, the U.S. votes for each and every U.N. peacekeeping
mission on the Security Council since we have--that is one of
the things the Security Council has, and we have the privilege
of being one of the five countries on it. And so we have a
special responsibility. Other members of the Security Council
are paying their fair share.
And as a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S.
plays a leading role in authorizing and renewing peacekeeping
missions. In fact, it was during, once again, the Bush
administration that there was the largest growth in
peacekeeping because of that administration's recognition that
these missions serve our national interest and are cost-
effective.
No U.N. peacekeeping mission can be deployed if it is
vetoed by the U.S. on the Security Council. Therefore, the U.S.
authorizes every peacekeeping mission. And failure to pay our
dues in full sends a negative message to countries who
contribute troops to the U.N. peacekeeping mission. And, as you
know, we do not contribute troops to peacekeeping
organizations. They are all from other countries that put their
persons into harm's way.
When we fail to pay our peacekeeping dues, when we don't
pay them in full, U.S. allies, such as India, Bangladesh, and
Jordan, who each provide thousands of military and police
personnel to the U.N. peacekeeping operations, do not receive
adequate payment for their contributions.
And so, I think that it is very important. I do know that
we are under tough times, and I would hope that we would
consider.
I yield back my time to Mr. Faleomavaega.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, reclaiming my time.
I thank the gentleman for sharing with us some of the
concerns as it relates to his proposal for the increase in our
peacekeeping program with the United Nations.
I would like to ask the gentleman, though, what would be
the consequences if we don't provide this critically needed
additional funding for the peacekeeping operations of the
United Nations?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Well, right now, in Abyei, which is still a
disputed region, South Kordofan, the Nuba Mountain region are
still in dispute. The Government of Sudan has sent planes in.
They are bombing, they are killing people. And the U.N. is
willing to go there to be the buffer.
I happened to have the privilege to attend the celebration
in South Sudan. And Presidents of dozens and dozens and dozens
of countries were there, all of them praising the United States
of America, even some that are not our great friends, saying
what we have done in such a humanitarian way, and the pride
that the South Sudanese had on their independence, becoming the
193rd country in the world, the 53rd country in Africa.
So I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also like to say to the
gentleman, it is not so much the money but it is the principle.
Mr. Payne. That is correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The fact that our country has got to
continue the engagement process, especially with countries like
South Sudan, who has just been liberated and brand-new. And
with all the serious problems facing the continent of Africa, I
ask the gentleman how serious we are at this point in juncture
in our relationship, not just on a bilateral basis with a
country like South Sudan but throughout all of Africa. And I
would like to ask the gentleman--I have 29 seconds--the
consequence, again, if we don't increase the funding.
Mr. Payne. Well, the consequence could be that the
Government of Sudan's indicted war criminal, al-Bashir, will
then have rein to go back in and destroy much of what we have
put our energy in. Like I said, this has been a bipartisan
method from President Bush to President Clinton to President
Obama, and I think it would be disastrous if we turned our back
at this time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back, Madam.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
I am looking for frantic hand signals.
And Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I just would like to remind everyone
that, again, we are talking about borrowing money from China in
order to provide services or benefits to people overseas.
Hopefully, it provides benefit to our own people, as well.
But let me just disagree with what we have just heard. This
isn't just about the principle of the matter. This is about
money. And we are borrowing money from China to expend it
overseas, leaving our children in debt. And we better darn well
think that this money is being well-spent and is important for
the young people of our country.
Now, $60 million is a lot of money in order for us to
provide to the people of Sudan. And increasing our expenditures
here for the United Nations from 173.5 to 192, well, that is an
important--increasing that level.
But, Mr. Payne, let me just note, when you said that,
``Well, as you know, the United States doesn't participate in
peacekeeping, we don't put our people in harm's way,'' all of
the things we do overseas are part of peacekeeping operations.
We just don't have them under United Nations' command, as we
shouldn't. We have thousands of people who have lost their
lives trying to bring some type of acceptable government in
Iraq. Six thousand people gave them their lives.
No, we put our people in harm's way a lot. And we have
nothing to be ashamed of, in terms of saying, ``No, we are not
going to put them under United Nations' command.'' But I think
that that is no less a sacrifice. Our people in Afghanistan who
are losing their lives are no less sacrificing their lives for
a general better world than are those people who are in
Afghanistan under United Nations' command.
Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Mr. Payne. No, I certainly couldn't agree with you more. We
have people that have been in places around the world since the
end of World War II. We are still in Germany and Japan and
Okinawa. There is no question about it.
And, secondly, I know that we have had many of our troops
in harm's way. We lost 18 Rangers in Somalia. I was there a
week or so before that happened and went back and, as a matter
of fact, at that time even had my plane shot at, as it happened
just a year or 2 ago. So I know that we do have people in
harm's way, and I am not--in no way minimizing that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Payne. And so I think we are on the same accord. I am
talking about the issues, that the world agrees, that we need
to have some sort of peacekeeping apparatus.
And so I appreciate giving me the opportunity to clarify my
position.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher yields back.
And Mr. Payne has asked for a recorded vote, so the clerk
will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack--Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Please record me as an aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 21 noes
and 17 ayes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment has not been adopted.
And we will continue to our next amendment on this section.
And I do note that Mr. Pence had walked in, but I will be
starting the vote and we will end the vote once the clerk
starts tallying. So I apologize for any members who come late,
but otherwise we will never end. Thank you.
Any other amendments on this?
Mr. Poe. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe is recognized.
Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. What number, Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. 164.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Poe of
Texas. In section 102 of the bill, after the first dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $395,453,750)''.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The United States donates, contributes approximately $5
billion to $6 billion annually to the United Nations. Most of
that money goes to peacekeeping activities; $1.5 billion of
that is the U.N. regular budget. This amendment cuts 25 percent
of that regular U.N. budget which the United States
participates in, which is 22 percent--of all of the money that
goes into that fund, the United States is responsible for 22
percent of that. So it cuts 25 percent of that fund does not
deal with peacekeeping funds at all.
There are many reasons for this amendment. One of them is
the problem with corruption in the United Nations and the tenor
of the United Nations in its relationship with not just the
United States but with Israel. There are examples of this: The
United Nations pays for anti-Semitic textbooks to be given to
Palestinian children. Even the former United Nations Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once made this comment: ``Perhaps
half of the U.N. workforce does nothing useful.'' That is from
the U.N. former Secretary-General. I couldn't agree with him
more on that assessment of the United Nations.
It is time for the United States to promote getting rid of
corruption in the United Nations. Also, the money that goes to
the organizations in the United Nations like the Human Rights
Council, made up of such stellar and stoic human rights
advocates such as China and Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Syria.
The United States and the Human Rights Council have been at
odds over the years of their treatment of, especially, Israel.
There are other examples. The United Nations in 2006
created a task force to investigate fraud in its own
organization, which was a great idea. The organization that did
so found over $1 billion in tainted contracts. And so the
United Nations, in honor of this organization they formed,
disbanded it because it was finding corruption in the U.N. So
they shut down an organization that was finding corruption in
its own organization.
So, after years of inaction and waste and fraud and abuse
and scandal, the United States' unconditional funding has to
stop. This is one way to get the attention of the U.N. This is
limiting 25 percent of the regular fund. Once again, it does
not affect, in any way, the peacekeeping contributions, which
is the vast majority of the funds that the United States
contributes to the U.N.
And I will yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, Judge Poe.
The Chair withdraws the point of order and recognizes Mr.
Berman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
This, in effect, is a 25 percent cut in our treaty-
obligated dues assessment from the United Nations--25 percent.
I admire the author for his restraint. We have unilaterally
pulled out of the OAS, but here we are only going to
shortchange them by what we owe by 25 percent.
But the underlying point that my friend from Texas makes
regarding waste and corruption and a bureaucracy that is
bloated and inefficient, there have been--we could spend hours
talking about efforts to deal with that issue. The only thing I
would point out is nothing in this amendment seeks to deal with
that issue. This is not an amendment that withdraws funds
unless certain kinds of reforms take place. It is a unilateral
cut in our treaty-obligated assessment.
Now, I know we don't want the Supreme Court to consider
international law, but I did think that Members of Congress
considered treaties ratified by the Congress and the U.S.
Senate to be obligations as much as any of the laws that we
pass.
And I just have to, once again, point out that whatever
changes we would like to make in the U.N.--and heaven knows
there are many--this is both an improper way to go about it and
a way that will not achieve the goals that the gentleman has
articulated.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I just want to lend my support to this amendment. I think
that this is the responsible thing to do. We have heard the
gentleman from California talking about American taxpayers'
dollars and us being good stewards of them. I think this is a
good opportunity for us to make sure the money we are
contributing to the U.N. is not used in a useless manner and we
are good stewards of the American taxpayers' money.
So I want to lend my support to this amendment. I think it
is the right thing to do.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And Mr. Carnahan has an amendment that he would like to
offer at this time. Mr. Carnahan is recognized----
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have an
amendment to Mr. Poe's amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment offered by Mr. Carnahan to the
amendment offered by Mr. Poe. Insert new subsection (b) and
redesignate previous subsection(s) accordingly. Waiver. The
Secretary may waive the above provision if the Secretary
determines that any such reduction would harm any of the
following activities funded through the United Nations Regular
Budget in Iraq and Afghanistan: 1. Demining programs. 2. Police
training program. 3. Narco-trafficking, poppy eradication, or
other efforts to counteract illicit drugs.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do all members have a copy of Mr. Carnahan's amendment?
While that is being distributed, Mr. Carnahan is recognized
to explain his amendment.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is an amendment to Mr. Poe's amendment cutting the
U.N. assessed dues.
I appreciate the work of my friend from Texas to push the
U.N. to reform, and I hope he will accept this amendment in the
spirit in which it is offered, to, again, be part of that push
for reform, but at the same time continuing to look out for our
national interest.
I think the underlying amendment, by itself, in just having
a dramatic reduction in our funding obligations, would
jeopardize our national security interest and violate our
treaty obligations, as was mentioned by the ranking member.
While it is absolutely true there has been an increase in
the U.N. regular budget over the last 10 years, the primary
driver of the increase is the special political missions, or
the SPMs. The two largest U.N. political missions which
comprise most of the funding are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Political missions such as these focus on democracy assistance
and institution-building and are funded out of the U.N. regular
budget.
It is these kinds of missions that are the kind of civilian
surge that our military and intelligence experts advise us are
needed as military operations are winding down. It also means
that the U.S. pays only 22 percent of their cost and other
nations pay 78 percent.
My amendment would allow this provision to be waived if--
and I want to emphasize ``if''--the Secretary determines that
any such reduction would harm any of the following activities
funded through the U.N. regular budget in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Specifically, demining programs; police training programs;
narcotrafficking, poppy eradication, or other efforts to
counteract illicit drugs.
This amendment I think will ensure our national security
interests are protected, will also be sure that we honor our
treaty obligations. And I hope my friend from Texas will,
again, accept this in the spirit in which it is offered, to be
sure we can continue those interests.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.
Does any member wish to be heard on the amendment to the
amendment?
Judge Poe?
Mr. Poe. Madam Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Carnahan.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan, will you yield the
time to Mr. Poe?
Mr. Carnahan. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Poe. It is my understanding that these three activities
do not come out of this specific fund but they come out of the
peacekeeping fund. Am I correct or incorrect about that?
Mr. Carnahan. That is my understanding, as well.
Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time, the----
Mr. Carnahan. I am sorry, I am being corrected. That is not
the case.
Mr. Poe. All right.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Poe. I will yield to the ranking member.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. I am quite sure that these specific programs
come out of the regular budget of the U.N., not the
peacekeeping budget. And I think that that is the purpose of
putting this amendment to your amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Does anyone wish--Mr. Connolly, to be heard on the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Certainly, I think that the amendment offered by our
colleague from Missouri improves the underlying amendment, but
it doesn't really address that underlying set of issues.
The idea that the United States could, even with this
waiver, cut 25 percent of its contribution to the multilateral
body that we helped create would represent yet another
strategic retreat by this committee and, if adopted as policy
of the United States, by the United States of America from our
multilateral obligations and from our willingness to engage
with the rest of the world as a great power.
And so I certainly will support my colleague's perfecting
amendment, but I will not, sadly, be able to support Judge
Poe's underlying amendment, because I think it is yet another
example in this brief markup already of a stunning retreat from
America's obligations and responsibilities as a world power.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Schmidt is recognized to speak on the amendment to the
amendment.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Will the gentleman answer a question for me? Because I am a
little confused.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Which gentleman are you referring
to?
Mrs. Schmidt. The gentleman that offered the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Carnahan, yes.
Can't the President waive this already? Isn't it in his
power to do so, so this would be unnecessary?
Mr. Carnahan. Not to my understanding. This amendment would
just specifically allow this to be waived by the Secretary if
the Secretary determines it would do harm to these activities
that are being funded through the regular budget for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, my confusion with this amendment
is that we really don't know which account it really comes out
of. We are assuming it comes out of a certain account. We don't
know who has the authority to waive this. We are assuming that
certain folks do and certain folks don't.
And I think that maybe we should hold off on the amendment
until we get better clarification, or I would just urge my
colleagues to vote no.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is asking for time,
Ms. Schmidt.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you yield?
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Carnahan, let me see if we are reading
this correctly. The way your amendment is written, if, indeed,
the 25 percent reduction that Mr. Poe is suggesting in any way
affects demining, police training, narcotrafficking,
eradication, then the entire 25 percent is knocked out? Or just
the 25--just the effect on those specific issues?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt, would you like to yield
to Mr. Carnahan to answer Mr. Rohrabacher's question?
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, I----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Could you rephrase the question?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Carnahan, your proposed amendment,
would it--let's put it this way. You are talking about--Mr. Poe
is talking about a 25 percent reduction, and you are saying
that only the demining programs, police training programs, and
narcotrafficking or other illicit drug programs, only if those
are affected, the entire 25 percent reduction for everything
else is not applicable? Or you are just saying that they may
waive--the effect of this may be waived just on those specific
programs?
Mr. Carnahan. Yes, that is what the amendment does. And,
again, we have identified those specific programs because they
have been the primary driver of the increase in those special
political missions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. When you said ``yes,'' I am not quite sure
what ``yes'' was. ``Yes'' means that the entire 25 percent
reduction is eliminated if it affects these programs? Or is the
only part that is eliminated is those parts of the 25 percent
of these three programs?
Mr. Carnahan. The former, that the 25 percent would be
waived.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the whole 25 percent. So, in other
words, Mr. Poe's amendment is neutered totally, not just for
these programs, if these programs are affected at all?
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am just asking for information.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let me see. That is Ms. Schmidt's
time that has been handed over. And, Mr. Berman, she will yield
to you.
Mr. Berman. I appreciate it.
Through the gentlelady from Ohio, I would like to ask the
gentleman from California, would he be willing to borrow from
China to protect the demining programs, the police training
programs, and the narcotrafficking programs in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Mr. Rohrabacher. May I answer?
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, you may.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The answer is no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ms. Schmidt, do you yield back?
Mrs. Schmidt. I yield back unless anyone else wants a
portion of my time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If I could just clarify what we just----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would you like Ms. Schmidt's time?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. She has 1 minute left.
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So, let me clarify what we have just
determined by this exchange, that your amendment, Mr. Carnahan,
actually would just say eliminate all of what Mr. Poe is trying
to do if, indeed, it has any impact on demining and police
training, et cetera, rather than just it exempts those from the
25 percent cut.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Again, I would direct the gentleman to the
language of the amendment, that the Secretary may waive the
above provision if the Secretary determines that such reduction
would harm----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So, yes.
Mr. Carnahan [continuing]. These listed activities.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the answer--my reading of that is yes.
Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reclaiming her time, Ms. Schmidt is
recognized, 15 seconds.
Mrs. Schmidt. I think I got it. What you really want to do
is kill Mr. Poe's amendment. Got it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt, do you yield your time?
Mrs. Schmidt. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. She does.
And seeing no further requests for time, we will now vote
on the amendment offered by Mr. Carnahan, which is the
amendment to Mr. Poe.
So the clerk will call the roll on Mr. Carnahan's amendment
to Mr. Poe's amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 16 ayes
and 23 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Now we go back to Mr. Poe's underlying amendment. Does
anyone seek recognition to speak on the amendment, or shall we
go for a vote?
Thank you.
A recorded vote has been requested on the Poe amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members have been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 23 ayes
and 17 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments to this section/title?
Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have an
amendment. It should be labeled 560 at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are going to hold a while the
clerk will read the whole amendment while we get it passed out.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Carnahan
of Missouri. Strike section 103(a).
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We are going to wait 1
second while the amendment gets passed out.
The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This amendment
would strike the statement of policy in section 103(a) in the
bill that limits the U.S.'s contribution for U.N. peacekeeping
operations to no more than 25 percent of the total of all
assessed contributions for U.N. peacekeeping operations. The
U.S. is currently assessed approximately 27 percent by
negotiated amount.
Paying our dues on time and in full is in our Nation's best
interest. U.N. peacekeeping operations are cost effective. For
example, a 2005 GAO study found that funding the U.S.
peacekeeping force in Haiti was eight times less expensive than
fielding a comparable U.S. force. These operations allow the
U.S. to not send our military into conflict zones. They provide
increased political influence at the U.N., and this cap is
arbitrary.
It has been waived nearly every year since it was
instituted in 1994. From 1994 to 2011, bipartisan majorities
have waived this cap in all but 3 years. From 2005 to 2007, the
cap was not lifted, and the U.S. went into arrears. The
practical effect was that countries who provided troops did
receive payment for missions that the U.S. advocated for and
authorized. It undermined our credibility, and it undermined
the viability of peacekeeping missions and their ability to
protect civilians.
It is important to remember that an arbitrary cap is not
necessary because no U.N. peacekeeping mission can be
authorized and deployed and thus paid for if it is vetoed by
the U.S. at the Security Council. And it is important to know
that the U.S. renegotiates assessed rates with the U.N. every 3
years, and the U.S. peacekeeping rate has dropped from 31
percent down to 27 percent in the last 10 years.
While this amendment only strikes the statement of policy
in the underlying bill, it does not do anything to affect the
underlying law. I urge support for this amendment and urge the
committee to really review this underlying cap in the future.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do you yield back?
Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
The Chair withdraws the point of order.
Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the
Carnahan amendment?
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Just briefly, Madam Chairman, I speak in favor of the
amendment.
I think again we have to avoid the false choice being
presented to us that we cannot afford our own diplomacy.
Peacekeeping saves billions of dollars for the United States.
It allows us on a multilateral basis to do things we otherwise,
frankly, could not do and could not afford on a bilateral
basis.
Henry Kissinger certainly didn't think about, well, I can
only afford 25 percent and no more when he successful got the
parties in the 1973 war, after the 1973 war, to disengage and
to help persuade the United Nations to put peacekeeping forces
in place in the Golan Heights, where they remain today keeping
the peace, or the Sinai disengagement that ultimately led to
the Camp David--successful Camp David Accord with Egypt
recognizing Israel and the disengagement there.
We must preserve flexibility, and we shouldn't have rigid
strictures that limit the ability of our diplomats to
successfully accomplish diplomacy in our Nation's interests on
a multilateral basis. I yield back.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. Berman. I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding. And I just agree with every point he made. But the
one thing I would like to say to my friends on the other side,
all right, you want to unilaterally--you want to lower the cap
from 27 to 25 percent; you cut about $185 million from the
peacekeeping budget. Mr. Connolly has laid out I think very
clearly why from a fiscal point of view that is not a smart
thing to do.
But don't you at least then have some obligation to say
which of these peacekeeping missions--we are helping to fund
about 15 of them--which of these peacekeeping missions do you
want to chop off, do we want to stop doing what we are doing in
Haiti? Do we want to end the Sudan operation? In other words,
you like to talk about 40 cents on the dollar, and you are
right about the issue of the deficit, but then you have to make
choices. So why don't you make the choices about which ones you
don't think are necessary. Which are the priority peacekeeping
missions? Which are the ones that aren't a priority? Some
responsibility--when you are talking about unilaterally
changing the formula for funding these operations, it seems to
me obligates you to at least tell us whether it is the Sudan,
whether it is the Congo, whether it is Haiti, which--whether it
is the groups on the Lebanon-Israel border, which are the ones
should we wipe out as a result of this change in the lay?
And I yield back to my friend.
Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. Who seeks--yes, I would yield to my
distinguished colleague.
Mr. Payne. Let me just continue on with Ranking Member
Berman.
I think that if indeed we are going to say that there has
to be a reduction, just as we would do in any other kind of
reduction, whether it is even in your household, you would
decide whether you are going to fix the roof or just remodel
the kitchen, I think that we ought to, since there is this
drive to stop China from lending us money all of a sudden--I
didn't know the only place we borrow money from is China, but
China is the topic today--why don't we try then to prioritize,
and then we could at least make some semblance of sense out of
this, rather than just nonsensical where we just cut and let
the chips sort of fall where they may. So I certainly support
the amendment by the gentleman from Missouri.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just to summarize all of these points, of course, very on
point, I think it is also important, frankly, to say that
without this multilateral peacekeeping operation, U.S.
taxpayers would be footing the bill for more unilateral
preemptive actions or even reactive actions all over the world,
and we have already seen the folly of that model in Iraq and in
other places as well. So, frankly, this is a bargain for the
United States. It saves taxpayer dollars and allows us to do
something we otherwise, frankly, could not could on a bilateral
basis.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ms. Buerkle is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to remind my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle that section 103 of this bill does not create a
peacekeeping cap, but instead, it simply reiterates what is
already in public law. I think we in this United States are in
an economic crisis, and the American people can no longer bear
to really--really to bear a disproportionate share of
peacekeeping.
So I think it is time for the United States Congress, as
well as the United Nations, to abide by a law and commitments
that have been made a decade ago. I am opposed to this
amendment.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
Does any member seek--Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
I would just note that this cap was first established by--
in a partnership. One of the co-authors was Vice President
Biden, I believe. In 1999 and maybe his judgment then was
better than it is now, I don't know. I would have to ask. But
in terms of answering Mr. Berman's specific point that we
should be willing to be specific, I will wait until he can hear
me answer him.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He can hear.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Berman, to answer your specific
point--and I think it was a very justified point--that we
should not be here talking in generalities, that we should be
willing to be very specific. And the answer to your specific
question is, yes, there are many places of the list that I
would be very happy to and I believe my fellow Republicans
would be very happy not to have intervention if it costs the
American people money for that U.N. intervention. Yes, we would
rather spend it at home doing those things that I reiterated
that are important for our own people. That is the answer.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Not until I make the last point. That is
that this cap, by eliminating it, would cost over an extra $100
million. Maybe you would like to be specific as to where--what
you are going to eliminate in order to come up with that $100
million.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Well, let us start with that deduction for the
jets----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. This is a United Nations budget.
Mr. Berman. No, no. This is our budget.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Berman. This is our cap. This is not a United Nations
cap. I mean, I have got a whole list I would be happy to give
you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I happen to agree with getting rid of as
many loopholes----
Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman's appreciation of my
point. And the only thing I would say is I look forward to his
amendment. We have got a list of 15 peacekeeping missions. I
believe some are more important than the others. Let us--I look
forward to the amendment which tells us which ones to fund and
which ones not to fund. And if none of them should be funded,
then 25 percent is a ridiculous cap. It should be zero.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
I said I would be very happy to work with the gentleman to
come up with a list of areas not to intervene in order to save
the taxpayers' money. Thank you very much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen A recorded vote has been requested by
Mr. Carnahan and the clerk will call the roll.
This is on the Carnahan amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Mack?
Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, sir.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote, there are 18
ayes and 23 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments to this title?
Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. I have an amendment----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Which one, Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Let us try 561, and then we will do all the 20
others after that.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
New Jersey. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
(b), it remains the policy of the United States pursuant to
section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
Code 287e note) that United States assessed contributions for a
United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, United States assessed contributions for United Nations
peacekeeping operations in the Republic of Sudan and the
Republic of South Sudan are exempt from the percentage
limitation referred to in subsection (a).----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Dispense with the reading.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members have the amendment on
their desk.
So, without objection, the Chair reserves a point of order
and recognizes the author of amendment, Mr. Payne, for 5
minutes to explain the amendment.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And as I indicated previously, I do believe that if indeed
and since the amendment to reduce our contributions to the
United Nations peacekeeping by several hundred million we, I
believe, then should move forward in a way that we tend to at
least hold several harmless--hold harmless some very important
peacekeeping operations. It certainly does not alter the cap
that has been passed by this committee. It simply says that
there are some areas that currently need to have more support,
that they need to be protected.
There are different levels of peacekeeping and their
importance. It is almost like in Dante's ``Inferno,'' there are
seven levels of purgatory. So I would simply say that we ought
to hold several of the peacekeeping operations harmless.
And therefore, Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment,
which would exempt U.N. peacekeeping operations in South Sudan
and Abyei from proposed percentage limitations as referred to
in subsection (a). The U.N. Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and
the U.N. Interim Security Forces for Abyei (UNISFA) protects
the U.S.-backed Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA, that we
saw signed by--there and we celebrated with President Bush in
2001 on the lawn of the White House and, as we all mentioned,
the birth of a new nation, the 53rd in sub-Saharan Africa and
193rd in the world. We think it is very important that at the
inception--it is just like a new baby being born; there has to
be intensive care. There needs to be a special kind of
nurturing. There needs to be the support.
And for us to allow a cap of peacekeeping to interfere with
the many years, as you know, in the South Sudan situation, 4
million people were displaced, 2 million people died back in
1993 when I met Salva Kiir and the founder of the movement John
Garang, I came back and offered a resolution to the Congress
saying that the people of South Sudan should have the right of
self-determination, which really was the first beginning to a
new nation in South Sudan. I was on the battlefield with the
South Sudanese Liberation Army, and they had just captured some
vehicles from the north in Bashir's Army.
So this amendment would ensure that the U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Sudan are fully funded so they can continue to
advance our interests. On July 9, 2011, dignitaries from around
the world stood and watched South Sudan be born after 20 years
of civil war, resulting in countless lives be lost to the
conflict and starvation. The Bush administration played an
active role in getting both sides to agree to the CPA. Peace
isn't easy, so peacekeeping forces of UNMISS and UNICEF are on
the ground to ensure that peace is kept.
They are working to prevent border skirmishes and to disarm
and demobilize ex-combatants. They are there to facilitate
humanitarian aid and help to build a new nation's police and
security forces. The World Health Organization and UNICEF are
ensuring that the medical supplies are getting there to those
who need it, and the U.N.--and I would certainly urge someone
on my side to give me another minute as my time has expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the
Payne amendment.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
First off, I fully understand the importance of supporting
security and stability in the Sudan. However, once we start
making an exception for one mission, we have to start making an
exception for all of them.
The issue at stake is adhering to U.S. law, and U.S. law,
as reflected in the historic Helms-Biden agreement, states that
the maximum U.S. rate of assessment is 25 percent.
Further, the U.S. certainly maintains over $13.8 million in
unspent peacekeeping credits for the U.N. mission in Sudan,
UNMISS. This means that the U.S. has overpaid our commitment by
$13.8 million, and those assets would be readily available to
fill any gaps if they occur.
So while I appreciate the sensitivity and the importance of
the issue raised with this amendment, we must remain mindful of
our current economic crisis, and as such, I respectfully urge a
no vote on this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey in
offering this amendment.
And in my humble opinion, Madam Chair, no one as a member
of this committee has probably had more experience and a sense
of expertise in dealing with issues affecting the people and
the countries in Africa.
At this time, I would like to turn my time over to the
gentleman from New Jersey to elaborate further the importance
of this amendment.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
And in all due respect, I am not sure that this amendment
violates U.S. law. You have made a vote, which says that needs
to be the 25 percent limit. And that is what the funding will
be.
All we are saying is that we should have a priority of
keeping certain countries harmless, even with the amendment on
the OAS. Many of the countries have been very, very fair and
very supportive of the USA. However when we throw them all out
together, we throw the baby out with the bath water. And I
don't think that that is wise in personal life and certainly as
we deal with the world.
So what I am simply saying is that it would certainly be
important that we ensure that the two peacekeeping operations
in South Sudan, which does not alter, does not impact on the
amount of funds that we are going to contribute to
peacekeeping--that is what has been voted on, and as it leaves
the House, that is what it is. And I just cannot understand why
there would be so much opposition to a commonsense amendment
that would simply say there definitely tends to be higher
priority, even as we deal with communicable diseases.
There are certain diseases that need more intensive care
and attention than others. A common cold we don't deal with as
we do perhaps the HIV virus.
We ought to be able to prioritize without making it a sin
that we are doing something when we are not altering the bottom
line, so to speak. So I would even further mention that
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that U.N. peacekeeping
is much more cost-effective than using American force, as we
know.
We are not even talking about that. We are simply saying
that America doesn't have the forces to do these things. And so
we are simply saying, let's just prioritize the countries.
There are one or two others that I think fall into this
category. So I would urge the other side to rethink your
position.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman would like----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would gladly yield 30 seconds----
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mrs. Schmidt raised, and I think it was raised before, the
issue of the law. And it is a very fair point.
As a result of that deal, the cap statutorily was moved to
25 percent. And then, of course, what happened, that was all
part of a deal that had other previous arrearages being paid.
It was a deal in the finest and ugliest sense of the word.
And to show you how that deal was kept, in almost every
year since that time, the appropriators waive the provision of
that law and fund 27 percent. And that happened while George
Bush was President and the Republican Party controlled both
Houses of Congress because of the fact that we never managed to
reduce our percent share through the international negotiations
like we did do with our regular peacekeeping--with our regular
dues obligation at the U.N., where we did negotiate a lower
percentage.
And so the consequence was in a couple of years where they
didn't do that, later on, we just paid the arrearages for it,
which will happen again.
Here is the one--I understand your position and I think it
is a legitimate position. We should pay a lower percentage. I
think the right way to do it is negotiate it. But you are doing
it this way.
But what Mr. Payne is saying is really, let's prioritize.
And here is a case where what is happening in the Sudan and
given the story in Darfur and the story in South Sudan and the
work under the Bush administration to deal with these issues,
this is one place where let's fully fund our share, 27 percent.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega's time has expired.
Does any other member--Mr. Connolly and then Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I find myself in the odd position in the sense of agreeing
with my colleague, Mrs. Schmidt, from Ohio. I supported the
gentleman's amendment to restore $60 million for peacekeeping
in Sudan. I oppose an artificial rigid cap of peacekeeping
operations at 25 percent.
But as the gentleman from New Jersey has phrased it, he is
asking us in this vote to actually express on the part of this
committee a priority. I have trouble with that. I have trouble
saying that the Sudan trumps everything, including UNIFIL,
including U.N. troops on the Golan Heights, for example. I
think they are all important. I think--and I made that case.
And so I certainly will yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey if he wish, but I have to say to him, I am not reassured
by his explanation because I think he actually gave voice to
exactly what bothers me about this amendment, that we are
saying the Sudan is different, even though I support it, but it
is so different that it is actually more important than some
other, I think, very vital U.N. operations we support and to
keep the peace, especially in the Middle East.
So, with that, I would yield to my friend.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much to the gentleman, who is a
very thoughtful, professor type.
But let me just get back to reality. There are some
missions that are more important, unfortunately, than others.
That is why they have votes, and everyone that wants
peacekeeping, that doesn't happen. Let me assure you one thing:
I doubt very seriously if supporting South Sudan is going to
impact on the Golan Heights. I don't think we have to worry
about that. And so to use that as an example I think is less
than--it is kind of not genuine.
What I do say, and everyone is entitled to their opinion,
that it is almost nonsensical to say there are not priorities.
There are simply every--everyone is created equal, but
everybody doesn't behave equally. So priorities are a way of
life.
I mean--and if we have unique situations--and I would just
say unique situations, the birth of a new country, a country
that has gone through some very horrific situation where
democracy may have been restored when a tyrant has been in, I
do think that a limited time for a country to be able to get on
its feet is not in my opinion a very unusual request.
I would yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I appreciate the remarks of my colleague, but I would
remind him he is the one who actually just articulated, that,
yes, I want to rank things; I want to express a hierarchy of
priorities, and Sudan should be number one. That is what this
amendment does. And I would remind my friend I already voted
with his amendment for $60 million restoration for the Sudan.
And I voted against an artificial 25 percent cap.
But if we have to live within such a cap, I am troubled by
saying this one uber alles. And I do think it does raise
questions about other U.N. peacekeeping missions that are also
of critical importance to U.S. interests and to world peace. So
while I completely support the mission in the Sudan, I have
trouble voting for an amendment that is tantamount to saying,
but the Sudan is the most important.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I will yield some time to my colleague from Ohio.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I agree with my good colleague from the other side of the
aisle on continued--making priorities of how the U.N. should
spend its money. If we carve out the Sudan, then we are going
to have to carve out the Congo and then Haiti and so on and so
on. And at the end of the day, my good friend Mr. Connolly is
absolutely right; when you get to issues that have legitimate
concerns as well as these, there may not be anything left for
them. And so I think we have to say no to this, because it is
not in our best interest to carve out a niche for one case over
another, especially in a fluid environment where tomorrow the
whole game may be a different play.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentlelady yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No. It would be Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I yield Mr. Payne 1 minute or so.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
I will yield to Mr. Berman for 1 minute.
Mr. Berman. I accept.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you.
The issue is joined. When it is tough to make--I disagree
with Mr. Connolly on this one. I wish that the peacekeeping
forces on the border between Syria and Israel were the glue
that was ensuring that there would be peace; I don't think they
are. There are differences in priorities.
And Mrs. Schmidt, I believe your response is essentially,
we have got to cut; it is tough to prioritize, so let us just
cut across the board, not decide which peacekeeping mission is
working better, which is more efficient; let's abdicate our
responsibility as a Foreign Affairs Committee to make those
kinds of miserable, tough decisions and let's just cut across
the board.
There is no doubt I am against the lowering of the cap, but
if that is the way we are going and that is the way we are
going, then I think what Mr. Payne is doing is an appropriate
thing. It is asking the committee to make its judgment. If
someone disagrees and thinks there are other ones, they can
offer amendments to it, and we can have that debate. That is a
fair debate to have. But across the board, without any
judgments about the individual peacekeeping operations doesn't
sound like a committee exercising its discretion to do the
most--the smartest thing it could do with the reduced resources
that we are giving to this.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time.
Okay. I give you 1 minute. And like I said, once again, I
am a little puzzled by Mr. Connolly, who I am--surprisingly
supports across-the-board cuts. I guess we then should put that
into our domestic policies. I am shocked that someone would say
that everyone should be cut the same or increased the same.
I have always argued that across-the-board cuts were
something that made no sense at all, primarily in the domestic
arena. But everyone certainly is entitled and I have a lot of
respect for Mr. Connolly, but I am sort of shocked at the
simplistic across the board, just cut everybody equal, because
we have to make a cut and that is the simplistic way to do it,
to me seems asinine to me.
We have had a special envoy. We don't do special envoys
everywhere. But we had one for Northern Ireland. We had Mr.
Mitchell, who was a special envoy. We made a special
arrangement for him and gave him special powers, and guess
what? As a result, we have a peace that has unfolded in the
north of Ireland because we made it a priority. We put a
special envoy there who worked with groups who had never talked
to each other before.
We have had special envoys in Israel to deal with the
Palestinian-Israeli situation.
To say you should just cut everything equally, that there
are no priorities, that everything is equal to me--like I said,
it is--I certainly respect everybody's opinion----
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Meeks' time.
Mr. Connolly. My question was addressed to Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Let me just say something first. If I have any
time left, I will yield.
Cuts affect people or places or things differently. That is
why I don't think that you can cut across the board. Cuts to
some folks won't hurt them; some cuts to others can be
devastating. And we must take that into consideration when--
especially if you are talking about limiting--putting a cap on
funds. So we have got to do the best we can with what we have.
And when you have a scenario that we have had in the Sudan,
which really had not been prioritized for I don't know how long
with all of the lives that have been lost, then it would just
seem to me that the time has come just to simply say, well,
even to correct the wrong of our past, that we are going to
look at this and prioritize it. And if there are other items
that we need to prioritize, let's do that.
But this--and to cut Sudan at such a critical time--I mean,
the camera of history is on Sudan right now as a new nation is
born. And to turn our back on it now, historically when folks
look back on us, they will say, what kind of decision did you
make? So we have got to make the kind of decision when we do
cuts to make sure that it doesn't hurt the least fortunate.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, I think it should be underscored that
peacekeeping caps are an attempt to promote burden sharing. It
is not to cut off peacekeepers. It is to try to get countries,
especially the European Union, to pick up a greater share of
their--of the cost associated with peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping--the peacekeeping burden in Africa, and I say
this with great pride for the people of Africa, has
increasingly been borne by the African Union and African Union
troops. They are actually putting people in the field and doing
a stellar performance in country after country, and they are in
Congo--the largest peacekeeping force is in that nation, where
things continue to be incredibly unstable and could quickly
erode into even more bloodshed than there currently is today.
With regards to this amendment, and I do support the
amendment, I think with the emerging challenges of the newest
nation on earth in Southern Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan,
we are dealing with a situation where there is incredible
volatility, especially in Abyei and in other places, and the
ability to deploy immediately and without any kind of
hesitation sufficient troops is paramount.
So I would say that we need to have the capability--you
know, caps are great. They have been waived in the past. I
congratulate the gentlelady for putting a cap again to extend
burden sharing to other countries that have the ability and the
capacity to do so.
But I think when you are talking about Sudan, which remains
a tinder box of potential conflict, this I think is a prudent
exception.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Connolly. Would the gentleman before he yields back
yield me some time?
Mr. Smith. I would be happy to.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you because I wanted an opportunity
to respond to my friend from New Jersey, the other friend from
New Jersey. I think it is unfair to say to a colleague who
raises a question about whether we want to make one country's
peacekeeping operations more important than all others,
irrespective of the circumstances, that that is tantamount to
support for an across-the-board cut because I just voted for
your amendment to restore $60 million to the Sudan. I opposed
the 25 percent cap and supported the amendment in fact to lift
it. So they are not the same. But if we, having failed in those
votes and being asked then, okay, in picking 15 missions, let
us make this one number one, respectfully, I raise questions
about that.
And I would say to my friend, Mr. Berman, you know I would
agree that the U.N. missions in the Middle East have had
different records. But I would argue that overall they have
served a purpose, and I sure wouldn't want to defund them or
have them withdraw in a volatile part of the world. So that is
the nature of my concern, and I would hope that that nuance
could be appreciated without being characterized in a way that
does not in fact reflect my views.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Hearing
no----
Mrs. Schmidt. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I would be happy to yield.
Mrs. Schmidt. Again, my concern is carving this out because
what--because I understand we are going to have more carve-outs
offered. Why would we ask for an increase in the contributions
to U.S. peacekeeping to support one over the other? And the
fact is that we are talking about $436 million in overpayments
that are already on the table that can be used if they believe
that they need to be used for the Sudan or for Haiti or for any
other thing. So I guess my question is to Mr. Payne and to
anyone else, are we going to ask for any more carve-outs?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Smith's time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Why Sudan over anyone else?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith yields to Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Well, I--yes, have some other carve-outs, too,
and I assume they will be treated the same way. But I do think
there is a priority. I would think that if the arguments made
for South Sudan cannot be compelling enough to have
consideration, I certainly question where the others will fall.
And actually I do, to the gentleman, Mr. Connolly, appreciate
the support for the other amendment, but I still contend and I
am not criticizing him, he is--he has the 700,000 people to
answer to like I do, and it is his opinion, and I respect it.
The thing that disturbs me is that it seems that there should
not be priorities and that things should be across the board, I
still--however he says it, it is kind of an across-the-board
cut support.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith's time has expired.
Mr. Payne. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And hearing no further requests for
recognition, the question occurs on the amendment, a recorded
vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes
and 21 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Before I call on the next amendment, the Chair would like
to say that we will be having a floor vote soon, two votes. And
we will break for those votes and come back. We won't have the
second series of votes until 3 o'clock. And so our intent is
to--if we don't have enough for a vote, we will roll the votes
to a time certain when we come back after the second series of
votes, so that people do not miss votes.
Mr. Berman. Ma'am----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. There will be no votes between the
first series and the second series, but the intent of the Chair
is to continue with the debate on the amendments.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. I don't know why I am--it sounds like what you
are saying is very simple, and I am not--we are going to
continue now until the first series of votes?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
Mr. Berman. And then after the first series of votes, we
are coming back?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
Mr. Berman. And then----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We hope to have some amendments
debated. No votes.
Mr. Berman. No votes now. No votes between the first series
of votes and the second series of votes?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Right. And we will be done around 4
o'clock in the second series of votes, and we will be back.
Mr. Berman. It was very simple. I was just very----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. Thank you for clarifying. I
appreciate it.
Are there any further amendments on this item?
Ms. Bass. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass will--the clerk will
designate--will read the amendment, please.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Bass of
California. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
(b), it remains the policy of the United States, pursuant to
section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
Code 287e note) that United States assessed contributions for a
United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the United States assessed contributions for United
Nations peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of
Congo are exempt from the percentage limitation referred to in
subsection (a).----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. With unanimous consent, we will
dispense with the reading.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I believe that all members have the
copy of the Bass amendment.
The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
authority of the amendment, Ms. Bass, for 5 minutes to explain
her amendment.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment really continues our conversation on
priorities. It provides necessary funds for the U.N.
peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is
the largest U.N. mission in a very dangerous part of the world.
It is currently being lead by former U.N. Ambassador to the
DRC, Roger Meece. This amendment will ensure that the U.S.
peacekeeping mission in the DRC is fully funded so the mission
can continue to advance U.S. interests.
The mission has been mandated to patrol an area the size of
the United States from the Mississippi to the Atlantic with
very poor infrastructure. The U.N. is improving its ability to
protect civilians, especially those crimes against women. These
efforts have been led by Special Representative Atul Khare of
the U.N. peacekeeping operations and Margot Wallstrom, Special
Representative for Sexual Violence and Conflict, a position
that was spearheaded by the United States. This includes
finding cost-effective ways to increase radio and telephone
communications in remote areas, sending military and civilian
protection teams to remote areas, and providing medical and
psychosocial support to victims.
The mission partnered with the DRC Government in February
2010 to build five mineral trading centers in North and South
Kivu. These centers will facilitate the tracing, control and
regulation of mineral trading. The establishment of these
centers will not only help curb the financing of conflict but
also will help reduce smuggling, which often saps the national
wealth.
The U.S. and U.N. peacekeeping mission are working together
to stimulate economic growth through agricultural and
vocational programs. So far, six youth vocational schools have
been built for students whose educations were interrupted due
to the ongoing conflict.
I also want to express my overall support of the United
Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. Today's world
conflicts are transnational, freely crossing borders to
threaten entire regions and dragging people of many national
allegiances into war. These types of complicated problems need
multinational solutions to promote peace and security and help
countries transition to stability. The U.N. peacekeepers play a
critical role in these transitions by being the first line of
defense to ensure the--to ensure the safety of civilians and
promoting diplomacy.
Despite peacekeeping operations' broad reach throughout the
world, the international security provided by the peacekeepers
is given at a relatively low cost to the United States.
Peacekeeping missions deploy 100,000 international troops in 14
countries on 5 continents, but the United States provides few
troops, and other countries pick up about 75 percent of the
cost. Because of the U.S.'s significant role and good standing
within the U.N., the U.S. is able to have influential impact on
the development, leadership and execution of peacekeeping
operations without investing American lives on the ground.
The United States needs to uphold its commitment to the
U.N. and the rest of the world and continue to invest in global
peace and security through U.N. peacekeeping operations. I ask
you to continue our global leadership and continue to fund the
peacekeeping operations and urge you to support this amendment
to fund peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I
yield----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass.
And because we have been called to vote, the committee will
temporarily recess and suspend until we come back from these
two votes, and it would be great if the members would come
back. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee is now back in order
and we are resuming proceedings on the amendment by Ms. Bass.
And before I recognize other members for their statements, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that we make a technical
correction--it is a different amendment, sorry, different
amendment.
Thank you, Ms. Bass.
And which other member would like to be recognized?
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chairman, I won't keep this very long,
but, again, we are carving out another section of this for
another reason. And we can't continue down this path, because
we will have made choices that in a year from now may be the
wrong choices. And so I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back. Mr.
Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Let me say that I support the amendment by the
gentlelady from California. Once again, the general premise is
that all situations are not equal; that in light of the fact
that we are going to have a limitation, then that pushes us to
therefore make more informed decisions.
I won't belabor the point either, but it is very important
that the DRC, a country that has had tremendous problems, has
been assisted tremendously by the U.N., the sexual violence
against women is just unbelievable, where our statistics make
it perhaps one out of every three women has been sexually
abused one way or the other. The U.N. has really moved in and
has started to turn the trend around.
It is a country that has tremendous resources that by the
U.N. being there and putting some semblance of order so that
the central government in Kinshasa can benefit from the
tremendous mineral resources that are available in the DRC. As
we all know, coltan, which is a mineral found practically
solely in the DRC, is the mineral that goes into the cell
phones. I am sure that there have been some financial gains by
U.S. corporations with the invention of the cell phone. So
there are definitely reasons why if that valuable resource
could be channeled into the Government of Sudan by virtue of
peacekeepers making order, then the standard of living could
increase, the health care can improve, education can start, and
that these resources can be used for the benefit of the
residents of the DRC.
And so I think it is an overall goal of trying to upgrade
the standard of living throughout parts of sub-Saharan Africa,
and so I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I will yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do other members wish to be heard on the Bass amendment? If
not, then we will postpone this vote. Based on the previous
agreement that we had made, we will have a recorded vote when
we come back.
Are there any other amendments to this title?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Wilson
of Florida. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
(b), it remains the policy of United States, pursuant to
section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
Code 287e note) that the United States assessed contributions
for a United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, United States assessed contributions for United Nations
peacekeeping operations in Haiti are exempt from the percentage
limitation referred to in subsection (a).----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent we will
consider the amendment as having been read, because I believe
all of the members have a copy of the amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I would now like to recognize
Ms. Wilson of Florida to explain her amendment.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have been to Haiti in the past 3 months. I have seen the
entire country. I have seen the tent cities, 1,400 tent cities.
I have seen women and children in desperate situations; sexual
assaults on women and children are a daily occurrence. The
national penitentiary collapsed during the recent earthquake,
so murderers, rapists and thieves all escaped and wreak havoc
in Haiti. I shudder to think what would happen if Haiti did not
have any U.N. peacekeepers there.
The U.N. peacekeepers' mission in Haiti has played a vital
role in helping this country get back on its feet after the
devastating earthquake that killed 200,000 people and displaced
nearly 1.5 million.
Peacekeepers have been in Haiti since June 2004. There are
8,702 troops, 3,550 police officers, 542 international
civilians who are working there, 1,210 Haitians and 231
volunteers from the United Nations. Since 2004, there have been
160 fatalities among these peacekeepers.
This amendment will ensure that the U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Haiti is fully funded so the mission can continue to
advance U.S. interests. The U.N. mission played a critical,
important role in supporting the Haitian Government during the
country's 2010, 2011 election process. It helped Haiti's
Provisional Electoral Council administer the elections,
providing logistical support, getting displaced voters to
polling stations, and creating security plans to minimize
violence.
This election marks the first time in Haitian history that
power had been transferred from one democratically elected
President to another from the opposition. It has trained 10,000
officers so far, and it is currently working to raise that
figure to 14,000 by the end of 2011.
The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Haiti has helped the other
U.N. agencies, like UNICEF's efforts to educate more than
720,000 children and 15,000 teachers across the country. In
addition, the WFP is providing over 400,000 schoolchildren with
meals every day.
As a permanent veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security
Council, the U.S. approves every peacekeeping mission. Over the
last decade the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions has grown,
with its largest growth in history during the George W. Bush
administration. This is because these missions serve our
national interests and are cost-effective. According to the
GAO, U.N. peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than
fielding a comparative U.S. military force. Further, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice said that U.N. peacekeeping is much
more cost-effective than using American forces, and, of course,
America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping
missions. But somebody has to do them.
I ask for your support of this amendment. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Ms. Wilson yields back.
Mr. Mack is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to thank
Ms. Wilson for her continued commitment and passion for
supporting the people of Haiti in these difficult times. And I
also want to thank the chair of the committee for her strong,
steadfast commitment to ensuring the people of Haiti get the
things they need and the resources they need.
However, I would like--also like to say, as the two
amendments before this one, I think we need to be clear that
the underlying provision of this amendment is not about Haiti
or any other particular mission for that matter. It is about
fiscal responsibility.
The United States has made it, Congress has made it,
abundantly clear that we support the efforts of Haiti to
recover from the tragedy of last year's earthquake. In fact, we
provided nearly $2 billion in assistance to the nation since
last January. I also believe that there is roughly $7 million
that are available through the U.N. for Haiti that have not
been spent.
So I just want to make it clear that this is not a question
about the commitment of this committee or Congress to Haiti.
And I respectfully urge a no vote on the amendment. And I yield
back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack.
Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And I rise in support of the amendment. It is about Haiti.
We can have a disagreement about how much we should be spending
on peacekeeping, but we know not just the incredibly
humanitarian issues raised by the disasters, natural and
manmade, that have occurred in Haiti, the state of the people
there, the national security implications of what is happening
in Haiti before us, the issues of refugees and immigrants, and
when you decide to take the peacekeeping cap from $1.9 billion
to $1.7 billion and don't prioritize, you impact on life in
Haiti, just as the author of the amendment, the gentlelady from
Florida, pointed out in describing exactly what is going on
there and what these peacekeepers are doing.
I think--and what is the alternative? Well, because Haiti
is so important to us, because the case is so compelling, we
will now pay 100 percent rather than 27 percent of operations
to help Haiti survive and turn things around, or not?
Somewhere there should be responsibility for which of these
missions are highest priority when we cut this money without
having renegotiated the percentages among all the countries who
participate in the peacekeeping. This is 27 cents, or, after
the amendment that has passed, 25 cents of each dollar, and
that is a lot better than 100 percent of each dollar.
And I would argue in the case Haiti would rank very high on
my list of priorities for where we should not be pulling back
from our commitments, especially when they produce so much
greater from other countries in terms of the good that they are
doing. So I call--I urge the support for this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Berman yields back.
Mrs. Schmidt of Ohio is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I really don't
want to belabor the point, but I do want to point out some
things. No one is more committed to Haiti than the Members of
Congress, the President, in fact the citizens of the United
States. And we are not talking about getting rid of our
support. We fully support our presence in the stabilization and
recovery of Haiti, and we continue to do this time and time
again.
The underlying provision does not eliminate the MINUSTAH,
which is the U.N. initiative for Haiti. The U.S. would still be
authorized to provide nearly $200 million in support. This is
on top of the $300 million the U.S. is providing to Haiti on a
bilateral basis to choose to support the rule of law and
governance in Haiti, which, as my good friend from Florida
said, is part of the $2 billion that Congress has already
appropriated for Haiti since last January.
So the U.S. is clearly committed to Haiti, as am I. But
that is not what this amendment is about. Madam Chair, if we
continue to carve out every mission under peacekeeping, the
U.N. will continue to take advantage of our generosity and
raise our level of assessment until we finally put our foot
down and say, no more. And this is what we did in 2005. And
while the cap was in effect, our rate of assessment dropped
from 28 percent to 25.6 percent.
When the leadership of the last Congress decided to
arbitrarily raise the cap above and beyond what the U.N. itself
was asking for, we virtually invited them to raise our rate of
assessment, which they did this year.
This is about getting us back on track and respecting U.S.
law. And so, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. I rise in support of the amendment.
Once again, I do think that as we are dealing with the
capping of funds available, I still contend the basic premise
that I have mentioned before, that there needs to therefore be
an order of priority. I think it only makes sense that we tend
to prioritize when we have scarce resources, and the fact that
Haiti is so close to our borders, it makes it essential,
because many of us remember when the boat people were coming
over, and people were drowning at sea and in shark-infested
water and ships turning over, and the U.S. Navy had to spend
tremendous resources rescuing people, and attempted to put a
blockade in, and the tremendous amount of resources spent on
that operation exceeded probably what we will spend in 5 years
in a peacekeeping operation. And so sometimes a stitch in time
saves nine, my grandmother used to say. If you tend to then put
preventive situations in, you therefore can prevent larger
problems from happening.
And U.S. has really been, as you know, so involved in
Haiti. I went back to Haiti with President Aristide when he was
restored during the Clinton administration. I was there when
the U.S. went in militarily. I was there when the U.S. came out
militarily. I was there when the U.N. went in initially. I was
there when they restored democracy to Haiti.
And so it is just the right thing to do. They are close to
us in our Nation. We have many, as you know, Haitian Americans
in throughout the United States, not only in Florida, where, of
course, you all have tremendous numbers, but in New Jersey and
New York and in other parts of our country.
I do believe that things are getting better. I believe we
actually have started a daily service to Port au Prince from
Newark, which is a great step forward because there was limited
air transport to Haiti. You had to go to New York to catch a
flight.
So I think that this makes sense. I certainly support the
gentlelady, Congresswoman Wilson, who even prior to coming to
the U.S. Congress spent a lot of her time in the State assembly
and in her activities in Florida fighting for the cause of the
Haitian people. And I commend her for this amendment and urge
the support.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry is recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to express appreciation to Ms. Wilson for her deep
concern about Haiti. I was there on election day last year as a
part of a group of--Members of Congress as a group were
observing the integrity of the election, and like so many
Members I have a deep concern about that country, which is
really on the doorstep of our own neighborhood and has been
mired in such deep poverty and structural governance
difficulties for so long. I think many of us share the concern.
I do for a moment want to go back to the commentary made by
Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr. Connolly, as well as Mr. Payne in the
debate that occurred prior to this debate right now. I think
some excellent and constructive points were made about the
problem of trying to carve out countries, prioritizing one over
the other with somewhat limited information in this particular
process, yet at the same time all situations are not the same.
And do we take advantage of the moment to actually determine
whether some slight increase of resources for one particular
area of the world as balanced against other areas of the world
that may not have as pressing of a need at the moment is
particularly germane. I think Mr. Payne made that argument, and
yet Mrs. Schmidt and Mr. Connolly made equally as good
arguments about this problem of going country by country and
carving it out.
I would like to point out that we have a process by which
the administration notifies our committee before the U.N.
Security Council acts on any change of a mission and commits
troop levels. They notify our committee, and there is an
implied consent if we don't do anything.
We also have an appropriations process where I think it
would behoove all of us to become perhaps more informed, where
we go line by line and actually commit a dollar figure to these
various missions.
So with that said, maybe after all of this particular
hearing on the State authorization is done, if we want to
strengthen our ability to have more direct oversight so that we
have better information in a more timely fashion, some of us
could creatively think about that so that we can determine
whether or not we want to prioritize one country or region over
another given the particular sensitivity of that situation in
the moment. That is why I voted for Mr. Payne's amendment on
the Sudan earlier, taking advantage of this moment, although it
is limited, in terms of a comprehensive discussion about that
particular situation. It is particularly sensitive and
potentially volatile, and peacekeeping forces there will affect
a five-country region.
But it is a real dilemma to start going country by country
and carving things out. So again, as a constructive comment,
Madam Chair, perhaps if some of us want to think creatively
about a process later that puts us more in the midst of direct
oversight or better exercising what is already in place, I
would simply offer that and yield back my time.
Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He has yielded back his time.
Perhaps Mr. Faleomavaega could.
Mr. Payne. I thought I caught him in time before he yielded
back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time
to Mr. Payne.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. I just want to commend the gentleman for the
suggestion that perhaps in the future we could sit down, if the
chairperson and ranking member would think it prudent. Perhaps
a small group of us from both sides of the aisle could have
some conversation about how do we deal with the dilemma that
faces us. We may not come up with a conclusion, but I think we
could share the opportunity to discuss the issues and try to
understand the rationale that people--and I would like to maybe
carve out about 8 hours from Mr. Connolly to explain the
situation. But however, but we--seriously, getting back to the
serious part, if we could have some conversation, it could be
formal or informal, even though I don't think it has to be a
formal committee. And I yield back to Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also like to commend Mr.
Fortenberry for his very constructive observations in terms of
what has been proposed so far. And I think what really is not
so much to say which is a higher priority, the problem is that
they are all important and part of our national interest in
these countries that if they are unstable, we may end up having
to pay more than what we are doing now by providing the
necessary funding to do this peacekeeping forces to stabilize
these countries.
So with that, I want to thank Mr. Fortenberry for a very
thoughtful and constructive observation on this issue.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any other speakers wish to be
recognized?
Mr. Rivera is recognized on the Wilson amendment.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to recognize
Congresswoman Wilson's efforts on this behalf. I served with
Congresswoman Wilson for 8 years in the State legislature in
Florida, and I witnessed firsthand her passion on this issue
and her activism on this issue.
I know last year, early last year, I participated in a
visit to Haiti right after the earthquake. And Congresswoman
Wilson, then-State Senator Wilson, helped to coordinate and
facilitate that trip where we took food and medicine and
humanitarian supplies to orphanages and to hospitals in Haiti.
And I remember discussing that trip with Congresswoman Wilson.
I know more recently Congresswoman Wilson has discussed with me
her visit to Haiti and where she certainly understands the
conditions on the ground in Haiti and what that country needs
right now in terms of assistance from the United States.
I think I can address this issue of distinguishing between
countries where peacekeeping efforts might be considered, and I
think one of the thresholds that we could apply is the issue of
our national interest in terms of where we would carve out or
make exceptions for a peacekeeping force. For example, I know
we talk about the drug war in Mexico here in Congress. Many
times we talk about the fact that it is right at our border,
and that it is in our national interest to deal with that issue
in Mexico because it can spill over into our borders. There may
be drug wars in Russia or Ukraine or other parts of the world,
but I know we have a specific national interest in dealing with
that drug war at our border.
We also have a crisis in Haiti at our border, at our
doorstep. And Congresswoman Wilson has made this argument so
articulately on many occasions. We have a situation that is
brewing right on the borders of the United States. And I think
if there is ever somewhere where we can make an exception or
see where our national interests is at stake, it is when it
hits so close to home on our doorstep.
So if anybody understands the issue of Haiti, the
implications for bilateral relations between the United States
and Haiti, it is Congresswoman Wilson. So I would encourage my
fellow members to vote in favor of this good amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the gentleman yields back.
Seeing no other members who seek recognition, and based
upon our previous agreement, a recorded vote has been
requested. And we will roll that vote until the second series
of votes is over on the House floor.
Do other members have amendments on this section?
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Speaker. I move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. You are recognized.
Mr. Berman. I am only aware of one amendment on this side
left on title I, and I believe that the purpose of my seeking
to strike the last word in order to get unanimous consent for
that offer to return has already been dealt with, and so I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. Does anyone have an amendment
on the desk? Mr. Higgins perhaps?
Mr. Higgins has an amendment. The clerk will read the
amendment.
Mr. Higgins.
Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. 17.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
of New York. In section 104(3), strike ``$7,237,000'' and
insert ``$8,000,000''.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait a second until everyone
gets a copy of the amendment.
And I believe that all the members have a copy of the
Higgins amendment, and he is now recognized for 5 minutes to
explain the amendment.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My amendment would restore critical funding to the
International Joint Commission to Fiscal Year 2011 levels of $8
million from the current level proposed of $7.3 million.
Restoring $750,000 in funding to the International Joint
Commission would allow it to fully continue its important
efforts along our country's northern border with Canada.
The International Joint Commission was founded under the
1909 boundary waters treaty between the United States and
Canadian Governments to manage waterways along our shared
border. The Great Lakes is the centerpiece of the Commission's
efforts. The Commission has been instrumental in addressing
issues of water quality in the region, specifically along Lake
Erie in my congressional district. The Commission also has the
authority to approve the construction of dams and hydroelectric
power plants, as well as studying variations in water levels
across the Great Lakes seaway system.
Water quality and water levels in the Great Lakes are an
important issue to the communities of western New York that I
represent as they have a direct and economic and environmental
impact on these communities.
Just last week we were successful in fighting a bill before
the Ohio Governor that would have allowed 5 million gallons of
water drained from Lake Erie every day. We argued that this is
a violation of the Great Lakes Compact.
As the value of water in the Great Lakes rises, those who
desire it, we must have an effective safeguard in place to
police it and ensure that it remains a resource for those
living in the Great Lakes Basin. Now is not time to cut funding
for the Commission after it has been so instrumental in
improving water quality in the Great Lakes. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And the gentleman yields back.
Do other members seek recognition?
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chairman, this looks like this is a
straight funding increase. And correct me if I am wrong--and
the 2012 level is $7,237,000, and the gentleman would request
it to go to $8 million.
My concern is that these boundaries, waterways and
fisheries have a longstanding treaty and the agreement-based
organizations between the U.S. and allies are on our borders.
These Commissions address important border water and fisheries,
but the authorization levels in the current bill serve as a
cost-cutting measure, saving the American taxpayers over $31
million compared to the FY 2010 funding levels, and that there
has been some question about how those moneys have been spent
in the FY 2010 levels. And I just think that this is a very
prudent way to go and look at this, and I support the
underlying bill and the $7,237,000 request and not the $8
million increase.
At a time when we are really counting pennies in
Washington, and at a time when the American public is asking us
to do so; at a time when the American public is looking at
foreign aid, foreign assistance, foreign budgets, foreign
appropriations and asking us why are we even doing this; when
it is hard enough for us to really administer to the wants,
wishes and needs back home, I think what we have done here is
craft a bill that goes after what we need to have accomplished
with foreign aid, but in a very prudent and responsible way.
And if we continue to ratchet this back up, we are going to be
exactly where the public doesn't want us to be: Overspending
their taxpayer dollars at a time when we should be doing it in
a very prudent and efficient way.
And so while I respect the gentleman for his amendment, I
would ask this body to say no, because we have a financial
responsibility to the folks in our Nation, and we have to
address that. And I think this bill clearly does that while
also addressing the needs of foreign aid.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I yield my time to the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Higgins, the author of the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just say that in response, that Great Lakes water
resources represent about 20 percent of the world's freshwater
supply. And we saw with the situation in Ohio last week that
despite eight States and two Provinces of Canada coming
together to do a Great Lakes Compact, the desperate need for
freshwater threatens the compact and thus that great resource.
And it seems to me that this is a very little amount of
money within the context of what is at stake here. An
additional $750,000 is not a waste of money. It is an
investment in protecting and preserving the great resource of
the Great Lakes.
So I would yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Burton is recognized.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This amount that is in the bill is what the administration
requested for Fiscal Year 2012, and so the President has
already asked for this amount of money. I don't know why we
would want to increase it, with all due respect to my
colleague. The administration is agreeable to what is already
in the bill.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Seeing no other requests for time, and based on our
previous agreement, a recorded vote has been requested, and the
vote will be put into place after the second series of votes on
the floor.
Do any other members seek recognition on an amendment that
they might have?
Mr. Higgins is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair, I have another amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
of New York. In section 104(4), strike ``$31,291,000'' and
insert ``$38,900,000''.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will briefly suspend while the
amendment is given out, and then we will at the appropriate
time call upon Mr. Higgins to explain.
All the members having received a copy of the amendment,
the Chair recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My amendment would restore funding to the International
Fisheries Commissions to $38.9 million from the current
proposed funding level of $31.3 million.
This amendment would increase funding for these important
Commissions, but would still represent a nearly 25 percent cut
from funding levels for Fiscal Year 2011.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the largest Commission
funded through this program, is a critical resource for
ensuring that the largest freshwater lake system in the world
is healthy and thriving. The Great Lakes are vital economic
environmental resources for the communities I represent, and
the environmental health of those lakes is crucial to our
Nation's future. In fact, the Great Lakes fisheries and
recreational boating industries represent over $23 billion to
the economy, supporting over 75,000 jobs.
The Commission continues to address the environmental
challenges imposed by invasive species that run the risk of
destabilizing the entire marine habitat. Controlling these
invasive species has been essential to restoring the Great
Lakes fisheries, and adequate funding for control methods are
needed to ensure that these invasive species populations do not
proliferate, resulting in ecological and economic harm to the
Great Lakes fisheries.
Furthermore, the challenges of the Commission loom as the
prospect for the entrance of Asian carp into the Great Lakes
system. This poses the largest threat in recent memory to the
health of the Great Lakes.
Now is not the time to cut funding to these crucial
institutions. Approving my amendment would allow the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission and others to carry out their
important tasks.
I urge the committee to support my amendment to provide
adequate funding for these Commissions, and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, in the interest of time, I won't
go into the fact that the American public wants us to do more
with less and to really examine the way we are expending
foreign aid, but I would like to point out that the $31,291,000
is the administration's budget request, and what my gentle
friend from New York is asking is that we actually increase
what the administration is already asking. Quite frankly, I
think we have been more than generous to keep it at their
level. And so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
Do any members seek recognition? If not, we will call those
votes. We will call for a recorded vote at the specific time
when we come back.
And I would just like to note that because I had said there
will be no votes during this time, and I then asked for a
recorded vote, if when we come back you ask for your amendment
not to have a recorded vote, that would be fine. I am not
forcing you to have a recorded vote, but I can't do it any
other way, so I have to call for a recorded vote. Feel free to
let go of that request. Thank you.
Do any other members have an amendment on this section or
title?
Yippee.
We will now proceed to consider title II of the bill. The
clerk will designate the title.
Ms. Carroll. Title II--Department of State Authorities and
Activities.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Are there any amendments
to this title?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Wilson, and then we
will go--Ms. Wilson, amendment--do you need to clarify which
amendment?
Ms. Carroll. I do not have that amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is it the one on Tibet? I have seen
that.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Wilson
of Florida. At the end of section 212 the following: (d)
Bilateral assistance. Section 616 of the Tibetan Policy Act of
2002 is amended--(1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence,
by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection
(e)''; (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (d)''
and inserting ``subsection (e)''; (3) in subsection (c), by
striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)'';
(4), by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and (5)
by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
``(d) United States Assistance. The President shall provide
grants to nongovernmental organizations to support sustainable
economic development, cultural and historical preservation,
health care, education, and environmental sustainability
projects for Tibetan communities in the Tibet Autonomous Region
and in other Tibetan communities in China, in accordance with
the principles specified in subsection (e)----''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5
minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I rise to speak in support of my amendment that will merely
authorize what has already been appropriated, funding for
nongovernmental organizations to provide support to the Tibetan
communities in China.
In 2000 Congress established a program to provide grants to
nongovernmental organizations to support activities which
preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan
communities, and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, and in other
Tibetan communities in China. This program was first
administered by the Office of the Special Coordinator at the
State Department and run by USAID since 2003. The U.S.-based
grantees are the bridge funds, Winrock and the Tibet Poverty
Alleviation Fund. It is my understanding that the program has
strong support of USAID leadership, including Administrator
Shah.
Adoption of my amendment sends an important political
signal about U.S. interests in preserving the unique Tibetan
identity. Legislatively this program has been funded annually
in the foreign operations appropriations bill with bipartisan
support.
The program is currently funded at $7.4 million. The steady
state level for the next 3 years--for the last 3 years, the
budget request is for $5 million. However, this program has
never been authorized. A provision authorizing the program was
included in H.R. 2410, section 237, which passed the House in
2009. It was also included in H.R. 2475, the Republican
alternative introduced by our current chairwoman Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen. This amendment is the same exact language passed in
2009.
This amendment would authorize a program funded for more
than a decade by the Appropriations Committee, strengthening
the jurisdiction of HFAC. Better yet, the amendment neither
authorizes a specific amount, nor sets them as may be
necessary. It merely authorizes the program. I ask for your
support of this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
I would like to tell Ms. Wilson that you were so correct in
the way that you explained your amendment. The money is already
being used. This is to authorize it. We have no opposition on
our side. But based on what I had said that we would be rolling
amendments until a later time, although we are prepared to
accept your amendment, I will ask for a recorded vote. But feel
free to unrequest that, and then we will accept it as soon as
we get back into regular order.
So you are waiving? Well, wonderful. Then we accept the
amendment. Thank you very much for waiving, and without
objection the amendment is considered as having been adopted.
Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
Mr. Mack has an amendment at the desk.
Ms. Carroll. Number 32, Mr. Mack?
Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of Florida.
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2012. At the
appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: Section
[blank]. Sense of Congress Regarding Keystone XL pipeline. It
is the sense of Congress that--(1) the delay of the Secretary
of State to authorize the Presidential Permit for the Keystone
XL pipeline has adversely affected the United States economy
and weakened United States national security; (2) according to
the Energy Information Administration, in 2010, the United
States imported 2,321 barrels per day from Canada; 3) Canada,
as a democratic ally, offers a stable source of energy for the
United States; (4) support of this pipeline is contingent
upon----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And all the members have a copy of
the amendment, and Mr. Mack is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will try to be
brief.
The Keystone XL pipeline is really waiting just one permit,
and that permit sits with the Secretary of State. And what this
amendment does is to urge the Secretary to sign off on a permit
that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward.
And why is this a foreign--why is this in front of our
committee? Right now we get about 900,000 barrels of oil a day
from Hugo Chavez. The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver around
830,000 barrels per day. And the significance of this is we
could help a friend and ally in Canada and strengthen our
relationship with Canada instead of continuing to buy oil from
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
There have been numerous studies done on the environmental
impacts, and those studies have come back very strong on both
occasions. And I believe that the Secretary of State is
positioned to support this Keystone XL pipeline, and merely
what this amendment does is it urges her to sign off on the
Presidential Permit. And with that, I will yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman. And I might put this perhaps
ultimately in the form of a question to the author of the
resolution. As I understand it, this Keystone pipeline would
terminate in the Port of New Orleans; is that correct?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. Yes, it would.
Mr. Connolly. One of the concerns I have--I thank my
colleague, Madam Chairman--is that by not terminating, say, in
Oklahoma, by terminating in the export-oriented Port of New
Orleans, it suggests that by permitting this pipeline, we
aren't necessarily improving domestic access to Canadian oil.
We are facilitating the export of Canadian shale oil. And while
that may be a good public policy, I don't know that it
addresses the concerns the gentleman raised, legitimate
concerns, about improving domestic access to energy sources and
eliminating our reliance on foreign oil, especially Venezuelan.
And with that I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman
for the question.
This would bring the Canadian oil to the refineries and to
ensure that we are able to refine the product for domestic use.
But there is no doubt that we continue to buy oil at
roughly 900,000 barrels a day from Venezuela, and with this
pipeline, we would no longer need to buy our oil from Chavez.
One other, if you allow me. The oil that we get from Chavez is
a heavy crude oil, and there are only a few places in the world
where it can be refined. One of those places is in the U.S. The
oil that would be coming from Canada is that same heavy crude
oil. So you can understand then if we don't buy that oil from
Chavez, it is going to be harder for him to sell it to someone
because of the refinery capacity.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you.
Reclaiming my time. I am not going to oppose my colleague's
resolution, but I just say to him that I think this legitimate
source of concern that with the best of intentions--not his,
but the country's--that we end up facilitating the export of
this oil rather than for domestic consumption. And so when we
do address this issue on the floor, I am going to have an
amendment that would make contingent the approval of this
permit on the fact that the certification that the bulk of the
oil produced would be for domestic consumption, not for export,
and hopefully my colleague would see his way clear to
supporting such an amendment when it comes to the floor.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to compliment the gentleman from
Florida for introducing this amendment. And I recall that we
had a similar hearing on the matter about how much we import
the oil that comes from Mr. Chavez in Venezuela. And it is my
understanding I think we are purchasing from Mr. Chavez about
$113 million a day of the oil that we import from Venezuela.
That comes to about $14.6 billion that we are giving to Mr.
Chavez if we are going to look at in terms of the pricing. And
so I certainly want to thank my good friend from Florida for
offering this amendment, and I do support this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I
certainly agree with my friend Mr. Faleomavaega, but on the
other hand, I am sure he would share my concern that we not
find ourselves unwittingly facilitating the export of this oil
when the goal here is to lessen our reliance on foreign
imported oil, especially Venezuela under the Chavez regime. So
I just want to make sure that if we get this pipeline, and with
the risks attendant, that it does the intended, it meets the
intended goal which is for domestic consumption, not for
export.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a very difficult issue for me in that this pipeline
will go straight across a very environmentally sensitive area
of Nebraska. The committee may be wondering why we are dealing
with this. Mr. Mack rightly points out that the State
Department interestingly has jurisdiction over it because it
involves an international treaty. The State Department is also
in the process of doing a rigorous environmental assessment.
There is a very significant debate happening in Nebraska as
to whether this pipeline is appropriately sited. There is
another Keystone pipeline already in the eastern part of the
State located in my district where the soil is basically a
clay-type soil. Out west it is a sandy soil, it would run over
the Ogallala aquifer, again a highly sensitive area for
environmental purposes. So it is my opinion that the State
Department needs to take its time to make sure that whatever
siting is agreed to is done so in a manner that is
environmentally responsible.
So in good conscience, I am going to have to oppose this,
although I agree with the underlying premise that we do need to
be strengthening our partnership with the Canadians in looking
for appropriate ways to use that resource in our own
hemisphere.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any other members wish to be
recognized on this amendment?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again unfortunately,
I have to oppose my good friend from Florida. I will do so in a
calm voice this time. Listening to some of the argument--in
fact, I can understand some of the strong arguments that Mr.
Mack made in favor of it. But it is probably unwise to do--and
let me explain why real quickly. In the last year or so, we
have seen a nuclear meltdown in Japan, and a colossal oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico. Both of which are due, in large part, to
inadequate regulation and government oversight. So considering
the scale of these disasters, I find it perplexing that some
think we should short-circuit the process which is making the
pipeline safer. It is not just members of this side of the
aisle that say the State Department and the EPA review is
making the Keystone XL pipeline safer. It also comes from David
Goldwyn, a Republican witness who Chairman Mack called to
testify at a hearing of the pipeline, I believe. He stated
that--and I quote,
``The environmental impacts are important. The United
States is required under EPA to consider them. In fact,
the pipeline is safer because of comments that we have
received in the process, that the U.S. Department of
State has received.''
And you have heard right, even Keystone XL pipeline
supporters are saying the review process is working. So what is
the rush? Why rush now? The State Department has committed to
completing its review by the end of the year, and there is no
inside information or anything of that nature. But if I was
betting, I would wager that the State Department is going to
approve this pipeline.
Mr. Mack. Would you yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks, Mr. Mack, would like to--
--
Mr. Meeks. Yes.
Mr. Mack. Thank you. And I wouldn't disagree with a portion
of your statement. But I am not sure that maybe you are
speaking to a time past, because we have now--this is the
second review of the State Department. So the State Department
got an environmental study not once but twice. So there has
been ample time for the review of this. And, in fact, this
pipeline will be built to a higher standard than any other
pipeline. So I think, the concerns that you raise are
legitimate, and certainly having dialogue is a good thing. But
we have already had two now reviews, environmental reviews, to
the State Department.
So I think a lot of the concerns that you bring up were
valid but now the reviews have been in. They have had ample
opportunity to review those reviews. And I agree with you, I
think that they are going to sign off on this presidential
permit. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Reclaiming my time and just saying quickly, all
I am saying is I believe that it is going to please what, it is
going to happen fairly quickly. We have to make sure that we
don't have the colossal mistakes again.
Mr. Fortenberry. Will you yield me some time, Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. It is important to point out that by
taking extra time for this environmental review, there have
been changes made to actually strengthen the safety
considerations involved here in siting this pipeline. Now,
there are other issues still left undetermined. So I would
agree that there shouldn't--this body should not constrain a
thorough environmental assessment particularly given that as it
has gone on, we have had Keystone pipeline leakage.
We have had other pipelines in the area leak as well. So to
ensure there is a thorough and rigorous environmental process
without an artificial truncation with pressure from this body,
I think it is in the best interest of moving this forward in
the best way for environmental stewardship. I yield back to the
gentleman.
Mr. Meeks. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We have just been called
for votes but maybe we can dispense with this amendment. We
have Mr. Duncan and Mr. Sires, and now Mr. Berman. Let us see
if we can get through it. Mr. Duncan is recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to echo
the comments of my friend from Florida. We have to look at who
we are buying the oil from. Who are we relying on for American
energy resources. It is Middle Eastern countries. A lot of
times it is Venezuela who Hugo Chavez is not our friend. Canada
is our friend. They are a longstanding ally. Why do we continue
to depend on Middle Eastern energy sources controlled by a
cartel who is intent and concerned about their own pocketbooks
and not the pocketbooks of Americans, not the pocketbooks of
people in my district who are having to take a $100 bill out to
buy the same gasoline that they paid $20 or $30 for just a
short time ago.
So the Keystone XL pipeline will help meet America's energy
needs from a friendly source. And I want to echo that the
reason that it is terminating in Louisiana is because that is
where our refineries are in this country, along the Gulf Coast
where a majority of our sources of energy are.
So in order to bring the crude oil there and have it
refined into products that we can use as Americans has to be
refined, and the refineries are there on the Gulf Coast. So let
us buy from a friendly country. I want to thank my colleague on
the upper dais for putting this amendment up. Something I
firmly believe that we need to encourage the Secretary of State
to sign off on this and I yield back the balance.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. And
Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I support
Congressman Mack's effort to get this pipeline done. I support
it because I think we need it for domestic use. I would be
supporting Congressman Connolly's effort to make sure that the
oil that is imported from Canada is used domestically. I would
hate to see us running a risk of having this pipe go through
this country and not reap the rewards. I supported it in the
committee with you and I think it is a good thing for this
country that we import our oil from a friendly country like
Canada. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
Wilson is recognized.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And I am grateful to be
joining with my colleague from Pennsylvania also in support of
this amendment, and my colleague from South Carolina and
Florida, not only is Canada a great ally of the United States,
but this is creating jobs in South Carolina and in the United
States, specifically, the earth mover tires that are used in
the recovery of oil which will be in this pipeline are made in
Lexington, South Carolina. So hundreds of jobs are created
because of our relationship with Canada, and so I just see this
as a positive move at a crucial time where we have record
unemployment. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do any other
members seek--Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Yes. Just very quickly. I am actually very
sympathetic to this project with the one caveat that I want to
know what the consequences are on some of the issues that are
being looked at. In other words, if this is okay generally, the
notion that we can get a huge amount of our domestic energy
from Canada rather than from the Middle East is a tremendous
positive in reducing our reliance there. If you were to change
your words to the ``Secretary of State should promptly make a
decision on whether or not to authorize'' because--what I
cannot answer, I don't have the experience, the background to
know--is there something about this that is so detrimental to
our interests that my instinctive desire to see it happen I
should think--that is what is going on. I am told the
administration is going to decide this by the end of the year.
I'd just hate to put aside their process. Going with your gut
is sometimes a very good idea, but I think we have a process in
place and if it isn't taking too long and if we can get the
resolution within the next few months, we can move ahead on
this. I guess if you were to recast this, which my guess is you
aren't going to, to call for a quick decision by the Secretary,
I'd support it.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield down here?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Duncan. Sure. Can you assure us that the administration
is going to make the right decision and approve the XL
pipeline?
Mr. Berman. I can assure you that they will make a prompt
decision based on the movement of the head of a gentleman in
the second row. In other words----
Mr. Duncan. We are encouraging her to make the right
decision.
Mr. Berman. In other words, some of this is just a little
bit fact-based, and again, it is not religion. And I like the
argument for it, and I think if it could work, it is a great
answer to a very significant problem. Not a total answer, but a
significant answer to a great problem. But I still would like
to have a few facts that I am not capable of ascertaining on my
own. That is all.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Never let a gang of brutal facts get
in the way of a beautiful theory. Mr. Mack, your amendments
stir up a lot of debate. I like that. But seeing no other
people who would like to be recognized on this amendment, a
roll call vote has been asked for and our committee will
suspend for this next series of floor votes and we will come
back to vote on all of the roll call votes that have been
requested, and the committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
Thank you so much. As we had previously agreed, we will keep
debating and we will start voting at 4 o'clock. That way we can
debate and give proper attention to every member who has an
amendment. We are on title II. When we left off, Mr. Mack had
finished his amendment. And so--because we are not going to
vote--I will ask, do any members have amendments on this
section/title. Mr. Higgins is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment. I
will offer it and withdraw it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The clerk will read the
amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
of New York. At the appropriate place in the bill insert the
following: Section 215. Payment of passport fees. (a) In
General. Section 1(a) of the act of June 4, 1920 (22 U.S. Code
214(a)), is amended, in the first sentence, by
striking, quote, deg. ``into the Treasury of the
United States'' and inserting, quote, deg. ``to the
Department of State''. (b) Retention of Fees. Any amount
collected by the Department of State in Fiscal Year 2012 and
each fiscal year thereafter as a fee for visas, passports, or
other consular services may be credited as an offsetting
collection to the appropriate Department of State
appropriation,----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Move to consider the amendment as
read, because all of the members have a copy of the amendment
by now. The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. Mr. Higgins.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My amendment would
have the effect of reducing passport fees to reflect the actual
cost of the passport program. Currently, over half of the fees
and surcharges collected by the Department of State are
returned to the Treasury as general revenues, meaning the cost
of passports does not correspond with the cost to the
government for providing passports. This amendment would
require the State Department to set the passport fees no higher
than the cost of administering the passport program. As a
result of the new documentation requirements under the Western
Hemisphere travel initiative, over 240,000 passports have been
issued in Erie and Chautauqua counties since 2007.
Approximately 20 percent of the total population largely to
comply with the Western Hemisphere travel initiative.
A family of four looking to get passports to go to Canada
could pay upwards of $500 before they even cross the border. We
must do everything we can to decrease the cost of passports,
not find ways to get more money out of citizens who forced to
spend thousands of dollars just to maintain a quality of life.
Crossing the border to Canada should be convenient and not a
burden. I would urge the committee to support my amendment. And
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
herself for 5 minutes. As we had discussed in the break, Mr.
Higgins, your amendment also references appropriations language
which is not permissible in authorizing legislation under rule
XXI. So I would ask the gentleman if he was prepared to
withdraw at this time.
Mr. Higgins. I am.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is withdrawing his
amendment. If the clerk would so note. And I withdraw my point
of order. Thank you so much, Mr. Higgins, for that. I ask the
members if they have any amendments on this title. Mr. Berman
is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chair, I know that the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Deutch, has some amendments to title II, do
any of the other members of the committee who are not here--
that is not a good question.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You could present the amendment for
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Berman. And I also have an amendment that we are
reworking. So we are just finishing the drafting of it. Mr.
Deutch had at least one or two amendments on this.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I would ask the clerk, how many
amendments do you have from Mr. Deutch listed under title II?
Two amendments?
Ms. Carroll. We have two Deutch amendments for title II.
Mr. Berman. Do you have any other ones for title II?
Ms. Carroll. No, that is all we have.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman, would you like to
present the amendments for Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Berman. The only other way would be to move--if we--
through unanimous consent for those specific amendments and the
one--well, here is----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Deutchette.
Mr. Berman, you will do a wonderful job presenting these
amendments.
Mr. Berman. I know about as much as I do with my own
amendments.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely.
Mr. Berman. How about Amendment No. 621.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. On behalf of Mr. Deutch.
Ms. Carroll. On behalf of Mr. Deutch. At the end of title
II, section [blank]. Bureau on Counterterrorism. (a)
Establishment. There is established in the Department of State
a Bureau of Counterterrorism----
Mr. Berman. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be
dispensed with.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Granted. But let us just wait one
moment until everybody gets the amendment. That is why I let
her read. Will you suspend?
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Berman. I withdraw my unanimous consent request. Madam
Chairman? Since the resolution I actually do know something
about is at the desk----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I will ask the clerk to delay
consideration of the Deutch amendment as presented by Mr.
Berman, and let us go with the Berman amendment that is at the
desk. Without objection. If the clerk will report the Berman
amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Ma'am, the amendments are not ready right now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. They are coming right off the
printer as we speak, I am sure.
Mr. Berman. I thought that was just the clump of papers
that were handed to you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is multiple pages and they are
not stapled.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So we have it here. We can copy it.
It is the sense of Congress----
Mr. Berman. It is copied, but it is not stapled.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is fine. Just start reading. If
the clerk would--start reading the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
At the end of title II, insert the following: Section 200.
Sense----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 208?
Ms. Carroll. It is 208, sense of Congress regarding Turkey.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in all
official contacts with Turkish leaders and other Turkish
officials, should emphasize that Turkey should--(1) end all
forms of religious discrimination; (2) allow the rightful
church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without
hindrance or restriction, to organize and administer prayer
services, religious education, clerical training, appointments,
and succession, religious community gatherings, social
services, including ministry to the needs of the poor and
infirm, and other religious activities; (3) return to their
rightful owners all Christian churches and other places of
worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
holy sites, and other religious properties, including movable
properties, such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments, vessels,
and other artifacts; and (4) allow the rightful Christian
church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without
hindrance or restriction, to preserve, reconstruct, and repair,
as they see fit, all Christian churches and other places of
worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
holy sites, and other religious properties within Turkey.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with, even though you had actually
finished the reading. You are good. And I think every member
now has a copy of the amendment. And Mr. Berman is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain his sense of Congress amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Berman. Yes. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous
consent that the--208, No. 208 be stricken and we just--and
section 2. It would just be section 2.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. This
amendment incorporates with a slight change in the initial
paragraph in order to worm it into title II the result causes
from H. Res. 306, a bipartisan resolution that the gentleman
from California, Mr. Royce, and I have introduced that has 34
co-sponsors and I am offering this amendment with Mr.
Cicilline. This amendment is simple in its directness but
profound in his implications.
The Christian communities of Turkey, once populous and
prosperous, have long been victims of discrimination and are
now reduced to a mere handful. Whereas, well over 2 million
Christians lived in Anatolia a century ago, today there are
only a few thousand, and yet although Christians are less than
1 percent of Turkey's population today and clearly constitute
no threat to the majority, the various Christian communities
remain the victims of unthinkable discrimination. Their
churches have been desecrated, their properties confiscated and
they are denied the right to practice their religion as they
see fit or to train their clergy. Through this amendment, we
are asking that Turkey rectify this terrible situation. Much of
the worst damage to and confiscation of Christian properties
was done in the earlier decades of the Turkish Republic, but it
continues to some extent today.
And Christians suffer other forms of discrimination as
well. Every church in Turkey suffers petty harassment at a
minimum. Forced to apply to central authorities for
authorization to do any types of repairs or construction,
requests that often linger for months and years without
government action. Moreover, Turkey recognizes certain
Christian groups as legitimate but not others. If you belong to
one of the unauthorized groups, such as the evangelicals, you
can't even build a church. The amendment calls on Turkey to
make good on past transgressions and allow true freedom of
religion to achieve the standards of Democratic behavior to
which it says, and to which I believe it aspires.
We want Turkey to allow its Christian citizens to worship
exactly as they want and to allow them to train their clergy
exactly as they want. We want Christians to have the right to
preserve, reconstruct and repair their churches and other
communal buildings without hindrance or petty harassment as in
the case of all other democracies. We want our Turkey to return
confiscated property to Christian communities and at a minimum
to provide compensation for properties that can't be recovered.
In short, we want Christian communities in Turkey to enjoy
the same rights and privileges that religious minorities enjoy
in this country. That is not too much to ask. In fact, that is
the minimum we must ask if Turkey is ever to join the ranks of
the world's fully free nations. I urge all members to support
the amendment and I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank you.
And I would like to recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes to
speak on this amendment.
Mr. Bilirakis. I won't take the 5 minutes, Ms. Chairman.
But I want to thank the ranking member for offering the
amendment. I encourage support of this very important
amendment. It is imperative that the Turkish Government take
immediate steps to address serious concerns regarding its
treatment of believers of certain religions and reform its
policies to allow those denominations the freedom to worship,
congregate and preserve their religious sites and to return
those--to those organizations the properties that they have
previously held. And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. The
gentleman yields back.
Voice. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I had already seen--I don't know who
is saying my name, but Mr. Sherman had already gotten my
attention. So there are some folks over here. Mr. Sherman is
recognized.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I rise in strong support of this
amendment and am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 306 on which it
is based. The adoption of this amendment would add a powerful
voice, the voice of the United States Congress in the defense
of religious freedom for Christians in present day Turkey and
reinforce the traditional leadership of Congress in defending
freedom of faith around the world. This amendment is urgently
needed to address the vast destruction of Christian religious
heritage as a result of the Turkish Government's theft,
desecration and disregard of ancient Christian holy sites and
churches, many holding great significance to the world
Christian community. The U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom raises the following alarm in its 2011
report. The Turkish Government continues to impose serious
limitation on freedom of religion or belief, thereby
threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority
religious groups in Turkey. This amendment honors our heritage
as a Nation dedicated to religious liberty.
For example, in January 2011, President Obama noted,
bearing witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because
of their faith is essential to who we are as Americans. While
President Bush declared in 2009 no human freedom is more
fundamental than the right to worship in accordance with one's
conscience. Churches in Turkey have been desecrated. The
adoption of this amendment would help bring the attention of
the world to the Christian communities within Turkey which
remain highly vulnerable and are forced to endure restrictions
on their right to practice their faith. For example, of the
2,000 Armenian churches which existed in the early 1900s, less
than 100 remain standing and functioning today. The U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has, for 3
straight years, placed Turkey on their watch list.
In 2009, Bartholmew I, the ecumenical Christian orthodox
patriarch of Constantinople, appeared on CBS' ``60 Minutes''
and reported that Turkey's Christians were second class
citizens and that he personally felt crucified by a state that
wanted to see his church die out. Christian property is
routinely confiscated through discriminatory laws. The U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported, and
I quote, ``Over the past 5 decades, the Turkish state has using
convoluted regulations and undemocratic laws to confiscate
hundreds of religious minority properties, primarily those
belonging to the Greek orthodox community, as well as Armenian
orthodox, Catholics and Jews.'' The state has closed seminaries
denying these communities the right to train their clergy.
The Turkish Supreme Court issued a ruling just this year
transferring ownership of a substantial part of the ancient
Syriac monastery of Mor Gabriel dating from the 4th century
A.D., transferring that property to the Turkish state.
I think that it is important that we pass this amendment
and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much to the gentleman
from California. The order I have for speakers who have
requested time. Mr. Burton, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Royce, Mr.
Cicilline and Mr. Duncan. So we will go with Mr. Burton. Thank
you.
Mr. Burton. First of all, Madam Speaker, I support the
resolution. I think everybody on the dais believes in religious
freedom and believes that those who have religious views should
be able to express them freely in a free society. So I support
this. As a matter of fact, my wife and I have met with the
patriarch over in Turkey and have had a chance to talk to him
personally. There is just no question that there are questions
about religious freedom over there. However, the one thing that
I hope that we will realize as we discuss this and realize the
problems that do exist in Turkey today.
We also realize that they are a NATO ally and a lot of
these problems have gone back for 70, 80, 90, 100 years. And
while those problems, to a large degree still exist, we have to
realize that Turkey is a NATO ally, and while we are talking
about religious freedom and people's right, we also have to
realize that there are a lot of positives in having a good
relationship with Turkey.
So while I support this resolution and support religious
freedom, I think it is extremely important that we don't go
overboard in criticizing Turkey because it could have a bad
impact on the problems that we have in the Middle East right
now. Turkey is a NATO ally. They have been a conduit for us
getting supplies into Afghanistan and helping our allies and to
just beat them over the head on this issue to a larger degree
than what has already been done seems to me to be a little bit
excessive. But I do support the amendment. I do support
religious freedom and I hope that this amendment does pass.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Burton yields back.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
thank Mr. Berman for crafting language to put before us that is
consensus language and that obviously, I think, all of us can
rally behind. Religious freedom is a Tenet of American
philosophy. It is a cardinal American value. In fact, with
Thomas Jefferson, a native of my State of Virginia was
contemplating his gravestone, it was the Tenets on religious
freedom, not the presidency, that he wanted on his tombstone.
He thought it was that important.
So obviously, it is appropriate for an American Congress to
reiterate those Tenets and urge them on others. I would echo
what our friend Indiana just said. In this context we also have
to remember the importance and the criticality of the
relationship of a NATO ally and a country that with which we
have very important ties and relationships, and I think the
language drafted by Mr. Berman strikes a careful balance,
making the point while avoiding perhaps other entanglements and
other appointments that could be made in some other form and
agenda. And I thank him for that and look forward to supporting
the language. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Royce of
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Yes, Madam Chairman. The reason we are bringing
forward this amendment today, the reason that Ranking Member
Howard Berman and I have introduced legislation on this issue,
is because this is an issue that is ongoing in Turkey. And as
discussed--imagine a situation in which you have a country
where you had literally millions of people of many faiths and
over the last few generations, we have reached the point today
where the Baha'i and the Christians and the Jews in Turkey are
less than 1 percent of the population.
And in tandem with that, the personal experiences that we
have had in discussions with people that we have gotten to know
today who will try to practice religious freedom in Turkey and
have come under these constraints, constraints that frankly
have led to a situation where 2,000 churches are now 200 in
Turkey. A situation where no longer if you are a religious
minority can you effectively practice your religion because in
order to practice, you have got to be able to study, you have
got to have clergy teach your religion and if you can't
overcome the barriers to that, how are you going to keep that
religion alive? If those religious needs are not met, if we
don't speak out, if we don't--as the United States of America,
if we don't speak up for this principle, what do we think is
going to happen ultimately to those religious minority groups?
They are going to decline eventually. If this continues,
they are going to disappear. And that is why this resolution
urges Turkey to fulfill its obligation. The United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom points this out
repeatedly, Turkey is identified as a country among the world's
top violators of religious freedom, despite it being a
signatory of the universal declaration of human rights.
So we urge Turkey to fulfill its obligation, allow clergy
to train and students to study Christianity and other religions
there, return all confiscated church properties that were
stolen, frankly, provide religious minorities with the right to
own property, repair the damage that Turkey has caused with
these minority groups and allow people to practice their faith
freely.
And lastly, and most importantly, provide churches with
legal status and rights because until these churches, until the
Baha'i, until the Jews, until the Christians, until the Greek
orthodox have the legal status in Turkey, we are going to see
the winding down of a situation where they are now less than 1
percent. We are going to watch as they fear to even repair--you
cannot, on some of these--on some of these churches there is a
desire to put a cross back up on the church. On some of these
Greeks orthodox churches. Why not allow that? If it is a
secular society, why not allow the parish to do that.
People fear discrimination there. They fear that
discrimination while they study, while they practice, while
they are trying to teach their religion, and this goes to that
issue.
And let me close by saying this. The United States has a
vested interest in protecting religious freedom because by
threatening the vitality and survival of minority religious
communities, that threatens the fundamental freedoms that this
country was founded upon. That is why we have an obligation, I
think, and the entire international community has an obligation
to speak out now before it is too late, and these religions are
finally gone. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman from California yields
back. The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The respect for
the full exercise of religious freedom is really central to who
we are as Americans and central to the values and the ideals
that we promote all over the world, and I am proud to be an
original co-sponsor of the House Resolution 306, and I thank
Mr. Berman the courtesy in allowing me to cosponsor this
amendment and for his extraordinary leadership.
As a strong supporter of religious freedom, we have a
responsibility as a Congress to speak to this issue and really
a moral obligation to talk about what is happening in Turkey.
Christian communities in Turkey have long suffered from the
destruction and confiscation of their holy sites, the forced
closure of their theological schools and restrictions on their
right to worship according to their conscience. There are
reports that Christians are prevented from praying in their own
churches. Continued prosecution of the vulnerable Christian
minority in Turkey threatens the survival of their religious
tradition. The adoption of this amendment would support their
struggle for religious freedom, a value central to basic human
dignity and a basic civil right. My home State, the State of
Rhode Island, was founded by Roger Williams, on the principle
of religious liberty and freedom. And I am proud to support Mr.
Berman's amendment in that spirit. I urge my colleagues to do
the same and vote yes on this amendment. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman for yielding
back. Mr. Duncan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I just want to
thank the colleagues that put this language together. I am one
of the signers of the letter to President Obama. I think there
were 214 of those signers the last count I had. So this is an
issue that is important to a lot of us. I want to point out
that on June 12th of this year, I was in Turkey when they had
the parliamentarian elections. And it is interesting to note,
and I would like to have in the record here today that Turkey
elected its first Christian to the Turkish Parliament, Erol
Dora, Turkey's first Christian, part of the AKP party that took
over. And so I think it is interesting to note that we are
seeing some change hopefully in Turkey. But as a patriotic
American that understands the first amendment rights that we
have here and that we should be the country that promotes
religious freedom, not just in Turkey but worldwide, to give
folks around the world the opportunities that we have to
worship as we wish, as Christians or any other religious
organization, the freedoms that we have in this country should
be promoted worldwide.
So I want to commend my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Royce,
and Mr. Berman for their efforts on this to call on Turkey to
end religious discrimination, to cease all constrictions on
gatherings for religious prayer and education and return stolen
church property that you have heard about already.
So I want to urge my colleagues to get behind this
amendment, to sign onto the letter to the President if you
haven't already and get behind this issue. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Duncan, for
yielding back. And Mr. Engel is recognized and another speaker
that I have is Meeks, Carnahan and Rohrabacher. We will go to
you afterward. Thank you. If you could hold on, Mr.
Rohrabacher. Would you like to go now? No, sorry. We had a
Republican. Sorry. We have got to go to--and we want to go to
Mr. Engel. We wish, we desire, we really need to go to Eliot.
Mr. Engel. I am not letting my classmate Dana Rohrabacher
jump ahead of me. He comes before R in the alphabet you know.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Beauty before beast.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I rise in
strong support of this resolution, this amendment today. And,
you know, sometimes we get bills before us that are complicated
to understand and you have got to read them several times, you
have got to look at memos, you have got to see what they do and
then you hope you have a good knowledge of what they do. I read
this amendment. It is really easy. It is really simple. And I
don't think anybody should oppose it, no matter where they
stand with regard to Turkey or anything else like that. I would
like to just read it because I think it is important. It simply
is a statement of Congress regarding Turkey and it says that
Congress urges the Government of Turkey to honor its
obligations under international treaties and human rights law
to, one, end all forms of religious discrimination and, two
allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian church
properties without hindrance or restriction to organize and
administer prayer services, religious education, clerical
training, appointments and succession, religious community
gatherings, social services, including ministry to the needs of
the poor and infirm and other religious activities.
Well, no one could find any fault with that. Three, return
to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other
places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments,
relics, holy sites and other religious properties, including
movable properties such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments,
vessels and other artifacts, and finally, allow the rightful
Christian church and lay owners of Christian church properties
without hindrance or restriction to preserve, reconstruct and
repair as they see fit all Christian churches and other places
of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
holy sites and other religious properties within Turkey.
I don't find one thing objectionable in what I have just
read. I would ask any country to do that. In fact, many of you
know that one of my crusades here in the 23 years that I have
been here has been independence for Kosovo, to try to fight for
independence of Kosovo because the majority of people who live
in that country, 95 percent of them are Kosovo Albanians, the
majority of whom are Muslim. And as much and as fervent as I
have been of Kosovo independence and still am and have been to
the country many, many times, from day one, I have said that we
must take great pains to make sure that the monastery, the
Serbian orthodox monasteries in Kosovo are not desecrated or
taken care of, that the church needs to be insured that
everything that pertains to the church is under its control,
there needs to be freedom of worship, that there needs to be
all of these things. I don't find that inconsistent with any of
the principles in terms of Kosovo independence which I
wholeheartedly support or any of the principles here.
Yes, Turkey is an ally in NATO, and we recognize that. I
wish they would frankly act a little more like an ally of the
United States than they have lately. They really have gone
astray and gone away frankly from--their foreign minister has
set out a policy of Islamicism and has moved away from the
European Union and the West and the United States and has
behaved very poorly with the flotilla and Israel and the whole
bit, but that is beside the fact.
The fact is, who could be against safeguarding the right of
Christians in Turkey to worship and the right of churches to
keep their properties. Now, I have gotten notice from both the
Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly
of America are saying that and I find that completely
persuasive.
So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a
bipartisan amendment and with good cause to support this
amendment. I am in favor of religious freedom for all people
and certainly for Christians in Turkey. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, the gentleman
from New York. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And I am in support
of this amendment, but I would like to ask Mr. Berman, the
author of the amendment----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Several questions if I could.
Mr. Berman, this amendment is aimed at promoting religious
freedom in Turkey. Where would you rank Turkey in terms of
other Muslim countries in terms of freedom of religion?
Mr. Berman. Countries of the world?
Mr. Rohrabacher. And the world, yes. I mean, yes, the
planet, the world, not Mars----
Mr. Berman. You seem to limit it to Muslim countries. Is
there a different standard?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you agree with me that Turkey is a
relatively free country as compared to other countries that
have such large Muslim populations?
Mr. Berman. Could I answer the question with a question?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you don't want to answer my
question.
Mr. Berman. Why do you keep limiting this to Muslim
countries?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Because Turkey finds itself in a part of
the world not surrounded by Western democracies, but instead,
bordering many countries that have, perhaps, less freedom than
the Turks do, yet we have in front of us, yes, an amendment
that is accurate, but it is aimed at perhaps the freest country
in the region. I am trying to understand why.
Mr. Berman. It is not my intention to hold Turkey to the
particular standard you have chosen to articulate. Turkey is a
modern country that is a member of NATO that is a candidate for
EU members that is a close ally on which we have many important
relationships. But in this particular area, their practices for
many years after--in the post----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. Ottoman period have been
atrocious.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time. Obviously there is a
double standard being put to use here clearly. Now, I agree
with everybody here. I am going to vote for this because it is
true. The same reason I vote for the Armenian genocide
resolution and these other things that have happened with
Turkey in the past. If they are true, I vote for them and this
is true. But that doesn't mean there isn't a double standard
that is being used against Turkey. I will----
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Let me go on for one moment. We all
know this. People come into my office all the time. Jews will
come into my office and say, ``What have you done for Israel?''
and Irishmen will come in and say, ``What have you done to help
us in Ireland to promote peace?''
And of course, the Greeks and the Armenians come in saying,
``What have you done to hurt Turkey?'' For Pete's sake, the
bottom-line is we are supposed to be--yes, we will stand up for
the principle, and that is what is in this amendment, that is
why I will vote for it. But we have a terrible double standard
when it comes to Turkey. And the Armenians and the Greeks, yes,
they have legitimate concerns, but that doesn't mean we have to
be inconsistent and always express those concerns and make
Turkey feel that we are singling them out from all the other
Muslim countries who have a worse record than Turkey has.
If we want to drive them in the opposite direction, that is
what we are doing. By doing things like this, we are not
promoting freedom in Turkey. We are making them think that we
are singling them out and have a total double standard.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Give me a break. There are many ills in this world. There
are many governments that are not living by standards, I
think--involved a fundamental commitment to universal human
rights. This resolution, which you have defined as accurate----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. And something that you will
support, you are sort of working yourself into a rage that I am
offering something that you think is accurate----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, I----
Mr. Berman [continuing]. Because there are other evils in
the world.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Berman. The gentleman from California----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher reclaims his time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
No, you could have had on this--we suggested that our
leaders of our Government, the Secretary of State and others,
when meeting with people from that region, including Turkey and
naming several other countries, should talk about freedom of
religion and all these other things.
Mr. Berman. I agree.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Instead, you didn't put that in there. You
just singled out----
Mr. Berman. I also didn't put who is borrowing money----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher has his time----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. That he has not
yielded.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, I rise in support of this amendment because it is
the right thing to do. Religion--and once we learn to be
tolerant of religion, different than ours especially, we will
be there a lot better and safer place. And we have to encourage
all to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to practice
his or her religion of choice, and they should not be
discriminated against because of his or her religion.
Now, clearly, in this particular instance, Turkey, in my
estimation, has shown some forward progress and flexibility--
for example, in the nationality of the patriarch. And I hope
that an agreeable solution can be found on the Halki seminary,
perhaps as incorporated under a Turkish university of the Greek
Orthodox community's choosing. But more can and should be done.
And I thank the ranking member for his language in this bill,
so that it makes it--so that it brings us all together.
And I think that is what the key is. The key is trying to
figure out--because religion is a way of life. And a religion
shouldn't be something, no matter what your religion, that
separates us or to make us not like one another. It should be,
you have the freedom of the way of life and the freedom of the
belief that you have.
And I would just, you know, give a cautionary note, as we
do talk to other countries, et cetera, we in the United States
need to also take a check at ourselves. When I look at the
debate that we have had in New York about whether or not
Muslims can build a mosque in New York City or not, practicing
their religious freedom, whether or not--and I hear the debate,
people questioning whether or not the President of the United
States is a Muslim or not, as if that should be considered. He
is not, but his religion should not preclude him from being the
President of the United States, as people are talking about
here.
So it is easy to look out and talk to other people about
what they should do--and we should, because if you stay silent
when you know something is wrong, then you are allowing it
continue. So we have to be vocal about it. But we also have to
make sure--we don't live in a glass house. We have to make sure
that our house is also taken care of, because people are
looking at us also. And when you look at people burning the
Koran or other things of that nature, we are talking about
their religion.
So we have to lead by example in the United States also.
And I think, by and large, we have. But I just get concerned
when I hear the kinds of issues and the long debates that we
have had about even the President's--whether he is a Christian
or whether he is not. And he has stated over and over what his
beliefs were, but we doubt it, as if it would be something
negative if he was.
For me, you know--and I am a devout Christian. We talked
about--someone just mentioned that--and in Turkey, they
finally--they elected a Christian. Well, it took us a long
time; just recently we elected two Muslims to the United States
Congress. It just happened--not, you know, 4 years ago, that
hadn't happened.
So there is progress that is being made on all sides, and I
think that is a good thing. And I think that we have to make
sure that--you know, in the words of Dr. King, Dr. King said,
``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' And
so, if we allow religious discrimination anywhere, then it is a
threat to practicing religion everywhere, and it affects all of
us.
And so, Mr. Berman, again, thank you for writing an
amendment that we can all agree upon so that we can get this
message across. And, hopefully, we can all make this place that
we call ``Earth'' a more tolerable and a better place, as we
all practice our individual religion.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Meeks. I yield.
Mr. Ackerman. I thank the gentleman very much.
Well said.
I just can't help but laughing. It is really extraordinary
that we take out all this time to fight about something we
agree upon, and to do it with such venom.
You know, Turkey certainly stands not without blemish, but
they are among the closer countries to us in that area, which
causes one some concern and gives us an additional ability to
have--what friends would say, we have a call upon each other
and a right to say to our friends and very, very important
player in the region that there are things that you could do to
burnish your image and look like the country that you hope to
be; this is one of those areas.
There is no double standard. We are just talking about
Turkey in this amendment. Bring up any country in any amendment
that you want, and if there are problems with human rights or
religious freedoms, I think we would all be willing to support
that amendment.
But let's try to at least agree on the things we know we
agree on, instead of just picking each other apart because we
are sitting on different sides of the aisle. This thing is
getting ridiculous here.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields.
Who had the time? Mr. Meeks? Does Mr. Meeks yield?
Mr. Meeks. Yeah, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Yes, we are loving it to death. Never has an amendment so
loved been so controversial.
Mr. Smith, then Mr. Carnahan, then Mr. Poe.
Mr. Smith. I will be very brief, Madam Chair. Just to point
out that this is a very timely and, I think, a very important
amendment.
You know, the May edition, just-released edition of the
Commission on International Religious Freedom, points out that
the Turkish Government continues to impose serious limitations
on freedom of religion or belief, threatening the continued
vitality and survival of the minority religious communities in
Turkey. They have also pointed out that, when Turkey was placed
on the Commission's watch list in 2009, the issues related to
religious freedom have deteriorated to this end. So the glide
slope is in the wrong direction in Turkey, not the right
direction. And that goes equally for both the Christians and
the rising tide of anti-Semitism.
I chair the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe and never miss an opportunity to raise this with our
counterparts in the Turkish Parliament, both Christians and
Jews, who are increasingly put at risk--and that, of course,
would include the Orthodox and the Armenians.
So I think it is timely and it is always, I think,
appropriate to raise this issue in the hopes of providing
additional freedoms and respect for this fundamental human
right.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much to the gentleman
from New Jersey. He yields back.
And Mr. Carnahan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I want to thank Mr. Berman and Mr. Royce for putting
together this balanced amendment, but also that includes frank
language but also language that I think can unify us around our
common values instead of dividing us.
Last year, our subcommittee had a briefing on the status of
religious freedom around the world. This is a key element and a
key measure for us to have included in our relations around the
world. It is a key indicator for free and developing societies.
Turkey has been a longtime ally and friend, and so we can
and should speak frankly to them about this. We should
recognize progress they have made, but we should also urge them
to do more. They have been a key NATO ally. They are a key
world economy. And they are especially today a key example of a
moderate, Muslim, democratic country. During this vital time of
transition for so many Muslim countries across the Middle East
and North Africa, they are a model in many respects for how
those countries can succeed. So we need them at the table. We
need to continue to urge them to do more.
And to the broader question that many have raised here
today, Chairman Smith spoke about the International Commission
on Religious Freedom, the annual reports that they come out
with each year. It is important that we look at those, measure
that progress, not just in Turkey, but in other countries
around the globe.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
And Mr. Poe of Texas is recognized because that is just the
way it is.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do support the amendment, but I do have the same concerns
that Mr. Rohrabacher from California has. It seems to be
traditional in the United States we are always harder on our
allies and our friends than we are on our enemies for some
reason. And I think we should have an equal standard and make
sure that we promote religious liberty and freedom everywhere,
not just in certain specific countries.
I was with the gentleman from South Carolina and Mr.
Carnahan of Missouri when the free elections took place in
Turkey, and I do believe they are making progress. I commend
them for the progress that they are making, and I would hope
that we would commend them where they are doing good. We should
look to the future with Turkey. They are an ally of the United
States, and support religious freedom everywhere, including in
the United States.
And, with that, I will yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment. And we will have a recorded vote on
that amendment, but we will now proceed in the order that I had
stated.
Pursuant to committee rule 4 and the prior announcement of
the Chair, recorded votes will now take place on the following
amendments that were postponed and will be taken now in this
order: First, we will have the amendment offered by Ms. Bass to
section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The second amendment, offered by
Ms. Wilson of Florida, to section 103, regarding peacekeeping
contributions and Haiti. The third vote will be Amendment No.
17 offered by Mr. Higgins, raising the funding level for the
International Joint Commission. The fourth vote will be the
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Higgins, raising the funding
level for the International Fisheries Commission. The fifth
vote will be the amendment offered by Mr. Mack regarding the
pipeline. And the last vote--not the last vote of today, but
the last vote in this series will be the amendment just offered
by Mr. Berman, loved by all, on the sense of Congress regarding
Turkey.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. In all fairness, because we were rewriting it
to get it into title II, it is a Berman-Cicilline amendment.
And I just----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let the record so reflect, with
unanimous consent.
Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Will it be the Berman-
Cicilline-Ackerman amendment?
Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, I just wanted to clarify that it
is the amendment, not Mr. Berman, that is loved by all.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Both, both, both. Please. Cherished,
admired, respected, revered, feared.
So the clerk--are we all--I don't want to confuse anyone.
Are we clear on the votes that will take place?
The first vote will be the amendment offered by Ms. Bass to
section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
Pence?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes
and 25 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
The next vote is on the amendment offered by Ms. Wilson of
Florida to section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions in
Haiti.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton? Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Wilson, are you recorded?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Madam Chair, how am I
recorded?
Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, sir.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I seek to vote no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will call the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 19 ayes
and 25 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment is not agreed to.
Thank you. We will now move to Amendment No. 17, offered by
Mr. Higgins, raising the funding level for the International
Joint Commission.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
Deutch?
Mrs. Schmidt. One more. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 19 ayes
and 25 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
We will now move to Mr. Higgins' No. 16 amendment, raising
the funding level for the International Fisheries Commission.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members have been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 20 ayes
and 24 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
We will now proceed to the amendment offered by Mr. Mack,
regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes aye.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes yes.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 30 ayes
and 14 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
Our last rolled vote is the amendment offered by Mr. Berman
on the sense of Congress regarding Turkey.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
Mr. Paul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Pass.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ayes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 43 ayes
and 1 no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
We will now go back to regular order.
And, Mr. Deutch, we have two amendments that you have
offered under title II. And if you would like to offer your
amendments at this time.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Amendment 621 is what we are on. Madam Chair, I think this
has been distributed.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
And we all have a copy of it. Let's just make sure we all
do. It is Bureau of Counterterrorism.
Mr. Deutch is recognized to explain his amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Deutch. Madam Chairman, this amendment would authorize
a new Bureau of Counterterrorism. It is based on a
recommendation of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review to elevate the position of the coordinator for
counterterrorism.
Madam Chairman, when the Office of Counterterrorism was
first created during the Reagan years, counterterrorism was an
important yet relatively peripheral issue in the Department.
That has changed dramatically in the last 20 years.
Elevating the office to a bureau accomplishes two goals:
First, it strengthens the position of the coordinator, enabling
that individual to serve as a more effective leader of U.S.
counterterrorism activities. Statutorily, the coordinator for
counterterrorism is supposed to coordinate all U.S. Government
counterterrorism activities, but, in practice, it does not work
that way. Creating a bureau puts the coordinator on the same
footing as his colleagues at the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security. It gives him a more expansive
role in the State Department.
Second, converting to a bureau would have allow the
coordinator to strengthen States' involvement in new, powerful
counterterrorism activities, such as multilateral and bilateral
diplomacy to advance U.S. counterterrorism goals, building the
capacity of foreign partners to fight terror, and coordinating
public diplomacy and military information support programs.
Since 9/11, we have seen the role of the Department of
Defense evolve dramatically. That department now fights not
only terrorists but battles the underlying conditions that lead
to terror. The Department of Defense speaks of ``influencing
the global environment and eroding support for extremist
ideologies.''
I view these as fundamental functions of the Department of
State and USAID. And I view the coordinator for
counterterrorism as a point person in the Department's efforts
to coordinate these activities. Just as DoD's role has changed,
so, too, should that of the coordinator for counterterrorism to
reflect this expanded mission.
I am aware that, although many on this committee support
the counterterrorism efforts of the Department, there are
concerns about establishing a new bureau. And yet I support the
fundamental recommendation of the QDDR to establish a bureau
and, given the imminent threats faced by the United States,
want to see this bureau established as soon as practicable. For
that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch.
Do other members seek recognition to speak on the
amendment?
Mr. Royce is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Yes, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the
gentleman's focus here on counterterrorism, but I have a couple
of concerns about this amendment.
And I am not convinced that making the office of the
special coordinator for counterterrorism a bureau would make
its activities any more effective. I think that is the
conceptual point we need to concern ourselves with. It is an
office today, and it is an office because it is supposed to
coordinate programs. It is not supposed to implement them. Its
responsibility is to coordinate programs, which is exactly what
offices do, and that is why it is an office.
And I just haven't heard enough about why we should move
away from the coordinator model, which is what is suggested
here. And if you think about it, also, it is the person doing
the job that makes the difference when it comes to
effectiveness, not the title. But the basic job here is the job
of the bureau.
Now, let's take the second point. If the administration
feels that this is important, then they already have the
authority to create a bureau here. The problem is that they
have other priorities, right? The State Department's numbers of
bureaus are capped at 29, and right now they have--I think it
is 27, right? Twenty-seven bureaus. They can't create a Bureau
of Counterterrorism because they have given preference to
creating a new Bureau for Conflict Stabilization and a new
Bureau for Energy Resources. And the bottom line is, that is
the administration's choice. So I would feel better about this
amendment if it struck one of these new or even several of
these currently existing bureaus.
But the base bill--and let's think about what we are doing
with the base bill here--the base bill has a provision
requiring the President to send Congress a feasibility study to
eliminate duplicative bureaus and offices and positions. So the
administration has already made its decision here. What we are
trying to do is get more efficiency out of the bureaucracy. So
let's get that information, and then we can make a better
choice about where in the bureaucracy counterterrorism should
be housed.
And one thing I am certain about is that the State
Department does not need 30 assistant secretaries, which would
be the practical result of this amendment if we do not
basically reduce other bureaus at State. And, frankly, it goes
against the intention of the underlying bill here, which is to
get that feasibility study to eliminate duplicative bureaus,
offices, and positions. As I say, if the administration wanted
to do this, they could do it.
So I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I rise in support of the amendment and yield my time to the
sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. I thank the ranking member.
In response to the gentleman from California, three points.
First, the idea of eliminating duplicative bureaus is one
that I think we can all support, but there is no suggestion
that there is a duplicative bureau that deals with
counterterrorism. In fact, there is no bureau that deals with
counterterrorism. That is the purpose of this amendment.
Secondly, in response to the suggestion that simply
changing the title won't have an effect, I would again restate
that, by creating an Assistant Secretary of State for
Counterterrorism, we would be putting that person at State on
the same level as his counterparts at DoD and the Department of
Homeland Security, exactly the position that person should
hold, given the responsibilities that come with that job.
And, finally, if this is merely a problem with the number,
the number of assistant secretaries, the number of bureaus as
currently capped, I would gladly entertain a secondary
amendment to my amendment to increase that cap by one so that
we could accomplish it that way.
And I yield back.
Mr. Royce. Would the gentleman yield before----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Royce [continuing]. He yields back?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, would you like to yield?
Mr. Deutch. Gladly. Gladly. I yield.
Mr. Royce. Mr. Deutch, when you were responding to my
points, again, the point I was making is that it is an office,
rather than a bureau, because the function here, the
responsibility, is to coordinate programs. It doesn't have the
function of implementing programs. It is not, in fact, a
bureau. That is why it is set up that way. That is probably why
the administration has not made it a bureau.
So I would just suggest that--that point I would just
reiterate. And your amendment might seek, in keeping with the
underlying bill, to cut the number of bureaus and then let the
administration make the choice of how it wants to reorganize.
I yield.
Mr. Deutch. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Reclaiming my time, I would simply point out that the role
of--currently the role of coordinator, ultimately the role of
Assistant Secretary, is not merely to coordinate programs but
to lead the fight at State Department in the counterterrorism
area.
And I would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mr. Connolly. Well, would the gentleman yield before he
yields back?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly----
Mr. Deutch. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. You know, I am struck, Mr. Deutch, by the
fact that, in the culture of the State Department--and I take
to heart our colleague from California, Mr. Royce's words. But,
on the other hand, as a longtime observer of the State
Department and somebody who used to, on the staff level, write
these authorization bills in the other body, what has always
struck me is that, you know, hierarchy and status, in a sense,
are everything, and that by elevating counterterrorism to
bureau status we have made a statement in terms of elevating
the issue and insisting on more coordination and making sure
that this has equal status with other functions within the
State Department as opposed to sort of the stovepipe mentality
that this is somebody else's assignment at the clerical level.
And it strikes me that that is really, in many ways, what
you are getting at, Mr. Deutch, if I understand your amendment.
Would that be correct?
Mr. Deutch. That is correct. That is exactly what we are
getting at in this amendment.
Again, this office was created during the Reagan years.
Counterterrorism was hardly--played hardly the role that it
does today. That added stature that would come, as the
gentleman from Virginia points out, is exactly what is
necessary to put this officer on the same footing as his
colleagues at Defense and Homeland Security.
Mr. Connolly. And as I recall, Mr. Deutch, actually, the
State Department had some issues in terms of coordination and
the passing on of intelligence prior to 9/11 in terms of,
frankly, monitoring al-Qaeda. And, you know, obviously, since
9/11 we have made counterterrorism a priority. But ensuring
that it is enshrined as a priority for the State Department and
that, hopefully, those problems of the past are no longer with
us is also encompassed in the intent of your amendment.
Would that also be correct?
Mr. Deutch. That is correct. And I appreciate the gentleman
from Virginia pointing that out.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McCaul is recognized.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield to the
gentleman from California, Mr. Royce.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. I thank Mr. McCaul for yielding.
Well, the suggestion I was going to make to Mr. Deutch, in
keeping with the legislation here, how about a secondary
amendment to eliminate a bureau that already exists? You would
keep it at 29. We need to make choices, but in so doing at
least we keep with the intention of the legislation.
As I already reiterated, the administration could do this
if it wanted to. Let us make the choice. Let's keep it at 29
but dictate the elimination of 1 bureau and put this on the
list.
I think that is a credible suggestion for a secondary
amendment, which you might want to consider accepting.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I am
not--this is not, I don't believe, a--this is not an issue of
whether or not we have too many bureaus. This is a question of
whether fighting counterterrorism deserves added importance.
Mr. Royce. But keep in mind that one of the things we are
doing with the legislation is we are making a choice. This is
about the need to make choices. If you make that choice and we
do that with a secondary amendment, you can achieve your goal,
even though the administration has not elevated it to that
position.
I would just suggest that to you for your contemplation. It
is an idea. It is not a bad one.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. And I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I
am not prepared to engage in an evaluation of the various
bureaus to determine whether one should be reduced. I believe
the issue is important enough that elevating----
Mr. Royce. But----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. But returning to my time, it is an issue of
making choices. Because a new bureau is going to cost money.
The administration has not made that choice. If we make that
choice, let's do it, but let's continue to cap it at 29. We can
do that.
And let me yield to the----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Royce [continuing]. Gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Burton. I would like to know how they came up with 29
bureaus. I mean, why is it not 25? Why is it not 35? Where did
this number, 29, come? Does anybody know?
Mr. Royce. Well, probably for the reason--reclaiming my
time--for the reason that it is not 1,000. At some point, you
have to control the size of the bureaucracy because the
bureaucracy becomes unwieldy. And just as we know that too many
Cabinet positions creates a certain roadblock toward the
ability to operate efficiently, so it is with bureaus. And
there is an attempt to keep this within the confines not only
of a budget but also of being able to operate effectively. You
build a bureaucracy too large and you----
Mr. Burton. Well, if the gentleman would yield further.
Mr. Royce. Yes.
Mr. Burton. I am not questioning whether or not it should
be 29 or 28. I was just curious about----
Mr. Royce. Right.
Mr. Burton [continuing]. Where this number originated,
because it seems to be stuck on 29. Was that legislated?
Mr. Royce. Yes. Congress authorized it, and we did it in
order to keep this from proliferating to the hundreds.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McCaul, do you yield back?
Mr. McCaul. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does any other member seek
recognition on this amendment?
If not, the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Votes aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I vote no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Just one moment, ma'am.
Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes and 20 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Mr. Deutch, did you have another amendment on this title?
Mr. Deutch. I do, Madam Chair, Amendment 29.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
of Florida. At the end of title II, section [blank]. Report on
Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy of
the Department of State. (a) Report. Not later than 3 months
after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of
State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the Senate a report on the resources and effectiveness of
the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy
of the Department of State. (b) Contents----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment. Mr. Deutch is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It has been 1 year since Congress passed the Comprehensive
Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This
legislation, the most robust sanctions package to date, coupled
with the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and a
newly strengthened sanctions package from the European Union,
gave us the tools to create a targeted international sanctions
regime aimed at bringing maximum economic pressure on the
Iranian regime to halt its illicit nuclear program.
In the year since the President signed CISADA into law, the
Iranian regime has continued to advance its nuclear weapons
program, with the latest report from the IAEA identifying
possible military dimensions to the Iranian program and plans
to triple highly enriched uranium production. In addition to
its flagrant violation of international nuclear
nonproliferation laws and sanctions policy, the regime has
continued to be the leading sponsor of terrorist organizations
like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
For the past year, members of this committee, including the
chairman and ranking member, both of whom have been so
committed to this issue, have lamented over the lack of
implementation and enforcement of CISADA. We have questioned
countless witnesses about the lack of sanctions on major energy
companies and the seemingly slow progress of investigations. We
have cited news reports of developing deals and new investments
in the Iranian energy sector and wonder why no determinations
were made and sanctions imposed.
Madam Chairman, in a subcommittee hearing just weeks ago,
the Director of the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic
Sanctions Policy, the office within the State Department
charged with initiating and conducting investigations into
sanctions violations, sat before many of us on this full
committee and confirmed that his office has three and a half
full-time staff devoted to these efforts--three and a half
full-time staffers to determine the validity of thousands of
news reports, documents, and statements about the thousands of
energy firms potentially operating or looking to operate in
Iran. Many Members of Congress, Madam Chairman, have five times
as many staff members.
As we look to pass new legislation in the coming months
that would further tighten our existing sanctions policy, we
must make sure the United States Government has the necessary
resources to properly execute these laws. This amendment
requires that a report be issued on the ability of the Office
of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy to
effectively carry out its duties given its current resources.
It will provide an assessments of how additional resources
would enhance the efforts of the office, and it will also
address what has continued to be a troubling issue for many of
us--the pace of investigations--by providing an analysis of the
potential impact of increased personnel, contracting authority,
and resources for the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic
Sanctions Policy on the timeframe for a typical investigation's
initiation, performance, conclusion, and resolution.
If we are serious about stopping the threat to national and
international security posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, then we
must not only continue to create the most stringent framework
of targeted, biting sanctions, but we must ensure that we are
providing the necessary tools to implement and enforce these
laws to their fullest extent.
Madam Chairman, this is a de minimis report that would not
be scored by the CBO. Any cost can be offset by the repeals
listed in section 1 of this legislation. And I urge your
support of this amendment.
I thank the members, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Deutch of
Florida, for your amendment.
And Mr. Burton is recognized.
Mr. Burton. Well, I see that the committee is possibly
going to accept this amendment. I was just going to state that
I think it makes a lot of sense.
I think Mr. Deutch is correct; if we are going to impose
sanctions, we need to know when and how we are going to impose
them. And we need the personnel that can study the issue and
make a decision as quickly as possible.
So I think it is a good amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other recognition for
time, then we will perhaps have a voice vote.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Burton. I move we accept the amendment unanimously.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. And I move that that
be done, without objection. My magic wand.
Thank you. Yippee.
Mr. Deutch, any more amendments on title II?
Does any other member have amendments to title II of the
bill?
Having no further amendments on that title, we will then
proceed to title III. The clerk will designate the title.
And before you do so, Madam Clerk, I would like to ask
unanimous consent from the members that, pursuant to rule 4, I
am announcing that from 6:30 to 8 o'clock p.m., any recorded
votes will be rolled until at least 8 o'clock p.m. However,
debate and voice votes will continue during that time.
So recorded votes will be rolled until at least 8 o'clock,
but we will continue to debate the amendments. You must be
present to win. You must be present to lose. No tickee, no
laundry. If you are not here, you can't present it, or you can
have someone else present it for you. But we will continue with
our business.
Mr. Berman. Reserving----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. I am just reserving the right to object. I
don't intend to, but--so we are now starting title III. We will
proceed with amendments for title III.
To the extent the amendments are considered and a roll call
is requested, that process will take place at that time until
6:30. And then at 6:30, from that point on, amendments that are
taken up, if a roll call is requested, that roll call will be
postponed.
I thought it was going to be until 8:30. Because Georgetown
is a long way from here. No----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 8:15.
Mr. Berman. 8:15. Okay, 8:15.
But if we finish a title during that time and a person is
not here to offer their amendment, they lose their chance to
offer that amendment. That is my understanding of your----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is correct. If the gentleman
would yield. Or you can have a member offer it on your behalf.
Mr. Berman. Just so it is not me.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So, to be clear, once again,
pursuant to rule 4, I am announcing that we will not have
recorded votes from 6:30 to 8:15. And we will have voice votes.
And you must be present or have a friend present your amendment
because we will move by section and title, and if you are not
here, we are not going back in time.
So thank you. It shall be done. And with that, we were
about to enter the title III, and we had the clerk designating
the title.
Madam Clerk.
Ms. Carroll. Title III--Organization and Personnel
Authorities.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are there any amendments to this
title?
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Fortenberry of Nebraska. At the end of title III, insert the
following: Section 311. Diaspora Affairs. (a) Statement of
Policy--it shall be the policy of the State Department Bureau
of Population, Refugees, and Migration to track resettled
refugee patterns, migrations, and educational and skill set
accumulations in the United States with the goal of engaging
new Americans for the purpose of facilitating U.S. national
security, humanitarian, and economic goals in their home
countries.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair reserves a
point of order. The amendment is still being given out.
The Chair recognizes the author to explain the amendment,
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is my understanding there is a point of order problem
here as well as a jurisdictional issue, so I am going to
withdraw the amendment momentarily, but I do want to speak to
the issue since I think it is a possible idea that some of us
may want to consider moving in another measure.
Madam Chair, the Nebraska delegation for about almost the
last 70 years on a weekly basis, when we are all in Washington,
gets together for a breakfast. And any Nebraskans who are in
town can join us, and that even includes U.S. Senators. And we
have a good lively discussion with our constituents. And
recently a young man who was a Sudanese refugee, a new
American, who actually grew up from childhood in Nebraska and
went to the University of Nebraska in Omaha, came to that
breakfast and told us after that referendum in Southern Sudan,
he went back to the village where his family had come from and
began his project of digging a well for the people there.
I say that simply because it wasn't until the registration
began for the Southern Sudanese referendum earlier this year
that it was realized that the largest population of Southern
Sudanese refugees in the United States is in my home State of
Nebraska. Many of these refugees came to America over the years
during the course of the violence in the former Sudan and were
settled in communities across the country, but for various
reasons, such as migratory patterns, jobs, family and tribal
linkages, a vast number of refugees made their home in
Nebraska.
Following the referendum until Southern Sudan's official
independence on July 9th, my office learned there was not any
type of focus on following the progress of new Americans,
refugees, in our country.
Furthermore, as many refugees in Nebraska inquired as to
how they could help their former home establish independence
and work toward becoming a strong and viable nation, I learned
that refugees with in-demand technical skills and educations
were not being called upon to assist U.S. development and aid
efforts in South Sudan.
Many refugees from other places throughout the world desire
the opportunity to make a difference in their former homes when
U.S. diplomacy creates the opportunity for peace and new
beginnings.
This amendment would have, if we had considered it, would
have made it policy of the State Department Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration to track resettled refugee
patterns, migrations, educational and skill set accumulations
in the United States with the goal of engaging these new
Americans for the purpose of facilitating U.S. national
security, humanitarian and economic pursuits in their former
countries.
I know many refugee doctors and engineers and others with
technical skills that could help in development efforts are
eager to make such a difference. We should use their linguistic
and educational talents, as well as cultural familiarity.
And again, I understand there is a point of order with this
amendment, and I am prepared to withdraw it, but I did want to
use the time to talk about what I hope could be a constructive
idea that we may consider in another measure.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Is the gentleman prepared to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. Fortenberry. I withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Are there any other amendments to this title? Does any
other member have an amendment? Hearing no further amendments
to this title, we will proceed to title IV.
The clerk will designate the title.
Ms. Carroll. Title IV--Foreign Assistance.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are there any amendments to this
title?
Mr. Poe is recognized.
Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Which number Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Number 156.
Ms. Carroll. Number 156, amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by
Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. At the end
of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Internet Web site
to make publicly available comprehensive, timely, comparable,
and accessible information on United States foreign assistance
programs. (a) Establishment; Publication and Updates. Not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this act, the
President shall establish and maintain an Internet Web site to
make publicly available comprehensive, timely, comparable, and
accessible information on United States foreign assistance
programs. The head of each Federal department or agency that
administers such programs shall on a regular basis publish and
update on the Web site such information with respect to the
programs of the department or agency.----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think all the members now have a
copy of the amendment offered by Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr.
Duncan of South Carolina.
Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am honored to introduce this with my good friend from
South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. This amendment is a transparency
amendment. It requires the President to post all foreign aid
programs online. In January of this year, January 11, USAID
launched the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, a public online
resource that allows users to examine, research and track
government foreign assistance investments in an accessible and
easy-to-understand format. But USAID itself said the site is
incomplete and only includes programs from two of the 25
Federal agencies that administer aid and no performance metrics
posted for any foreign aid program.
In a recent study by the Brookings Institute and the Center
for Global Development, the United States ranked 22nd out of 31
countries when it came to transparency in foreign aid programs.
There are hundreds of foreign aid programs run by the United
States, but without transparency, there is no accountability.
This amendment is a simple amendment, and with the
amendment, everyone from someone cooking dinner in the kitchen
table to the independent watchdog investigator can know where
our foreign aid is going and what it is accomplishing or what
it is not accomplishing.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Poe, for
yielding back. Do other members wish to be heard on Mr. Poe and
Mr. Duncan's amendment?
Mr. Duncan. Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is a simple issue of transparency. I think the
American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being
spent. So I strongly believe in the need for more transparency
in reporting standards.
We have so many Federal agencies that give foreign
assistance, and both the American people and policy makers need
a uniform standard by which to determine whether our foreign
assistance is effective.
I believe this amendment will help us better determine what
programs are working, what programs need tweaking and really
what programs need to be cut out altogether. We are $14
trillion in debt, but part of the problem with foreign
assistance is that American taxpayers do not have a way to
monitor how Federal agencies use the funds they receive from
the government. It is difficult to know exactly where the money
is going and determine whether or not it is being used
effectively in our national interests. Large percentages of
U.S. foreign assistance are being used to pay administrative
costs at organizations and companies who deliver U.S. foreign
assistance.
President Obama has said Western consultants and
administrative costs end up gobbling up huge percentages of our
aid overall. That was in a July 2, 2009 interview.
And so I urge the passage of this amendment, and let's give
real transparency to the American people about how their tax
dollars are being spent.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I rise in
support of this amendment. This is one of several good Poe
amendments.
I may have a different view on other amendments, but this
is one of the important issues I think in a reform of our
foreign assistance program, and that is improving transparency.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Ellmers is recognized.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would just like to congratulate my colleagues, Mr. Poe
and Mr. Duncan, on this great amendment. I think at a time now,
as we have all discussed, in the economic stance that we are in
right now, this is just a perfect way of our being able to
track the moneys that are being responsibilities.
We have all discussed many times here today that with
foreign aid and U.N. funds, that there are inefficiencies that
exist and we acknowledge that. And this would be one of those
great ways that we could watch and see with our own eyes
through the Web site or through a Web site how these things are
being spent. The transparency and accountability would be a
great improvement.
And again, I thank my colleagues.
And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And seeing no further requests for recognition, the
question occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Berman is recognized for an amendment.
Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman, amendment 042 is at the
desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman
of California. Page 27, strike line 7 and all that follows
through page 28, line 17, and insert the following: (a)
Findings. Congress finds the following: (1) In an increasing
interdependent world, the health, prosperity, freedom, and
security of the people of the United States are strengthened
when the people of all countries can enjoy these same
advantages; (2) United States foreign assistance should be
designed to build the capacity of other countries to meet the
needs of their people and to conduct themselves responsibly in
the international system; (3) Foreign assistance is not only a
reflection of the values, generosity, and goodwill of the
people of the United States, but also an essential means for
achieving the United States foreign policy, economic, and
national security objectives.
(b) Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the United
States to help build and sustain an international community
composed of states that meet basic human needs, resolve
conflicts peacefully, respect fundamental freedoms, cooperate
to address issues that transcend national boundaries, use
wisely the world's limited resources in a sustainable manner,
and work toward the achievement of economic well-being for all
people.
(c) Goals and Assistance. United States foreign assistance
should be designed to achieve the following interrelated and
mutually-reinforcing goals: (1) Reduce global poverty and
alleviate human suffering. (2) Advance peace and mitigate
crises. (3) Support human rights and democracy. (4) Build and
reinforce strategic partnerships. (5) Combat transnational
threats. (6) Sustain global environment. (7) Expand prosperity
through trade and investment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Berman. Well thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
This is one of the unfortunate aspects of not knowing that
we would be doing a foreign assistance title until Saturday
night. I think we might have been able to work through a lot of
these things, but I would ask both the chairman and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a look at
this because this is not a got-you amendment. This is not an
effort to make some political point. It is a statement that
deals with what the goals of United States assistance should
be.
This relates to title IV, foreign assistance. Foreign
assistance is a very broad topic. It doesn't just mean
development assistance. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
covers everything from foreign military sales to antiterrorism
assistance, nonproliferation and export-control assistance,
international narcotics control, humanitarian and disaster
assistance, democracy and human rights programs, OPIC, the
Trade and Development Agency and a number of other accounts and
programs. The whole annual foreign operations appropriation
bill also covers all these areas.
Now if you look at the base text of the bill, there is a
fine statement in section 401, but it is a very narrow and
constrained view of the goals of foreign assistance. I agree
with every word in there, but it fails to deal with the large
sweep of what foreign assistance is all about.
So when we are talking about the goals of United States
assistance, they ought to be very broad goals; things like
supporting human rights and democracy, advancing peace and
mitigating crises, reducing global poverty and alleviating
human suffering. Even if section 401 were only referring to
development assistance, it is still extremely narrow in its
conception. Development assistance seeks to promote food
security, advance health, expand education, improve access to
clean water and sanitation, foster equal opportunities for
women and so forth.
To rectify this problem, I am proposing a simple substitute
that lays out a few broad findings about the reasons for
providing foreign assistance, makes a general policy statement
and lists seven overall goals of assistance, including the ones
mentioned specifically in the base bill.
For example, ``build and reinforce strategic partnerships''
covers things like maintaining Israel's qualitative military
edge. There are a lot of provisions in this legislation that
are doing it. This is not just development assistance. There
is, as I mentioned before, a whole variety of types of
assistance. ``Combat transnational threats'' would encompass
programs like counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and
counterproliferation.
I look forward to having a debate some time when we can
begin considering a complete overhaul of our foreign assistance
program. But I would ask my colleagues, I think these fit
better as the goals of our foreign assistance program and would
ask you to seriously consider supporting this amendment, even
though I am the author of it. And again, it is just a more
overarching perspective on what our goals are, qualitative
military edge for Israel is not about public-private
partnerships to produce economic development. It is about
something else. It is important. We want to do it;
counterproliferation, counterterrorism, and counternarcotics.
Yes, I am a full subscriber to the notion that the true way to
sustainable growth and stability is through private
partnerships in the economic sphere, as well as trade,
investment, and developing the private sector of these
countries. But it is not the only thing.
And so, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time
and ask you to consider supporting this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman yields.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
I would like to ask my good friend from California, on page
2, where it says, ``respect fundamental freedoms,'' would he be
willing to substitute ``fundamental freedoms,'' which are not
defined, to ``basic human rights,'' which have clear definition
in international fora, human rights treaties and the like?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the other
treaties that have been passed and ratified by the United
States have clear definitions. I don't know what ``fundamental
freedom'' means.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith would like to know.
Mr. Berman. So the gentleman yields to me?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Yes.
Mr. Berman. You are suggesting a more precise and definable
term is ``fundamental human rights'' rather than ``fundamental
freedoms''?
Mr. Smith. That is correct. I think it strengthens it.
There is a----
Mr. Berman. I am not sure I understand why you say that,
but on good faith, I am willing to accept your suggestion if
you think that might motivate you to be supportive of what we
are trying to do.
Mr. Smith. It will.
Mr. Berman. In that case, I would ask unanimous consent, if
I might, on your time to amend my amendment to substitute
``fundamental human rights'' for ``fundamental freedoms.''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, Mr.
Berman, would you consider using your amendment as an addition
to the base text rather than in lieu of the base text
when deg.which we have, and our staff can work on the
proper wording so that you don't have two sections of findings
but rather blend them together? Because at first blush, I would
say that it does not appear to do any harm, but I would feel
more comfortable, having just been handed this to----
Mr. Berman. Would the gentlelady yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is your time.
Mr. Smith. I yield to Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. If I could make one slight amendment to your
suggestion, because I think it is appropriate we start with the
broader, overarching, now amended goals and then include
exactly as you have it, your findings and policy statement.
Because it makes more sense to do the more overarching one
first and then get specifically into your quotes regarding the
help to enhance lives of poor people and those specific
provisions.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I do understand what you are saying.
And I would be fine with it. I think our side would be fine
with it. Mr. Smith would like to have that change and----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Berman asked unanimous consent so I think
that----
Mr. Berman. I would seek unanimous consent to substitute on
page----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Page 27.
Mr. Berman. But on the amendment, page----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Page 2, line 6, Goals of Assistance.
No. 3, support human rights and democracy.
Mr. Berman. Respect fundamental freedom, respect
fundamental human rights, and if I could add to that unanimous
consent that, instead of as a substitute for the base text,
this provision become the first part of the base text.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I think the staff understands
the changes that we are making. And I assure our side of the
aisle that it is not a huge change and tracks our line of
thinking on the bill and on the findings and on the goals of
foreign assistance.
With that understanding, I know that our staff will work on
any technical changes and if the gentleman would kindly
withdraw his amendment for just a little while, while we
redraft it so that everyone is clear on what we are about to
vote on. And then we will move on to the next amendment, but we
will redraft it. Would that be all right with the gentleman?
Mr. Berman. That is fine.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. Thank you and I--just to, I guess inquiry, so it
says here that the United States' foreign assistance should be
designed to help build the capacity of other countries to meet
the needs of their people and to conduct themselves responsibly
in the international system. Shouldn't the purpose of foreign
assistance be to meet the needs of and the goals of the U.S.,
of the people of the U.S., of the United States?
Mr. Berman. It is my firm, firm belief, if I may respond,
that it is----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. By seeking to achieve those goals, that we
serve the interests of the American people in reducing the
consequences of conflict, extreme poverty, natural disasters,
refugee flows, those all serve American interests. By
definition, I believe this is on behalf of the American people.
Otherwise, how could I support foreign assistance?
So I take your point, but I think that is assumed in the
whole fabric of our foreign assistance program; there is no
point to doing this with taxpayer money unless we think we are
serving the interests of our constituents. I am not----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. At this point, Mr. Mack, we only
have a few seconds, we will rework this amendment. We will keep
that in consideration, and we will come back to the committee
with a revised amendment.
Mr. Berman. I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw
without prejudice.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Consider it done. Thank you.
Any other amendments to this title? Do we have any other
members have an amendment? Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Manzullo
of Illinois. At the appropriate place in the bill insert the
following: Section [blank]. Prohibition on funding for
Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program. (a) Prohibition.
No funds available to the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) may be used to carry out the
Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program or any successor
program. (b) Effective Date. This section shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this act and shall apply with
respect to funds available to USAID for the DIV program or any
successor program that are unobligated on or after such date of
enactment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are still handing the amendment
out.
Mr. Manzullo is recognized for 5 minutes as the author to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment is narrowly focused on eliminating a truly
duplicative and wasteful program at the U.S. Agency for
International Development. The Development Innovation Ventures
(DIV) program, created only last year, provides grants up to $6
million to conduct research and development activities that
``promote development outcomes.'' Recipients of these grants
could be foreign governments or domestic or foreign
individuals, companies, or NGOs. A recipient may end up using
the money to develop a product in the U.S., even if that
product is never used for a foreign aid purpose. The program
adds at least 10 new employees to the Federal payroll in 2012,
and it adds more than $30 million a year to the deficit.
Research conducted by my office shows that this program
duplicates existing work by the Energy Department, NIH, Defense
Department, and the private sector. Creating new government
programs, particularly under current fiscal conditions, must
occur only as a last resort. DIV fails this basic test. It does
nothing to promote economic recovery in the U.S., create jobs
or even boost national security.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether DIV will even help
improve the livelihood of those in the developing world. The
President's fiscal commission criticized the creation of more
programs among multiple agencies to address the same concerns.
DIV currently funds a variety of projects with questionable
outcomes, such as a grant to develop an affordable hydrogen
fuel cell bicycle called the E-bike. The technology behind the
E-bike already exists and has a number of private-sector
investors, including large multinational corporations. When
that bike is developed, we have no guarantee it is even going
to end up overseas. The money goes to a domestic inventor and
company. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
appropriated $41.9 million to the Department of Energy for
hydrogen fuel research, including miniaturization and
portability applications.
Other projects supported by DIV include a $99,992 grant to
study the effectiveness of using cell phones to monitor
election results in foreign countries and a $173,000 grant to
study the use of smart phone technology to combat absenteeism
in health care in India.
According to USAID, the DIV program provides grants in
three separate stages: Stage one is $100,000; stage two, up to
$1 million; and believe it or not, stage three projects are
funded up to $15 million. These are peer grants. Thus, a
project like the E-bike can receive $15 million of Federal
funding, regardless of the fact that the Energy Department is
funding an almost identical program.
Let me read to you from the official publication of some of
the programs that DIV puts on. It says DIV funding will also
support, and I am reading from the State Department bulletin,
``USAID innovation fellows and innovation solution-
seeking sessions. Professor Mike Kremer of Harvard's
economic department has been recruited as the first
innovation fellow and scientific director of DIV.
Innovation conferences will bring together development
experts from academia, the private sector and USAID to
brainstorm and develop innovative ideas for potential
seed funding and scaling up of critical innovations.''
It is interesting that the next program in their bulletin
is the science and technology program that spends an additional
$22 million.
Madam Chair, we are at a point in America today where we
don't need additional programs. If the members would take a
look at the handout that we passed out with the red ribbon
across the top, you will see the duplicative programs that
USAID is funding under this program. We need to strike it. I
spoke with the Director of USAID. He is a very nice fellow, but
as I examine the programs, many of these, if not most, have
absolutely no relationship to the foreign aid purpose that the
taxpayers pay so heavily in this country.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo yields back.
Do any members seek recognition on this amendment?
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Innovative technology is exactly the kind of thing we want
to encourage USAID to be investing in. This is a program that
helps U.S. companies and creates U.S. jobs. While it is not
restricted to American applicants, Development and Innovation
Ventures' first round of grants went to U.S. firms and
organizations located all around the country. There is all this
new technology out there that could be harnessed to make game-
changing breakthroughs so that we can save money and improve
results.
Do we really want to be opposing an innovative idea to do
things better with new technologies than we have done? Think
back to the green revolution. It didn't come out of thin air.
One of the great advances based on innovative technology
happened because agencies like USAID were out there investing
in research and development that was specifically designed to
address development challenges.
That is what this program is for. It is a small amount of
money and not new money. The gentleman, whom you praise, the
new Director of USAID, has reallocated $30 million from
existing USAID resources. They are taking steps to make sure
this program does not duplicate R&D programs in other agencies.
They are very sensitive to the notion that we don't want to
spend our scarce resources at USAID on duplicative work. They
are requiring all applicants to specify whether they are
receiving other U.S. Government funds, and they are including
experts from other U.S. Government agencies on the grant review
panels.
We have an administrator over there who I believe is really
trying to shake things up and try new approaches and get more
results. This is sort of the kind of program we should be
encouraging. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Duncan is recognized.
No. I meant Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support this amendment. As I look across the government,
I see report after report, particularly GAO reports, that
detail duplicative programs. I don't have any evidence that
this is a bad program; that is not the issue. The issue is what
in the heck is USAID doing with this program working on
economic development and innovation? This is the type of thing
that if you are going to have it, it ought to be consolidated
with other programs that are similar at the Commerce Department
or elsewhere.
You can look in so many different areas in this government
and find programs of merit, but they are duplicated all across
the government because each entity, each agency wants their own
little program. Take workforce programs, there are something
like 40 of them spread all over the government, most of them
doing what the others are doing, not coordinating. They just
want their own little pot of money to do their own little
thing. And this is another example of this.
So I don't have any problem with the general concept. It is
just that I can't figure out why USAID is the one handling
this. Let's get all these things together and consolidate them
and find efficiencies through the consolidation and not
continue to support a program that is repeated elsewhere in
every little agency. And this is just another example. So I
support the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
How dare I confuse you with Mr. Duncan.
Terrible mistake.
I apologize, Mr. Griffin.
Do other members seek recognition?
We will go to Mr. Connolly, and we have Mr. Cicilline, and
on this side, we have Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I listened to my colleague, Mr. Duncan, I don't know if Mr.
Duncan's visited USAID projects or NGO projects in developing
countries, but the idea that the U.S. Commerce Department and
its research and development efforts can be conflated with
those of the Third World is sadly false. It doesn't work that
way. The Department of Commerce of the United States has a
different mission.
And it is not looking into new techniques to control
Bilharzia. It is not looking at new techniques to help make
small dirt-poor farmers upgrade their livestock capability to
bring in some cash for the family. They are not looking at ways
to get necessarily higher yields from certain strains of grain
that grow only in certain parts of the world, mostly located in
the third world.
This is a modest program. It is funded by reallocated
funding. It is not adding to the deficit, despite what we heard
in the presentation.
I represent a high-tech district. And I find it amazing
that we would want to go--we would actually want to discourage
the Agency for International Development from funding on a
really seed basis some opportunities to exploit technology and
innovation to save money, to actually make lives better and
more productive. The green revolution didn't happen by itself.
Smallpox eradication ultimately was concluded successfully
because of USAID investments made in West and Central Africa
that understood the difference in the phenomenon of smallpox as
a disease in that part of the world versus other parts of the
world. Innovation, R&D, tailored to the mission.
This is a modest program. It is an innovation of our new
USAID Director. And I think it needs a little more time.
If you know anything about R&D funding at all, it takes
time to see the fruits of your labor. And sometimes, yes, it
means that you don't always see the fruit of your labor. Go ask
NIH. Go ask CBC. It took a long time, for example, doing AIDS
research, to be able to isolate the virus and to be able to
then develop treatments. And it was hit and miss. There were
failures along the way. But thank God, we maintained the
commitment in terms of the funding stream.
Here we are trying to have a research component on an
innovative basis for USAID to try to see if there are some
things we have missed. And all of the grants, by the way, went
to U.S. companies, creating jobs in the United States and
supporting U.S. institutions, organizations and nonprofits.
I must, unfortunately, oppose the amendment of my friend
from Illinois as being penny wise and pound foolish and will
never, if this succeeds, will never fully understand the missed
opportunity represented.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan is recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I would like to
yield the balance of my time to the other Mr. Duncan, who goes
by Mr. Griffin.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
I would just say I am familiar with these sorts of projects
when I served with the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, Iraq.
I was familiar with what USAID and the Department of
Agriculture were doing in Iraq. I just got back from
Afghanistan and talked with USAID and Department of Agriculture
personnel there and talked with them about what they were
doing.
It is interesting to me that a couple of the examples
mentioned by the gentlemen on the other side are precisely the
type of innovation and research that is being done at the
Department of Agriculture. Sure, those aren't being done at
Commerce, ones dealing with seeds and varieties of the seeds
and how to better conduct agriculture in Afghanistan and around
the world in developing nations. That is being done at the
Department of Agriculture.
So there is duplication.
And I would also point out, it is my understanding that the
seed money for this program was taken from within the budget.
But, yes, they are requesting additional money, new money, this
year. My understanding is that it is $30 million of new money,
not money that was already in the budget.
So, yes, this program was started with money already in the
budget, but now they are requesting $30 million in new money.
That is what I am told by staff. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
The gentleman yields. We will have Mr. Cicilline, Mr.
Cardoza, and then I hope we have a roll call vote on this
amendment.
Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
first associate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member
Berman.
When this initiative was launched, USAID recognized that
they would really pursue market-driven solutions that really
engaged the business community in developing new, creative
ideas to solve some of the important issues in the developing
world and that would really serve as game changers. And it
seems to me that this is precisely the kind of investments we
should be making in innovation, in ensuring that taxpayer
resources are most effectively being used and are most
impactful. And I think the agency has gone to great pains to
really separate out the research and development function and
instead focus on applied innovation, to take these developed
ideas and figure out how they can be used in ways that address
development challenges more cheaply and more effectively.
This is precisely the kind of innovation we should be
expecting and supporting in every area of government to develop
new innovations to use taxpayer resources more effectively, to
have a greater impact and to solve some of the great challenges
of our time.
Some of the examples in this first round of funding was a
grant for $100,000 that could reduce the cost of a lifesaving
maternal medical test by 99 percent. Another grant was for a
portable clean low-cost hydrogen-based energy source with a
range of potential applications in the developing world. Those
are just two examples.
So I think the notion that we would want to send a message
that we don't support and are willing to not invest in
innovation in this developing work, it seems to me is the wrong
message. We ought to be encouraging and nurturing that kind of
investment and innovation because it will ultimately make the
cost of our investment less and much more impactful.
We are living in an innovation economy. We are living in a
time when that is how we are creating jobs, that is how we are
solving the big challenges of the 21st century. This should be
applauded. It should be supported.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I would like to say to my colleague, Mr. Griffin, that
if this amendment were to pass, neither the deficit nor the
USAID budget would be reduced by $30 million. It goes back to
programs that the administration of USAID, who is lauded by the
members on the other side for his talents and his abilities and
his intentions in his new position as administrator, it goes
back to programs that he thought were less valuable for the
foreign assistance programs than this program. So we are taking
something, where I have not heard yet an example of duplicative
work, I have heard the possibility of duplication--I know that
ARPA does things and Commerce does things. They all have
different goals. But this does not in any way bring down the
authorization.
And I yield back to Mr. Cicilline.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline, there was someone who
sought time?
Mr. Manzullo. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. The answer, if you look at this page that I
handed out with the orange on the top, it shows about eight of
the programs that are being funded on the left, and on the
right, it shows the same programs being funded by other Federal
agencies.
Mr. Berman. I don't have what you handed out.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. Reclaiming my time. I will yield to Mr.
Berman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. I don't know what you are handing out. All I
know is there is nothing about your amendment that will reduce
the authorization, and maybe I shouldn't have said that because
now you will do it. But the fact is what you are doing saying
something that the Director thought made more sense with the
resources he had, you are going to wipe out so that he can
instead do things he thought were less valuable with those
resources. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Mr. Cicilline. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlemen yields back.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
I rise in support of the amendment, and the author has just
indicated if you look at what he is presenting, the duplicative
nature of this. And what I might add, let's just go to the very
fundamental of what we are trying to decide.
This, I believe, is a USAID budget that we are talking
about here, and not the budget of a Department of Energy or
Department of Commerce, which has specific responsibilities of
making decisions about developing new technologies.
Now certainly people who are engaged in foreign aid need to
have technology that they can buy. But why are we thinking at
all that it is their job to enlist inventors and entrepreneurs
in order to oversee the development of a new technology? No.
They should be going on the market, getting what they do best,
which is trying to manage a part of the budget rather than
trying to be entrepreneurs and inventors.
This makes no sense at all, and the fact that it is already
being done in other departments and agencies, it is a total
waste of money.
I would now be very happy to yield the rest of my time to
Mr. Manzullo.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
The Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Interagency Working Group,
these are the present agencies already working on this fuel
cell powered bicycle. There are about 12 of them. I asked Mr.
Shah, who was in my office, about this particular grant for the
bicycle. He is an American innovator. He is working on the
bicycle with this fuel cell. I said, ``Do you have any idea
what this would cost?'' He said, ``No.'' I said, ``Do you have
indication whether or not this will be even used overseas?'' He
said, ``No.'' I said, ``Then why are we spending all this
money, up to $15 million, to an American inventor of this
particular bicycle when there is slightly no guarantee it will
even go overseas for any use overseas?'' And he couldn't answer
that question.
It is not the mission of USAID to be involved in research
and development. Other agencies have the core knowledge and the
understanding in how to use those tools. What we are saying
here is if you take a look at the USAID what their mission goal
is online, it says to extend a helping hand to those people
overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a
disaster, or striving to live in a free and democratic country.
I can't see us spending $15 million of taxpayers' money to
develop a fuel-powered bicycle is going to aid their own
definition of their own mission. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back.
And Mr. Cardoza is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to applaud Mr. Manzullo's effort with this. I
think--I don't know every aspect of this program. There may be
some good things in it that may end up being cut. But I want to
applaud the method by which you went by these cuts.
These are specifics. These are duplicative programs that
you have indicated with this orange sheet, headed sheet, and
this is the way we ought to be going about doing our business.
Too often in this institution, we do 2 percent cuts across the
board. We do unthoughtful ways of getting at the real goals.
I want to tell a story very briefly. I know the committee
is taking a lot of time, but I think it is important to applaud
when things are right. I had an earmark last session where I
got money to do wiretaps to take on the Mexican Mafia doing bad
things in my district. They just arrested 170 people. That was
a positive earmark. That was a good use of taxpayers' $250,000.
And we have eliminated all earmarks because a few folks
didn't do it right. That is the unthoughtful way of going about
our business as Congress.
So I am going to support your amendment, sir. I applaud you
for doing it. I don't know if everything we are doing here is
correct, but I think this is the right method by which we ought
to be doing it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cardoza. I will yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, there are some people on
this side of the aisle that agree with everything you just said
about earmarks. And so just know that I am very happy you just
made that point.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
No other member seeks recognition?
Oh, Mr. Sires, I apologize.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is so easy to overlook you; you
are so small.
Mr. Sires. I will yield to my colleague from Virginia.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman.
I just want to say, Madam Chairman, I am glad our friend
from Illinois actually said, ``USAID should not be in the
business of R&D.'' I couldn't disagree more fundamentally.
As somebody who has worked with the agency and used to
authorize its legislation in the other body, that is just now
not how it works. The idea that you can just readily go off the
shelf in the marketplace and purchase that which has been
developed in technology and R&D unspecialized for the unique
needs on the field is false. I wish it were that simple. That
is not how it works.
And having a modest capability within the agency to modify
technology, to come up with new R&D, like oral rehydration
therapy, for example, that saves tens of millions of children
from a cruel and bitter death, up to the green revolution, is
simply false and sadly turning our back on how science works,
which seems to be a phenomenon increasingly experienced in this
Congress.
So I respect my colleague from Illinois. I know they are
desperate to find examples of saving money. This one, in my
view, will not save money, will eventually cost money, will
cost the United States a critical capability and who knows what
future improvements in R&D and technology might have been
achieved but for this investment, a modest investment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires, would you yield to Mr.
Rohrabacher?
Mr. Sires. My pleasure.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You talked about your experience, could
you tell us why it is more important to have some government
employees at USAID instead of putting out, this is what we
need, and seeing what the market will produce and then
purchasing whatever is brought to them by people who are trying
to make money and developing new products, rather than
commissioning someone specifically to build a product?
Mr. Connolly. Well, I would say to my friend, assuming Mr.
Sires continues to yield----
Mr. Sires. Yes. I yield to you.
Mr. Connolly. Well, it is not an either/or proposition.
Of course, the Agency for International Development goes
out to the market to look at what is out there and to see
whether it is appropriate. It also, however, needs this
capability, in its view, because there are large parts of the
market that don't have the experience in working with
developing countries and with some of the unique circumstances
of geography, warfare, health issues, on and on and on but make
this very difficult terrain.
And so it is not an either/or proposition. The idea that we
want to wipe clean any capability of R&D at USAID, an agency
that has world class experience, going back almost now 55, 60
years, unique in the world, is, to me, turning our back on
science and experience at a very modest price and will prove to
be penny wise and pound foolish.
With that, I yield back to my friend from California.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires yields back, having no
further requests for recognition, the question now occurs on
the amendment. A recorded vote has been requested----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
we consider the gentleman's amendment by voice vote.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He would like to have a recorded
vote.
We asked your staff.
We would love a voice vote. We had asked--voice? Okay.
Okay.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the
amendment is agreed to.
Thank you.
Ms. Schwartz has an amendment at the desk.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Four.
Ms. Carroll. Thank you.
Amendment to H.R. 2538 offered by Ms. Schwartz of
Pennsylvania. In section 401(a) of the bill, add at the end the
following: (4) the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
effectively supports countries with a demonstrated commitment
toward good governance, sound economic policies and investment
on their people, hence the, ``HELP Commission'' report
recommends a reduction of tariffs for MCC Compact-eligible
countries to more closely align United States trade and
development policies.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment is being distributed.
The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I hope this is
actually an easy one.
Maybe we can reach sort of easy agreement on this one. What
I am seeking to do is to add a statement, a recognition of some
findings in a report from the health commission. And I think it
is a helpful finding and recommendation for us to consider
basically what the what deg.this does is it
highlights a provision that makes a connection between economic
development and foreign assistance.
U.S. foreign assistance, as we all know, is a
multipurpose--has multi purposes, including furthering
America's foreign policy interests by expanding democracy and
free trade, economic development as well as, of course,
improving the lives health and well-being of citizens in the
developing world. Increasing trade opportunities can help
strengthen these ties.
MCC forms partnerships in some of the world's poorest
countries, which are committed to good governance, economic
freedom and investments in their citizens.
MCC provides particular countries, there are 23 of them,
with grants with particular accountability and benchmarks in
terms of reducing poverty through sustainable economic growth.
MCC, which was a Bush administration initiative that has
been continued, and many of us who have visited some of these
countries find have a really quite a powerful force in moving
these very new economies economically. It is a prime example, I
think, of the U.S. Government assistance that works, that is
benefiting these developing countries and U.S. taxpayers.
So what I want to do is an add this additional wording you
just heard as read that would suggest that for MCC compact
nations that are promoting these growth opportunities and open
markets and standard of living, that we recognize that the
recommendation that we consider reductions in tariffs for these
23 nations that are building their economies is a good finding.
I want to add it to the report--it is in the report. I want to
add it to this language. I think it would be useful to consider
in the future. And I hope that I would just ask for a voice
vote, if we get to that point, but I would hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would recognize that this
is just pointing out something that could be a huge advantage
to these very new economies and possibly an advantage to our
Nation as well.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
Before you yield, let me just tell you that this staff is
just looking at the amendment to make sure that this reduction
of tariffs doesn't then lead to a referral to the Ways and
Means Committee. So I will recognize others to speak while they
are sorting it out.
And the gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Schwartz. We did--before I yield back, we tried to come
up with something that would be general enough and not terribly
specific, but it is a reference to a slight change in the
findings but a reference to the findings that already exist,
but I am happy to hear other comments.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentlelady would yield, it is
just because it is a jurisdiction of another committee when you
talk about the reduction of tariffs.
Ms. Schwartz. Having served on the Ways and Means
Committee, I would certainly not want to take from their
jurisdiction. I hope to go back there someday. So by all means.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't mind grabbing it. It is just
that we are not allowed. Does anyone wish to be heard? Mr.
Mack, you had some questions on the MCC itself. Perhaps this is
a good opportunity for you to air that out. Mr. Mack is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess part of the
concern I have when we are dealing with the MCC is that first
of all, the way that some of the compacts are determined, who
gets them and who doesn't get them, are very subjective. And I
will give you an example. Nicaragua, who invades Costa Rica, is
allowed to have a compact with the MCC, and Honduras, who
fights for and defends its democracy and freedom, is turned
down based upon subjective kind of numbers. In other words, I
think a lot of times the MCC can be so politicized that if we
want to, let's say, punish--if our Government wants to punish
Honduras because they feel like something happened there that
they didn't like, they will manipulate the standards and the
criteria. And what I would be concerned about with this
amendment is then, in effect, if a country like Nicaragua, that
invades another country like Costa Rica, gets an MCC compact,
then that would also trigger tariff issues as well.
And I am just not sure that I am comfortable with moving
forward with something like this as long as it continues to--
until the MCC has more defined criteria on how countries and
how these compacts are guaranteed.
Ms. Schwartz. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Mack. I would be happy to yield.
Ms. Schwartz. As I understand it, this would not change any
of the criteria for MCC. Except for other parts of the bill, my
next amendment, you might want to discuss it, because there is
a suggestion in the underlying bill, which I didn't write, but
the majority did, suggested use of MCC criteria. But in this
situation, all I am doing is recognizing a finding in a report
that is referenced in the underlying bill and adding to it the
suggestion--the finding, I am just highlighting in a way a
finding that suggests that at some point, there might want to
be more discussion about the opportunity to enhance trade.
Mr. Mack. And reclaiming my time, I understand what it is
that you are trying to do. I guess I am just trying to shine
the light a little bit on the, MCC in that we see a lot of
times that the State Department or others will influence the
outcome of these based upon criteria that is not
understandable.
In other words, a corruption charge may be put on a country
that they can't point to any real corruption, but they use a
subjective measurement of corruption for their political gain,
outcome, if that makes any sense. And I just don't think that--
you know, I think that is something, frankly, that the
committee, we ought to look at, is how do we ensure that we
don't get kind of this double standard where a country like
Nicaragua that invades another country and is granted an MCC
compact, and then another country that fights for and defends
its freedom and its democracy has an MCC compact taken away
from them.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Mack, if you would
yield to me----
Mr. Mack. I would yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if I could make a request of Ms.
Schwartz, we are trying to work it out so that whether your
amendment passes or not, it would not cause it to be dual
referred. So if the gentlelady would withdraw her amendment,
because your amendment actually amends the area in the bill
that Mr. Berman and I are trying to work out also.
So we have got an agreement with Mr. Berman on that. If you
would temporarily withdraw your amendment until we work it out
with the dual jurisdiction so that yours doesn't get pulled.
Ms. Schwartz. That would be very helpful. I would be happy
to temporarily withdraw it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Withdraw it. And I know we have
other folks who want to speak on it, but we will hold that
discussion for a little while. Now we go to Mr. Duncan, who has
got an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, ma'am. I offer amendment number 18.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Duncan
of South Carolina. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert
the following: Section [blank]. Reports on financial disclosure
of certain organizations and businesses that receive United
States foreign assistance funding. (a) Purpose. The purpose of
this section is to strengthen the capacity, transparency, and
accountability of United States foreign assistance programs to
steward American tax dollars wisely in effectively adopting and
responding to new challenges of the 21st century. (b) Reports.
The Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development shall require any organization or business that
receives more than 50 percent of its funding from the United
States Government under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S. Code 2151 et. sequentially) for any fiscal year to submit
to the United States Agency----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ask unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading. And Mr. Duncan is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The problem is
currently we have salaries for nonprofit USAID contractors that
are not disclosed. And 501(c)(3) nonprofit agencies only have
to report their CEO's pay on public tax records. We discussed
transparency earlier in the Poe-Duncan amendment. And I want to
take the opportunity to thank the gentleman from California,
Mr. Berman, for his support of that early amendment. And this
is just an effort for more transparency. This amendment
requires a financial disclosure of the compensation provided to
the top five employees of an organization or business that
contracts with the U.S. Government to deliver U.S. foreign
assistance if that organization or business receives more than
50 percent of its budget from American taxpayers. Now, this is
not unprecedented. It has happened before. In 2009, Congress
enacted restrictions on foreign----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair? We don't have the same
amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. We are going to wait there. If
you would hold on a second, I think that we have gotten another
amendment. Hold on a second. Because what you are explaining
doesn't jive with the amendment that we have here.
Mr. Duncan. She read the correct one.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, I don't think we have copies
to distribute right now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. We have the Duncan of South
Carolina prohibition on assistance to countries that oppose the
position of the United States in the United Nations. Mr.
Duncan, we do have the one on the United Nations. Do you want
to offer that one now?
Mr. Duncan. I would be glad to. Are we in that section? I
didn't want to be out of order.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are not in that section yet? The
same title, but a different section. If you don't mind, I don't
want to force you, but since we have that amendment, if we
could redistribute that amendment on the United Nations. And we
will just take care of that. Hold on 1 second. Madam Clerk, do
you understand me?
Ms. Carroll. Yes. I just thought that was part of title
VIII.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Never mind.
Ms. Carroll. We have copies of 18 now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That was just a tease to let them
know that it is going to get really good later on. You are
recognized to explain your amendment. It is being handed out.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. They just got
a preview of one we are going to deal with a little bit later.
I ask them to go ahead and take a look at the United Nations
one. We are going to talk a little bit right now about the
transparency issue that I was talking about a minute ago. This
amendment requires a financial disclosure of the compensation
provided to the top five employees of an organization or
business that contracts with the U.S. Government to deliver
U.S. foreign assistance if that organization or business
receives more than 50 percent of its budget from American
taxpayers. This is not unprecedented. It happened before. In
2009, Congress enacted restrictions----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second again.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, it seems Mr. Duncan is confused on
this one again. We have something totally different.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Prohibition on assistance.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan, according to you, what
should your amendment say on the very top after your name?
Mr. Duncan. It says at the very top, ``Reports on financial
disclosures of certain organizations or businesses that receive
United States foreign assistance funding.''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is what we have.
Mr. Payne. Okay. We got it now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You got it. Okay. Let me just take 1
minute and make sure. It says, ``Reports on financial
disclosure of certain organizations or businesses that receive
United States foreign assistance funding.''
Mr. Duncan. That is correct.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is now recognized. If
you could start again on your 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize.
We have six amendments offered today, so I understand the
confusion. This is a very simple amendment. It is talking about
transparency again. Like I said, it is not unprecedented. In
2009, Congress enacted restrictions on for-profit companies
that received taxpayer bailouts. But today, there are no
restrictions on disclosures for organizations or companies that
subsist on Federal grants. All disclosures would be made
publicly available on the USAID Web site. Taxpayers need
assurance that most of their tax dollars will go for the
foreign aid that they actually should go for.
We need a way to monitor and make sure that the tax dollars
are going for the foreign aid versus inflating salaries of
those contractors. And as I mentioned earlier, we discussed
transparency in the Poe-Duncan amendment, and that Mr. Berman
supported that earlier, I hope that he will support this one.
The gentleman from Rhode Island says that taxpayer dollars need
to be spent effectively. This is the way we can assure that
taxpayer dollars are getting to where they are supposed to go,
and that is providing the aid and not inflating salaries. And I
just urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Any members wish to
be heard on the Duncan amendment? Yes, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I would like
to thank Mr. Duncan for offering this important amendment, and
urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment will increase
transparency and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance
dollars, particularly when being allocated to contracting
firms, nongovernmental organizations, and other entities
involved in U.S. foreign assistance programs. You know, a
substantial amount of USAID's work in development is conducted
through the establishment of contracts with numerous NGOs,
businesses, and organizations. And there have been reports
concerning exorbitant and disproportionate levels of salary and
benefits for high level staff at organizations involved in
implementing United States Government foreign aid programs.
This amendment would increase the accountability and
transparency of the U.S. Government assistance funds by
requiring organizations that receive more than 50 percent of
its funding from the United States under the FAA to disclose
the salaries and how their employees are compensated. This
would allow increased and proper oversight of our public funds.
And I think it is a great amendment. And I hope that everyone
agrees with it and votes for it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mr. Chandler is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chandler. Madam Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a
question? Would you yield for a question? Will you take a
question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Chandler. Why limit it to the five most highly
compensated employees? Why not just have it all be transparent?
Let's have a report that shows exactly what money goes to whom.
Mr. Duncan. I would be fine with that. This is a step in
the right direction, a beginning. Top five highest paid
employees would give us some indication of whether taxpayer
dollars are actually getting to where they are supposed to go
or whether we have inflated budgets and inflated overhead that
we see in a lot of organizations where the money doesn't get to
where it is supposed to go.
Mr. Chandler. I have a hard time understanding why you
wouldn't require a report that just gives a detailed summary of
all of the money and who it goes to. Just say who the money
goes to, each and every employee that receives it.
Mr. Duncan. I would be fine with supporting that type of
amendment. I believe in transparency all the way around. This
was a step in the right direction to begin the transparency
process. If you see what the salaries are of the top employees
at an organization, independent contractors that are doing work
for USAID, it would give you an indication of whether there is
a problem and to look further.
Mr. Chandler. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does any member----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. Yes, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would just like to ask Mr. Duncan in
terms of he made an earlier statement about inflated salaries.
Is this because the administrator is given discretionary
authority in terms of how these people are to be paid or is it
because there is no mandate? I am just a little puzzled when
you said inflated salaries. Is it because something is wrong
with the system of how these people are to be paid?
Mr. Duncan. Well, the contracts are written, you know,
basically you contract with an independent contractor to
provide that foreign aid assistance. The contractor determines
his budget, determines who he hires and what he pays. And if
they are directing more of our taxpayer dollars to high
salaries, this is just a check and balance to make sure that
all that money is not going to salaries and not getting out
into the field where it should go. I think everyone in here
would agree that we want our tax dollars, if we are giving it
to foreign aid, we want it to go to where the rubber meets the
road, and that is to meet the need. And it is not going to go
to line the pockets of the independent contractor. I think this
is a step in the right direction, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think your point is well taken. And I
do want to associate myself with Mr. Chandler's earlier line of
questioning. If we are going to do it not just for this agency,
let's do it throughout the whole State Department, making sure
that everybody, contract or whatever. You know what, when we
had 20,000 contractors in Iraq, we are still trying to find $8
billion in cash that we are not able to account for. So I do
appreciate the gentleman's concern about transparency. And this
is probably one way that we ought to really get into.
But I do want to say that Mr. Chandler's point is well
taken. Let's not just do it for USAID, let's do it for the
entire Department of State so we can find out what happened to
the $8 billion in cash that we can't account for. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield? I agree with you. I
would put the check register for every government agency
online. Our salaries and our MRAs are online for the American
people. I think that there ought to be total transparency for
the government so that the American taxpayer can go and find
out where every dollar, whether it goes to the U.N., which
cannot provide us any transparency on how that money is being
spent, any agency, any tax dollar should be transparent so the
American people knows how that money is being spent. And then
they can let us know that they don't think it is being spent
very wisely. We are $14 trillion in bad debt. We need to be
more accountable to the taxpayer. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Does any
other member wish to be heard on this amendment? If not,
hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All
opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and
the amendment is agreed to.
Ms. Schwartz is recognized for another amendment that you
have.
Ms. Schwartz. I think this will be within our jurisdiction,
but maybe a little more controversial. We'll see. I do have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Schwartz
of Pennsylvania. Strike section 407 of the bill.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait a minute and make sure
that we have the correct amendment. So we will suspend. While
they are handed out, I would like to remind the members that
pursuant to my prior announcement, after the ranking member's
request, from 6:30 to 8:15 we will continue with debate and
voice votes, but any recorded votes will be postponed until
8:15. Ms. Schwartz is recognized to explain her amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. This amendment would strike section 407.
It is a very short section. So maybe it would be, the best
explanation I will start with is just to simply read it. It
basically says that there would be a prohibition on assistance
to countries that fail to meet the Millennium Challenge
Corporation's corruption performance indicator. And while there
are some waivers and exceptions that would be allowed, actually
basically allowing the President to be able to make a waiver,
it is a pretty blanket statement that no countries can receive
any foreign assistance if they don't meet this particular
indicator under the Millennium Challenge grant.
And let me just say that I agree with the intent of what I
would understand would be the intent of this section, which is
to make sure that we are providing assistance to countries that
are moving, you might want to even say aggressively, to
eliminate corruption in their country. And many of us, again
who have visited many countries, understand how it is a key
element to really having a democracy that people can trust is
to eliminate corruption. And for many new democracies, this is
a major issue as they take over from dictatorships in
particular.
There are, however, some real problems with using this
particular indicator. Under MCC, the corruption indicator has
several provisions I just want to point out that I think would
eliminate some countries we would not want to stop foreign aid
to. And I will just mention a few of them. One of them is
Afghanistan. Another one is Armenia. There is Haiti, Honduras,
Kosovo, just to name a few. Basically, what the standard calls
for under MCC, which would now be applied broadly as I
understand reading this section, and that may not have been
what was intended, but this is what it says, is that it would
prohibit any aid to government. And for many of these
countries, this is a big problem.
For example, if we want to provide foreign aid to train
teachers, well, teachers are paid by the government. That would
no longer be allowed. That if they provide--if we want to
provide aid to health clinics and doctors that are paid by the
government, that would be a part of the problem of this
indicator that they judge. That if we want to support clean
water and sanitation, that that would be a part of the
indicator, and that would be a problem. So again, countries
like Afghanistan, where our assistance is really working to
build a capacity within government to do exactly these
functions, this would actually be a problem because it would
affect the corruption indicator, as I understand it.
So let me also say that the indicator, this is, I think,
the one that really is even the most problematic, does
basically say that any country that is below the median is not
fighting corruption enough. They can no longer meet the
criteria. So that means even if they are doing a pretty good
job, that means that half the countries would be eliminated
just because median means that half of the countries fail. Half
are below the median and half are above the median, so half
would fail and no longer be able to get foreign assistance from
the United States. And I am not quite sure.
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Ms. Schwartz. Sure.
Mr. Connolly. Would one of those countries, for example, be
Haiti?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. As I understand. Let me look.
Mr. Connolly. That is my understanding as well.
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. The idea that the United States would cut off
aid to Haiti because of a well-intentioned but mislaid
criterion I think speaks to the gentlelady's point. We can all
think that these are worthy goals and values, but frankly, the
implementation, the consequence of this standard, I think,
would be very self-defeating for the United States. And Haiti
is a great example. I yield back to my colleague.
Ms. Schwartz. Just to finish this, if I may, is just to
finish my point, is, again, I think that for many of us, myself
included, we are deeply concerned about and want to assist
nations that are fighting corruption and building their
countries to do that. I think the problem here is the indicator
that was used, which comes from the Millennium Challenge grant,
which I just talked about liking, but in this case, to apply
that to all foreign assistance, eliminate half of the nations
that could receive aid from us because they fall below the
median. And then, of course, if you do it another year, you are
breaking the numbers of countries in half again. And if you do
it the next year, you are he breaking it--I mean, at some point
we reach no countries could receive foreign aid, because there
are always going to be half the countries are going to fall
below the median. So I think some of this is just the nature of
the indicator and the way it is measured is really a problem.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The lady's time is
expired. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair. And while I do share
the concerns of my colleague, first off, with Haiti, I believe
that the President can give a waiver so that Haiti, the foreign
aid Haiti receives would not be interrupted. Really, this
amendment effectively endorses the provision of the U.S.
foreign assistance to corrupt regimes, thus rewarding those
committed to stealing U.S. taxpayer dollars and perpetuating
the cycle of an inefficient and ineffective assistance program
worldwide.
And you know, the MCC has it right. Assistance is most
effective when directed toward those who have demonstrated a
commitment to the rule of law, investments in people, and
economic reform. Corruption, on the other hand, perpetuates
poverty, contributes to instability, and renders foreign
assistance useless. It is difficult for me to fathom how one
could defend providing assistance to corrupt regimes without
even a second thought. I realize there are exceptions, and that
is why this bill has provided a waiver, a waiver for those
exceptions, exceptions like Haiti. There are some countries
where our national security objectives are so important that we
need to make targeted investments, while simultaneously seeking
to mitigate risk and root out corruption.
So I strongly oppose this amendment. And I want to add that
we can't play favorites when it comes to accountability for
U.S. assistance. I know some might want to carve out one
country or another. But you know, this is just common sense. We
should not be giving U.S. money to governments that are found
to be corrupt.
And finally, to account for any time lags in the corruption
indicator, I would like to note that this again does provide a
provision for the President to have waiver authority, so he
doesn't have to wait on Congress, to allow certain countries to
receive this assistance once Congress has received
certification that the recipient nation is taking steps to
alleviate corruption and that the end use monitoring measures
are in place.
So all we want to do is make sure that if the country is
corrupt and it is trying to correct itself and it is
demonstrating good policy, that we will give them the
assistance. But if it is a country like North Korea, where Kim
Jong Il is never going to make steps, that we don't give it to
Kim Jong Il. And I think that that is just--I mean, that is
just----
Ms. Schwartz. If the gentlewoman would yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me, Mrs. Schmidt has the
time.
Mrs. Schmidt. And I really didn't want to yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I know. You have the time, and
continue with your thoughts.
Mrs. Schmidt. I mean, it makes sense, with the precious
dollars that we have, to make sure that they are going to
countries that are not working against us. And if there is an
exception to that, then let's allow the President to make that
exception. But to just carte blanche say we are not going to
see if you are good stewards, we are not going to see whether
you are corrupt or not, just hand the money over carte blanche
is really foolish. Because a corrupt government, chances are,
isn't going to give that money to the people who need it. If
they are corrupt, they are going to use that money, that
assistance, that grain, that whatever for their own benefit.
And so it is counterproductive, counterintuitive to what we
want to do. So why don't we just look at the precious dollars
that we have to spend and make sure that they are spent in a
place where corruption is not the dominant feature of the
country? Where this country, whatever it is, is either non
corrupt or trying to make itself non corrupt. And toward that
end, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt. Mr.
Berman.
Mr. Berman. Yes. Madam Chairman, I ask my friends in the
majority to think about what you are saying. In response to the
gentlelady from Pennsylvania's arguments, and the gentleman
from Virginia's question, you are saying the President has a
waiver. So we are going to have a roll call vote on this
amendment. And what this will say is we who, assuming the
majority side prevails and the amendment is defeated, we in
Congress will cut off aid to Honduras, that just got rid of
this bad guy and is now trying to rebuild a civil society
because Honduras--so we are going to cut off aid to Honduras.
The President has a way of saving you if he can work language
in that says the national security interests of the United
States. Not the ``national interest'' of the United States, but
the ``national security interests'' of the United States.
Armenia? Historic relationship, aid programs, Congress cuts it
off.
Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops are dying, we are
going to cut off all economic aid because they are in the lower
half.
Cote d'Ivoire just had an election. The guy tried to hold
on to power, this corrupt dictator tried to hold onto power.
President Ouattara finally gets in, he is just starting his
job. But Ivory Coast is in the lower half. Cut off all their
aid. You can't be serious about wanting to do that.
If you are worried about Kim Jong Il, let me tell you,
first of all, there are about 22 provisions in law that keep us
from giving foreign assistance in almost every circumstance to
him. Legislate about North Korea. If you want to talk about
some other people who are against our interests, we don't want
to give aid to, propose it. But don't take an index that
applies to people who are trying to get better. The Millennium
Challenge program is a wonderful program because it was said
for some portion of our foreign aid we are going to have a real
merit test, and one of the tests is if you have confronted
corruption and dealt with it effectively, then you are going to
be eligible for compacts and grants under those compacts. We
didn't say the whole foreign assistance program immediately is
going to become subject to the Millennium Challenge Corporation
standards.
Now, I don't think you want to be on record voting to cut
off aid to Honduras and Armenia and Haiti and say, Oh, but the
saving grace here, we really didn't do it, because the
President, if he wants to scream national security, can waive
it. Is that the position you want to be in? Is that a Congress
that wants to assert its authorities in the proper way? That is
the ultimate delegation of power to the executive branch of
government. And remember who is President. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. I too would like to echo what the ranking member
has said. You know, I think that these things sound good,
however, when we start to look at it, for example, Egypt is on
this particular--would be out. They have a transition going on,
have people who are trying to go in to set up a democracy. And
if this bill goes through, Egypt is cut off. We are worried
about the Muslim Brotherhood. Okay, let's just cut off all our
aid to the military, cut off aid to the country, let it fend
for itself. If you think you have a problem in the Middle East
now, you haven't even seen a problem. You take a place like
Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. They got
more people who are Muslims practicing Islam in Indonesia than
all of the Arab countries in the Middle East.
We should, therefore--and they are our biggest supporters.
So this brilliant amendment would say let's cut them off.
Right. The bill does. Cut them off. The bill would cut them
off. That makes a lot of sense. Kenya, who gives more
intelligence to the United States about Somalia and Yemen and
those areas that have people who are threatening our service
persons, would be cut off.
Kenya is one of the longest-serving emerging countries in
democracy. They are the stability. You take Uganda. Uganda is
the country that has the U.N. peacekeepers. They are dying.
Uganda was attacked at the World Cup. You know why they were
attacked at the World Cup? People were sitting around watching
the game, some of them went in, blew them up, killed 20 or 30
people because Uganda is assisting the United States by having
peacekeepers in Somalia so that Somalia doesn't turn around and
become a haven for al-Qaeda. And if you think we have got a
problem with hijacking now, let Somalia get turned over to al-
Qaeda and we will be in tremendous problems. I mean, we could
go country by country. It does not make any sense at all. So I
would hope that countries are striving to cut out corruption.
Countries, we have had people killed who were in offices on
anti-corruption who are on these very lists. So I would hope
that we would think about this. You know, it certainly has good
intentions. However, the road to purgatory is paved with good
intentions. I just hope that we really would give a good
thought to this before we go and make another wrong vote. I
yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We look forward to a recorded vote
on this amendment. Do other members wish to be heard on this
amendment? Yes, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Carnahan. Madam Chair, if I could yield time to Ms.
Schwartz.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you. I just wanted to echo the last
comments, and to be very clear about this. I think what we are
saying very clearly I hope is being heard, is that we too are
very concerned about corruption, and are not looking to reward
any nation that is not doing the work that it needs to do to
fight corruption and to build a fair and transparent both rule
of law and government that their own people and we can trust
with our dollars. That is absolutely a goal we share. The issue
is how we achieve them. And the adverse consequences of
removing aid to countries that are working very hard, very
aggressively, maybe even very well on this major and important
issue, would be shut down in terms of receiving aid for us to
do that very work is our concern.
And so again, maybe it is in the drafting of this and not
the intent, but it really is not about North Korea. We don't
give them aid now. That is not the issue. Obviously, if a
country is not cooperating with us there are consequences. We
just saw that happen with Pakistan. So it is not like there
isn't intention to these issues. And that was not about
corruption per se, that was other issues. This really is very
specific and potentially extremely harmful to the very mission
that this committee works on every day.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It was the gentleman's time. Would
the gentleman yield to Mr. Rohrabacher, to Ms. Schwartz?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have a question for the lady. So clear
it up for me. Is your amendment aimed at making it more likely
that aid would go to countries that are questionable in terms
of corruption? Or are you loosening the standard for countries
that maybe were being too fastidious about to whom we are
choosing to give aid? What is the purpose of your amendment in
terms of the standard that we have for corruption?
Ms. Schwartz. My amendment would delete this section. It
doesn't replace it with anything. So the standard would remain
as it is today. It does not replace it with any new standard at
all. It just basically says that this new standard--the section
establishes a new standard, which I am objecting to as being--
--
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the new standard is about corruption?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you are eliminating a standard that has
been put in place to prevent our money from going to
corruption?
Ms. Schwartz. No. It is saying that this new standard that
is going to go into effect in this section is deeply flawed.
And I am suggesting--and it may be an opportunity for there to
be cooperation in working out what would be the right standard
and the right language. So I am not at all suggesting that
there couldn't be a better standard or a better written
standard. I am just suggesting that this one is deeply flawed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the purpose of what you are trying to
replace was to eliminate corruption. But you feel that it is a
flawed wording or something like that, so that you need to
eliminate that section that would protect our money from going
to fraudulent countries because it really won't be effective in
doing it.
Ms. Schwartz. No, it would prevent countries from being
denied foreign assistance in a way that would be so sweeping as
to have many, many countries that may not have been intended to
fit into this because that particular Millennium Challenge----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think I understand now. Thank you.
Ms. Schwartz. You are welcome.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman yields?
Mr. Carnahan. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Ms. Buerkle is
recognized.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to echo some
of the sentiments of my colleague from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt. We
have been here for the better part of today discussing this
piece of legislation. And the recurring themes that we continue
to hear are that this Nation faces a $14 trillion-plus debt,
that we need to be accountable to the American people and wise
stewards of their taxpayer money, and that we need to be
careful about how we spend money. And it seems to me that
elimination of section 407 flies in the face of everything we
have been talking about today. We talked about being
transparent and accountable to the American people. I think
this flies in the face of it.
You know, I think it has been proven after five decades of
providing assistance across the world that we know assistance
over a long period of time can create dependency, but worse
than that, it can create corruption. And I think in light of
the difficult times the American Nation faces here at home,
that to continue to allocate U.S. taxpayer dollars to the
governments that indulge in corruption for the benefit of
themselves is wrong, and it is neglecting the American people,
and it is not being good stewards of their taxpayer dollars. I
yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ms. Buerkle. I
believe that we had Mr. Engel. Is that right?
Mr. Engel. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel is recognized.
Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to support
Ms. Schwartz's amendment. I understand the frustration that we
don't want to pour money down a sewer hole and give good money
after bad. And I also understand that in this day and age, with
our budget deficits and problems we have, many of us get tired
of giving assistance to countries that seem to always spit in
our face. But let's look at what we are doing here. I think
this would be penny wise and pound foolish, and I think it
would also be tying our hands artificially. The Millennium
Challenge Compacts which we are talking about here are just a
few a year, 2 or 3, or whatever it is. It is not as if we are
giving foreign assistance to everybody through the Millennium
Challenge Compacts.
Now, if you take the corruption standards and you say it is
a median, obviously by the term median, half of countries are
going to be below the median, and half of countries are going
to be above the median. Now, we may want to give aid to a
country that may be pro-American, pro-West, doing the things we
want, but they artificially fall below the median, and
therefore we would be barred from giving them Millennium
Challenge Compacts. It doesn't make any sense.
For instance, I said this before, you know I have been very
active in the Balkans, particularly with Albania and Kosovo.
Well, what this would do is Kosovo would fall below the median.
That is a country that is as pro-West as you can get, pro-
American as you can get, and would need our help, yet we would
be precluded from giving them a Millennium Challenge Compact.
In fact, some of U.S. assistance is specifically designed to
help countries minimize corruption. That was the Millennium
Challenge Compact threshold program for Albania. It targeted
corruption, and successfully reduced corruption in Albania. If
this had been in place, we would never have been able to target
Albania, and would never have been able to give them aid to
help them reduce corruption. So I think what this does is it
ties our hands artificially. We should look at the criteria
that is good for our country. And sometimes a country may fall
below the median, and giving them the MCC would be good for
them and good for us. And so, you know, this is not about
blocking foreign assistance to bad players. It is assistance to
countries that are pro-West potentially.
So I don't know why we need to do this, to tie our hands
artificially. I wouldn't want to hurt Haiti. I would want to
help Haiti. We have an obligation to help Haiti. Haiti would
fall below the median, therefore, we wouldn't be able to help
them.
I mentioned Kosovo. There are other countries as well. In
fact, I think it was pointed out Afghanistan and Egypt as well.
Honduras. We want to help Pepe Lobo and the new government
there. This would preclude us from helping them. And Indonesia,
Kenya, countries like that. So I know that the intent here is
good. I just think that we are boxing ourselves in, and we are
using artificial medians to sort of cut off other criteria that
can at least and should at least be as important as that. So
for those reasons----
Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Engel. I would certainly yield. But for those reasons,
I think Ms. Schwartz is absolutely right. This is well
intentioned, but I think if you scratch beneath the surface it
has the potential to do us harm. I yield to Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. With the few seconds left, I would just like to
mention in countries where we have and we know that there is a
high level of corruption, for your information, the U.S.
assistance does not go to the government. For example, Haiti
gets zero dollars directly to the government. We have NGOs, we
have organizations that provide the services in those
countries. So if there are some countries where we know that
the corruption is something that is suspected to be gross, the
countries do not get the foreign assistance. So I just want to
make that clear. We don't fund governments. As a matter of
fact, very few governments in Africa get direct funding. It
goes to health groups, it goes to Red Cross, it goes to those
groups. So I just wanted to make that clarification.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. The Chair will recognize herself. Mr. Mack, I
understand that you are interested in the manner in which the
MCC develops and applies the corruption performance benchmarks.
I pledge to work with you, Mr. Mack, to request that the GAO,
the Government Accountability Office, review the MCC's
application and development of these indicators. And I will
ensure to make reference to this GAO request and your concerns,
Mr. Mack, in the committee report on this legislation.
Mr. Mack. Thank you. Would you yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mack. Thank you very much. And I have been very
interested in this debate. And first of all, I must commend the
chair. We do have to have standards in this bill to ensure that
the people who are receiving the hard-earned tax dollars go to
countries that are not corrupt. But as you stated, I do think
it is important to look at the way that the indicators are
developed, the way that the corruption indicator is developed.
And I am concerned that just based upon public opinion that
can influence the corruption indicator, and a report from the
GAO would be fantastic. I want to thank the chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Count on it.
Mr. Mack. I want to thank you very much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I yield back. Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I too would
like to associate myself with the position taken by the
gentlelady taken from Philadelphia. I don't think she is being
very restrictive. I think she is flexible. She is willing to
work out the language in such a way that is not so restrictive
in saying a corruption indicator. What does that mean by being
corrupt? I looked at countries like Cambodia and Laos. Madam
Chair, I don't know if any of our colleagues have been to Laos.
We dropped over 2 million pounds of bombs during the Vietnam
War. And never did the people of Laos ever wage war or even
declare war against us. Where does the corruption come into
play in this? Because it was like a little playground. Cambodia
the same thing. We dropped bombs there simply because we, you
know, on the way back from the sorties that we did against
Vietnam. It was just horrible. And I would invite my colleagues
to go to Cambodia and Laos. And when you talk about corruption,
I don't know what we can do, the kind of decisions that we
made, but we did this against these countries.
We can go to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. These
countries have only been democracies less than 20 years. How do
we measure corruption of the fact that these people were under
colonization for 100 years of the former Soviet Union. How do
we measure corruption? Do you expect that they are going to
become democracies the same way that we expect them to be like
us? It took us over 100 years to give Black people the right to
vote and their civil rights recognized. And here we are making
demands, I believe, that I think we are being a little too
stringent in trying to understand these countries that have
been given corruption indicators, it is just unbelievable. I
would like to suggest to the gentlelady that as part of the
description or the narrative that is put in the proposed bill
that we ought to work out maybe better language than just say
corruption.
Maybe there are other factors we ought to consider, and not
just this one indicator to say if a country is corrupt. I would
challenge anybody to suggest that all these countries are that
corrupt given the fact that we really--I just don't know where
the measurement comes into play in this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I will be glad to yield to my friend from
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will be very quick. Listen, I spent some
time in Vietnam back then too. And I was not in the military. I
was involved in some other activities there. And I left Vietnam
as a very--how do you say, I was very pessimistic because I saw
the blood and the gore of war. And it was my opinion at that
time, and I was 19 years old, that it was the corruption that
would prevent us from winning that war. And quite frankly, we
should have set a much higher level against the corruption of
the Saigon regime. And we might not have gone through that
defeat, and we might not have had this 20 years of
dictatorship, Communist dictatorship. But we didn't set the
standard against corruption in Vietnam. And maybe we should
have learned that lesson, my friend.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would say to my good friend, I served
in Vietnam. And we supported a corrupt government, if you want
to call it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But my point is how do you define
corruption?
Mr. Rohrabacher. It was easy to see, wasn't it? I saw it. I
was 19 years old. I certainly identified it very easily.
Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield to my friend from New
Jersey.
Mr. Payne. On the question of corruption, and we should
certainly work toward it, however some of these countries are
working to try to cut down on corruption. We have here in the
United States, we are still fighting to try to win the battle
against corruption. Take Mr. Rupert Murdoch, most powerful
person in Europe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And a U.S. citizen, too.
Mr. Payne. And a U.S. citizen. When his corporation pays
off Scotland Yard, pays people to give information, pays people
to try to get 9/11 survivors' phone numbers. So when we talk
about corruption, we should continue to work--the NYPD. You
continue to work against corruption everywhere. We shouldn't
tolerate it. However, I think that we ought to maybe look at
ourselves and see how many people do the right thing on their
income tax or when they pay taxes offshore rather than taxes
here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, all I want to say,
Madam Chair, is that we ought to find some sense of measurement
how do we define, how do we measure corruption.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It strikes me,
from listening to this discussion, that people are talking
about two different things. I think we would all agree that we
ought not ever be supporting corrupt governments. And I think
there is no question about that. The other question is, is
there a role for the United States to play in supporting
governments that are fighting corruption and helping them
develop institutions to successfully combat corruption? And I
think we are mixing up two different conversations here. And I
would hope that we could work on some language which ensures
that we are not supporting corruption or corrupt governments,
but at the same time recognizing that we have a role to play in
supporting leaders and governments that are working hard and
seriously to combat corruption.
We had a recent visit here, Madam Chairman, as a result of
your good work, of the President of the nation of Liberia,
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who is a hero in terms of the work that
she is doing to combat corruption in her government. She made
it clear to us in those conversations that she relies
enormously on the support and aid of the United States. And so
I think we have to be able to distinguish between those
governments that are working hard to build the kinds of
institutions that share the values of our country and combat
corruption, and we have a whole series of efforts underway in
helping countries build court systems, and develop rule of law.
And all of that in part is a battle to fight corruption, which
it would seem to me would no longer be permitted under the new
language of this legislation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Cicilline. I would be happy to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you aware the part of the bill that
she is seeking to eliminate actually provides the President a
waiver so that when he has examples like you have given, that
he is able to provide a waiver to the President of Liberia?
Mr. Cicilline. I will reclaim my time. I am aware it has a
waiver. But we have a responsibility, I believe, as members of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, to set this policy, to be
thoughtful about the way we do it, and not to rely on the
executive branch to do our job. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Seeing no other requests
for time, a recorded vote has been requested on the Schwartz
amendment. It will be rolled until 8:15. I know that Mr. McCaul
had an amendment. We have a list of a lot of amendments. Don't
worry about it. But I had told Mr. McCaul that he would be
next.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. Am I being recognized?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. If you have your amendment, you
can call it up to the desk there.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at
the desk, number 21.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. McCaul
of Texas. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
following: Section [blank]. Limitation on USAID training
contracts under the Merida Initiative.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we will hand out the amendment
as she is reading it. Hold on 1 second. Let's make sure. Merida
Initiative, McCaul.
Ms. Carroll. (a) Findings. Congress finds the following:
(1) In 2007, the United States and Mexico announced the Merida
Initiative, a multi-year partnership to fight organized crime
and associated violence, while furthering respect for human
rights and the rule of law in the region; (2) One of the Merida
Initiative's four primary goals is to improve the capacity of
justice systems in the region; (3) In April 2009, USAID/Mexico
awarded a 3-year, $44.1 million cost-type contract to
Management Systems International (MSI) to work with Mexican
state and Federal justice institutions to strengthen their
capacity to improve transparency, public oversight, and public
accountability, and better serve Mexican citizens under the new
constitutional reforms that shape the police and criminal
procedure codes; (4) A January 2011 USAID Office of Inspector
General audit determined that the contract mechanism that
USAID-Mexico used to award the task order to MSI was not done
in accordance with procurement regulations, USAID-Mexico's
technical officers responsible for the rule of law projects
have not effectively carried out all of their responsibilities
in accordance with USAID policy and internal mission orders.
USAID-Mexico's contractor has not developed----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ask unanimous consent that the
amendment has been read. I believe that all members have a copy
of the amendment. And I will call on Mr. McCaul for 5 minutes
to explain his amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we talked a
lot about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. But we have
a war that is going on right next door and just south of our
border in Mexico. I have met with President Calderon. Connie
Mack, the gentleman from Florida, and I recently met with him.
Security is his number one issue. And since he has declared
war, about 40,000 people have died in Mexico at the hands of
the drug cartels, who have become more brazen and more violent
than ever. In Juarez alone, 6,000 people have been killed. As a
result, the Congress passed the Merida Initiative to deal with
that, to provide intelligence, military assistance to Mexico.
And I think, as Chairman Mack of the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere, and Mr. Engel would agree as well, we have been
very frustrated with the State Department and the inability to
implement the Merida Initiative.
I think today only 25 percent of that funding has been
implemented. And it has been about 2\1/2\ years. One area that
I think we need to--let me just add also that it has become so
brazen that our U.S. law enforcement have now been under fire,
not only in Mexico, but on this side of the border.
ICE agent Jaime Zapata was killed in cold blood, and his
partner, Agent Avila, by nothing short of a miracle survived
that ambush by the Zetas cartel, which has become the most
violent down there. So we need to look at the Merida
Initiative. We need to ensure that the training that we provide
is contracted the right way, completed in a timely manner, and
measured for its effectiveness. This committee has a
responsibility to provide effective oversight to ensure that
this happens for our security and for the security of Mexico.
So when we look at these training programs and we look at the
contracting of those programs, I have seen some inefficiencies.
My amendment would prevent USAID from spending more than 50
percent of the training funds under the Merida Initiative with
any one company.
One of the main areas in which we provide Merida aid is to
institutionalize the rule of law in Mexico by providing these
training programs for the Mexican police, judges and
prosecutors. USAID was tasked to carry this out and gave about
90 percent of that contract to one single company, Management
Systems International, or MSI. This company has a poor record
of performance, and the inspector general agreed. He reported
that there are issues with the contract's process; that it was
hurried, sloppy; and there were no metrics of performance; and
the reporting was ineffective and lacking.
In fact, USAID itself admitted it has been ineffective in
its metrics and oversight of MSI and the training. In fact, we
have made repeated calls to MSI from my staff that were never
returned. And the situation, I believe, is getting worse.
This bill does one thing, in effect. It provides
competition, which I always think brings out the best,
competition to carry out these contracts, and it will force
USAID to do what they should have done in the first place, and
that was to provide effective training with real metrics and
real oversight.
With that, I ask that the members of this committee support
my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Do any members wish to be heard on the McCaul amendment?
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized, and also Mr. Mack.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
applaud my good friend Mr. McCaul for this amendment.
You know, the USAID has the task to carry out the
responsibility for the training component of the Merida
Initiative, as well as the Department of Justice, especially
under pillars 2 and 4, institutionalizing the rule of law and
building stronger and resilient communities. But, Madam Chair,
until the 4th of January, until the 10th of December, 2010,
USAID held 501 training events, with 466 of these events being
contracted through just one company, Management Systems
International, or MSI, and I think that is the basis for this
amendment.
On January--in January 2011, the USAID IG Office identified
several problems with the contract with MSI and other
companies, including issues with the process, the metrics and
the reporting. The audit specifically found, one, the rule of
law program lacked strategic focus, there was a poor statement
of working and poor technical control over the contractor; two,
the contracting mechanism used for the rule of law program was
not appropriate. USAID attempted to expedite the award and the
implementation of the program; three, the performance
indicators and targets were inappropriate measures of the
program's progress. There was either no target or unrealistic
targets. Performance measures were either not available or not
within the USAID control. There was a lack of effective program
oversight; that is, no visit, no formal approval of work plans
and reports. And finally, training effectiveness was not
evaluated. There was no consideration of formal evaluation
systems during the design of training, and the USAID did not
adhere to the policy regarding assessing the degree of results
and impact of training.
Given the horrific violence that continues along our U.S.-
Mexico border, given the tragic deaths of our ICE agent Jamie
Zapata, given the continued threats posed by drug cartels to
our Nation and citizens as well as the citizens of Mexico, we
need to ensure that the rule of law and strong, resilient
communities exist in Mexico. We need to ensure that the
training we provide is contracted in the right way, completed
in a timely manner, and measured for its effectiveness. This
committee has a responsibility to provide effective oversight
to ensure that this happens for our security and for that of
Mexico.
This amendment stresses our concerns with USAID's handling
of training for the Merida Initiative and restricts the
practice of ``putting all of our eggs in one basket'' regarding
training. Our administration, Madam Chair, cannot afford to
haphazardly enter into contracts simply for convenience, ease
or timeliness alone. For security of our country, as well as
Mexico, regarding the Merida training programs, we must ensure
the best possible training programs for Mexico, utilizing solid
contracting processes that consider all companies that are able
to perform components of this vital training process.
I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues
to vote for this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schmidt.
And Mr. Keating is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I urge support of this amendment as well. I think the 50
percent--people could argue where 50 percent comes from and how
accurate that might be. But the situation in Mexico, as we have
found out in the Homeland Security Committee, is one of a
crisis. And if we have a contractor that is not fulfilling the
obligation, and we are held captive to that contractor, I think
we have to do something about that.
I will be offering an amendment later on that I think will
address this same kind of situation at no cost as well, but I
do think we should move forward with this amendment, and I do
support it.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just real quickly, I
want to thank Mr. McCaul for bringing this amendment forward.
We have got a huge challenge when it comes to Mexico. The
Merida Initiative has struggled for sure, the implementation
and the delivery of the resources. And I would urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I support the gentleman's amendment, but
the only thing, as a matter of observation, I don't think it is
MSI's fault in this whole process. It is the USAID
administrators. They are the ones that should be disciplined.
And I just wanted to share that with the gentleman, because it
says that MSI was not in accordance with procurement
regulations. My gosh, we should fire the guy that administers
USAID in Mexico and not necessarily put the blame on MSI.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Rivera is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I similarly applaud the gentleman's bringing this
amendment forward. I think it is an important step to make sure
that we have accountability in our programs with respect to the
Merida project, and making sure that USAID is held to the
highest standards, and making sure that our contractors are
held to the highest standards, and making--in that procurement
process. So again, I support this good amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so very much.
Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chair, I have an amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
But I had told Mr. Carnahan that he would go first. I
apologize. I am looking at my master list.
Mr. Carnahan, you are on the master list.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to be on
your list. It is a good list, I hope.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the clerk would look for the
Carnahan amendment and let us see if we are in sync.
Mr. Carnahan. It is No. 032.
Ms. Carroll. Yes, sir. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by
Mr. Carnahan of Missouri. At the end of title IV, add the
following: Section 4 [blank]. Assistance to establish
partnerships between businesses and postsecondary education
institutions in developing countries in Africa. (a) Findings.
Congress finds the following: (1) There is a growing need in
developing countries in Africa to educate and properly train
future business leaders in such a way to help them adapt to the
demanding complexities and leadership.
Mr. Carnahan. Excuse me, Madam Chair. If I could interrupt.
In lieu of reading the entire amendment----
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Why don't we wait just 1 second so
everyone gets a copy of the amendment, and that is why I let
her read on a little bit. But, no, we will wait. Well, just
suspend. Hold on 1 second. And while you are handing out that
amendment, I would like to tell members that this is the list I
have of folks who have amendments, but please tell me if you
are also on my dance card: Mr. Mack, Mr. Cicilline, Mr.
Griffin, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Fortenberry. If you are not on my dance card--Mr. Poe. Thank
you. And Mr. Berman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan, you are recognized.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Madam Chair, my amendment would authorize USAID to provide
assistance to establish partnerships between businesses and
postsecondary educational institutions in developing countries
in Africa.
The reason for the program is simple. There was a
recognized need to further educate, develop and train future
business leaders in developing countries in Africa. Better
education, training will allow for more prosperous businesses.
One way to help train the next generation of leaders is through
entrepreneurial education. While institutions throughout the
continent offer business certificates or degrees, the training
can lack certain practical elements necessary for ultimate
success, and there is a shortage of access.
My amendment sets out that there are only 50, only 50
business schools that exist in the entire continent of Africa
compared to--and that is for 800 million people--compared with
1,000 business schools in India, 1,200 in the U.S. There is a
clear shortage of access there.
My amendment would help focus efforts to close this gap by
enabling students to practice in their future fields. They will
enhance their education by requiring real-world business and
management experience. Better training will help lead to jobs,
better economic opportunities. This is not only in their
interest, but it is in our interest as well to help them
succeed and focus our efforts to support that.
With that, I would yield----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. It sounds good. We are
busily trying to find something wrong with it, but apparently
we can't come up with anything.
Mr. Carnahan. I want to cut you short then. I have reached
out--and just if I may add, Madam Chair, I reached out to our
ranking member and the chair of the subcommittee and shared
this information, and it is my----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That explains it.
Does anyone wish to be recognized?
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Let me commend the gentleman for introducing
this resolution. We are working on legislation where we are
trying to deal with higher education in general. As you know,
in many African countries now, there is universal education in
elementary school. Some small school fees are still required;
however, most students are able to go. The other big movement
in the elementary is that the girl child, which has always--in
developing countries been sort of left behind, they have sort
of a ``leave no girl behind'' type thing going on now, but they
have included in a number of countries because of wives of many
of the Presidents have said the girl child should be involved.
So as we are increasing elementary ed, there is a move on
secondary education that only makes sense that with more
graduates coming out of elementary and secondary school, going
into higher education, that we ought to have a way to tap this
new resource of qualified entrepreneurs. And I think if we did
this and we sort of taught them the way that we do it, we could
perhaps interest some American businesses to invest in China.
I see we have a lot of concern about China's investment. My
African friends in perhaps every country in Africa say, we wish
America would come, we prefer to do business with American
businesses, we know it is better, it is more honest, it is more
proficient. The typical African who goes for higher education
doesn't want to go to Beijing. It is just totally free. But
they want to come to the U.S. institutions at Harvard and
Howard and Yale and Morehouse to the person.
So we have a great opportunity. The only reason we are not
doing better in Africa businesswise is simply because our
business people have not decided to maximize the opportunity.
So I think this Carnahan is a good measure, and I certainly
support it wholeheartedly.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Do any members wish to be heard on the Carnahan amendment?
If not, hearing no further requests for recognition, the
question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to. We just didn't have enough time.
Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of
Florida. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
following: Section [blank]. Limitation on assistance to
Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. None of
the funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may be
made available for assistance to the Governments of Argentina,
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, or Bolivia.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And we will just wait a
few minutes until the amendment is distributed.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack, you are recognized for 5
minutes on your amendment.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, as the chair of the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee, we have focused a lot on how to move Latin
America forward. And it appears that every time we turn around,
there are a number of countries who stand in the way, or at
least put up resistance, and those countries are the countries
that are outlined in this amendment.
I think we all recognize that Venezuela--whether it is
supporting terrorism, drug trafficking, assistance to Iran,
kicking out DEA agents, severing ties, you name it, I think
Venezuela is probably an easy one for everyone in here to agree
with me on. Bolivia, at the same time has kicked out the DEA,
kicked out the U.S. Ambassador and aligns itself with the ALBA
nations undermining democracy in Latin America. Nicaragua has
invaded Costa Rica. Ortega is unconstitutionally running for a
third term, and they are in close relations with Iran.
I could go on and on about the--each one of these
countries, but I believe again, as I heard from some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle, that we need to make
choices, and I believe that Mr. Berman said that if we had
governments that we wanted to make sure we restricted funds to,
then we ought to bring that to the committee. Well, that is
exactly what this does. We send approximately $96 million to
these countries right now, and none of these countries are
helping in the creation and strength of democracy and freedom
in Latin America.
And I want to make one last point about Argentina.
Argentina is undermining both the United States judicial system
and the settlement process at the World Bank. Argentina owes
the United States bondholders more than $3.5 billion and has
cost the United States bondholder, taxpayers and shareholders
more than $10 billion. You will know that recently they seized
sensitive U.S. equipment for domestic, political maneuvering,
and the government continues to intimidate and initiate attacks
on the media and freedom of expression.
So, Madam Chair, I believe this is a good amendment. This
really shows where our priorities are, and it sticks to the
principles that I believe are important, that we will support
our friends and our allies. Countries in the Western Hemisphere
that support the ideals of freedom, security and prosperity
should and can expect the United States to stand with them.
This amendment says that if you choose to turn your back on
those principles and ideals, then we will no longer continue in
support of those governments.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack.
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And the gentleman's amendment--I do agree with this
approach, rather than a standard which is much more general and
has very negative consequences on our interests. But there are
a few points--questions I would like to ask.
If the logic is bad leader, oppressive government,
corruption, Iran comes to mind. But we, with my colleagues on
the other side very enthusiastically leading the way,
appropriated significant funds for democracy promotion in Iran.
Why would we want in Bolivia--in Bolivia, we have a program
that promotes democracy-building programs in municipalities far
away from Evo Morales' control. Why do we want to wipe out
those programs? We have counternarcotics programs going on in--
again, in Bolivia.
Mr. Mack. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. Just 1 second. As I understand the gentleman's
amendment, you are cutting out all economic assistance
regardless of category to these five countries--five countries,
each of which has their own problems, but are different
countries--and we are lumping them together in a way that I am
not sure makes sense. So I would be happy to yield to get a
little more----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. Understanding of what the
gentleman is intending here.
Mr. Mack. Thank you.
And the amendment is very clear that these are funds that
go to the government. So these are some of the programs that
you talked about are not included in this. This is about
assistance to these governments.
Mr. Berman. And my reply to the gentleman, the democracy-
building and counternarcotics programs, the democracy building
goes to municipal governments, frankly, in many years where
they are quite opposed to the policies of the central
government. You don't distinguish between the central
government and the municipal governments in this amendment, and
the counternarcotics programs do go to the government. So this
is a decision to cut out those programs. I haven't heard enough
reason to feel comfortable doing that without understanding
what we are getting from them and why they are concerned.
So I understand the spirit of the gentleman's amendment,
but I am just wondering if a strict application of these
provisions doesn't undermine some of our interests here.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is that a question for Mr. Mack?
Mr. Berman. Only if he chooses to answer it.
Mr. Mack. Well, I thank the gentleman.
Look, I don't think that we can--you can't make the
argument, let us say, in Bolivia that we have a program with
the DEA, because the DEA isn't in Bolivia. So I think if you go
through and look at the countries that we are pointing out
here, each one of these countries has stood in the face of
democracy and freedom in Latin America, whether it is
Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador. Argentina owes an
incredible amount of money. So the idea that we are going to
continue to fund these governments when they have no intentions
in standing with us and fighting narcotrafficking, fighting
drugs, fighting terrorism. In fact, the leaders of these
countries all align with Hugo Chavez, who is trying to change
the direction of Latin America. Hugo Chavez wants to see--he
wants to be leader for life, and all of those other countries
are moving in that same direction.
So what we are saying is we have to make the hard choices.
We don't have unlimited amounts of money. When it comes to
these countries, they have shown that they do not support the
ideals of freedom, security and prosperity in Latin America.
And if they don't support those ideals, then we should no
longer support----
Mr. Berman. May I just reclaim my last second here?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would like to get
time from another person, that would be great. We just went to
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Rivera is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It seems like I am reminiscing about the earlier debate
regarding the amendment on the OAS. As Yogi Bear would say,
this is deja vu all over again. How much longer does the United
States need to subsidize anti-American behavior in the
hemisphere? How much longer should the United States subsidize
activities that run counter to U.S. national interests?
When I spoke earlier on the OAS amendment, and I spoke
about the OAS taking actions that run counter to U.S. national
interests, those U.S. national interests include making sure
that we have democracies that are moving more and more toward
democratic reform, human rights, respect for civil liberties.
That is not only in the interest of the United States, but in
the interest of the entire hemisphere, in the interest of
hemispheric cooperation, in the interest of hemispheric
stability among all of our neighbors.
These countries have taken concrete action to destabilize
U.S. interests in the hemisphere, and those actions have
already been outlined in part by Chairman Mack, and there are
many others that perhaps we don't have complete time to
deliberate. But there are many other activities that these
countries have taken that run counter to U.S. national
interests.
So why, particularly in an era of economic austerity, and
an era of budgetary constraints, why should we subsidize or
continue to subsidize these countries? Let us finally send a
message that we are not going to be the punching bag for
countries that perhaps ostensibly or purportedly try in some
way to give a semblance of a friendly relationship, but in
reality, in practice they are taking actions that run counter
to U.S. interests. And we should not subsidize--our taxpayers,
United States taxpayers, should not subsidize anti-American
activities, anti-democratic activities in the hemisphere, and
that is why I support this good amendment.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with my good
friend Mr. Mack on this amendment, although we do share a lot
of the concerns. This is sort of a one-size-fits-all approach,
and I am not sure it is the best way to do it.
For instance, I would not lump Argentina in with these
other countries. Yes, there have been things in Argentina that
have happened that we are perhaps not happy about, but I think
that what is going on in Argentina--Argentina is a democracy,
and we have relationships with that government. There are
things on which we agree, and there are things on which we
disagree. But, for instance, I would not--would put it in the
same category as Venezuela.
I think that is a little bit of a too simplistic approach.
Bolivia, Evo Morales sort of makes his own bed, and he lies in
it. I don't understand why he does half the things he does.
Venezuela, we have all kind of given up. And Nicaragua, you
know, we have seen a lot of things that make us very unhappy. I
am disappointed with Ecuador. I think that they are expelling
our Ambassador and we expel their Ambassador was foolhardy, but
I wouldn't even put Ecuador in the category of Venezuela. I
think when we do that, we push them further into the hands of
Hugo Chavez, and I am not sure that is the right way.
By this logic, for instance, when Lula was President of
Brazil, which is a very important country, he was really
collaborating with Iran. He did it many, many times in the U.N.
He did it in terms of when we were able to get sanctions on
Iran, he was trying to go a different direction. Would we then
have included Brazil into that, an important country with which
we need to have a good relationship with? Since their new
leader Dilma is there, she is a lot better.
And so are we to do this every time a country elects a
government that we don't particularly like or that we think is
wrong?
So I have difficulty. I think we can decide a country by
country. I don't think we need to lump everybody in. And I
think that here, Argentina, it is the most egregious to put
Argentina here.
I have visited there several times. I met with the
President and the Foreign Minister, who was the Ambassador here
in Washington. I would not say that they are anti-American. I
think they want to work with us. Yes, they have a good
relationship with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. He gives them
money. He gives them oil. He helps pay off their debt. I don't
think if a country has a relationship with Hugo Chavez it means
that they cannot also have a positive relationship with us. I
don't think it is an either/or situation. I think that they can
do what is in their best interest, and it is in our best
interest, I think, to have a good relationship with a country
like Argentina, which again is a democracy. I went there, I
visited. We took a codel there. We visited with their trade
union movement with their people.
Again, there are many, many countries that I think we can
say that we don't agree 100 percent with, but I think putting
Argentina in this group is not the right thing to do.
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. Engel. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I would echo what he said. Look, this is a
crude way of substituting for diplomatic engagement. We don't
have to like the actions of another country, or many of their
actions, or their leadership, or some of their votes or
practices to nonetheless understand that we have to be engaged.
We have no choice. To cut off aid of any kind, I think, has
ramifications and limits whatever leverage the United States
may yet still exercise.
I certainly echo my colleague from New York's puzzlement at
the inclusion of Argentina on this list. But nonetheless, this
is a crude weapon. It impinges on any diplomatic leverage. It
ought to be a last resort, not a first resort, and I believe it
will have some unwitting consequences in terms of other things
that matter to the United States not here discussed. I think it
is a mistake to adopt this amendment, and I am going to vote
against it.
Mr. Engel. I want to reclaim my time for about 8 seconds. I
just want to say of late Colombia has been having close
relations with Venezuela. Do we want to eliminate Colombia, who
is our best ally? And I am very supportive of Colombia. So I
think we have to be careful to have these blanket things.
I yield to Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you for not much.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does anyone seek recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized, and then we will go on that
side.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we are only spending $1.5
trillion more than we are taking in. If the money we are
sending these countries--we are borrowing from China and giving
the debt to our children, who will have to pay it off some day.
So what? Let us just give it to them. Cutting off aid in any
way to anybody is a crude weapon.
Well, I have got to tell you, I hope the American people
hear this loud and clear, because that is not in keeping, I
don't believe, and they will determine who they elect and
decide to have up here on these desks making these decisions.
We--they know we are on the edge of a catastrophe, an economic
catastrophe.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Not until I finish.
We are talking about a collapse of our currency unless we
do something rather than going in to debt $1.5 trillion a year,
$1.5 trillion a year for the last 3 years. That is almost $5
trillion. What is the interest on that? And we can't cut out
people from receiving our money and adding to that debt; we
can't just say, okay, if you are really having a negative
attitude toward us, we are not going to give you the money and
put our kids further in debt? We can't do that? What can we do?
Come on. In that is your philosophy? This is my philosophy: Let
us let the American people decide.
Thank you. I will yield to my friend Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. He doesn't want it anymore.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Would you yield to me for a question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague from California.
I am just curious, you have repeatedly throughout this
markup brought up the fact that a significant percentage of any
dollar for diplomacy, for USAID, for a State Department is
largely a borrowed dollar, and the clear indication being that
is a negative thing. So should we cut back on aid to Israel,
because the same percentage of borrowed dollars applies to
Israel, which is one of the larger aid programs we have.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If Israel started to be engaged in anti-
American activity, and we determined they were going in that
direction, the answer is yes.
And I would suggest to you that the reason why I am saying
every dollar that we spend is a borrowed dollar, because 40
percent of our budget is borrowed, I am taking it for granted
that the other 60 percent are things like Social Security,
Medicare, things that really are important directly to the
American people, and that what we are talking about is part of
that 40 percent that is not really totally directed to their
personal well-being at the moment. But I would think that 60
percent of our budget is in that way. So the 40 percent that we
are talking about is borrowed. So we are borrowing this from
China in order to give to countries that express themselves
very well in the fact that they don't like us? Sorry.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
I know Mrs. Schmidt wants to be recognized, but first, Don
Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I do think when we have this start/stop kind of policies
that we are starting to do now, we sort of, I think, defeat the
long-term goals of our foreign policy. These countries here at
different times were close to the U.S. They have--perhaps a
little bump has come in the road. We have countries that we had
very terrible relations with; Peru, for example, when Sendero
Luminoso was killing people, and Fujimori came in and
eliminated them, and then Fujimori became the bad guy, and we
put them on the bad list, and now they are back on the good
list.
We are taking the short-term--we are a relatively new
country; however, the fact that we look at things on an annual
basis rather than a 15- or 20-year plan, I think, is kind of
short-sighted. We sort of--like they used to say in Britain,
penny wise and pound foolish. You know, the British pound. The
fact that we have changed--we are willing now to throw some of
these countries out, whereas they were our allies before.
What I am saying is that I think if we had a long-term
plan--as was mentioned, Brazil now, I think, is going to become
one of our closer allies, very important with a several-
hundred-million-people population and the economic growth where
we can have some trade relations. But we had bad relations with
them before because we didn't like the guy who got elected 8
years ago. Sixteen years ago--8 years wasn't as bad as that
one--and now the new President seems to be okay.
So my point is that if we have these short-term, jerky,
bump-in-the-road, roller coaster policies, we are not going to
win in the long run. So I would hope that we could take a
vision that could certainly be more than sort of a knee-jerk
type of reaction. And I will certainly yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
wonder if the author of the amendment would be open to a few
exceptions to his prohibition on aid.
In Bolivia, yes, the DEA--the Drug Enforcement Agency is
not there, but the NAS--Narcotics Assistance Section of the
State Department--has a counternarcotics program in Bolivia,
one of the world's three largest suppliers of the foundations
for cocaine that is dealing with eradication of the growth of
coca leaves. That is going through the government.
Maybe there--yes, Bolivia is opposing a lot of our
initiatives, but is this something that we are doing for
Bolivia, or are we doing it for ourselves? Is the program
worthless and ineffective?
The gentleman talked about democracy programs and other
things like that. Would the gentleman be open to exempting
assistance provided through nongovernmental organizations even
though it is because there may be government people being
trained, teachers being trained, health workers may be trained?
This is wiped out by your amendment. If there is a chance to do
what you want to do, even though I don't like lumping Argentina
into the category with Venezuela and Nicaragua, but if he is
open to some exceptions, I would be interested in knowing,
because that might be a way we could get you some support you
may not need for your amendment. But sometimes a belt and
suspenders----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman. And let me just say this,
that I think I will stick with the amendment as written,
because I think it is important that we send a message to our
friends and our allies and to those who oppose us. And these
countries clearly have aligned with each other to denounce, if
you will, into the ideals of freedom, security and prosperity.
And I don't think that we ought to continue to support with
taxpayer dollars governments that have no interest in those
ideals.
Mr. Berman. Well, just to reclaim the time that Mr. Payne
controls, if he will continue to yield to me.
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Berman. I would say I thought you guys were supply-
siders. Well, the supply of cocaine in the United States is
very much contributed to by----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The time has expired.
Mr. Berman. I don't know why you want to wipe out a program
that is for us, not for Bolivia.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to applaud my good friend from Florida for this
amendment. Tonight, while we have got papers up here debating
what amendments to support and not support, there are millions
of Americans out there at their kitchen tables trying to figure
out how to balance their budgets and pay their bills. And so
their papers look a little different. It might be their energy
bill, it might be their mortgage payment, it might be their car
payment. And I say that because as they struggle in this
recessed economy to meet their bills, their demands, we in our
Nation need to be doing the same with ours, and we cannot
continue to spend money that we don't have. And we certainly
can't afford to spend money in ways that I think are wrong for
this Nation, and I think that the people at the tables tonight
who are paying their bills would ask us why.
And I really want to look at the countries that Mr. Mack
has included and ask why would we be giving them our hard-
earned money, our taxpayers' hard-earned money? Argentina, you
know, Argentina is undermining both the United States judicial
system and the settlement process at the World Bank. Argentina
owes the United States bondholders more than $3.5 billion. It
has caused the U.S. bondholder, taxpayers and shareholders more
than $10 billion. And in addition, it has seized sensitive U.S.
military equipment for domestic political maneuvering.
Venezuela, well in addition to Chavez not being a really
great guy, they sponsor terrorism and drug trafficking, and
they provide assistance to Iran.
Bolivia kicked out the DEA, kicked out the U.S. Ambassador,
aligns with ALBA, and undermines democracy.
Nicaragua invaded Costa Rica. Ortega unconstitutionally is
running for a third term and has a very close relationship with
Iran.
Ecuador refuses to regulate its borders with Colombia,
where the majority of the FARC are. So while Colombia is trying
to get rid of drug trafficking along its border with Ecuador,
they are allowing the ties to continue. The government official
ties are very close with the FARC, and they kicked out the U.S.
Ambassador, and undermine freedom of the press.
We have got to figure out how we are going to spend
American taxpayer dollars, and they are really concerned about
spending it with foreign aid. When I go back home, that is the
one thing that people say to me is, ``Why are you giving it to
foreign countries, why don't you keep it here?'' Well, there
are reasons why we give it to foreign countries, countries like
Israel, which, by the way, for every dollar that we give them,
we actually get 75 cents of that dollar back right here in the
United States. But there are countries that maybe we shouldn't
be giving those taxpayer dollars to. And I applaud Mr. Mack for
pointing out that maybe these are countries we should say,
``Hey, not until you straighten up your act, you are not going
to get money from us.''
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And it
is not because of an ideological difference between the other
side and my side. It is because the American public is asking
us, point blank, ``Why are we giving any foreign assistance
money, period, case closed?'' We have to go back and defend it.
We better doggone well not have to answer why are we giving it
to Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador because
I cannot support them, but I can support other countries.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mr. Meeks is recognized, and then Mrs. Ellmers.
Mr. Meeks. I, of course, understand that my friend from
Florida really believes that he is doing the right thing, but I
really think that what we are looking at--you know, it is pay
me now or pay me later. To have this kind of policy really says
and belittles, I think, the people that we need--we are working
with on our hemisphere and these countries.
I mean, Bolivia, for example, do we have an interest? Of
course we have an interest, because when you talk about cocaine
and drugs and things of that nature, we want to make sure that
it doesn't come over here, so we need to interact with that
government and governments like it so that we can make a
difference, and so that we can--and when President Morales was
elected, it was a big thing for the Bolivian people, the first
time an individual who happened to be an Indian from the--he is
from the community. It was a big thing for them. It was a
democracy. Democracies are--democracy is sometimes messy. You
can't determine--I mean, I wish in the United States I could
determine the outcome of the elections that we have, and I can
determine who is the President and who is going to be the
President of the United States, and those that I like I will
stay with, and then those that are elected that I don't like, I
will take myself out of the Nation.
It doesn't work that way. I am compelled to deal with who
the people have decided that they are going to elect. So it is
the same situation when we talk about our hemisphere. We can't
vote, nor should we, nor should we tell the people in these
countries who they should elect. But what we have got to do,
and I think similar, I think that Mr. Engel mentioned it--I see
what is taking place with President Santos where he and
Venezuela were--Colombia and Venezuela were completely at odds,
and he decided to take a different tack to figure out how he
can have a better relationship based upon the interests that
Colombia has with Venezuela.
Well, the same thing that we should do. We should look at
this in a tactical manner and figure out the best way that we
can continue to move to get the results that we need, and
understanding at times we are going to have these governments
that--or these Presidents that are not the ones that we would
have selected. But it doesn't mean that we have a herky-jerky-
type situation and say, okay, the guy that we like or the lady
that we didn't like got elected, so therefore we are going to
change all of our policies, we are not going to do anything, we
are going to cut all of the programs. I think that is--it is
short-sighted. It does not have any vision. It is--you can have
short-term gain. It makes you feel good, short-term gain, but
you will probably be in for some long-term pain. I think what
we need to do is maybe have some short-term pain so that we can
have some long-term gain and better relationships overall on
our hemisphere.
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. Meeks. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Connolly. I just wonder whether my colleague is as
puzzled as I am. If we are going to make these the criteria,
why wouldn't we have Pakistan on the list? I mean, they are
shooting at--in some cases reportedly at allied troops in the
Afghan border, harboring terrorists----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wait a minute.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Noncooperation in terms of our
fight against terrorism and insurgency, corruption, compromise
of intelligence. One could go on and on and on. Frankly, the
countries here on this list are penny ante compared to the
magnitude of Pakistan. So if we really mean it, why wouldn't we
add Pakistan to the list?
Mr. Payne. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I hope you will wait. I have an amendment
on the floor.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Whose time is it?
Mr. Gregory Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. My time, and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mrs. Ellmers.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We on this side--and thank you to my colleague from Florida
for offering this amendment. And I echo the sentiments of my
fellow colleague from Ohio on this issue.
I keep hearing over and over again from our colleagues on
the left about being penny wise and pound foolish. Well, it is
difficult when the American people see of every dollar that is
spent in this country, 42 of those pennies are borrowed from
other countries for these purposes. So we continue to spend
money we do not have.
And we understand international diplomacy. We understand
these issues. But the fact of the matter is we have got to put
an end to this wasteful spending and giving money to countries
that we really need to pull back on because of their continued
policies. And it is just very frustrating to hear how--what a
luxurious lifestyle we are all living, and as far as short-term
pain, the American people have been in pain for 2\1/2\ years.
This is pain, real pain. And it is time we put an end to this.
And I would just like to say also that I would like to
again thank my colleague from Florida for offering this. This
is very needed, a very needed amendment. And I would like to
yield a moment of my time to Ms. Buerkle, if that----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank
you to my colleague for yielding time to me. I will be brief.
I want to speak in support of Mr. Mack's amendment. I want
to say that the definition of insanity is to continue doing the
exact same thing and expecting a different result. When I hear
my colleagues on the other side talk about stopping and
starting diplomacy, that is exactly what this body should be
charged with. If a program isn't working, if we are funding a
corrupt government, or we are funding a government that does
not espouse our values, then, yes, we will stop. We should not
support them. We should not expect the same result when we
continue to fund these countries. So I thank you, and I yield
back to Mrs. Ellmers.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Ellmers and
Ms. Buerkle.
Do other members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
If not, then----
Mr. Payne. Recorded vote.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, we will get to that part. So
hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment. Mr. Mack has requested a roll call
vote already. So because of our previous agreement, this will
be the second roll call vote that will take place at 8:15, in
just a little bit. So thank you, Mr. Mack, for that amendment.
Mr. Cicilline is recognized, and then we will have Mr.
Poe's amendment.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk. It is an amendment which
is also cosponsored by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Cicilline of Rhode Island and Mr. Keating of Massachusetts. At
the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:
Section [blank]. Sense of Congress regarding the Millennium
Challenge Corporation. (a) Findings. Congress finds the
following: (1) The Millennium----
Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chairman, I would ask for unanimous
consent that the amendment be deemed as read.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we will just then suspend until
the members have the amendment. And I do have the list of the
Republicans who are offering an amendment. But, Mr. Payne, did
you say you had an amendment also? So we have Cicilline for the
Democrats. I have Cicilline, Deutch, and Payne. And do let me
know so I can put you in the queue.
Everyone has the amendment?
And Mr. Cicilline is recognized at this time.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This amendment is a sense of Congress language describing
the success of the Millennium Challenge Corporation's first
compact in Cape Verde. Members of the committee know, the MCC
funding is based upon an assessment of a country's political,
social and economic conditions, and the country's ability to
promote sustainable economic growth. In order for a country to
be selected as eligible for an MCC program, it must demonstrate
a commitment to just and democratic governance, investments in
its people and economic freedom as measured by 17 different and
very specific policy indicators, control of corruption and
commitment to rule of law among them. And in Cape Verde, the
Millennium Challenge strategy has focused on microfinance
development and improved access to credit for farmers.
The Millennium Challenge has played a really important role
in helping to transform Cape Verde's economy and help it create
sustainable growth. My amendment simply recognizes the
tremendous progress that Cape Verde has made and expresses the
sense of Congress that a second compact would help Cape Verde
build on the successes of the first compact.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would the gentleman yield a second?
We love your amendment, and Mr. Smith is ready to speak in
favor of it, but I am wondering, would you like to read your
statement nonetheless?
Mr. Cicilline. Just one more paragraph.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Go right ahead. Threw you off your
track.
Mr. Cicilline. Yeah. Again, this amendment again--the award
to Cape Verde demonstrates that MCC adheres strictly to its
indicators about achieving results and investing in countries
where it will be most effective, and really allows us to
leverage our investment and build upon the investments we have
already made. And I think it is important that when a small
country like Cape Verde has made such progress, we want to
really use it as a way to incentivize other countries to
compete and develop policies that will help them sustain
sustainable economic growth. So I thank--I have learned early
to quit while I am ahead.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And I know that this is
cosponsored by our friend Mr. Keating of Massachusetts as well.
We thank the gentleman for yielding back the time.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will be very
brief.
This amendment encourages the MCC to conclude a compact
with Cape Verde. Cape Verde has proven to be a small but
reliable partner, and has demonstrated respect for the rule of
law, economic freedom and investing in people. Cape Verde was
one of the first countries to qualify for, negotiate and
implement a compact, which helped create jobs, reduce poverty,
and create a sound investment environment, which sets the
country on a trajectory to aid--to trade. Through MCC Cape
Verde, though it was granted some $110 million for their
compact, they have expended just $103 million to date,
demonstrating fiscal constraint and saving the U.S. taxpayer $7
million.
I point out that a second compact for Cape Verde was
included in the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Fiscal Year
2012 request. Given existing resources and the opportunity to
leverage private sector resources, the MCC has reduced the
budget range for a second comeback for Cape Verde from $75
million to $100 million to $50 million to $70 million. However,
in supporting the amendment, I would like to emphasize that I
fully expect the MCC to continue to adhere to its core
principles and rigorous performance indicators. And again, I
thank----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the
amendment?
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. I certainly concur with the two previous
speakers. I think Cape Verde is a very good example of how the
MCC works, and it is doing an outstanding job. It is very close
to our Government. Many of our codels were refueling. In the
old days when we had codels, we would stop in Cape Verde for
refueling, a very pleasant country, very cooperative. So I just
would like to add my support to this amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Seeing no other members seeking recognition to speak on the
amendment, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in
favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
And Mr. Poe is recognized for his amendment.
Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 155.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The clerk will read the
amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Poe of
Texas. At the end of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx.
Guidelines for United States foreign assistance programs. (a)
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the
performance of United States foreign assistance programs and
their contribution to policy, strategies, projects, program
goals, and priorities undertaken by the Federal Government, to
foster and promote innovative programs to improve the
effectiveness of such programs, and to coordinate the
monitoring and evaluation processes of Federal departments and
agencies that administer such programs. (b) Establishment of
guidelines. The President, in consultation with the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development----
Mr. Poe. Madam Chair, I move that we waive the reading of
the rest of the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. It is so granted.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will just give 1 minute for all
of the amendments to be distributed.
And the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment is really the second amendment in two. The
first one was for transparency, which we passed by a voice
vote. This amendment requires monitoring and evaluation done by
the President for setting up guidelines for goals and
benchmarks for all foreign aid programs.
I want to thank the ranking member Mr. Berman and his staff
for their input on this amendment.
Right now, foreign aid programs are not measuring results.
USAID, which has done more than any other agency except MCC on
monitoring and evaluation, isn't even requiring its programs to
have a way to measure results, let alone implementation, until
Fiscal Year 2013.
So, since the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act in
1961, foreign aid programs have spread across 12 departments,
25 agencies, 60 Federal offices. Funding levels for foreign aid
have doubled in the last 10 years. And lack of accountability
really invites waste, fraud, and even corruption.
The losers are those the programs are trying to help
overseas and the Americans who pay for all of this. So there
must be a clearly defined set of standards that is applied to
all foreign assistance programs. And I urge adoption of this
amendment that monitors and evaluates all foreign aid programs.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to ask the gentleman, the
sponsor of the amendment, a question.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, Mr.
Poe?
Mr. Poe. Certainly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would just like to ask the gentleman if
there was any reason why the Secretary of State is not included
in the process of consultation. In the establishment of
guidelines, the first page, I notice that we have USAID, we
have the Secretary of Defense, got the MCC, but I was just
wondering, to the gentleman, if there was any reason why the
Secretary of State is not included.
Mr. Poe. Well, it requires the President to set up the
guidelines. I just mentioned USAID and MCC because they are
doing something. But I prefer that the President set the
guidelines and the benchmarks and the standards, rather than
the Secretary of State. It is just a choice.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. The Secretary of Defense is also
included in the consultation. Is there a reason?
Mr. Poe. Well, the Secretary of Defense--the Defense
Department does foreign assistance, as well. That is the
reason.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do other members seek recognition on this amendment?
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Yes, I rise in very strong support of this
amendment. I was going to offer an amendment on this subject,
and the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment that I
think is as good as the one I was going to offer, and I am
biased in favor of myself.
So I hope the committee adopts it. I congratulate him. I
think it is a significant contribution to the improvement of
our foreign assistance program. And I encourage your
enthusiastic support for it.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman yields back.
Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Yes. I think that this resolution has some
merit, especially since Mr. Berman has agreed that it does.
However, I also wonder about the organizations mentioned.
And I really have a problem with us including the Department of
Defense in foreign assistance per se.
Now, we do know that the Department of Defense, if they are
in a country, will help to build the road. However, there has
been suspicion in the past when the Department of Defense or
some of our agencies, like the CIA or others that were involved
in so-called foreign assistance, also became involved.
And one of the problems that initially confronted AFRICOM
was that the African nations felt that foreign assistance now
was going to be determined by the military, that there would be
a general in charge and the USAID and other programs would have
to get approval from AFRICOM that would be in charge. And after
several years of assuring the African countries that this was
not a military movement, this was not a program to simply
protect U.S. military interests and fight al-Qaeda or protect
the oil in the Gulf of Guinea, that there had now been an
acceptance that AFRICOM, in its new reorganization, may be
positive.
So I just cringe a little bit when I see the Department of
Defense included in USAID or the Department of State and would
question--I don't think it would weaken your amendment at all
if you would consider perhaps not having the Department of
Defense mentioned, but when in instances that they do indeed
become involved, they would kind of be consulted.
Mr. Berman. Would the----
Mr. Payne. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. I appreciate it.
The way to make the amendment better than what I was going
to offer is, certainly, the Secretary of State should be in
there. I assume it was----
Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
Mr. Berman [continuing]. Inadvertent that the Secretary of
State is not included. Since we have not made USAID an
independent agency, the administrator works under the
Secretary.
And I do see a logic to the Secretary of Defense when we
are dealing with 1206 funding. There are a lot of--I think too
much--assistance administered through the Department of
Defense, such as the whole Pakistan counterterrorism fund and
all that. So there is logic for evaluation of those programs
with Defense. Mr. Payne's suggestion is not a bad one, have
them focus on those programs.
But I do think it is a glaring omission not to have the
Secretary of State as one of the people being consulted. And I
am hoping the gentleman might----
Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time. I agree that the Secretary
of State certainly should be in there. I think that was
mentioned before. And it is sort of like the tail wagging the
dog, because USAID is a part of the Department of State.
I think that evaluations of Defense programs ought to be
done by the Department of Defense. I think that some
legislation like this for the Department of Defense should also
be in--as a matter of fact, we spend maybe $50 billion a year
on all foreign assistance, or less, even including MCA. We
spend $700 billion on defense. So I would prefer to even see
something like this set up for Defense.
I just think it is inappropriate; however, I would not vote
against it because it--I just think that we continue to have
certain countries who remember Vietnam and remember the old
days of Iran-Contra and so forth. To say with the Department of
Defense being our aid agency, I think just, in my opinion, it
sends the wrong message.
Mr. Poe. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
Mr. Payne. Yes, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. I ask unanimous consent that we add the Secretary
of State.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Poe. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will make that addition.
And does Mr. Payne yield back?
Mr. Payne. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Does any other member seek recognition?
Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Congratulations, Judge Poe.
Mr. Deutch is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. I thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have two amendments at the desk. The first is Amendment
623.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
of Florida. At the end of title IV, insert the following:
Section [blank]. Nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining.
For nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining programs, not
more than $740 million is authorized to be appropriated to the
President for Fiscal Year 2012.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Hold on 1 second, Mr. Deutch, and we will give out the
amendment.
The amendment having been given out, the gentleman is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As the ranking member noted earlier, the name of this title
is ``Foreign Assistance,'' but the title omits authorization of
key activities. Foreign assistance is not just development. It
encompasses a broad swath of activities to support partners and
advance U.S. national security.
A key area of this assistance is the nonproliferation,
antiterrorism, demining, and related programs account. It
encompasses counterterrorism assistance, demining, and
nonproliferation activities at the Department of State--some of
the most important functions of the entire national security
apparatus. The text before us omits authorization for these
programs.
These programs keep America safe and help us strengthen our
partners. States' nonproliferation programs help halt the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery
systems, and advanced conventional weapons systems, with
particular emphasis on denying such weapons to terrorists.
These programs also support multinational exercises under the
Proliferation Security Initiative and the destruction of WMD
weapons.
The Global Threat Reduction Program supports specialized
activities aimed at reducing the threat of terrorist or state
acquisition of WMD materials and expertise through such
activities as scientist redirection and engagement.
Antiterrorism programs provide training and equipment to help
build the counterterrorism capabilities of partner nations.
The coordinator for counterterrorism is expanding the
Department's efforts to counter violent extremism in high-
priority countries. This is exactly what we need to do to
ameliorate the need for military action down the road.
The NADR account also funds the TIP/PISCES program, which
provides computerized watch-listing systems to partner nations
that enable immigration and border control officials to quickly
identify suspect persons attempting to enter or leave their
countries.
Finally, NADR supports humanitarian demining efforts like
the Conventional Weapons Destruction Program.
The bottom line, Madam Chairman, is that these programs are
critical to U.S. national security. We should fully exercise
our committee's prerogative by authorizing these programs
specifically in the bill. I urge adoption of this amendment.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And the gentleman yields back.
And speaking of critical issues, pizza has arrived for
members on both sides of the aisle in the side room.
Which member would like to be recognized for the Deutch
amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Deutch, where did you come up with
this $740 million number?
Mr. Deutch. If I may, the $740 million is the Fiscal Year
2011 number, which is consistent with the balance of this bill.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So your proposal is just basically
to carry over what we were doing last year----
Mr. Deutch. That is correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Over to this year.
Mr. Deutch. That is correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. All right. Just wanted to know where
it came from. Thank you very much.
Mr. Deutch. You are welcome.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do members wish to speak on this amendment?
Mr. Royce. Yes, I will speak----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce is recognized.
Mr. Royce. Yeah, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about
this account, the NADR account. I have watched this account
very closely over the years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sherman
and I, some years ago, worked together to make sure there were
sufficient resources to combat the threat from shoulder-fired
missiles, and the account got beefed up.
But this amendment envisions a NADR account beyond what the
President has called for. And the President's request is
$708,540,000. So this amendment then goes and adds $30 million
to the President's request, and it does so without saying why
or identifying how that money would be spent.
Now, if the President thought he could spend more money if
the administration thought they could, we would know they would
try to do that. But as I said before, we have to make choices.
And going above the President's request just isn't a choice I
think we are in the position to make.
And I would also add that, in terms of the Appropriations
Committee, they are in line with our number here--they are in
line with the President's request. They are in line with the
President's request.
So, if the State Department thinks that this account
request was shortchanged, I haven't heard anything from them.
And as I indicated, we have worked with them closely on this
account over the years. I chair the relevant subcommittee. No
one has alerted me to the fact that they feel the President's
request is insufficient.
So I have to oppose this amendment. And to go back to the
argument at hand, just to add $30 million to this without a
compelling reason why, at a time when we have to make tough
choices and when that is not what the State Department or the
administration is asking for, is not a good idea.
Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Royce. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Royce. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Deutch. This is not--just to clarify for the gentleman
from California, this is not an increase from the President's
requested amount to $740 million. This is an increase from zero
to $740 million.
Mr. Royce. No, it is not--it is not zero, because--the
reason it is not zero, Mr. Deutch, reclaiming my time, is
because I took the time to talk to the Appropriations Committee
this morning to find out what the appropriations is, and the
appropriation is $708,540,000.
Mr. Deutch. If the gentleman will yield, there is nothing
in this bill, in the underlying bill, that reauthorizes these
programs. There is nothing in this bill that reauthorizes these
programs.
I will gladly accept an amendment to my amendment to change
the $740 million to the $708 million requested by the
President.
Mr. Royce. Well, I think that is what you ought to do.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, would
there be any objection to changing the amount? The sponsor of
the amendment would agree to that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is a matter of the President's
numbers--yes?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chairman, I do have a question
about----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, yes, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Deutch, I know----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will just start the 5 minutes----
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. That in one of the drafts
earlier, the proposed authorization, there was a specific
section dealing with demining and, I believe, nonproliferation.
And then the latest draft, there was no provision whatsoever.
And I think this is the reason why Mr. Deutch has offered this
amendment.
And, specifically, I wanted to ask Mr. Deutch about the
issue of demining. And I had intended and wanted to include
unexploded ordnance, the fact that we dropped 2 million pounds
of cluster bombs in Laos and Cambodia for which we never really
did an honorable job in cleaning up the mess that we created in
those two countries--countries that never waged war against us.
And I wanted to ask the gentleman, how much money is being
allocated for purposes of cleaning up mines? I presume it is
land mines, but I wanted to know if there is any provision in
there that touches on unexploded ordnance as well as cluster
bombs.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. I thank the chairman.
If this amendment is adopted, there is $5 million for
conventional-weapons destruction in Laos and $4 million,
$3,940,000, for conventional-weapons destruction in Cambodia.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And, Mr. Deutch, if I could have that number again--did we
write that down--that Mr. Royce had given, since you were in
agreement? It is the President's number for Fiscal Year 2012:
$708,540,000.
If the clerk would note that, then I think that we are
ready, if there are no further requests for time, to voice vote
this Mr. Deutch amendment.
Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the Deutch amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Congratulations, Mr. Deutch.
Now, pursuant to the earlier announcement, the following
postponed votes will be taken in the following order: We have
pending the Schwartz amendment to strike section 407,
conditioning assistance on the MCC corruption performance
indicator; and the Mack amendment, limitation on assistance to
Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia.
And, Mr. Deutch, I know you have another amendment. Mr.
Duncan has, like, three others. So we will take--and we have a
bunch. So we are taking them one at a time. But thank you.
So we are ready to vote.
Mr. Berman, ready?
You ready, gang?
We are ready to go.
Yes?
Mr. Berman. You are certainly within your rights to go. I
feel a little bad that the author of the amendment isn't back
yet, and I am sure she will be here in a minute.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. I think we were very clear. And
we are pretty nice about accommodating folks, but we were
pretty darn clear.
So, pursuant to the earlier announcement, the following
postponed votes will be taken in the following order: First,
the Schwartz amendment to strike section 407, conditioning
assistance on the MCC corruption performance indicator.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. I said no earlier.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Royce votes no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 13 ayes
and 23 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Now we will proceed to vote on the Mack amendment,
limitation on assistance to Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Ecuador, and Bolivia.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 23 ayes
and 16 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
We will now turn--oh, the Chair recognizes the presence of
her much better half. Hi, Better Half. You picked a good day to
come up. Move we adjourn? We have pressing business. Don't
embarrass me.
All right, Mr. Griffin has lost his turn in the queue,
which now goes to--oh, he is there? Okay, Mr. Griffin.
He was excused for a little while for National Guard duty
there. Reporting for duty.
Mr. Griffin. That was pizza duty.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That was pizza duty.
Mr. Griffin has an amendment at the desk.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Griffin
of Arkansas. In section 403 of the bill, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''. At the end of title
IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Prohibition on funds for
the Trilateral Assistance Program. (a) Findings. Congress finds
the following: (1) During Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, the
United States Agency for International Development provided the
Government of South Africa with $2,500,000 to support the
Trilateral Assistance Program, a program through which the
Government of South Africa provides technical assistance to
third countries in Africa; (2) $1,500,000 was requested for
Fiscal Year 2011 and $1,530,000 has been requested for Fiscal
Year 2012; (3) South Africa has been recognized, along with
Brazil, Russia, India, and China, as having one of the world's
largest, rapidly growing economies and has become a donor
nation; (4) Further, while South Africa still faces enormous
development challenges, including one of the highest----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Unanimous consent to
consider the amendment as read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members now have a copy of the
amendment, and Mr. Griffin is recognized, as the author, for 5
minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We all know that we have a problem with debt and spending
money we don't have and borrowing about 42 cents on the dollar
from foreign sources. And that brings me to the amendment I
have on the South Africa Trilateral Assistance Program.
We are giving money to this Trilateral Assistance Program
at the request of USAID. They have requested $1.5 million for
Fiscal Year 2012. And the Trilateral Assistance Program is a
program through which the Government of South Africa provides
technical assistance to other countries in Africa. That is not
a bad thing.
What bothers me about the funding of this particular
program is that we give the money to South Africa so that they
can give the money to other countries. My amendment reduces
funding for the Trilateral Assistance Program by $1.5 million,
because if we want to give to these countries, we can give to
them directly. We do not need to give through South Africa.
South Africa is a member of the G-20 and has been
recognized, along with Brazil, Russia, India, China, as having
a major, emerging world economy. South Africa invested billions
in infrastructure for the 2010 World Cup.
While South Africa still faces enormous development
challenges, including the highest HIV/AIDS infection rate in
the world, this program does not relate to that. De-funding
this program does not keep those dollars from assisting in that
area. Cutting this program would not affect funding to support
development programs within South Africa.
What we do here is we use South Africa as a pass through.
And it is like taking these bags of food that we have seen
around the world that USAID distributes, taking the American
flag off, putting some other country's flag on there, and
letting them get the diplomatic credit for feeding folks. That
is what is happening here. We are giving the money to South
Africa, and then they give it out as they see fit.
I don't have a problem, in many instances, with where this
money is going. I just feel like we should be giving it, if it
is going to go there, particularly in light of the fact that,
when we give through another country, we lose direct oversight
over those funds. Simply put, if we want to spend this money,
we need to be spending it directly and not through another
country.
We are out of money. And we have a task, the task of
identifying wasteful spending or spending that could be done in
a more efficient way. And this is another one of those
examples.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chabot [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is----
Mr. Griffin. Oh, sorry. Not Madam Chairman.
Mr. Chabot [continuing]. Recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
One of our USAID's goals, and ultimate goal as a
development agency, is to work ourselves out of a job. Given
that many countries in Africa require development assistance
for many years to sustainably develop, a critical part of our
effort is to encourage African countries that have made
significant development progress to show leadership in helping
their neighbors achieve similar success.
This program leverages a very small amount of U.S.
Government money resources jointly with those of the Government
of South Africa together. And, together, we provide technical
assistance to other countries in Africa in a manner that is
consistent with the tenets of the Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness, which includes country ownership, alignment with
countries' strategies and systems, and mutual accountability.
These trilateral activities allow the Government of South
Africa to provide demand-driven expertise and services to other
African countries while enhancing its own capacity to become a
more active foreign assistance donor.
The administration believes that Africa holds the key to
its own development and that we must utilize opportunities to
leverage African performances to engage the international
community in a dynamic partnership. The trilateral activities
provide a multiplier effect of not only strengthening the
capacity of the Government of South Africa to play a more
active role in Africa's development, but to achieve meaningful
impact through project activities such as strengthening the
capacity of government officials in South Sudan and other
areas.
And so what I am saying is that South Africa has been very
important to us on some critical votes on Iran in the U.N.
South Africa gave us support under the new government of our
new President. I would urge us to continue to work with South
Africa, a dominant force in Africa. And I think that this
should not pass.
I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. If so, he is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. And I will yield my time to the gentleman from
Arkansas.
Mr. Griffin. I just wanted to make a couple more points,
Mr. Chairman.
We give South Africa almost $600 million a year, $582
million. And the majority of that is to deal with their HIV/
AIDS crisis. The money that we are talking about in the context
of the Trilateral Assistance Program is not somehow going to
turn South Africa against us when we are still giving them over
$500 million a year. That is just ridiculous. That is not a
legitimate argument.
The other argument is that they need help, they somehow
need help in developing relationships. Well, South Africa has
already become a leader in the region. They are a donor state.
They have been engaging in bilateral arrangements with
traditional donor states in other developing countries for 11
years. They have sufficient experience and sufficient funds to
do precisely what this program is allowing them to do with our
money.
And where does this end? I mean, we could just go around
the world and give every country some money for them to give
out to their neighbors, and that might help them to better
their relationships. I mean, it never ends.
This is a perfect example of us giving money away that we
have little to no oversight over. And it is money that we can
continue to provide to the recipients if we choose to. If we
don't, we can stop.
I ask that you support this amendment. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman is recognized, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the chairman.
I yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And, along those lines, I would like to
ask the gentleman to explain to us exactly what the trilateral
agreement portends and why we participate in such, in doing
this with South Africa, if he could.
Mr. Payne. As you may know, South Africa is a dominant
nation in the continent of Africa. With the new leadership of
Jacob Zuma, we have now moved toward close relations. We have a
number of votes that will come up in the United Nations, and
South Africa, with the new leadership, has said that they will
be even a stronger ally to the U.S.
I never indicated that if we did not fund this program that
South Africa would turn against us. The gentleman stated that
he didn't feel that they would turn against us; I never said
they would. I just simply said that they put in money which
matches the money that we put in. It maximizes what they do,
because many of the African countries look toward South Africa
as they are developing, and they have the expertise, and the
countries know that this is a joint program between the U.S.
and South Africa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It is my time anyway.
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So what you are saying here, through the
Trilateral Assistance Program, it is kind of like a burden-
sharing program.
Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is not like we are giving South
Africa $2.5 million. They are also contributing to the fund,
for which then they give assistance to other countries. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. Payne. That is absolutely correct. And we are able to
maximize what we are able to do. Countries know that it is a
U.S.-South Africa joint project. They look at that very
positively. And I think that it is really money well spent.
South Africa gets more expertise; we get credit for our
partnership with them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other members seek time?
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very bizarre conversation. We can't pay our own
bills. We are in over our head. We are borrowing 42 cents of
every dollar we spend. And then we have to pay interest on that
money that we borrow.
And if I am understanding it, my friend from Arkansas, so
we are borrowing money, and while some people would say $2.5
million is not a lot of money, it is only a lot of money down
here because it is not our money; it is easy to give away money
that is not yours.
But, Mr. Griffin, if you could explain to me, so we are
borrowing this money, we are giving it to South Africa so that
South Africa can give it to somebody else to develop their--
their what? Their image as a donor?
Mr. Griffin. Well, South Africa has flexibility--oh, does
the gentleman yield?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Griffin. South Africa has flexibility to determine who
is going to get this money and what for. But the point is, if
we want to give this money, we can give it directly. If you
take the amount that is here, $1.5 million, that means almost
half of that is borrowed, and a third of the borrowed is from
China. Maybe if we are going to borrow all this money from
China, we could just skip that step and try to work out an
agreement where China can give it directly there. I mean, this
is ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Kelly. Well, you know, if the gentleman would yield,
what I think we ought to do, then, is propose to China that
they give the money to South Africa but tell them it came from
us.
Mr. Griffin. Precisely.
Mr. Kelly. All right, I get it.
Mr. Griffin. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Kelly. I get it. Okay. This is making a lot more sense
to me now.
Well, I will tell you what. The gentleman from Arkansas,
thank you for bringing the amendment up. I think it does--in
the theater of the bizarre or the theater of the absurd, which
is what we operate in anymore. I appreciate that.
Thank you very much, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Kelly. I am yielding back my time.
Mr. Chabot. He yielded back his time. Does the gentleman
seek recognition?
Mr. Ackerman. I would.
Mr. Chabot. All right. The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. I would just like to ask the gentleman who
made the motion or the gentleman who just spoke, do you know
how much money China actually does give directly to South
Africa and to the African countries?
Mr. Kelly. Are you directing that question to me?
Mr. Ackerman. Okay.
Mr. Kelly. I don't represent any of the citizens of China,
so I really have no concerns of what China gives to anybody.
Mr. Ackerman. But you do recognize that we have an interest
in what China does on the planet because they are one of our
main competitors, don't you?
Mr. Kelly. I am not sure I understand where you are going
with your question. Yes, I understand China is a competitor to
the U.S., but thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Where I am going is that it is pretty cute to
say, eliminate the middle man and China should give the money
directly to them. But without even doing that, China, despite
the fact that you don't represent any of them, is smart enough
to know that it is in their national interest to invest in
Africa. And they have indeed invested in Africa, and South
Africa specifically, multiples, multiples, multiples of what we
are looking at investing there now.
The natural resources on the continent of Africa are huge.
And the Chinese, who you are privileged enough not to represent
any of, is smart enough to know that----
Mr. Kelly. Will the gentleman----
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. This is a really good
investment. Despite the fact that you don't represent them
doesn't mean that they don't understand what a good investment
is.
Mr. Kelly. Will the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Ackerman. I will yield back, maybe, in a minute. I will
think about it.
But the Chinese are smart enough to know a good investment
when they see one.
We are not the only ones on the planet. Some people seem to
think so. And we have seen a lot of amendments today that begin
with the words, as does this one, ``Prohibition on funds for.''
So it seems that we are pulling out of the planet and leaving
the playing field to those Chinese people that you don't
represent.
But someone is representing them that is pretty smart. And
they have looked around the world at the resources that they,
and maybe even we, desperately need now and on into the future
and say, let's see where we could make investments and we could
buy some friends and let people know on this world that we have
an interest in them and helping them, because that is not
throwing away money--and I think they need money in China,
too----
Mr. Kelly. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. But that is investing a lot of
money. And they are investing that money in places like Africa.
So I assure you that your suggestion, although it did bring
a smile to my face, that they could make the investment
directly, they have thought about this before you thought it
was a joke. And they have really done it. They have done it to
the extent that puts us looking like meager paupers.
If we were as smart as we think we are, we should be
investing in the world, not withdrawing and retracting
ourselves from it.
The gentleman wanted some time?
Mr. Kelly. Yeah, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Ackerman. Surely.
Mr. Kelly. And I would agree with you, the Chinese have
been much smarter in their investments. They really do get a
positive ROI. And I don't know where China sits with their
debt. I know where we sit. They are much smarter than us. I
mean, we are $14.3 trillion in a deficit. So I would say, yes,
China has done things a lot smarter than we have.
But China makes its investments overseas when there is a
strategic reason for China to make its investments overseas.
They just don't throw money around like a Santa Claus----
Mr. Ackerman. Yeah, reclaiming----
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. Thinking it is going to buy them
friends.
Mr. Ackerman. I don't know a lot about Santa Claus, but
reclaiming my time. The point is, China does know what is in
their national interests. And if they could figure out what
their national interests are, we should be able to figure out
the same thing.
And I assure you, it is in both countries' national
interests to invest in mineral-rich areas and resource-rich
areas such as Africa. And the Chinese are doing that.
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Ackerman. We don't have to be smart----
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman answer a question?
Mr. Ackerman. I don't know if I know the answer, but I will
refer it to my Chinese friends.
Mr. Duncan. Are we talking about investments from China
into rare earth minerals or energy issues? Or are we talking
about humanitarian investments, where the Government of China
is----
Mr. Ackerman. The Chinese are doing all of the above, both
of what you just suggested and more.
Mr. Duncan. I would like to see the real numbers on that.
Mr. Ackerman. And they are investing in resources, they are
investing in businesses, they are investing in infrastructure
in these countries. And they are building a tremendous amount
of goodwill, and that is not just Africa.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Ackerman. You would be shocked to see what they are
doing in South America, as well.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burton. The Chinese are buying minerals and investing
because they are going to use those investments long-term to
become a more powerful country. They are not giving it away
like we are. I think that is the point the gentleman is trying
to make. Giving the money away is far different than buying
assets that you can use later. And that is what the Chinese are
doing.
So I don't know how many Chinese people you have in your
district, and I really don't care----
Mr. Ackerman. 34 percent, if you did care.
Mr. Burton. I don't really care. I think I said that. But
what I do care about----
Mr. Ackerman. You cared enough to bring it up and not care.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Indiana controls the time.
Mr. Burton. Yes, but the gentleman from New York cannot
control his mouth.
The point is----
Mr. Ackerman. I think that was really----
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Indiana controls the time.
Mr. Ackerman. Point of personal privilege.
Mr. Burton. Take it.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman is recognized for making a point
of privilege.
And I think at this time it would be appropriate for me to
give the committee back to the chair.
Mr. Ackerman. I second that motion.
Mr. Burton. Let me finish my time, Madam Chairman.
The point of the whole discussion is, should we be giving
money to a third party and let them disburse that money, or
should we be doing it ourselves? And I think the gentleman
from--where are you from? Arkansas?--the gentleman from
Arkansas makes a very valid point. If we are going to give
foreign aid, let's give foreign aid to whom we think deserves
it. We shouldn't be giving it to a third party who can use it
to influence people for their benefit. That is number one.
And number two, the Chinese, since that has been a subject
of contention here, the Chinese are investing and buying
minerals and oil and other things around the world for their
benefit. They are not the humanitarians that we have been led
to believe by the other side today. They are not humanitarian.
They are out for their own benefit. And you can't compare that
to the humanitarian largesse that we give to the rest of the
world.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Would you yield for a second?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton, would you yield to Mr.
Payne?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Payne. He is my former buddy, but now you are back, a
friend of mine.
The fact that--there are some numbers, and perhaps tomorrow
I will dig them up--I gave them in a talk I talked about on
China-Africa relations. Believe it or not, the amount of money
that China gives for education in Africa is, like, maybe 50
times, 100 times what we give to Africa for education. I mean,
their investment is $50 billion just right now. That it is just
starting.
The thing about China is that we had the same
opportunities, as I mentioned before. And this is not about
China; this is about trilateral. However, we just did not pay
attention to Africa until China said, ``Well, these Africans
want to deal with U.S. They are not dealing with it. Let's go
in.'' The copper mines in Zambia, oil fields in Sudan, the--you
can go on and on and on--the plutonium that is in Africa. And
so the Chinese just said, ``Hey, listen. Nobody is dealing with
it. We will deal with it.''
Mr. Burton. No. If the gentleman--let me reclaim my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You can reclaim your time.
Mr. Burton. Let me reclaim my time and just say, you are
making my point. The point is, they are buying assets around
the world for future purposes and to make them a stronger power
in the world. They are not the humanitarians that they have
been made out to be.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He yields back.
And let me see, who seeks recognition? We have Mr. Johnson,
who is recognized. And Mr. Rohrabacher, sorry.
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, I have been sitting here
listening to this, and it strikes me as interesting. We are
$14.3 trillion in debt. It is rising every day. I don't have to
remind the members of this committee of that. Here within a
month or so, the entire Nation thinks we are going to drive off
the economic cliff. And we are actually sitting here debating
whether or not we should borrow money to give to someone else.
The gentleman earlier, on the other side, talked about
intelligence and how smart that is. I dare say that the
American people have great reason to be suspicious of the
intelligence of those in Washington that are making those kinds
of decisions in this kind of austere time.
Also talked about whether or not this was a national
security interest and how we should be focused on addressing
national security interests. And I would submit that Admiral
Mullen has said that our national debt is indeed our most
serious national security interest and threat.
So I am not sure how we get to this level of debate. It
sort of seems to me that it verifies that we do, indeed, have
parallel universes here that we exist in. Not sure what to make
of it.
And, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Just a few thoughts
about what we have been hearing.
First of all, let us just note--and, again, sometimes I
feel like the gentleman just expressed, you know, what planet
are we on or what parallel universe are we in, complimenting
China's approach? Yes, China is able to go in to Africa in a
big way, and other countries, and sometimes they are able to do
things that we are unable to do--because they are a vicious
dictatorship and don't permit anybody to complain. We happen to
be a democracy.
And the people of China, do you think that they would go
along with their government if the government was just
unloading resources on some other country, whether it was
friendly or not? No. I mean, the Chinese people have no chance
whatsoever to complain. Our people expect us to watch out for
their interests.
That is what democracy is all about. It is not some, you
know, grandiose scheme that we are going to save everybody in
the world and not expect to get any credit for it. And that
attitude is, I think, again, a parallel universe. That may be
what our colleagues on the left believe. That is not what I
believe, and I am sure that don't reflect what my colleagues
over here believe, first.
Second of all, let's take a look at China. When you start
looking at it and comparing us to China, they go in to a
country, and there are no corruption standards for China. Just
as if, by the way, I might note, we tonight have heard how we
want to take away the corruption standards for our efforts.
Well, no, corruption standards are very important. And in China
they don't have the corruption standards; they go in and bribe
other countries and other officials to go their way and to
basically sell out their own people to these dictators in
Africa.
And, finally, let's just take a look, that when we are
involved with helping other people--I think the American people
are the most generous people in the world. You know, I don't
think you should count foreign aid alone when you are talking
about generosity. You should talk about people who go out and
try to help other people.
And there is nothing wrong with Americans holding their
head up high and saying, ``We are the most generous people in
the world, and we give voluntarily probably more money than
China gives at all.'' Because my guess is, China doesn't give
what we would consider beneficial and helpful hands. What they
do is, they go in and they build a bridge or they buy a
resource or they bribe an official, but they are not engaged in
what we call foreign aid or humanitarian programs, as we are.
Instead, they are engaged with ripping off countries as much as
they can and also, again, not hampered by a democratic process.
So any comparison of our country with China, I will just
have to say that it is beyond my imagination that people could
even think about making a positive comparison between our
country and our people and the Chinese and this vicious
government in China that is the world's worst human rights
abuser.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Mr. Marino is recognized.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to bring out a point or two that--I should be
investing in gold, at this point. But you know something? I
don't have the money.
The United States doesn't have the money. But China does.
And as a dictatorship, it makes it even more convenient for
them to go out and do the investments that they do.
Now, I am a new member here. I have been here 7 months. And
I have been doing town halls and conference town halls. At
least in my district, in rural Pennsylvania, north-central,
farm area, middle-class, small business, overwhelmingly,
Republicans, Democrats, and independents and even people that
aren't registered tell me, we have to look after our own need.
And I agree with that.
But before I am going to yield my time over to Mr. Griffin,
I have an observation that I would like to make here. I have
been sitting here for almost 12 hours, like most of us have
been, and I have been sitting in these meetings for 7 months.
And I am a little embarrassed.
You know something? If we just check our egos at the door,
respect one another, not trying to embarrass someone--because
my father always told me, never try to embarrass someone
intentionally. It is the wrong thing to do, particularly with
our colleagues. But because of the cameras and because of the
people sitting out there, we seem to think this is humorous. We
seem to think it is okay to whack away at each other.
You know, we are intelligent people. At least, I think we
are. At least I am still hoping that that is the case. And we
can get our point across by being respectful with one another,
by treating each other like we should, like we want to be
treated. So I am just going to throw out a little suggestion
here. Why don't we try that once in a while? We will differ. We
will differ a great deal. But we can have good, intelligent
dialogue. I yield my time to Mr. Griffin.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Oh, Mr.
Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. I would just want to reiterate that I don't
think that anyone in this room needs a lecture on what China is
doing in the world. You don't have to be a Ph.D. in Chinese
history or world affairs to know what China is doing in the
world. And to give a condescending briefing on what China is
doing in the world as part of your argument is out of line and
ridiculous. I come from a relatively poor State, Arkansas.
Recent studies have shown that although we have almost the
least of all the States, we give more per capita to charities
than any other State in the country. This is a giving country.
We invest, and we give all around the world. That is not what
this amendment is about. This amendment is about spending our
money wisely period. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does any member wish--Mr.
Murphy is recognized.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Listen, I
agree with the gentleman. This is about spending our money
wisely. Here is a great way to spend our money wisely. Let's
stop invading countries. Let's stop having to spend $3 trillion
overall, as we have done over the last 10 years in two wars. So
it makes sense fiscally for us to think about the ways in which
we don't get to a point of crisis where we have to invade
another country.
Now, Islamic extremist groups are popping up all over
Africa, as we speak, so fast that we can barely count them. So
as we try to catalogue the ways in which we can avoid this
country getting mired in another conflict like we did in Iraq
and Afghanistan, it is to start to think to ourselves maybe
there is some partners in the region that we can invest in
today that can help us, who maybe have stronger relationships
and more leverage over countries that may be harboring those
terrorists, to prevent us from spending trillions of dollars in
the long run.
For now I don't really care about the conversation about
China. For now, I care about making sure that we spend our
foreign aid dollars today in small, but important ways to make
sure that we don't have to go into another country ever again
with military troops to try to stop a nation from providing
safe harbor to Islamic extremist groups. Africa is a very, very
dangerous place today. That is the reality. And it is
complicated about how we form alliances with true partners in
that region who can reach out and try to represent our
interests in the region. That, to me, is as much as anything
else the reason why we are talking about aid to South Africa, a
strong partner in the region, not just economically, but for
national security reasons as well.
So I am opposing this amendment, I am supporting this money
because I am just as fiscally responsible as you all are. I
care about spending our money wisely. But I ran for Congress
because I watched this Nation spend trillions of dollars in
wars that we might not have had to have fought if we would have
been smarter about spending our foreign aid dollars up front.
And if you talk to our military generals on the ground, they
will tell you, they will tell you over and over again that
foreign aid dollars spent wisely are just as important and a
critical piece of our military spending. So for that reason, I
think that many of us approach this with the same sense of
fiscal responsibility that you do. We just maybe look a little
bit farther down the line in terms of that. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields. Mr. Chabot is
recognized for 5 minutes. Then we will go to Mr. Deutch, and
then we will go to Mr. Duncan, the other Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief. I
would just like to speak to this idea that the Chinese aid or
investment or largesse is a positive thing around the world. I
think in most instances, it has been just the opposite. China
has undercut our efforts, our interests around the world time
and time again. Just a couple examples. I have been to the
refugee camps in Darfur, both on the Sudanese side and on the
Chad side. And what you see there is just--well, it is an
absolute shame. And a lot of the world was trying to put
pressure, including the United States, on the Sudanese to back
off with the Janjaweed and the travesty that was happening
there. And our efforts on sanctions against Sudan were undercut
by the Chinese. Why? Because they wanted their oil. And they
didn't care about the people that were being killed, the
villages that were being burned. They wanted their oil. And so
they undercut the sanctions that could have, should have worked
on Sudan. In Iran, I think all of us agree about the last thing
this world needs is nuclear weapons controlled by Iran, you
know, one of the largest countries that supports terrorists
around the world.
The chance that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands
of terrorist organizations, the principal source of those would
probably be Iran if they ultimately get nuclear weapons. So,
rather than handle this militarily, the United States and our
allies have tried to get Iran to back down this program by
sanctions. And what country has time and again undercut those
efforts? Well, China once again. China cares about China. And
that is basically why these investments happen around the
world. We could look at a whole range of things. And I said I
would be brief, so I will. You know, you look at Burma, or
Myanmar, whatever one's preference is what to call that
country. I prefer Burma. But look what they have done there.
Look what they have done in North Korea. Country after country
after country. The aid that comes from China in general is
against the United States' interests, unfortunately.
And I agree with the comments of Mr. Rohrabacher, it is a
dictatorship. It has been for a long, long time. Hopefully, at
some point it won't be. But right now that is what it is. And I
think the American people are with those of us that are
speaking out. And this amendment is a pretty good way to do
that. So I will yield back at this time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much. First, let me apologize
if I offended anybody's sensitivities by bringing up China. It
wasn't meant to lecture about China, but to stimulate some
thinking about China. And I have heard a lot of people
objecting to China, and the discussion has been about China for
the last \1/2\ hour because obviously people are really
thinking about China. But we have to try to approach this in
some kind of intelligent, holistic way that makes sense for our
American interests. And whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, we have the same interests, especially vis-a-vis
China.
I can recite the litany of grievances against China as well
as anybody else. And I agree with everyone. And I would throw
in they put too much MSG in the food. But the Chinese are the
competition of the future. They are the folks that we are going
to be going up against. Their military is enlarging
exponentially. Their influence around the world has greatened
on every single continent, while ours is shrinking. We have to
think about China as we do these things. Certainly they are not
doing these things out of a great sense of benevolence. They
are not wealthy philanthropists. They are acting in their own
selfish interests. And we have to act in our American
interests.
What I am suggesting, and tried to suggest in my own crude
way, was that we should not be looking to withdraw and abandon
the playing field on the planet to the Chinese, because they
are making those investments. Their people are poorer than our
people. They can get away with it, and their government can act
the way that it does because they are a dictatorship. But we
are smart enough to educate our people to know that there is
real competition and danger lurking out there in the world as
the Chinese influence grows not only in Asia, where they are
the dominating force, but in Africa, where they are the
emerging force, and South and Latin America, where they are the
emerging force. There is a danger in front of us here. And I
don't look at it as a bad investment if we are teaming up in
some Trilateral way and sharing the credit. I am looking at
this as a matching grant. We are putting up money and South
Africa is putting up the same amount of money.
We are giving it out, and everybody over there knows what
the game is. This is America helping our African brothers look
good with some of our money, doubling the amount of resources
that we are putting in. And there is an appreciative value that
inures to us that is more important than just buying resources.
It is letting people know that we care about them.
And the Chinese aren't just buying resources that they are
going to store away and use later. They are building bridges,
they are building roads, they are investing in factories, they
are doing infrastructure and everything else that you could
think of. We have to wisen up and not be fighting against each
other. And I didn't cite China to say that they are the mirror
that we should be looking into and trying to make ourselves
like them. We have other reasons to do it. But the fact of the
matter is, like it or not, they are the real emerging
competition. Name another country that you think is going to be
competing with us, another military superpower. Who is it going
to be? Another economic power. Who is it going to be? In the
field of education, who is it going to be? We have to start
winning the hearts and minds of the people of the world in an
intelligent, comprehensive fashion. And we have to really think
about this and come up with a strategy in working together on
both sides of the aisle, and not just oppose each other because
one side put up an amendment so that we are against it. But to
really think it through and how do we improve it to make it
really work for us as a people. How does it strengthen our
economy? How does it strengthen our standing? And if I was too
flippant in my approach to trying to do it the first time, I
hope to have remedied it at least a little bit in this second
try at an explanation. And I appreciate my friend yielding me
the time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I apologize for
dwelling on this issue. But I sat here and listened to the
gentleman I think from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, talk about the
two wars, and as I sat here and thought about the context of
the debate we are having, I think about the investment that
America has made in the region where those wars are currently
taking place. What we did for the Mujahedin Afghanistan to
defeat the Russians during the Cold War. The money we gave to
Iraq when they were fighting our enemies in the late 1970s and
early 1980s of Iran. The fact that we went into that region at
the bequest of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to kick out an invading
Army. It wasn't for imperialistic reasons. We went to help out
folks that called for America to help. And now we see Saudi
Arabia export being the Wahhabist literature, and supporting
terrorism around the world, and maybe not the government, but
individuals within that country supporting terrorism around the
world with financial resources. How much money have we given
Pakistan?
Where was Osama bin Laden? He was in Pakistan. He was
within the town where their military is, and yet they failed to
tell us. We supported Egypt over the years. And how much money
did Mubarak run off with? Afghanistan became a haven for
terrorism and training camps that helped the 9/11 terrorists
train to attack this country. And on 9/11 we were attacked. We
were attacked. And for what? Because we are a free Nation. That
is the root of it. We are a free Nation. And because we are
free, we like to export our beliefs and freedom of religion and
free markets, and that is just to name a few. On 9/11, we as a
Nation came together. And has the war cost us? It has cost us a
lot more than the financial resources of this Nation. It has
cost us our men and women. They have lost limbs, and they have
lost lives, and it is a price that we need to think about.
Don't bring the war into this. We are talking about the
financial stability of this country. We are talking about it in
a context where this week we are dealing with a debt ceiling
increase where we are looking to borrow more money to continue
giving more money away. And something about my South Carolina
upbringing tells me that is not right. So I apologize, Madam
Chairwoman, but I cannot sit here and listen to someone bring
the war into this when it is very clear the United States has
had a presence there.
Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Duncan. I will.
Mr. Murphy. I am sorry if I have touched a nerve here, but
we can't sit here and believe there is some separation between
the foreign aid budget and the military budget. We can't sit
here and pretend that it is somehow unpatriotic to bring up the
facts----
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield? I am not saying there
is a separation.
Mr. Murphy. You control the time.
Mr. Duncan. I am not saying there is a separation. But what
I am saying is the United States has had a presence there in a
lot more ways than just money over my lifetime, 45 years I have
been alive. And what has it got us? In a lot of instances it
has got us a lot of pain and heartache because we were
attacked.
Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield? Listen, I understand
the merits of that argument. But the suggestion that you can't
bring up the wars, you can't bring up the military, the
potential military consequences of not making foreign aid
investments I think is an absolute fallacy.
Mr. Duncan. Look at what the foreign aid investment has
gotten us. I don't believe the argument holds water. You know,
we are in Libya now. You failed to bring up that war. And I
would be interested to find out how you voted on that war,
because I voted to get us out of that war.
Mr. Griffin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Duncan. I will yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. Griffin. I just want to make clear, my amendment does
not comment on--I served in Iraq with the 101st. I am very
familiar with the role of foreign assistance. I recently got
back from Afghanistan, where I was briefed on the ground by
Petraeus and other generals. I get all that. This is about $1.5
million that we are giving to another country so they can give
to other countries. It is this amendment. And if you are for
this amendment, it does not mean that you are against foreign
aid. It means you are for this amendment. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman yield? Thank you.
And we have anyone who would--okay. We have Connolly, and we
have Mr. Fortenberry, and we have Mr. Payne--Mr. Meeks, and who
else? Because we would like to bring this puppy home here.
Mr. Manzullo. I was just going to move the previous
question.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So hold on 1 second. If we are ready
to vote on after these--we can keep----
Mr. Manzullo. I move the previous question.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No, that is okay. I just want to say
the prohibition on funds for the Trilateral Assistance Program
is Mr. Griffin's amendment, and section 403. Who did I call on
first? Who was that? Mr. Connolly? Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will be
brief. I had almost forgotten what Mr. Griffin's amendment was
about. By my count tonight, this is like country number 56 in
which we are slashing aid or disinvesting. And the night, of
course, is young. And if one needed more evidence of the
isolationist, retreatist mentality of the new majority in this
Congress, tonight's markup is a good example.
I would say to my colleagues who are concerned about the
influence of China, if you want to help China and accelerate
their broad influence and emerging confidence in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America continue this pattern of disinvestment,
because they have no such qualms. They are willing to put
enormous resources on the ground. They are not disinvesting in
countries because they don't agree with us or with them. And
anyone who has traveled to large swaths of Africa or Latin
America knows what I am talking about. You see the Chinese
presence in the airport, in the city, at the hotels, on the
ground, investing in construction, in securing access to raw
materials, in whatever it is they are seeking. And that is the
competition. That is the future, as Mr. Ackerman said. So, you
know, we have a fairly modest foreign assistance program to use
as a tool to help buttress our ability to compete with that.
And tonight we are dismantling much of that foreign assistance
tool. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yield back. Mr.
Fortenberry and then Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Fortenberry. All I wanted to say, Madam Chair, is if we
all have patience and want to continue the discussion of
China's role in Africa, I have an amendment on this issue that
will probably at this rate come up at about 5 a.m. So if we
want to defer that discussion until later, I would be glad to
do it. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Let me just say that, before I yield to Mr.
Payne, that the gentleman's amendment basically says that we
are going to take money away from South Africa, who is an ally,
because what we are looking about is that region, the region of
South Africa, where South Africa is, and we want to make sure,
since they are such a good ally of ours, that they also have
influence in that region, and that they can work with their
neighbors and other African countries so that we have
additional allies. And it shows that we are maximizing the
money because South Africa is also saying, look, I am not just
taking your money, we are going to put up some more money also.
And that is going to help a lot of other countries in the
region. And it is going to have greater influence in the region
for us in the long run also. So it is really a wise move,
because we are helping an ally who is helping give a good and
better impression for all, for them to help them in that
region, where we need allies, and to help us. I yield to Mr.
Payne.
Mr. Payne. I will be very brief. First of all, when the
discussion began about China, I don't know if Mr. Griffin said
he is tired of hearing a lecture about China, so I am trying to
decide when a discussion becomes a lecture. A lecture is like
somebody talking down to people. I thought it was a discussion
that we were just having. And characterizing it as a lecture--
--
Mr. Griffin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Payne. Yes. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. Griffin. I wasn't referring to you.
Mr. Payne. Pardon?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The person yielding is----
Mr. Payne. I was yielding to Mr. Griffin.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I know, but that is not your time.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. I yield.
Mr. Griffin. I wasn't referring to you. I don't even
remember what you said.
Mr. Payne. Okay.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized again.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffin, for that
clarification. I just think that, and let me tell you
something, there is no one over here in love with China. I
mean, I saw the way they tried to interfere with Security
Council resolutions on Darfur. I was there when the bombs were
falling. I was there and--as a matter of fact, the
Congressional Black Caucus almost had relations with China
broken off, because we had a meeting with their Ambassador, and
we told him what to tell Beijing. It was a quiet meeting, no
one knew about it, it was a couple years ago, and we saw a
change in China's attitude. So there is no love in our heart
for China.
I just want to say two things quickly. One, that in Africa
there is the highest acceptance for the United States of
America of any place in the world. It is almost 80 percent of
the people in Africa prefer the United States, and we don't
even do anything very much there compared to what China does.
And secondly, just to say about the Heritage Foundation
actually came up with the statistics that China in 2010
invested $120 billion in Africa. Now, that is certainly a
concern, because as has been indicated, it is simply building
up to when they are at the point where they are going to have
all the power that they need, and then we are going to have to
decide, well, what do we do? One hundred twenty billion
dollars, I thought it was $50 billion, and we just looked up
the number.
So there is something that we need to be concerned about. I
want to make it clear that nobody over here, especially me,
have any love in my heart for China. I think that we need to
look at this Trilateral. I think it is money well spent. South
Africa is putting their expertise, they are putting their money
in. It is sort of like a public-private partnership. We are
doing it with them. I would hope that we would have my
amendment passed. Thank you. Yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Meeks, do you yield
back?
Mr. Meeks. Yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Seeing no further
requests for recognition, the question occurs on the amendment.
And the amendment is Mr. Griffin's amendment, prohibition on
funds for the Trilateral Assistance Program. A recorded vote
has been requested. And the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Mrs. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. Let me correct that to a no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman off aye, on no.
Mr. Engel.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No. But happy birthday, Nelson Mandela.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote, there are 23
ayes and 19 nos.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to. The next amendment will be Mr. Payne. I would
like to tell the members that the Chair is going to restrict
the time on the amendments because it keeps volleying back and
forth, and it takes up an awful lot of time. I am going to try
this. If I can't get unanimous consent, we will just limit it
for \1/2\ hour. Would it be all right if members have 3 minutes
each instead of 5? Ms. Wilson says aye. Can I get a witness?
Yes? Let me try it this way. Since it is unanimous consent--
yes, sir.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chair, I am reserving the right to
object. There are many amendments where I think that is
acceptable. There are a few amendments, I will just give you
one example, in case you thought it wasn't going to happen,
there will be an amendment regarding the global gag rule that
has been inserted into this bill. And I would object to any
effort to limit the debate on that kind of an amendment. But on
most of the amendments, fine.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. How about this? How about 5
minutes for the person who offers the amendment, 3 minutes for
everyone else except for Mexico City?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, just so people will
understand, I have an amendment that eliminates aid to Pakistan
and another amendment that eliminates aid to Iraq. I will be
satisfied with my 5 minutes, but I would like my colleagues to
understand that this would be limiting their ability to discuss
this. So I mean, I am not being limited here by that rule, but
they may not want to take it up.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. I will make a
motion, and then we will vote on it. The Chair makes a motion
that from now on, the person who offers the amendment, the
sponsor, will have 5 minutes. Each member will have 3 minutes
to speak on it.
Mr. Berman. I have to make a point of order on this
amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Berman. This amendment constrains House rules on the
committee procedures. It can be done by unanimous consent, but
I would make a point of order.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Will the gentleman yield? Are you
saying that I cannot limit debate time?
Mr. Berman. By motion.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. By a motion that we will vote on?
Mr. Berman. That is right. Under the House rules regarding
how committees function, there is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But she can do it with unanimous consent.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on. No one is recognized right
now.
Mr. Berman. While we are checking this, can I move to
strike the last word?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. No. Thank you. Hold on 1 second.
Mr. Berman, while we are looking, Mr. Berman and Mr.
Rohrabacher, what were you going to say? Mr. Berman is
recognized.
Mr. Berman. I will just take one moment. We have some
additional amendments on title IV. I am not sure how many. I
have three, at least one of which is going to be the amendment
on the global gag rule. And then we have additional titles
where there are many more amendments. I know this goes against
the chair's initial desire of how to conclude this markup, but
I would like to throw out a suggestion, that we try to work out
a time agreement on amendments, both as to the amount of time
that a member might speak and the amount of time on a total
amendment, but that we do it in the context of saying there
will be a time tonight when we will recess--I would just like
to finish my request before it gets shot down, and that we
reconvene at 9 o'clock or 9:30 or 10 o'clock, or whatever the
appropriate time is tomorrow, to finish the markup at a
reasonable hour. Because otherwise we will be here all night.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, we will.
Mr. Berman. And I would suggest we will end up spending
much less time on this markup if we follow a notion of deciding
to stay for another hour or \1/2\ hour and then coming back at
9 o'clock or 10 o'clock tomorrow, and in the meantime, work out
a unanimous agreement on time that members will speak on
amendments and on the total time spent on an amendment, and
that we will end up spending much less time in markup and love
each other much more.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I think I am ready to make the
motion. Are we ready? On the time to limit. May I recognize
you? Are you allowed to have a voice? We need a magnifying
glass. You have to wait for my cataract surgery.
Mr. Manzullo. Why don't we just agree.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on a second. There is no
unanimous consent on anything. We are going to proceed with
debate, and we will try to work this out where we have perhaps
5 minutes for the sponsor, 3 minutes for everyone else. And in
\1/2\ hour, after that amendment is talked, except for the
Mexico City, perhaps we will hear a motion to end the debate on
that particular amendment.
This last amendment went on for an awfully long time, and
people were then called on again and again to talk, and off
topic. So it is fine if we are on topic, but I am not going to
censor what you say, but it is really getting a little out of
control. But Mr. Payne, we will work it out while you debate
your amendment. You have an amendment at the desk. And the
clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
New Jersey. At the end of title IV of the bill, add the
following: Section 4xx. Improvements to nutritional quality,
quality control, and cost-effectiveness of United States food
assistance. (a) In General. The Administrator of the United
States----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Everyone has the amendment. Thank
you. Unanimous consent to consider it as read. And Mr. Payne is
recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Great. And I hope to do it in less than 5
minutes, however I will do my best. This amendment costs no
money. It is, in my opinion, noncontroversial. I offer this
amendment to title IV of the bill, which establishes a sense of
Congress that USAID should institute critical reforms to
improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of U.S. food aid.
That is not asking for any more money or changing anything
substantially. For 55 years, the United States, backed by the
support of the American people, have been committed to
providing life-saving food aid to developing countries and
vulnerable populations around the world.
After their inception, bilateral food aid programs were
primarily organized with the disposal of major agricultural
commodity surpluses generated by domestic farm production as
the major objective. Additional objectives of the program
include advancing U.S. trade and national security interests,
as well as meeting the recipient countries' food security and
development objectives. U.S. food aid has provided critical
calories and nutrition to millions of people during short term
emergencies. But food aid programs have been increasingly
called into question over the past decade for not meeting the
nutritional needs of recipient populations, and in some cases,
for disrupting local markets. This sense of Congress amendment
is our opportunity to voice support for the recommendations of
two recent studies.
One, the first study, conducted by the Government
Accountability Office at my request, is entitled
``International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and Quality
Control Can Further Improve U.S. Food Aid.'' The second study,
conducted by Tufts University and commissioned by USAID, is
entitled ``Improving the Nutritional Quality of U.S. Food Aid:
Recommendations for Changes to Products and Programs.'' Both
studies found that while U.S. food aid is effective in
satisfying the nutritional requirements of recipients for
short-term emergencies, it does not provide adequate nutrition
during long-term emergencies, especially if food aid is the
primary or only source of nutrition, and for populations with
special nutritional needs, such as for infants, children under
5, individuals who are critically malnourished, and individuals
living with HIV and AIDS. The amendment simply calls on USAID
to implement the GAO and Tufts recommendations to issue
guidance on how best to address nutritional deficiencies that
may emerge during protracted emergencies; two, to evaluate the
performance and cost-effectiveness of specialized food
products, convene a new interagency food aid committee to
provide a one stop shop for whole of government technical
actions and food aid, and interface with U.S. food industry and
implementing partners, identify and systematically track key
quality indicators, undertake reforms in commodity acquisition
and supply chain management, develop mechanisms and
partnerships to facilitate more U.S. private sector development
and innovative innovation and food aid products, packaging, and
delivery in order to improve the cost-effectiveness,
nutritional qualities, and overall accept ability of the
product, and develop clear guidance, in coordination with the
Office of Global AIDS Coordinator and the President's Emergency
Fund for AIDS Relief in Africa, PEPFAR, for standardized
nutrition support in HIV programs, establish process and
system-wide protocols for monitoring and evaluation of program
impact, specifically for improving cost-effectiveness.
As the U.S. continues its leadership in providing life-
saving food assistance, we must find efficiencies and leverage
U.S. private sector innovations. As I mentioned, it does not
ask for any additional costs. This simply says there are two
studies that point out how we can take the program we have and
make it better, more nutritional, probably not more food, but
more nutritional aspects. And I would urge my colleagues to
support this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. I
don't see a China angle to it, but the night is young. Mrs.
Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. While we do use China to eat, I won't bring
it up. Mr. Payne, I do want to thank you for offering this
amendment and highlighting the importance of nutrition and
quality of food issues in the United States. Food aid, as you
well know, I chair the Subcommittee on Nutrition in the
Agriculture Committee, and nutrition are near and dear to my
heart. However, I can't support this amendment.
Currently, the United States is the largest donor of food
aid, contributing $1.6 billion through just the Food for Peace
program in Fiscal Year 2010 alone. You know, the nutritional
needs of vulnerable groups and the quality of our food aid to
impoverished countries are critical issues. I couldn't agree
with you more. However, many of the reforms to improve our
quality control are already underway. The recent Government
Accountability Office report on better nutrition and quality
control highlights these issues for reform that both USAID and
USDA concurred with and recently provided examples on
continuing efforts to address such issues.
This amendment calls for new programming, a convening of a
new interagency food aid committee, and the establishment of a
multi-stakeholding working group, adding to the bureaucracy,
and I think, too, probably additional costs, because it is
adding to the bureaucracy. Under such difficult constraints, I
cannot support the potential costs of this amendment,
especially when some of the reforms and recommendations that
are cited within the amendment are currently being addressed.
You know, Mr. Payne, if our budgetary issues weren't in the
same shape as many Americans, and that we really have to look
at pennies and the way to save pennies, I might be able to be
more sympathetic to your point of view. But we have so few
dollars to spend. And to create a new program that is only
going to add layers of bureaucratic costs, I would rather find
ways to improve nutrition with the dollars that we have to
spend now instead of creating a new agency. And Madam Chair, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt. I
did not hear that nation brought up at all. Good job. Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to
thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his proposed amendment.
As I understand it, it immediately is not an additional cost to
establish what he is trying to promote here. I would like to
give him my time, if he could explain a little more exactly
what the amendment provides.
Mr. Payne. Right. Just briefly, it doesn't call for new
employees. It says create an interagency organization. That
would certainly be people who are currently employed by the
agencies. It would not add anybody. It would not create any
additional costs. We are not asking for more money for more
food. We are simply saying that we have some very specific
recommendations. We think that by having someone really
focusing on it clearly with this new interagency group, it
would be able to really facilitate it better. And this is just
the sense of the Congress saying that we think we have done a
good job, we are not asking for more money, we are not asking
for more food, we are just saying, why can't we make the food
more nutritious? And secondly, that we use people in our
agencies already to simply have a meeting. So trying to save
time, I will yield back to the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr.
Faleomavaega. Does any member wish recognition? I did not mean
to put a chill on this. Okay then. I am sorry. All right. Then
hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs
on the amendment. This is on the Payne amendment. All those in
favor say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the
Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, may I ask for a recorded vote?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely. A recorded vote has been
requested. The clerk will call the roll on the Payne amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Mrs. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Mrs. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have always members been recorded?
Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
Ms. Carroll. Wait.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sorry. I didn't mean to rush
you.
Mr. Pence. How am I recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence, you are not recorded.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Votes yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo would like to be
recognized.
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 20 ayes
and 21 nos.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. On my list of amendments, Mr. Duncan is
recognized for his amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have amendment
number 19.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Duncan
of South Carolina. At the end of title IV, add the following:
Section 4xx. Prohibition on assistance to countries that oppose
the position of the United States in the United Nations. (a)
Prohibition. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this act or any amendment made by this act may be provided as
bilateral economic assistance to a country that opposed the
position of the United States in the United Nations. (b)
Definitions. In this section--(1) the term ``opposed the
position of the United States'' means, in the case of a
country, that the country's recorded votes in the United
Nations General Assembly during the most recent session of the
General Assembly and, in the case of a country which is a
member of the United Nations Security Council, the country's
recorded votes both in the Security Council and the General
Assembly during the most recent session of the General
Assembly, were the same as the position of the United States
less--sorry, the second page is not on here.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Can you give that to the clerk?
Thank you.
Ms. Carroll. Thank you. Than 50 percent of the time----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
amendment as having been read because all of the members have
the amendment. And the sponsor is recognized now for 5 minutes
to explain. Mr. Duncan. Do all members have the amendment? Mr.
Duncan.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me just set the
stage for it. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N.
And U.S. voluntary contributions in the U.N. organizations has
increased dramatically over the past decade. According to
reports from the OMB, in the year 2006 through 2010, total U.S.
contribution to the U.N. system jumped from $3.183 billion to
$6.347 billion, more than doubled over the last decade.
Excluding U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, U.S.
funding for U.N.-affiliated organizations through the
contributions to international organizations account
skyrocketed from $375 million in Fiscal Year 2000 to $645.5
million in the year 2010. That is over the last 10 years it has
skyrocketed. The U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular
budget and 27.1 percent of the peacekeeping budget, while the
combined total of 128 countries, or rather, two-thirds of the
General Assembly pay less than 1 percent of the U.N.'s regular
budget and less than \1/3\ of 1 percent of the peacekeeping
budget. So when you review the State Department's 2010 report
on voting practices in the United Nations, this lists all of
the General Assembly votes during the 65th session of the
United States General Assembly.
Out of the 71 votes that the U.S. cast, 131 countries voted
opposite of the United States more than 50 percent of the time.
Only 60 countries voted with the U.S. at least 50 percent of
the time. For example, for the 65th U.N. General Assembly, 18
resolutions related to Israel. Only seven countries voted in
coincidence with the United States at least 50 percent of the
time: Australia, Canada, Israel, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. So when these countries who don't
support us, and they combine with influential voting blocks in
the U.N., they can and do block U.S. attempts to implement
reform, curtail budgets, and support American principles and
values.
Folks, the American people are behind us on this issue. We
are $14.3 trillion in debt. Why are we giving so much money to
the United Nations? What return are we reaping on our
investment when these countries do not support American
interests on the world stage? It is important that countries
recognize that America values issues such as supporting Israel,
U.N. reform, and international religious freedom. My amendment
seeks to address this gap between spending and promoting
American interests. Our level of foreign assistance to other
countries should make a difference in how that country votes on
resolutions in the U.N.
My amendment is very simple. Our economic assistance is not
an entitlement program. If countries that receive U.S. foreign
assistance do not vote with the U.S. at least 50 percent of the
time, then the U.S. has the right to revote that country's
foreign assistance. As security assistance is in the interests
of our national interest, this amendment does not touch
security interests. Rather, as defined in the amendment, it
refers to bilateral economic assistance only. I will keep it
simple. I urge you to support this amendment, and I appreciate
the consideration.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This amendment,
unlike, for instance, the Mack amendment, cuts off any money
authorized to be appropriated by this act to a country that
opposes the position in the United Nations under the
definitions of the amendment. So you vote for this amendment,
you kill the Merida Initiative because Mexico is one of those
countries. You eliminate the global HIV/AIDS, malaria,
tuberculosis program because practically every one of the
countries that are recipients of that assistance votes against
us more than half the time. You kill the democracy programs in
Iran and other assistance to the people of Iran to stop their
government from suppressing them because you haven't limited
your amendment to aid to the government. You have said aid to
the country. In other words, you go right through--and of
course, you wipe out your bilateral assistance to Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. All aspects of it.
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield? There is a waiver
provision in the amendment.
Mr. Berman. I love when you guys say that. I reclaim my
time. We are going to do something really stupid and then give
a waiver because we know we are doing something stupid, and the
President has got to have the ability to undo this. And that is
what this is. I am sorry to say, I have great respect for the
gentleman, but I would love to know that he anticipated the
consequences of his amendment before he had it drafted and
offered it. I think it is a mistake to eliminate the Merida
program.
I don't want to cut the program that George Bush got
started, with the help of a Republican Congress, to try and
save hundreds of thousands and millions of lives through HIV/
AIDS medications. I don't want to get rid of our efforts to
continue the transformation in Iraq that, as we move from a
military situation to an effort to help them sustain themselves
we wipe out all economic assistance. You have got to be
responsible for what you are doing here. And to say that the
President can issue a waiver just falls flat.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield, please, for just a
moment? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. Yeah.
Mr. Burton. You know when we passed the Iran sanctions
bill, we gave the President waiver authority. You didn't
complain about it then. Why are you complaining now?
Mr. Berman. I am saying thank God you gave the President
waiver authority. And I believe in certain situations--by the
way, we had a very nice high standard for that waiver
authority. But reclaiming my time, I am saying, why would you
do an amendment that the immediate consequence of its passage
is that a huge number of countries that get our assistance to
stop their people from being killed by AIDS and the children
who are born to pregnant women taking medication so their kids
won't be born with AIDS, and which will wipe out our Merida
Initiative and undermine everything you guys supported doing in
Iraq and Afghanistan, why would you want to offer an amendment
that does this and then rest on the fact that the President
could waive it?
Mr. Burton. Will the gentleman yield for one more question?
Mr. Berman. Sure.
Mr. Burton. The amendment says very clearly that if they
vote with us more than 50 percent of the time, then there is no
penalty. And if they vote with us less than 50 percent of the
time, the President, if it is in our national interest, can
waive it. I don't understand what the problem is.
Mr. Berman. By and large, I have generally found that when
I want to get one of my colleagues to do something I would
like, I don't tell them how I am going to whack him if he
doesn't do what I like. It is not usually the best first
approach. On those rare occasions, Mr. Burton, and there are
some where you and I are on the same side, I don't come to you
and say, you bum, I am going to do everything I can to destroy
you unless you support my particular bill or amendment. I would
suggest some of that logic applies here. Taking a standard,
providing a waiver that allows you to make the standard
meaningless, but that immediately insults the vast majority of
the countries of the world by saying you are trying to bribe
them into changing their sovereign decisions is not the best
first approach toward international diplomacy or human
relationships. I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
But maybe calling the proposal stupid is also not the best
approach.
Mr. Berman. I would like to correct it. What is a better
word?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Foolhardy.
Mr. Berman. Wrong. Wrongheaded.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Much better. I have seen
some hands up. I saw Mr. Johnson and I saw Mr. Connolly. And
then I saw Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Carnahan, and Mrs. Schmidt, and
Mr. Ackerman. Remind me of that order. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, with
great wealth comes great responsibility. Even the Scriptures
teach that. And we have a responsibility to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. And I think if our goal, which I believe that
everyone on this committee shares that goal, is to encourage
the advancement of democracy and freedom across the globe, then
we have a responsibility to help those who are less advantaged
than we are understand that we are there to help, but that that
help is not a handout, that it comes with a determination that
they support the same ideals that we do. I support this
amendment to restrict the bilateral economic assistance to
countries that oppose the position of the United States at the
U.N. You know, during the past decade about 90 percent of U.N.
member states that receive U.S. assistance vote against the
U.S. a majority of the time in the U.N. General Assembly on
nonconsensus votes. These countries are happy to benefit from
our economic assistance, but they frequently do not step up to
the plate when we need their vote at the U.N.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield for just a second?
Mr. Johnson. I will yield in a second, when I finish my
statement. All too often, and with impunity, they vote against
the United States, against Israel, against sanctioning Iran,
against real budgetary and management reforms at the U.N. This
amendment makes it clear that our economic assistance is not an
entitlement program, and there are consequences when countries
oppose our position at the U.N.
In order for our economic assistance to promote
responsibility, our economic assistance must reward
responsibility. This amendment does not apply to our security
assistance programs. Let me be clear about that. It does not
apply to our security assistance programs. And because not all
votes and situations are alike, the amendment includes a
Presidential waiver--we have just discussed that--to ensure
that economic assistance can continue when it is in our
national interests to do so. With that, I will yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think Mr. Griffin was asking for
time.
Mr. Johnson. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Duncan. Actually, Madam Chairman, it was me. You are
getting us confused today.
I just wanted to add some data to what you said, the
gentleman from Ohio. South Africa, we talked a lot about them
today. They only voted with the United States 33.8 percent of
the time. Let us mention some others here. Pakistan, 21.3
percent of the time. Nicaragua was mentioned earlier; 34.4
percent of the time. The list goes on and on.
It is very clear that countries that are large recipients
of U.S. aid through the U.N. fail to vote with the United
States. It is our tax dollars that we are giving to them.
Shouldn't we demand something for that in return? And let us at
least stand on the world stage shoulder to shoulder with the
United States of America that is giving them hundreds of
billions of dollars in foreign assistance, economic aid and
vote with us. And if they want that money, Mr. Berman, they
want that money, all they have to do is vote with us. They
wouldn't be cut off if they voted more than 50 percent of the
time.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson. I reclaim the balance of my time just to say
if we want to change the outcome, then we have to change the
steps to the dance. We can't keep dancing the same dance over
and over again and get our fiscal house in order and expect to
get a different result from our partners overseas if we keep
playing by the same rules.
These are dire economic times. We owe to the people of this
country, to our children and our grandchildren to be
responsible. I believe this bill is a responsible bill and a
movement in that direction. I support it, and I urge my
colleagues to.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. By the
way, thank you for your patience and your fairness tonight. You
have done it with good humor, and I appreciate it, and I know
my colleagues do.
In case anyone is keeping score, I think we have just
doubled the number of countries we are disinvesting in and
cutting aid from, at least economic aid. Interesting why we are
not including military. And I listened very carefully to my two
new colleagues, Mr. Johnson from Ohio and Mr. Duncan from South
Carolina, and it is amazing what a binary world they apparently
want us to live in. The United States is apparently always
right, and anyone who votes against us must therefore by
definition be wrong. No. Their national sovereignty is to be
dismissed. In fact, when they exercise it, and it doesn't
conform with what we think is right in our black-and-white
world, view of the world, they are to be punished. All economic
assistance is to be cut unless the President waives.
We actually heard a Biblical reference about our
responsibility to taxpayers, and I guess I would say that is--I
don't know if it is Biblical, but I certainly know we have a
responsibility to the taxpayers. But the other responsibility
we have is when you are a great power, you do not retreat from
your responsibilities. That makes for a dangerous world that no
taxpayer is going to thank you for down the road. Been there,
done that. We have done that in periods of American history. It
didn't work out too well. Paid a high, terrible price for it.
I don't want to return to that world. I want to maintain
our international obligations. I don't want to be perceived as
some crude, tin-horned, throw-your-weight-around power that
takes its marbles and goes home when it doesn't get its way.
Here is a question for us as a committee and as Members of
Congress: Do we believe in democracy and democratic
institutions or not? Maybe we ought to adopt a rule that any
time you disagree with me, we throw you out of Congress,
because that is really the standard you are espousing on this
issue.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I would yield gladly to the ranking member.
Mr. Berman. I would like to ask the gentleman a question.
Under this title, our Cuba Democracy Program is bilateral
economic assistance. As I read this language, there is no
question but that this amendment, unless the President waives
it, the guy who will save us from everything, the Cuba
Democracy Program is cut out because Cuba does not vote with us
very much at the U.N. Is that your understanding of this?
Mr. Connolly. That would be my understanding, because it
falls under the rubric of economic assistance, not military
assistance. And I thank the ranking member for pointing that
out.
I just end by saying it is a complex world, and to suck us
all into a simple right-or-wrong, black-or-white world does not
serve anybody's interests, certainly not the United States'.
And it is no substitute for doing the hard, difficult work of
diplomacy and engagement to make it a better world and to make
sure U.S. interests are protected and fostered. This is, I
think, a very crude and almost juvenile approach to that and
frankly will be counterproductive, no question about it, and I
urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
The gentleman yields back.
I have Mr. Rivera, Mr. Carnahan, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Ackerman
and Mr. Pence. So Mr. Rivera is recognized. And Mr. Cicilline.
And Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Rivera is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am glad our friends on the other side mentioned Cuba just
now, because I don't think they were accurate in their
assessment. The money that goes for the Cuba Democracy Program
does not go to the Cuban Government. The money that goes to the
Cuba Democracy Program goes to civil society members--I will in
a moment--members that are dissidents, human rights activists,
people that are struggling against the Cuban dictatorship,
people like the Mothers in White that march and are repressed
by the Cuban Government, human rights dissidents like Orlando
Zapata Tamayo, who was murdered while on a hunger strike
protesting human rights in Cuba. I don't think Orlando Zapata
Tamayo was a member of the United Nations or was voting against
us more than 50 percent of the time at the United Nations.
But it is very interesting to me how much criticism is
leveled against the waiver provision that Congressman Duncan
has enshrined in this amendment. I can recall about 15 years
ago when four Americans were murdered in international air
space by the Castro dictatorship, and Congressman Burton at
that time authored legislation to sanction the Castro
dictatorship for murdering those four Americans, and it was
insisted, insisted upon, the sponsors of that legislation at
that time, Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, to have a waiver
provision for President Clinton to be able to waive the
sanctions against the Castro dictatorship after they had just
murdered four Americans in a civilian aircraft in international
airspace.
So--I will yield in a moment. So if four Americans, if
their lives were not worthy of having specific, concrete
sanctions, and a waiver was demanded at that point--I would
think here we are talking about votes. I think four American
lives are more important than votes at the United Nations. But
Congressman Duncan is still providing that waiver because we
might have some folks that are more aligned with us than
others, and they may vote 49.9 percent, and we don't want to be
unreasonable certainly, and Congressman Duncan has provided for
a way for the administration to provide that waiver.
But again, we are being very selective in our criticism,
because if it wasn't good enough when four Americans were
murdered to have sanctions leveled, then I would think that
certainly for voting decisions at the United Nations, we could
have a waiver provision. And before I yield to the other side,
I want to yield to Congressman Rohrabacher, who also wants to
say a few words.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Congressman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Yeah, I think that sometimes we can suggest that we have a
black and white vision of the world. And I am talking to my
friend and colleague, yes, it is a good thing if you are a
friend of the United States, and it is a bad thing if you are
an enemy of the United States and you don't like us. And when
you have a limited amount of money to provide assistance
because you yourself are going into a financial crisis, it is a
good thing to make sure that you are not providing people who
don't like you as expressed by their votes in the United
Nations the limited amount of resources we have to help other
people. Yes, it is a good thing to help your friends rather
than to help your enemies. That is black and white. Fine.
If that is the logic from which the American people are
trying to decide as to what policy should take place, I hope
they listen to this debate. I am very proud to stand behind
that criteria. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Let me note, Mr. Berman was talking about all these
programs that are going to be eliminated by that. No. If
countries want to have our support, they can come and become
our friends. And there is nothing wrong with encouraging them
to be our friends. And when we have programs that are designed
that don't require that, what happens? We have the very program
Mr. Berman was talking about.
For example, the program--the Global Fund program that was
supposed to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. China ended
up contributing I think it was $96 million, and it got out of
that program already $549 million, and, in fact, will be given
$947 million. Yeah, what happens? Our adversaries end up
getting our scarce resources that I have no apologies about
directing to America's friends. And if that is what the
American people need to hear to understand the difference
between the left wing and the right wing, fine. Let them
listen.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Time has expired.
I would like to ask that Mr. Duncan, who wanted to make a
clarifying change to his amendment. So I am going to take this
out of turn so that he can make that motion.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
If you will look at line 7, the front page of the
amendment, the word ``country,'' I would like to strike that.
Unanimous consent to strike the word ``country'' and add the
word ``government.'' I think it would clear up some of the
confusion. But I would like to strike ``country'' and add
``government.'' Unanimous consent.
Mr. Berman. Reserving a point of order, you are seeking an
amendment to your amendment; is that right?
Mr. Duncan. That is correct. An amendment to the amendment
to strike the word ``country.''
Mr. Berman. On my reservation, can I conclude that when Mr.
Rivera, the gentleman from Florida, says I am wrong, you are
saying, no, he is not? I just want to make sure you
understand--I made certain statements about different democracy
programs. The Cuban Government is not going to change its vote
in order to save the Cuban Democracy Program. I just want to
make sure you are agreeing that amendment as written does not--
ends up cutting off democracy programs in these countries.
Mr. Rivera. Congressman Duncan, would you yield for a
moment?
Mr. Duncan. I would. It is my time. It is just a
clarification word to clear up any confusion going forward not
out of this body, because you all have heard the argument, but
going forward out of this body.
Mr. Berman. Is there an amendment in front of us that you
want to--the amendment is not in writing. It requires us to
agree by unanimous consent to make that. So I am just reserving
in order to ask----
Mr. Burton. Madam Chair, point of order.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Burton is----
Mr. Burton. I would propose the amendment that the
gentleman suggested to change that word, and I will reduce it
to writing right now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. That is fine.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton----
Mr. Burton. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan has an amendment, but you
are not going to be--do you want Mr. Burton to be offering it?
Mr. Duncan. I will withdraw the amendment, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I have an amendment to his amendment.
Mr. Berman. I just wanted to make the point, I think you
have a right to fix up your amendment, and I don't object to
it.
Mr. Duncan. Then I will leave the amendment active and ask
for unanimous consent.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. To make the change, and the clerk
has noted that change. Thank you so much.
We will go back to the order of speakers. Unanimous consent
has been granted. The change has been noted.
Mr. Carnahan is now recognized to speak.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
thank my friend from South Carolina for clarifying that. But I
want to make a point.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, we may
vote opposite 90 percent of the time, but if we took certain
positions, we might miss out on that 10 percent of the time
where we have some common ground or some opportunities to work
together. I just want to make that point.
And secondly, the U.N. is an easy target. They absolutely
are a complex body. It is a difficult place to work. And it is
hard to sit there at the table with every country in the world
with competing and complex interests all mixed up there, and to
be sure we are looking out for our interests there, but clearly
our interests are not going to align with every country all the
time, and sometimes not even half the time. But we absolutely
need to be building those allies.
And I would suggest to the gentleman that they speak to
some of our leaders from Israel. And I bet virtually every one
of them you spoke to, they would think this was a bad idea
because we have fought many battles on behalf of our ally
Israel at the U.N. to beat back a lot of the attacks that come
against Israel on a regular basis, and because we are engaged
in building alliances, looking for new ways to beat those
things back, we have had success there. And Israel is just one
example of how we have tried to keep some of those alliances
together, and I would urge the gentleman or others to talk to
some of our allies from Israel, and I believe they would tell
you this is not a good approach.
I think you have a good idea in terms of how to hold people
accountable, but I think we need to look for some other ways to
actually execute that idea. And that is going to be a constant
challenge at the U.N. But I don't think it is going to work to
have a formula like this, and so I would respectfully request
my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan, who yields
back.
Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I first want to thank Mr. Berman for bringing up the
point about country versus government, because I was a little
nervous about supporting this amendment, and I am so glad that
we have corrected that all very important word.
I just want to say again that when I go back home and I
talk to folks, when I have teletown halls, when I have town
halls, one of the things that I am constantly asked is why are
we giving to foreign governments when we really can't even
afford to help our own? One in four families in the United
States at some point during the years is going to be on food
stamps. The cost of our food stamp program, our domestic
program in the United States, has nearly doubled in the last
few years. Now, I am only pointing that out because we have
real needs in the United States, and we have to find the
dollars to pay for those needs.
So now you look at the real needs across the globe, and,
gosh, every country sounds like it has a real need. So how do
you pick which one you are going to support? Well, it is really
difficult for me to go back and justify supporting countries
that continuously vote against us at the U.N., and that is an
easy target because people can see the recorded votes.
So I think that this is a very well-thought-out amendment.
If you can't vote with us at least 50 percent of the time, then
maybe you have to have a little different scrutiny on getting
our money, and I think the scrutiny is we are not going to give
it to you unless the President finds some compelling reason to
give it to you, and then you are going to get it. So the
President has that waiver authority. So if a country like
Israel is concerned that another country that used to get our
aid that is no longer getting our aid because they voted with
us only 12 percent of the time, the President can override our
concerns here in this body.
I think we are giving the President a great deal of
authority in this. I think it is the flexibility that works
within Congress, within the halls of Congress, and I really
urge the support of this amendment because I have to go home
and justify the way I am spending taxpayer dollars, and it is
just so difficult for me to justify foreign aid when folks see
it going to countries that really don't care a whole lot about
our national interests and our national security.
And I will yield to Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. I just want to mention, we have heard a lot of
talk about the waiver provision, and I think some folks
indicated that the fact that there is a waiver provision
somehow takes away from the substance of the amendment. If you
are applying that standard--I know someone mentioned it
earlier--you could argue that because President Obama's health
care law had a waiver provision, it should have never been
passed in the first place. Well, I agree. It should never have
been passed in the first place, but it is not because it has a
waiver provision.
Waiver provisions, as the folks who have been here much
longer than I have know, are very common in legislation. I
would opine that if you counted through the numerous bills that
are passed in this body that have some sort of waiver, you
would find a whole bunch of them.
Mrs. Schmidt. Can I reclaim my time? Because I am really
afraid we are going to get into the issue of the waiver of the
health care bill, and that is not really germane to this.
So while I applaud Mr. Griffin for his view, I would hope
that both sides continue the debate on foreign aid and this
bill and don't get side-tracked into other issues that we can
talk about another day.
And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
Mr. Ackerman. I am happy to see all----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. I had a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Gallegly. Are we now officially abiding by 3 minutes on
the----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No, we did not get that accord.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I am happy to see the renewed confidence in
the President's judgment. I am amazed to see yet another
amendment that begins with prohibition on assistance to
countries that--this one amendment alone encompasses two-thirds
of the world. Two-thirds of the world. Two-thirds of the world
because of a mathematical formula. I mean, it is not really
sensible. I am not sure that the amendment was very well
thought out. There are usually unintended consequences, and
very often it is easy, when you take a second glance, to find
the unintended consequences.
I would like to ask Mr. Duncan, the author of the
amendment, in those two-thirds of countries of the world that
we eliminate from consideration from U.S. aid, how many of
those countries are our strategic allies in the war against
terror?
Mr. Duncan. I can go through the list. If you want to go
through every country and tell you based on the last General
Assembly. Afghanistan, 34.3 percent of the time.
Mr. Ackerman. Is the Government of Afghanistan on our side
in the war against terror?
Mr. Duncan. I can go through every country if you would
like to.
Mr. Ackerman. We just started the list. Is Afghanistan on
our side in the war on terror? Is India on our side in the war
on terror? Is Iraq on our side in the war on terror? These are
the major partners that we have. These are where we fly our
planes from. These are the people who let our troops and our
supplies through.
Voice. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let me see----
Mr. Ackerman. Let me finish my point. We are doing
tremendous damage here because we haven't really considered
what we are doing except it sounds good, and it will sell good
back home because my constituents can understand this. Well, if
your constituents can understand why we are doing this, then
both of you are wrong. We should be making these decisions on a
country-by-country basis as to which countries deserve our aid.
If we are basing it on the principle of whose votes we can buy,
gee, that makes us a terrible thing, and I won't name what it
makes us. But we are in the business of selling ourselves. And
if we are doing that, maybe we should have a sliding scale on
the menu. What type of action do you need? And we will sell it
to you. That is how we will base our aid.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ackerman. What are you looking for? How much money?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would the gentleman like to yield?
Mr. Ackerman. In a moment.
Should we give the same amount of money in consideration to
somebody who is with us 52 percent as we do for 75 percent,
because maybe the guy who is with us 52 percent has given
everything that he can give, and maybe somebody who is with us
49 percent is really there on the front lines when it counts.
Because of the part of the world in which they find themselves,
they have to vote in a certain way and fashion.
I mean, if you analyze the list, you see what we have got
going for us with the countries that are with us 75 percent of
the time. There are not a lot of them. If we are going to give
money only to people who like us, that is the reason people
don't like us. It is bullying. It is buying. It is paying off.
You don't get intelligent policy decisions and support because
of that. And some of these countries are punching far above
their weight grade.
Mr. Mack. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ackerman. I would be delighted to yield.
Mr. Mack. The one problem I am having is on the one hand
you say we shouldn't do it this way, but then when I offer an
amendment and specifically outline countries that have opposed
the U.S. and laid out the cite that all of the things that you
just said that we should do, you oppose that as well.
Mr. Ackerman. You are talking about South America?
Mr. Mack. What it sounds like is that it doesn't matter
really that none of it makes sense on this----
Mr. Ackerman. Reclaiming my time. There are some countries
in Latin America--and I am not sure if it was you or one of the
other gentlemen or ladies that made the point about free trade
agreements with Latin America. I don't dismiss free trade
agreements; you have to look at them one at a time and see what
we are getting and why it is important. I am in favor of
Colombia. Colombia under this would be excluded. We couldn't do
a free trade agreement with Colombia under this because, guess
what, they are not with us 50 percent of the time.
I don't think anybody really analyzed it. Somebody picked a
number that sounded good, like 50 percent sounds, like, good.
You know, if you get a C or a C-minus or a C-plus, that is
passing. That makes you our friend. That doesn't make you our
friend. It doesn't make you a supporter of U.S. interests.
We really have to put some collective thought into this,
and certainly there are countries that we give aid to that
shouldn't be getting aid, and certainly there are some that are
bargains that we don't give enough aid to that can't vote with
us for certain reasons.
But of critical importance to us on our national security
interests, countries in the Gulf. Look at the list. Countries
in the Gulf are very important to us right now for the
stability of the whole region. They are all off this list. We
just dissed them just like that.
They are not all the same. What I am suggesting is that we
take a look at these one at a time on a policy basis, not on an
arithmetic formula or a Biblical quote. If we wanted to base
our foreign policy decisions on the Bible, I would offer an
amendment of love thy neighbor and give them aid. That we can't
take care of all our needs in this country? We will never take
care of all our needs in this country, but, yes, I know a lot
of poor individuals and poor families. And you know, they are
the most generous people I know, and they give assistance, and
they give charity to people that need help outside of their
family, even though they don't cover their own bases
completely.
[Music plays.]
Mr. Duncan. I have no way of stopping it.
Mr. Ackerman. I think the place is haunted.
Mr. Duncan. I apologize.
Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, I am not sure what that is all
about. But, Madam Chairman----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman wanted to know if they
are paying royalties for that song.
Mr. Ackerman. I am just suggesting that this approach is
really helter skelter, and it picks a number that really
doesn't mean anything. And we have to approach this on an
intelligent basis, and I would ask if the gentleman would
withdraw the amendment. Maybe a group of us can work together
and pick those countries that are not deserving of our aid.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't think so.
Mr. Pence is recognized.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman. And I--you don't need to
use theme music for my comments. Mr. Ackerman got a music bed I
just heard.
I want to rise in strong support of the amendment by Mr.
Duncan from South Carolina, and I appreciate his leadership.
And I--and the level of freshmen hazing that is taking place
from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is
memorable, but unpersuasive. I particularly appreciate Mr.
Berman revising and extending his characterization that this
piece of legislation was stupid. But the use of the terms--Mr.
Connolly referred to this legislation as crude. My good friend
Mr. Ackerman referred to it as a helter-skelter approach. The
gentleman from Virginia said that this is evidence of
Republicans having a binary world view, isolationists
retreating from the world.
Since when did economic aid from the United States of
America become an entitlement in the world? I am trying to get
that. And the suggestion that there should be some rational
limitation on how we use our increasingly scarce taxpayer
dollars in the area of foreign aid to governments is not the
same as what some of those accusations portend. Quite frankly,
I talk to a lot of people back around the Hoosier State and
across this country who just assume we did away with all
foreign aid.
I am not one of those people, but I do think that the way
we have seen the United Nations evolve of late, it makes the
late President John F. Kennedy quite a prophet when he said in
his inaugural address, we must not permit the United Nations to
become a forum for invective against the West. Now, the problem
with President Kennedy's statement is he was not focused
enough. It hasn't become a forum for invective against the
West, it has become a forum for invective against the United
States of America and Israel.
And I say by an informational basis to my friend Mr.
Ackerman, with whom I had the privilege of serving as the
ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee when he chaired
that subcommittee, I know his heart for Israel. He may not be
aware, a significant number of the recorded votes that would be
affected here are anti-Israel votes, and if a country
consistently voting against Israel in the United Nations should
have no bearing on the United States providing economic aid to
that country, well, I think I have got a different viewpoint on
that.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Pence. I will when I am done.
Another thing the gentleman from Virginia said, a great
power does not retreat from its responsibilities. We have a
responsibility first to the American people, second to
America's vital national interests, third to America's treaty
allies. And America's opponents and detractors and enemies
don't make the list. I have no responsibility to those
countries where I grew up. I mean, someone just said if we only
give money to people who like us--well, isn't it equally
ridiculous to mostly give money to people who don't like us?
And can I remind my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, we are the biggest benefactor of this forum for
invective against the United States and Israel in the world.
And I worked with the late Henry Hyde, whose portrait adorns
these walls, and we tried to pass the U.N. Reform Act. He let
this backbencher be the coauthor of one of those versions of
the bill with him. I have worked with him in a spirit of
partnership with colleagues I respect on the opposite side of
this panel.
This institution has a serious problem, and if--we were
talking earlier about the war in Iraq. If the run-up to the war
in Iraq was not evidence of the toothlessness and near
uselessness of the United Nations in confronting tyrants in the
world, which was the reason it was created was to confront
tyranny as it rose, then I don't know what was. One resolution
after another, one unenforced resolution after another, the
United States of America eventually had to act. And I just--I
want to----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Pence. He has taken a bit of a pounding today. He is
tough enough for it. But I strongly support this amendment and
urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Pence.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I certainly want to acknowledge the gentleman from
South Carolina's interest in getting to this issue of ensuring
that we are not providing support to countries who don't share
our values and share interests of the United States. But I
would say that the strength of our great country is not our
ability to buy our friends or buy support in any forum, it is
the power of our ideas, it is the strength of our values, and
it is our commitment to democratic freedoms and democratic
principles.
And I think that we have to make determinations about how
we use treasured resources, very, very important resources, in
a very strategic and careful way. And we ought to be looking at
a whole series of relevant factors. One of them should be that
support of the United States. One of them should be the
strategic importance in the world of the country. One should be
prospects for democratic advancement, geopolitical
considerations, a whole series of complicated important factors
that we ought to be weighing individually and country by
country. But if we engage in what will be described really as
buying support, something if we did in our domestic politics
would be a crime, it will diminish our democracy. It will
diminish us. And I really appreciate what the gentleman is
trying to do, but I would respectfully suggest it is an
approach that really does reduce the democracy that we are
trying to protect.
And I would just say in conclusion, one other important
reason, if by itself reason to defeat this amendment, is it
will result in the senseless and horrible death of thousands
of, maybe millions of, individuals from HIV and AIDS. As Mr.
Berman stated, the Global Health Initiative, which is present
in many, many countries which will not be on this list, and the
work that is under way that is saving lives all across the
world will come to an end, and so we can be certain that if
this becomes law, millions perhaps individuals, innocent
individuals, will face the scourge of HIV and AIDS. And I know
the gentleman doesn't intend that to happen. I would urge
defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
Mr. Murphy. I would just like to make an analogy. I think
you make a great point as to how our constituents would look on
our Government if we imposed the same rule. If our President
proffered a public rule in which he said that only Members of
Congress who vote with him 50 percent of the time will receive
any funding from this administration, and they issued that as a
public declaration, there would be a revolt because they know,
as you know, that that is not how this democracy works. And
though I think the gentleman is right that this should
potentially play a factor in decision making, there will
rightfully be the same response around the world as there would
be in this country if we did the same thing.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He has already yielded back.
Mr. Marino is recognized. Sorry, sir? Taken care of. Thank
you.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me just say that Mr. Duncan, I think, highlights a very
serious problem of global nonsolidarity with the United States.
He encourages a message to countries around the world that
we're watching and we're watching very diligently, and I
absolutely commend him for that. I do think it is a barometer.
I am not sure it ought to be the only barometer as to how we
condition U.S. foreign aid.
I would point out that as a firm believer of
conditionality, when it comes to human rights benchmarks in
trafficking, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act clearly
annunciates a number of minimum standards as we call them. The
same way with the Religious Freedom Act and some of the other
human rights laws that does exactly--or moves in the direction
that Mr. Duncan, I think, is trying to take us.
One cautionary note, that from session to session at the
U.N., we don't get to pick the issue mix that is debated there.
Very often the United Nations General Assembly, unfortunately,
is a debating society with very little relevance. The Security
Council is where the real action is, although they do have some
relevance, and we ought to take seriously what they do.
So again, I cannot thank him enough for raising this issue
so that we begin to take more seriously what happens at the
United Nations, because that does reflect the foreign capitals,
that is what those Ambassadors are there to do.
One cautionary note really. I don't agree with this
administration on a whole lot of issue, so when they actually
take a position at the United Nations contrary to my own or
perhaps some of my colleagues, I am glad the developing world--
Latin Americans and perhaps some of our friends in Africa or
elsewhere or in Ireland, or you name the country--takes a
contrarian view. Let them push back, because I don't agree with
what the White House is doing.
So I just throw that out, you know. Some of the issues that
we care so deeply about, the culture of life issues which we
will be debating very shortly, this administration has pushed
the culture of death like no other administration ever,
everywhere, in every one of the venues where it is applicable.
This administration is pushing abortion on demand, and I hope
and pray, frankly, that those countries will push back out of a
great sense of protection for their own individual babies and
mothers and all those who are at risk from the U.S. position.
So I would just say to my friend, it is very important that
he raises it. It is a barometer. It ought to maybe be seen with
other barometers as to how well or poorly a country is doing.
But again, I think the issues need to be delineated just so we
know what it is that this administration, which is really the
U.S. position--it is not the congressional position--it is the
U.S. position as articulated by the executive branch.
Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you for yielding.
I am not sure I understand the Obama administration, the
Presidential analogy that was used just a little bit ago. I
would daresay that right now most American people are
struggling to relate to this administration in any way. We have
clearly indicated that we have got an amendment here that has
got--it does not apply to security assistance. It has got
waiver capability. It does not bar trade agreements, as I
understand it.
What we are trying to do here is change the conduct of
those nations that deal with the United States and benefit from
our pocketbooks. We are trying to promote democracy and freedom
around the world. Now, how do you do that in an environment
where there is just an endless flow of money? It is a cause-
and-effect kind of thing.
And I don't believe Americans can relate to the Obama
administration analogy, but I bet you they can relate to this.
If you live in a neighborhood where you are the only family
that has got vital resources that the neighborhood needs, and
you set a rule that you have got to cut your grass every
Thursday and keep the neighborhood looking right, I bet you
most people that want that resource are going to cut their
grass. If we want to encourage pro-U.S. relationships, there
ought to be some buy-in to the process.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, yields back. And I have on my dance card Mr.
Payne, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating, and maybe we could
have a vote.
So Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I think this is a very interesting debate, and I do want to
just mention that the four Americans who were tragically
killed, it was a sad situation when Cuba brought a plane down.
However, to correct the gentleman, it was wrong wherever it
was, but it was not in international space, it was in Cuba
airspace, and that is when the plane was brought down. Wrong
whether it was in Cuba's airspace or wrong whether it was in
international airspace. However, it happened. Just to correct
the record.
We look at votes in the U.N. You take South Africa. South
Africa voted against us. They were on the list. They had
elections in South Africa. The leadership that voted against
us, Thabo Mbeki, the country said there is a vote of no
confidence, and 1 year before his term was over, he was ousted
from government. They had a new election. A man named Jacob
Zuma became the President. I talked to him 2 weeks ago in South
Sudan at the independence celebration. He said they want to
really get more engaged with the U.S.; have gone into Zimbabwe
and told Mugabe he had to cut out the stuff, and now they are
going to have elections. He said that if you continue to do
this, we, South Africa, the strong guys on the block, will have
to look at our policy toward you, Mr. Mugabe. Mugabe didn't
like it, but he is working in the right direction.
This would be unbelievable for us to turn around and tell
South Africa, who now has a new President moving in the same
direction--you see, it is great to have an infusion of new
people, and it brings a lot of new attention to it. However, we
do have to understand that we have to learn the issues, and you
have governments that change. The South African position is
going to be very much different. And here we will come out and
say, let me cut you guys off because this sounds good, and you
shouldn't have done what you did 3 years ago.
So a lot of this really does not make sense. You take
Turkey. A year or 2 ago, Turkey allowed the flotilla to go into
Gaza, and nine people were killed, and it was a big thing. This
year Turkey destroyed one boat and stopped the other from going
to Gaza to have the flotilla. Now we would tell Turkey, you are
out. Let us take you out. You know, the world moves in a way
that can't be done in, like, 24 hours or 48 hours. Turkey has
told Syria, stop the killing. And they are now saying that we
don't want you to keep having refugees come into our country.
So Turkey is on the list. So this is really going totally in
the wrong direction.
I think that we need to rethink things that we do. There
are things that Mr. Smith mentioned that happened in the U.N.
that--this current administration that he opposes and some of
the countries support Mr. Smith's position. I certainly had a
different position of going to war with Iraq because it was--
because Saddam Hussein had supposedly done 9/11, and then they
changed it and said, no, no weapons of mass destruction, it
wasn't there, but we went in anyway. It was Osama bin Laden,
and he is out in Afghanistan somewhere then, and then end up in
Pakistan.
So I was in support of some of the countries who voted
against us going into Iraq because I didn't think that there
was--the reason that was put forward for us to go into Iraq was
correct at the time. I think to question Mr. Berman and Mr.
Ackerman's position on Israel is like somebody questioning my
position on the NAACP. I mean, it really makes no sense at all
that they have to be thrown into some mix which makes no sense
at all.
So I think that this is another ill-conceived notion. I
think that people really mean well. I remember when I was a
freshman, I meant well, too, and stepped in it a bunch of
times. It is a part of maturing and growing, especially on
something like Foreign Affairs, which is extremely, extremely--
as a matter of fact, President Bush, $50 billion. I remember
when my friends from the other side almost fell off their seat,
and we are going to stop the program that people all around the
world are saying that President Bush was a great guy.
One last thing. I would like to ask the chairlady that on
the vote on the food amendment, there was a mistake.
Congressman Meeks----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired,
and I have a little sheet when this is over about that. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Mack is recognized.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do--this debate is,
I think, quite telling about where we are headed and how we all
look at the world. On one side you have apparently a side that
just can't say no. And if you have in any relationship, whether
it is with family or with--in business, in your friendships, if
you can't stand for something, you stand for nothing. So you
have to be--you have to--people have to know what it is you
stand for.
You know, leadership isn't continued--just continue to
spend more money. Leadership is recognizing--having strength in
one's character, recognizing what it is that you are trying to
accomplish, and standing by your principles. If we started to
stand by our principles, the rest of the world would recognize
that we are leading again. They would recognize that we can
look to the United States and that that friendship matters.
Right now there are a lot of--there are a lot of countries
who just as soon take advantage of us because there are no
consequences. You can't do that in--every relationship has
consequences. You can't just be afraid to not spend money or to
send money to, in this case, a government when the government
doesn't support anything that we are doing.
I mean, I think people back home, they are going to boil it
down this way. On one side all they are hearing is that we need
to continue to fund everything and have no kind of barometer or
standard or measure of where that money goes. But just keep
spending money, because if you don't, we are going to send a
bad message. And I think what you are hearing over here is we
want to support our friends, we want to support our allies, we
want to reward people who believe in the same things we believe
in, but we can't continue to just spend money with countries,
governments that don't have the same desires as we do.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from--Mr.
Rivera.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much for yielding.
With respect to the comments about where American citizens
were shot down by the Castro government, once again folks are
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And the
fact of the matter is that not only our own FAA, the Coast
Guard, satellite evidence, the International Civil Aviation
Organization all brought forward evidence, facts that those
four Americans were murdered over international airspace.
But besides all of that, we have the actual murderer
confessing it. I have a videotape of Raul Castro on camera
saying he ordered the murder of the four Americans in
international airspace because he wanted to hide--they didn't
want evidence of the body part--of the plane, parts from the
plane over Cuban territory on videotape. And I will get that
videotape to anyone who wants it, the actual murderer admitting
he ordered the shootdown and the murder of four Americans.
Besides all of that, our own Justice Department indicted
the MIG pilots, MIG fighter pilots, fighter airplanes shooting
down two Cessnas, unarmed, with American citizens, civilians
over international airspace. They were indicted by our
Government for murder. And the reason they were able to be
indicted was because of the evidence, the facts, data,
satellite imagery, eyewitness from people that were on cruise
ships in the Caribbean that saw the shootdown.
So it is amazing to me that anyone would even try to
rationalize anybody being murdered in a civilian aircraft. But
let us stick to the facts. They were murdered over
international airspace by a terrorist government. And I have a
videotape--some people may have seen it already on this
committee--of Raul Castro admitting, saying very proudly that
he ordered the pilots to shoot them down----
Ms. Bass. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rivera [continuing]. In international airspace.
Certainly.
Ms. Bass. We provide no money, no foreign aid to Cuba, and
we were talking about an amendment. So I am just a little
confused about----
Mr. Mack. Reclaiming my time on this.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack's time.
Mr. Mack. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for
his comments and just again remind this committee that from our
friends on the other side, you tell us don't do it--don't cut
in a blanket way, specifically name the countries that you want
to do. Then we put forward an amendment to specifically name
countries, and you say, no, don't do that, you are going after
a few. So you have got to come up with--you have got to come up
with some standards. You have got to come up with what it is
that you really stand for and not just to say no.
We will continue over here to offer ideas to set a path for
this Congress on the values that we stand for, the idea of
freedom, the idea of security, the idea of prosperity. We are
going to continue to fight for those principles, even though
you are going to say no to this one or no to that one, or now
is not the right time, or maybe tomorrow would be better, or
maybe if you wrote it a little this way or maybe a little bit
that way. But right now you have argued out of both sides, and
you haven't had a clear--I mean, I don't think--you are sure
what it is that you are trying to accomplish other than to
stand up and say that amendment wasn't written right. And then
when we are done with that one, and there is another one
written the way that you just said it should be written, that
one is not written right.
I mean, at some point maybe figure out what it is you think
the foreign policy should be, and let us have a real debate.
But right now we are going to continue to move with those
ideals, freedom, security and prosperity.
With that I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
I have Mr. Meeks, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating and Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Meeks. Let me go back to what I said earlier, what
Henry Hyde said in here. Massively engaging the world while
living on an autonomous island in the global sea breeds
arrogance and self-delusion. And that is where we are headed
here. We are self-delusioning ourselves to think that if
somebody disagrees with us, that our principles are the only
principles that are right.
I love this country. This is the greatest country on the
planet, the greatest country this planet has ever seen, but
this country is not always right. It hasn't always been right.
And we should not be going after someone else when we look at
them and they may not be right.
We have had the ability to change. Others have had the
ability to change. This country was not right when we enslaved
individuals. This country was not right when we put indigenous
on reservations and the Trail of Tears. This country was not
right when we had Jim Crow. This country was not right when
there was Plessy v. Ferguson and separate but equal. This
country was not right when we called Nelson Mandela a
terrorist. This country was not right when we continued to
allow apartheid to go on in South Africa, the last one to join
on board. This country was not right when we were late getting
in to stop the Holocaust. This country was not right when we
supported dictators in our hemisphere when it was convenient.
And this country was not right when we went into Iraq under the
alleged guise of weapons of mass destruction, and there were no
weapons of mass destruction.
So we have got to make sure we have a standard of
understanding and working collectively together and
understanding that we can't just say that we--it is our way or
the highway. We have got to make sure that--otherwise we will
be the individuals that are stuck on an island thinking that
the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean can protect us. Those
oceans can no longer protect us. We are in a different world.
And if we are not cooperating with folks, if we are not working
with folks and working with the United Nations, we are
imperiling ourselves and making us--and isolating ourselves on
an island by ourselves, and that indeed could be our own
destruction.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Meeks. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Mr. Gallegly is recognized.
Mr. Gallegly. I move the previous question. Point of order,
Madam Chairman. You had previously recognized additional
speakers before this motion.
Mr. Berman. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Is this a debatable motion? I want to repeat
what--I do think you recognized the following individuals in
the following order, and then recognized Mr. Gallegly ahead of
you, and I have got to say the day we start moving the previous
question is the day I object to the waiving of reading of the
amendments. We add amendments----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gallegly, we will----
Mr. Berman. It is a very big mistake for you to offer that
motion.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Mr. Berman. I just want you to understand that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gallegly, if I may, it is my
fault, and we will do that at the proper time.
Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating and Mr. Faleomavaega are the people
who are seeking recognition--yes, sir.
Mr. Gallegly. I ask that I be added to the list.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. Absolutely, sir. Thank
you.
Mr. Deutch is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairman, I am tired of being told that the folks on
our side don't have principles, that we don't stand for
anything, all we are doing is opposing anything that comes
forward. Let me be very clear about my principles as it relates
to foreign aid. My principles are that it is in this Nation's
best interest to spend considerably less than 1 percent of our
Federal budget, considerably less, on the type of bilateral
economic assistance that this amendment speaks to. And I think
it is high time that we disabuse ourselves of this notion that
what we are talking about is the cutting of checks to
governments that we don't agree with. That is not how we do
foreign aid in America.
The bilateral assistance, I would encourage everyone to
flip through the 35 pages in the Secretary of State's foreign
operations description of bilateral economic assistance. And I
would suggest that as we look to these countries that we
disagree with, that we bear in mind that ultimately what we are
trying to do is move their position, is to change their
position, and I would suggest that this is not, we are not
offering candy to these countries. We are offering $846 million
for maternal health and child health programs because every
year in the developing world, 358,000 mothers die from
complications related to pregnancy and childbirth; and $691
million for malaria programs because 800,000 people every year
die of malaria, and 250 million people are infected. And we can
go through on and on through the fight against global HIV/AIDS
epidemic, $150 million for nutrition, $236 million to fight
tuberculosis.
I would go back to the point raised earlier comparing the
world to a neighborhood and what we do in our neighborhood if
someone didn't cut the yard. I would respectfully suggest that
if any of us lived in a neighborhood where there was a malaria
outbreak, it wouldn't matter how much we despised the people
who contract malaria, if we sit back and do nothing, then it
could well spread to our friends in our neighborhood and to us.
That is what foreign aid is.
The money that we spend on foreign aid isn't a gift and it
is in our self interest. It is in our self interest to promote
freedom and to promote security and to promote prosperity. And
we do it by making investments to prevent people from dying, to
help people gain education, to help countries deal with
disasters, even countries that we don't agree with. And we do
all of this with dramatically, dramatically less than 1 percent
of our Federal budget.
There are countries who benefit from the dollars that we
spend, that have been the topic of conversation, $5 million, to
help strengthen and support Venezuelan civil society. We spoke
earlier of $20 million to support humanitarian assistance for
prisoners of conscience in Cuba. We could go on and on, and the
dollars that we spend in places where we despise the
government, and not just because of their votes at the U.N.,
but we make these investments because ultimately it is in our
own interest. It is about American values. That is why we have
foreign aid.
We don't write checks to governments. We support efforts to
save lives, to promote democracy, to promote freedom, all of
the things that every member on this committee supports.
So I am not sure if we went through the list, the list of
all the countries who receive this bilateral economic
assistance. I am not sure if we went through this list, which
countries that we dislike the most receive the aid to do the
things that we all believe need to be done the most, but I know
ultimately that it is in our Nation's best interest. I will
yield for a question.
Mrs. Ellmers. Where does the money come from, sir? Where
does the money come from?
Mr. Deutch. Reclaiming my time.
Mrs. Ellmers. Not one time have you mentioned in all of
your high ideals that you have outlined that we are spending
taxpayer's dollars.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch's time. We have 15
seconds.
Mr. Deutch. And I will conclude with this. I know exactly
where the dollars come from. And it is a worthy investment of
our Nation's tax dollars to promote freedom, to promote
democracy, and to do it in a way that simultaneously saves
lives, improves lives for people in countries that we respect
and support and even in those countries that we want to change.
That is how we accomplish it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Keating is recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I yield my time to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I thank my
colleague.
I wanted to respond to a few things that have been said. I
marveled, frankly, at some of the comments made by Mr. Pence,
our friend the Indiana. He used the word ``enemy'' in
describing how people vote at the United Nations, and then took
umbrage at the description of the Republican approach as
binary.
Mr. Pence. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. No, sir, I will not I will give you the same
courtesy you gave my colleague. So----
Mr. Pence. I think I gave your colleague plenty of
courtesy.
Mr. Connolly. No, sir, you did not.
Mr. Pence. The gentleman is misstating my statement on the
record. Madam Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to
have my record read.
Mr. Keating. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has the time. And he
gave it to Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
So you described the world as enemies or friends; that is a
binary world. And it is a very simplistic view.
Mr. Pence. Gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. It is one that does not serve U.S. interest,
Madam Chairman. And that was the point that was being made.
And to Mr. Rohrabacher's credit, he confirmed it. He said,
yes, that is our world view. We do see the world in black and
white. And what is wrong with that? He even said, I leave it to
the taxpayers to decide which world view they want to support.
That was an honest statement, and I thank the gentleman for
making it. I happen to disagree with him.
I happen to believe actually, upon reflection, most
Americans will not accept that simplistic view of the world,
but fair enough that you assert it.
Mr. Ackerman referred to this bill as tantamount to being a
bully. Teddy Roosevelt talked about; speak softly but carry a
big stick. But he also went on to say, hopefully, don't need to
use that stick very often, nor should you.
This amendment is nothing but stick. And I use the word
``crude'' not so much to apply to the amendment as to the tool
it creates. If you vote against us, you are our enemy, and we
are going to punish you. That is the action of a schoolyard
bully. It is not the action of a mature great power.
And in my view, it will backfire. Mr. Mack indicated that
this was leadership; this is how you affect leadership. Not in
my experience. You are going to get people's backs up. You are
actually going to hurt U.S. influence and the ability to engage
and persuade with this kind of crude tool. And that is why I
think it is unwise. I don't know what the motivation is. In
some ways it is irrelevant. Its effect will be very damaging to
U.S. interests and U.S. foreign policy. And that is why I
oppose it.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back my time to Mr.
Keating.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has the time.
Mr. Keating. Madam chairman, I yield back the remaining
portion of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega--I am sorry, I didn't--I had not seen that
you wanted recognition. So we are going to take turns.
Mr. Chabot is recognized. Then Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Chabot. I yield my time to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Pence. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank
him for the courtesy.
And I won't take the whole 5 minutes, Madam Chairman.
I just wanted to correct the gentleman from Virginia, who,
to his benefit, misstated and mischaracterized my statement
before the committee. I am happy to have the record read back.
I did not say the world was divided between our friends and our
enemies.
I believe the record will reflect that I said that we have
friends, and we have--I think I used the term, we have
countries that are not our allies; we have countries that
oppose us; and we even have enemies in the world.
Now that didn't strike me as a binary world view.
And let me just say that, the gentleman from Virginia knows
that I respect his passion. I don't respect the way he has
treated my freshman colleague in his thoughtful legislation,
but I respect him personally.
And I just, my view of this, as someone that supports
foreign aid--and I thought Mr. Deutsch's remarks were very well
taken. I believe the record of this committee will reflect I
was one of the strongest advocates of the PEPFAR program. I
worked very closely with the former chairman of this committee
to ensure a thoughtful bipartisan accomplishment during the
last administration and during the last Congress to ensure that
that extraordinary commitment to arrest the crisis of AIDS in
Africa was met with the resources and the compassion of the
American people.
I believe in foreign aid. I just think, I think when you
look at the type of recorded votes that this amendment
addresses and you recognize the substantial portion of those
votes are actually votes that have been taken against what I
think is our most cherished ally, Israel, then there ought to
be some consequences to that. What you subsidize, you get more
of. And I think the gentleman's amendment is an attempt to
simply say, let us not subsidize those that are more than half
of the time voting against consistently against the United
States and our ally, Israel and other interests.
And that is it. I am not advocating a binary view of the
world. I don't see the world in black and white. I am from
south of Highway 40. I know the stereotypes. I know if you are
conservative, you know, the liberal political class thinks you
are either evil or stupid. I get accused of being both. I have
a much more nuanced view of the world, and my colleagues on the
committee who have known me for a few years know that. And I
just I want to rise in strong support of this amendment.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Ohio yield?
Mr. Chabot. It is my time, and I have several colleagues
over here.
Mr. Pence. I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Just one quick point, with all the
discussion here this evening, I don't want to lose track of
what this amendment is, and that is basically those countries
that vote against us time and time again at the U.N. ought not
to be getting assistance from the United States. The tax
dollars shouldn't go to countries that oppose us over and over
and over again at the U.N.
It seems eminently sensible to me, and I will yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that, of course, has been labeled as
bullying. You are bullying someone if you say I am not going to
give up my scarce resources that I could spend on my family or
help other people who are in need overseas who are our friends;
we are not going to give it to people who don't like us and
vote against us in the United Nations.
I needed to clarify my words as well because I believe that
my position was also mischaracterized, although it sounds good
to say that we are all a bunch of simpletons over here and
believe in bullying.
But let me note, you can believe that there is black and
white in the world without having to believe that everything is
black and white. And there are lots of nuances in the world.
And the same mistake that you are making in analyzing Mr.
Pence, you made in analyzing Mr. Rohrabacher. The fact is there
are some people who are evil in this world, there are people
who are very good in this world, and there are in-betweens.
Black and white does exist. And I don't mind at all saying
America should not be on the side and try our very best to be
in the light rather than in the darkness with those people who
stand for the good things that we believe in as a people,
rather than those governments that are controlled by bullies
and by sadistic gangsters, and just not because we are not
going to give money to their governments doesn't mean that we
are bullying the gangster.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. I would like to yield, but I am out of time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega is now recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for introducing
this legislation. I think it has merit. But there are some
questions, and I want to share with the gentleman. I note with
interest that you had mentioned four of those countries that
probably vote the most with us in the United Nations, and they
are the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands the Republic of Palau and Australia.
I note with interest if my good friend would also note
that, yes, we ought to look at some--very suspicious of those
who don't support us, but then even those who are very
supportive of us in the United Nations, we have not honored our
obligations.
And let me just share this one instance with my good
friend. We conducted 67 nuclear testings in the Republic of the
Marshall Islands. We exploded the first hydrogen bomb in the
Marshall Islands. And as a result of these testings, some 400
Marshallese were subjected to very serious nuclear radiation.
And I say to my good friend from South Carolina, to this day,
our government has not honored not only giving proper medical
treatment to these Marshallese people. To this day, they are
still struggling and wanting to figure, when is my government
going to honor those commitments in taking care of these people
whom, frankly, destroyed their lives, their properties, their
islands, simply because of what we did in the time that we
conducted these nuclear tests?
I might also add the fact it is very interesting that the
reason why we stopped testing in the Marshall Islands, it
wasn't because we wanted to desist from testing, it is because
they found strontium-90 in milk products coming out of
Wisconsin and Minnesota when this nuclear cloud went all the
way from the Marshall Islands up to the continental United
States.
So I just wanted to share that little bit of history with
my friend from South Carolina. It is good that we look at
people who don't support us, but even those who are very
supportive of us, we have not honored these commitments to
these people.
And I will yield to my good friend from New York.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I thank the gentleman very much.
I just wanted to respond to my good friend, Mr. Pence, and
agree with him and add my fond recollection of the time that we
shared the leadership of the Subcommittee on the Middle East
and worked so closely together.
We on this side surely do not question the intelligence or
the evilness of our friends on the other side. We do question
your judgment on some of the legislation that you have
supported.
We find it rather shocking when you question our devotion
to liberty and our patriotism because that is your program and
imply that it is your exclusive province.
Let's start with that as a baseline. My good friend from
Indiana cited Israel. And I don't want to put Israel in the
middle of this debate because they don't deserve that. But
certainly he is right in that a great number of the votes taken
at the United Nations are anti-Israel, and sometimes there are
some countries that aren't really anti-Israel but have to vote
that way because of their circumstances.
I think that if your intent is to look at what Israel would
do on this vote, citing them as evidence, I think you might
best be served by talking to the Israelis.
I would suspect, and I have not consulted them on this, but
I would strongly suspect that they would be absolutely aghast,
aghast if we stopped our assistance to Jordan, which has the
longest border with Israel and usually has their back, and even
our aid to Egypt, who has a good part of the other border. That
would be a disaster in my view. Check with them to see what
theirs is. I don't think it is much different.
Those are countries that don't vote with us 50 percent of
the time and are very, very important to our interests and to
what you cite as a motivation for some of your support for the
measure, Israel's interest.
Again, we really have to think about the consequences of
what we are doing here and to whom the damage is done. It is
certainly not in our American interest.
And Madam Chair, if you would note my time has expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am so sorry. I am kvetching here
with Mr. Berman. I apologize. Thank you.
And now Mr. Gallegly is recognized--no. Definitely not.
With him. With him.
Mr. Gallegly, you have a brilliant motion I think.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We have had a lot of debate on this issue in the past 2
hours plus, and I would respectfully request that we move the
previous question.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
I don't think that is open for debate so a recorded vote
has been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Poe?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt?
Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera?
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle?
Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers?
Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz?
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I vote yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engle votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul is recorded as aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 22 ayes
and 18 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to.
Mr. Berman. Madam Speaker.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair recognizes herself for a
clarification on a previous vote. It has come to my attention
that Mr. Meeks was not reported by all the staff at the clerk's
table as having voted on the recent--well it was recent at the
time I wrote this--at the recent amendment by Mr. Payne. So,
without objection, Mr. Meeks' vote, which does not affect the
outcome of that amendment, shall be recorded as aye.
Thank you to the clerks. And before recognizing Mr. Berman
to offer an amendment, I recognize him for a unanimous consent
request regarding the agreed text that we worked out on his
previous prior amendment.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I seek unanimous consent that
the amendment----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Berman. That was previously offered and then withdrawn
in order to revise and based on the agreement reached be
considered as adopted by unanimous consent.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection and in order to
refresh everyone's mind----
Mr. Berman. That was the repeal of the global gag rule. No.
No.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Now you are being stupidly evil. So
binary.
Mr. Berman. And everything is black and white.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So Mr. Berman is recognized for an
amendment.
Mr. Berman. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you if I
could use my position as ranking member before I offer the
amendment to take about 2 minutes to review the bidding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Berman is recognized. Don't let the clock start,
please.
Mr. Berman. We spent a very long time on an amendment just
now. The gentleman from California, my good friend, moved the
previous question. I am not aware of whether there were
speakers who sought to have recognition so I am not going to
operate that that motion was made and thereby shut off people
who wanted to speak on a very, very large and important
amendment that was, this was not $1.5 million. This was a very
different kind of an amendment.
We did not see this title, which is taking so much time and
will continue to take time, until Saturday night. If the
majority is going to use its authority to close off debate when
there are still members who are wanting to speak, not to stall
or delay but simply on an important issue to express heartfelt
views, then the minority is going to have to use the privileges
at its disposal under the rules to retaliate. I hate getting
into that kind of game. I think it is not productive.
I had hoped last week, I met with my own Democrats in the
caucus, I hoped we could work things out where we will have
some issues we will agree on, and in the base text, we could
work out some number of amendments and have a very quick
markup. That was not to be the case. So be it. So all I want to
say is I ask the chair and the members of the majority not to
use that tactic again because the next time, we will then as
fast as we dispose of amendments, we will think of amendments.
Right now, we hear that there are approximately 30
amendments proposed on our side, 35 on the majority side. My
guess is in a spirit of trying to work things out, get
reasonable times, and I have to say, allow the chair to finish
this markup certainly before we leave here this week because
she needs to and tomorrow, in fact, we are open to negotiating
time limits, try to get understandings about how many of the
amendments people are planning to offer can be dropped, or
dealt with en bloc, look for all kinds of ways to accelerate
this.
So two things I would ask is, one, no more motions to close
debate when there are people who want to speak, and secondly,
that we think about a time we are going to recess tonight in
order to come back tomorrow morning and finish up.
I say this in the spirit of not wanting to take--we are not
going to, in the end, you are going to get your bill out of
this committee.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield
whenever?
Mr. Berman. I certainly will yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is the intention of the Chair if
we can get an agreement that we complete consideration of title
IV tonight to adjourn until 9 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, at which
point we would resume consideration of title V. Would that be
agreeable to everyone?
Mr. Ackerman. If we could roll votes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If we can roll votes.
Mr. Manzullo. Yes, let's roll the votes now.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Then shall I make that as a motion?
What is the proper mumbo jumbo?
I ask unanimous consent that we complete consideration of
title IV tonight, debate and voice vote--is that a problem? We
will roll the votes until tomorrow, and we will adjourn until 9
o'clock a.m. tomorrow, at which point we would then vote on the
amendments that we have debated and resume consideration with
title V.
And what is the proper mumbo jumbo? That was unanimous
consent?
Mr. Berman. Can I make a suggestion of adding something
that will expedite the process----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. And work out time agreements on the remaining
amendments----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Perfect.
Mr. Berman. To titles V through XI.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reserving the right to object, Mrs.
Schmidt.
Why don't you get on the microphone so we can all hear you.
Mrs. Schmidt. I may have to object, depending on what time
we are going to roll those votes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do you have a marathon?
Mrs. Schmidt. No, I have a committee that I am chairing at
10 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, so I would hate to miss votes. So can
we roll the votes tonight until tomorrow morning at 9?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Tomorrow morning at 9, would that--
is that good?
Mr. Gallegly. Roll the votes at 9 o'clock.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9 a.m. manana. Yippee, yippee,
yippee. So without objection?
Mr. Connolly. I have to object to 9 o'clock. I have got
another commitment. I can be here shortly after that, but I
can't be here at 9. And I don't want to miss votes; 9:15 would
work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9:15. Yes. Who would like to be--I
would like to recognize, Mr. Gallegly is recognized.
Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to my good
friend and neighbor from California on the motion to move the
previous question. And I understand and respect that. I
personally thought that all the speakers that were in the queue
had been asked. I would not have done that had I not. And as
soon as I found that out I believe the gentleman would concede
that I immediately withdrew and asked that I be placed in the
queue for the purpose of making that motion. I have never ever
tried to circumvent the process.
However, I think that there was, in my opinion, adequate
debate, particularly since there was no one else asking for,
and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is correct.
So without objection, has that motion been agreed to? So we
will reconvene tomorrow. The time was 9:15.
Oh, Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object,
if by tomorrow morning, the committee could clarify the meaning
of the term ``mumbo jumbo'' for me. I have been here 11 years.
I am not familiar with that in the rules, but I would withdraw.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, we will reconvene
at 9:15 to have the votes.
Mr. McCaul. Madam Chairman, how many votes will there be?
Because I am managing a bill from 10 to 12 o'clock. How many
votes are there going to be at 9:15?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well, we are going to continue on to
finish title IV. And I think maybe seven tops; three from Mr.
Berman, two from Mr. Rohrabacher and two from Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. Wait let me see, Mr.
McCaul, are you done?
Mr. McCaul. 9 o'clock. Would you object to 9 o'clock?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is not good for Mr. Connolly. I
have got a dentist appointment. I have to floss--no, I am
kidding.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. One other suggestion I think would help the
members, would also help expedite the process and be fair to
everyone is if we have the vote at 9 o'clock or 9:15, whenever
we agree on, but then we would do debate and schedule the next
round for 12 o'clock or 12:30----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely, we would do that. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Gallegly. So we could flush the votes at that point and
anyone who was concerned about being a part of the debate----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will consult the House schedule.
Mr. Gallegly. [continuing]. Can physically be here and that
may move things along.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will certainly try for that,
depending on the House schedule and then--hold on, let me go to
Mr. Ackerman and then Mr. Smith.
Mr. Ackerman. I think you might want to alert the members
that those who intend to offer those amendments on those
sections have to be here to be in the queue, otherwise, they
would lose the opportunity to make them.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I so agree.
Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Excellent suggestion.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Just reserving the right to object, I would like
to know, this is important. We will be debating the Mexico City
Policy and if members are here, I think we can probably safely
assume what the result will be. But if attendance were to
result in the loss----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No we are going to----
Mr. Smith. I am saying tomorrow, so I would ask my
colleagues on the Republican side, and perhaps any friends on
the Democrat side----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let's not yell, yell, yell.
Mr. Smith. So, please, assure us that you will be here
because otherwise a vote in favor of abortion could occur.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is okay--oh, right now.
Mr. Berman. Are you trying to fix the outcome?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly says yes, 9:15. Mr.
Smith says yes; 9 o'clock? Mr. Connolly or----
How about 8:30?
Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, if we are going to be voting, we
are not going to be debating the votes, we are just going to be
casting the votes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Voting. Voting. I will say call the
roll, boom, and we will do it.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, I just point out both Mrs.
Schmidt and I agreed 9:15 would work.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9:15. We have got a deal.
Mrs. Schmidt. But we start at 9:15.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are very confident we can be
done, if people would be here at 9, we will have the glazed
doughnuts, 9:15 we start rolling, and Mr. Berman is recognized
because that motion has been adopted.
All right. Mr. Berman.
And Mr. Berman, if I could, I keep yapping, I am sorry, the
floor tomorrow will have votes from starting at 2:15. Does that
mean that we can have a hearing until that vote? We don't have
to break until then. And I will shut up. Mr. Berman is actually
recognized.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Berman. Amendment 036.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman, would you mind repeating the
number please?
Mr. Berman. Zero--no. No. It wasn't that one.
I have got a lot of papers. It is amendment 613.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, while they are looking for
the paperwork, I would make a----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me just 1 second.
Let me just make sure that they start distributing the
amendment. And is it proper for me while the amendment is
brought up to recognize someone else?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Just a point of personal privilege.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Very quickly, I want to remind those
members who are leaving that I have two amendments, one would
eliminate all aid to Pakistan. Another would eliminate all aid
to Iraq. They might be important enough for your interest. I
just want to make sure you knew it was going to be on tonight.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
And the amendment of Mr. Berman is being distributed.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I just, before I speak to my
amendment, I just point out that since we just passed an
amendment to knock out all aid to countries that didn't vote
with us 50 percent of the time, we have already eliminated all
aid to Pakistan and Iraq. As well as----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And now the----
Mr. Berman. How many times do you want to do it?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Can the clerk report the amendment?
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
Strike section 412----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And hold on 1 second because I want
to give Mr. Berman the attention that he deserves.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Berman. I hope I get better than that.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. There was just a question
about maybe if everyone is here before 9:15, we could start a
little bit on the roll call votes without having anyone skip
because of that, if everyone happens to be at Dunkin Donuts
right here next to us in the side room, some people were
wondering if we can start the roll call votes before 9:15 if
there is a whole lot. They have already left. So sorry. My job
was to relay that, votes begin at 9:15.
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike
section 412 of the bill, which reinstates and, by the way and
very importantly, expands the Mexico City Policy or the global
gag rule as it is appropriately known.
Madam Chairman, I want to be clear. For almost four
decades, U.S. law has prohibited the use of U.S. Government
foreign assistance to fund abortion as a method of family
planning. The language in the bill represents a cruel and
harmful policy that prevents poor women and families around the
world from gaining access to essential information and health
care services.
This provision is far more extreme than any policy that was
implemented under the Executive Orders of President Reagan,
Bush 41 or Bush 43. Why? Why does it go further? Because it not
only prohibits family planning assistance to local health care
providers in poor countries, it bars all forms of assistance to
such organizations, including funding for HIV/AIDS, water and
sanitation, child survival and education.
Even President George Bush insisted on exempting HIV/AIDS
assistance from the global gag rule restrictions.
I do find, we all have very strong feelings on the
fundamental issue that is raised by this language and by my
amendment, but I find it very, very ironic that in the name of
right to life, we would be cutting off funds that are saving
tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives right now,
because these organizations are giving the medications, the
counseling and the education to the people who either are or
very likely to be in a population that will be, could be
inflicted with AIDS and HIV. Let's not make it more difficult
for poor women to access quality care. Let's support programs
that enable women and families to make decisions to ensure
their health and the health of their families.
The language in this bill is a dramatic expansion of
restrictions previously in place.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike
this offensive and expanded global gag rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Could you reset the clock? Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today most African and Latin American countries protect the
lives of women and children from abortion. Indeed, prior to
January 2009, the pro-life Mexico City Policy guaranteed that
unborn children in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere
not be put at risk of death by the nongovernmental
organizations we fund. The U.S. funded family planning and did
so robustly, but not those foreign nongovernmental
organizations that perform or actively promote abortion.
Every human life, Madam Chair, is precious and sacred and
worthy of respect. No one--and I say again--no one is
expendable. Thus family planning funds, and the NGOs that they
empower, cannot be allowed to be the Trojan horse for the
global abortion industry.
Americans agree with our efforts to reinstate Mexico City
Policy. Indeed, the Gallup Poll, by a margin of 2 to 1, 65 to
35 percent say they oppose President Obama's Executive Order
reversing the Mexico City Policy.
Madam Chair, stripped of its many euphemisms, abortion is
violence against children and often harms women emotionally,
psychologically and physically. Abortion methods either
dismember the fragile body of a baby to death or poison the
infant, or chemically induce premature labor, leaving the
immature child unable to cope with his or her new environment.
The opponents of the Mexico City Policy love to denigrate
the policy by dismissing it as the gag rule. Respectfully, we
are talking about lobbying for abortions in foreign capitals,
and we are also talking about gagging babies. Many of the
poisons actually cause the child to suffocate and to die. So
the real gagging that occurs actually occurs as a result of an
abortion.
The U.N. Millennium Development Goals, number 4, calls for
reducing child mortality rates by two-thirds from 1990 levels.
It is clear that numerous cost-effective interventions need to
be expanded to save children's lives. These include treatment
and prevention of disease as well as vaccinations, clean water,
food and nutrition and oral rehydration, antibiotics and drugs
to inhibit mother-to-child HIV transmission.
Abortion, on the other hand, is by definition child
mortality and it undermines the achievement of the fourth
Millennium Development Goal. There is nothing benign or
compassionate about procedures that dismember, poison, induce
premature labor or starve to death a child. RU-46 widely used
by pro-abortion NGOs has two effects on the child. First the
baby is starved; he or she cannot get nutrition inside the
womb. And the second chemical induces labor, delivering what is
usually a dead baby.
Indeed, the misleading term ``safe abortion'' misses the
point that no abortion, legal or illegal, is safe for the child
and that all can be fraught with negative health consequences,
including physical, emotional, and psychological damage to the
mother.
Talk of unwanted children reduces children to mere objects
without inherent human dignity and whose worth depends on their
perceived utility or how much they happen to be wanted. Let me
just remind my colleagues that the studies, and there are mega
analysis studies that show this, that there is a significant
risk of psychological harm, major depression and elevated
suicide risk to women who resort to abortion.
The Times of London reported, and I quote them, senior
psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link
between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous
history of psychological problems. They found that women who
have had abortions have twice the level of psychological
problems and three times the level of depression as women who
have given birth or have never been pregnant; 102 studies have
shown those kinds of outcomes, including elevated suicide risk.
Abortion is also harmful to children born subsequently to
women who have had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a
significant association between abortion and subsequent
premature births, including one study by Shah and Zhao, they
found a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth and a
staggering 93 percent after two abortions--36 was after one.
What does that mean for the children? Preterm birth is the
leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world
after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk
of suffering a myriad of problems from chronic lung disease,
sensory deficits and cerebral palsy.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
The time has expired.
Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I rise in strong support of Mr. Berman's amendment. I think
the important point to begin with is that no taxpayer dollars
since 1973 have been spent to provide or promote abortion
services.
And the global gag rule, the claim that has often be made
in support of this, is that it will reduce the number of
abortions. It does not. In fact, access to international family
planning services is one of the most effective ways to reduce
the need for abortions. It will lead to an increase in the
number of unsafe abortions.
In addition to that, family planning can also prevent
maternal and child deaths, unintended pregnancies, unsafe
abortions and, of course, the spread of HIV and AIDS and other
sexually transmitted disease. The World Health Organization
estimates that more than half a million women, more than one
woman every minute, die each year from pregnancy or childbirth-
related causes, and 99 percent of those women live in
developing countries.
There was a report done in 2004 that found that
complications for pregnancy and childbirth are the leading
cause of death for teenaged girls in the developing world. This
gag rule would be unconstitutional if it were applied here in
the United States. It forbids countries from engaging in
activities that are legal in their own countries. Family
planning providers that don't sign the global gag rule not only
lose funds, they also lose donated contraceptives, including
condoms, and the United States is responsible for 37 percent of
all donated supplies of contraceptions. Clinics that are
declined funding because of the gag rule cut services, close
clinics and increase fees, making access to health care
nonexistent for some women and more expensive for others.
Mr. Berman's amendment will save the lives of countless
women by ensuring they have access to quality reproductive
health care, have important information about family planning
and, in fact, will ultimately lead to a reduction in number of
abortions.
There will be an increase of unsafe abortion procedures if
the global gag rule is put into place.
I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Berman's
amendment.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I oppose this amendment.
First off, I do want to read section 412 because it is six,
little lines. It says none of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this act or any amendment made by this act may
be made available to foreign nongovernment organizations, that
is, NGOs, that promote or perform abortion, except in the cases
of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
So Mr. Cicilline's concern that the life of the mother
would not be recognized if there was an abortion that was
needed has been handled in this amendment.
And this isn't going to cut off foreign aid to countries,
but to NGOs within the countries. And quite frankly, what I
have been saying all night is this: The American public doesn't
want us to give out foreign aid, period, case closed, as my
wonderful father would say. But we have to consider foreign aid
in a responsible way.
Americans have also said time and time again, they don't
want public dollars spent on abortion. When the President, in
January 2009, lifted the Mexico City Policy, which is basically
what we are talking about, the American public responded and
overwhelmingly said they disagreed with the President.
Now they didn't say they disagreed with abortion. They just
disagreed with the Federal funding of abortion. But you know
the latest poll in May of this year shows that the American
public is even conflicted on abortion because, really, when you
read this Gallup Poll, they are really pro-life. But in
addition to whether you want to argue whether they are pro-life
or they are not, they clearly don't want their tax dollars
spent to fund abortions, either here or abroad. But let's go
beyond that. You know there is----
Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Schmidt. No, I will not. So exceptions for rape and
incest are in here. So when we think, oh my gosh, what is going
to happen to a mother that is in one of those situations?, that
exception is there.
We talk about family planning, and while we may have
different views on family planning, I don't think any of us
really want to say that the ending of the life of a child is
part of family planning. And that is really what abortion is.
It is not about terminating a fetus. It is about ending an
innocent life.
And we all know that.
Now you might think that is okay, but that is really what
abortion is all about.
When we talk about maternal morbidity, it is not reduced
because you take away--it is not increased because you take
away the Mexico City Policy. In 1984, when Reagan really
implemented the Mexico City Policy, maternal morbidity rates
didn't go up. They actually stayed the same and in some cases
have gone down, because we actually have the exception for the
life of the mother if an abortion--if the child is causing the
mother to have her life compromised. So the Mexico City Policy
really does not increase morbidity. It doesn't increase the
death rate for women.
The final thing is that it really doesn't hurt the women,
period, because when you ask a mother, whether they are
starving here or they are starving abroad, what they want is
clean water, food, shelter and clothing. They are not saying,
give me an abortion. And so for NGOs that want to help women,
we are saying, we will give you the money to help you. You can
help women. You can get them a condom. You can get them
contraceptives. But if you are going to also allow them to have
an abortion, we are not going to give you the taxpayer dollars
for any of it, because money is fungible. And the American
public expects their taxpaying dollars to be used in the way
that they believe is justifiable.
And quite frankly, if you took a poll today, Madam Chair,
people would be against foreign aid. So we have got to be
careful about how we spend it. Because when I go back home and
I have to argue why I am going to vote for this bill, I better
be armed with the facts that I haven't misspent the public
dollars and I haven't misspent their trust. And with that, I
yield back the balance of my time and urge my folks to vote no
on this amendment. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I want to say, I certainly can appreciate the sincerity
on both sides of this debate. It is never an easy one. But
there are several real troubling aspects of the text in the
bill in front of us that make this different.
For one thing, Mexico City has always been, the Mexico City
Policy has always been an Executive Order started under Ronald
Reagan. I worked here in the Capitol in the United States
Senate in the Foreign Relations Committee when it was first
adopted as an Executive Order of then-President Ronald Reagan.
It was subsequently overturned with another Executive Order by
President Clinton. Reinstated under the second President Bush
in an Executive Order, and now, once again, overturned by this
President, President Obama.
What we are doing in the bill in front of us is changing
that. We are codifying the Mexico City Policy in law, and that
is crossing a threshold that I think is significant. Because it
would preclude the free debate about this very difficult topic.
And frankly, as our colleague from Ohio was sort of noting,
public opinion, depending on what question you ask, can be very
volatile on the subject and, frankly, can be even contradictory
on the subject.
Secondly, in codifying Mexico City, this bill would
actually significantly broaden its reach and implications. It
would silence organizations on providing abortion counseling,
even with their own segregated private funds, and it would
overturn a policy exception even George W. Bush, arguably the
single most conservative pro-life President we have ever had,
in his Executive Order regarding this policy, he said this
policy shall not apply to foreign assistance, furnished
pursuant to the United States leadership against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003.
He understood that there were some other health issues that
had to be carved out over and above the health and life of the
mother. So that if an NGO was engaged in those activities, they
got a carve out because he recognized, George W. Bush
recognized how important, what a primacy, in terms of health
policy had to be put on those activities. We are undoing that
exception with this statutory language. So we are not just
codifying his Executive Order, we are actually changing it and
significantly restricting a woman's right to exercise control
of her body and her choice.
My colleague from Rhode Island rightfully pointed out the
other side of the coin of those who would draw a dramatic
picture about the exercise of abortion. And that other side of
the coin is damage done to young lives by not having a choice,
by not even being made aware of the choice because we put a gag
rule on international NGOs if they wish to be the recipients of
any U.S. money. And I think that is unfortunate. Frankly, I
think it is un-American.
We may not like the policy, but to gag it, to prohibit it,
to again sequester any funding should you in fact dare to have
an opinion different than ours I think does damage to U.S.
interests. And I think more importantly, it actually affects
lives, the lives of women all around the world.
So while I respect both sides of this debate, I must
support enthusiastically Mr. Berman's amendment. This language
goes way too far and does way too much damage in codifying for
the first time a policy that in my view was unwise to begin
with.
Mr. Smith. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Connolly. I certainly will with 26 seconds.
Mr. Smith. I think as the gentleman knows, since you worked
here in the late 1990s, under the Clinton administration we
codified a major portion of the Mexico City Policy. It was a
compromise, but it did get codified in law. This is a 1-year
proposal we have pending before us. So there is no precedent in
the codification of the Mexico City Policy.
Mr. Connolly. I have 1 second, and I gladly give it back to
the chairman. It is just the kind of guy I am.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
So generous. I am overwhelmed. Mr. Fortenberry is
recognized.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The hour is late, I am tired. All of you I am sure are
tired as well, so it is a difficult moment to talk about such a
serious issue. Because this issue has left a deep wound, I
believe, in the soul of this country. To correct something that
was suggested earlier, the number of abortions since its
legalization has skyrocketed in this country. And since the
widespread introduction of government involvement in providing
contraception as well, the number of abortions has skyrocketed.
So, so much for safe, legal, and rare.
Let's just take a hard look at what this is. Abortion is so
often the result of abandonment of someone in need. A woman
left scarred, lonely, may turn to that as an option. And I just
think that is a failure on the part of our society to be big
enough and bold enough to say as a community that we love and
care and will provide the resources enough to help get you
through no matter how difficult.
On top of that now, as official U.S. policy, we want to
export this woundedness. It is a form of neocolonialization by
the West of the worst aspects, the most divisive aspects of
what has afflicted us as a people. But really, beyond that,
what is at issue here is whether or not the taxpayers should
pay for it, whether the taxpayer of the United States should be
complicit in the act of abortion by providing money to
organizations who are entangled with it. That is the core issue
here.
So I want to commend my colleague from New Jersey for
suggesting that this language be put back in, that we move in a
direction of hope and healing, that we conform our foreign
affairs assistance to that which is life-affirming, that we do
not undermine familial and tribal and cultural norms in other
places with our own deep despair and woundedness because we
have not resolved this in the right way in our own country.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr.
Fortenberry.
Ms. Schwartz is recognized.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is always a difficult issue, and I certainly want to
give some allowance or understanding for the strength of
feeling on the other side, not universal on the other side of
the aisle, but strong feelings about this. But just as we have
had this discussion about access to family planning and women's
health services in this country, and the importance of
understanding that as family planning services are a part of
that women's health services, that to deny services to women
here, the access to vital women's health services because of
access to abortion in a separate way is coercive in its own
way, and obviously something we feel very strongly about. And
fortunately, the other side of the aisle was not successful
here.
But to do this same thing, to try and do the same thing
internationally, particularly in countries that are much poorer
and without access to health services really just compounds the
issues, poverty, poor sanitation, scarcity of health services,
scarcity of health professionals, distance, lack of
transportation, you name it. It just makes it even that much
more difficult for women to access the full range of women's
health services that they want and they have a right to in
their own countries. And I just want to give some statistics,
because this is not just a small thing to say to women in these
other countries that because some people in this country feel
so strongly about abortion, we are going to deny women who we
are giving aid to, to have access to the very vital health
services that they need to be healthy, to be healthy mothers,
and to be healthy in their own lives, and to be able to live
full and fulfilling lives themselves.
Every day, thousands of women die in pregnancy and
childbirth. Out of 215 million women who want to delay or cease
child bearing, one in six women of reproductive age are in need
of effective contraceptive methods. That is what we are talking
about, is access to family planning and contraceptive methods.
AIDS is the leading cause of death among women of reproductive
age. This is in many of the 150 countries that are served by
this funding. We know that women who are served also get help
in childbirth and clean birthing kits and the provision of
midwives and skilled birthing attendants.
The effectiveness of the family planning funding and the
women's health programs that we have around the world have made
such a difference in women's lives. And to deny them access is
really going to have dramatic effect on, again, their ability
to live full and active lives, the ability for them to be able
to have healthy children, and to be strong and healthy mothers
as well.
So what we do through the family planning programs
internationally is to help women to be able to be successful.
And understand, too, some of these programs are provided in
post-conflict and disaster situations. These same hospitals,
the same providers may be providing a full range of services.
But what we are talking about is providing money for family
planning.
To deny these funds, and I do support Mr. Berman's
amendment in striking this language, is so important again for
the health of women around the world in order for them to be
able to make these decisions. To be able to strike this
language will save women's lives. It will ensure healthier
mothers, and healthier babies, and healthier families, and more
successful women in these countries. And to deny them, to turn
back the clock for women around the world, as has been the
attempt to turn back the clock for women in this country, does
not promote women's health or women's success or women's
ability to be all they could be.
I feel strongly about that for American women. I think we
should not try and do the same thing. I am strongly against
doing the same thing, to denying to access to family planning
and critical women's health services through our aid programs
around the world.
With that, I actually do have a few seconds. You will take
your own time. So I will yield my few seconds to Mr. Cicilline
to add some words to my thoughts.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. And I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
I just want to respond to the gentleman who raised the
concern about taxpayer funding. Since at least 1973, no
taxpayer dollars have been spent to provide or promote abortion
services. That is the Helms amendment to the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill. Again, I think we have to be very clear
about that: Nothing in this proposed amendment would provide
funding to promote or provide abortion services. That remains
unchanged. I disagree with that policy, but that remains
unchanged. And I wanted to just respond to the gentleman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
And thank you, Ms. Schwartz, for the time.
Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered
by Mr. Berman.
I am really uncertain as to where to start this discussion
because I am so offended as a woman, a mother of six, a
grandmother of soon to be 11, a registered nurse, and someone
who has been involved in health care my entire adult life. The
words I hear from the other side, it begins by calling it a
global gag rule. Say it what it is. You want to fund abortion
with taxpayer dollars. That is a much--you know, it is much
more palatable when you can talk about a global gag rule.
Ms. Schwartz, you talk about helping women be all they can
be by paying for their abortions with American taxpayer
dollars. That is an insult to women, to say that they cannot
function and be all they can be without paying for abortions.
This is--and it is late--this debate----
Ms. Schwartz. Would the gentlewoman yield? This is about
women having access to health services.
Ms. Buerkle. I am sorry. I did not yield my time. This is
not about whether or not we are in favor of abortion. This is
about using taxpayer dollars for abortions. But we have got to
tell the truth here. And referring to this as a global gag
rule, talking about every day, thousands of women die from
childbirth, one in six women is in need of contraception. If
you read section 412, all it talks about is providing taxpayer
money for abortions. It doesn't talk about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't
talk about contraceptives. It doesn't talk about any of the
other health issues that we are happy to provide funding for.
This 412 talks about taxpayer dollars being used for abortions.
And if we are going to have a debate about this issue and
wiping out this section of this piece of legislation, then we
have got to be honest. And we have got to be honest with the
American people. You are proposing to use their tax dollars to
fund abortions worldwide, to push this culture of pro-abortion,
anti-life agenda throughout the world in countries where
abortions may be illegal.
We are still pushing this, as my colleague, Mr. Fortenberry
said, this culture that we have embraced in this country, in
countries where they have decided that all life is valuable,
and it should be protected.
So I rise in strong opposition to this. And I ask the other
side to please be honest about what we are talking about here.
Don't couch these terms in a language such as global gag rules.
Talk about using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide.
And we know, the polls show it clearly, the American people,
whether they are for or against abortion, they do not want
their tax dollars to be used for abortion.
Mrs. Schmidt. Ms. Buerkle, may I have the rest of your
time?
Mr. Buerkle. You may. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. I would like to clarify something that Mr.
Cicilline said. Yes, the Helms amendment, which has been
reauthorized by Congress since its inception in 1973, prohibits
the use of Federal tax funds for abortion as a method of family
planning overseas. The Helms amendment is a good standard, but
it should be made into permanent law. And the Mexico City
Policy takes the necessary step. President Reagan realized that
taxpayer money was supporting NGOs overseas that promoted and
performed abortions as a part of family planning and issued a
memo during a population conference in Mexico City to halt that
practice. That is how the Mexico City Policy got its name, from
Ronald Reagan.
And it has been kept in place through the Presidency of
George H. Bush, rescinded by Clinton in 1993, reinstated by
George W. Bush in 2001, and was rescinded again by President
Obama in 2009, which is why we want to codify it into law
today. So all we are doing is taking what Reagan wanted to
clarify with Helms and put it into law today.
And as far as Mrs. Schwartz's concern with family planning,
and I do agree that we do need to help these women overseas, as
long as the NGOs aren't providing abortion or funneling these
people to an abortion clinic, they can keep the money. But the
minute they provide abortion or talk about giving these women
access to abortion, the money is cut off. And that is not
something that is just the will of this Congress, that is
really the overwhelming will of the American people in this
country. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
And thank you, Ms. Buerkle, for your statement.
Mr. Engel is recognized at this time.
Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is a very sensitive issue. And I have friends on both
sides of this issue. And I know the heartfelt feelings on both
sides of this issue. This is something that I never point
fingers at anybody, because things are very heartfelt. I know
Mr. Smith and Mrs. Schmidt are two of my best friends here in
Congress. And I know how heartfelt they feel about this.
I would ask unanimous consent that my statement go into the
record.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
And I just want to read two paragraphs of what the effect
of this rule is: In Zambia, the Family Life Movement of Zambia,
which is a faith-based anti-abortion organization, was stymied
in efforts to expand programs because the global gag rule
disqualified Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, a
partner organization. The Family Life Movement of Zambia
promotes abstinence among young people in Zambia and did not
provide contraceptives of any kind.
For those young people who were sexually active, the Family
Life Movement of Zambia would refer them to the Planned
Parenthood Association of Zambia, where they could receive
information about condoms and other contraceptives.
But the global gag rule has forced the Planned Parenthood
Association of Zambia to close three of its nine rural outreach
programs and cost them more than $100,000 worth of condoms and
other contraceptives.
I mean, I happen to believe, heartfelt my belief, that
contraception leads to less abortions, not to more abortions. I
respect people's religious views about it, but it seems to me
that if you are providing people with family planning, they are
less likely to want an abortion or need an abortion because
they would not become pregnant.
Let me read this second example. In Kenya, the Family
Planning Association of Kenya, which did not provide abortion,
had to cut its outreach staff in half, close three clinics that
served 56,000 clients in traditionally underserved communities,
and raise fees at the remaining clinics. One of the clinics
that closed housed the unique well baby center, that provided
comprehensive infant and postpartum care, making it easier for
women to receive critical follow-up care. That well baby center
is now lost to the community.
So what I want to say to my colleagues is there are really
two sides of a coin. Many of us who, frankly, struggle with
this issue feel very strongly that people have a right to make
a personal choice and that things should be available to women,
particularly poor women, particularly women all around the
world who don't have access to contraception, they should be
allowed to be provided with the tools necessary to make these
very personal decisions.
And so I think that the global gag rule, and I don't mean
any disrespect for my New York colleague, I think that that is
not something that should be codified. I think that is
something that is very important to have these women provided
with the services.
If you don't want them to have abortion services, surely
there cannot be objection to contraception or to condoms or
things that can prevent AIDS and disease. I think it is just
putting our head in the sand and pretending that these problems
don't exist. So, again, this is a very, very difficult issue,
and I certainly respect everyone's views, but my view is that I
will support the Berman amendment because I don't think that
these restrictions ought to be put on these women.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel.
Ms. Ellmers is recognized.
Mrs. Ellmers. To my friend, Mr. Engel, your points, I
understand where you are coming from, but you know, the point
is that this particular section of this bill deals with
abortion and abortion only. And I am going to read it: Section
412, Preventing Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Organizations That
Promote Or Perform Abortions. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this act, or any amendment made by this act,
may be made available to any foreign nongovernmental
organization that promotes or performs abortion, except in the
cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
This is not talking about contraception. This is not
talking about other forms of women's health issues. I am a
nurse. I don't read that here. This has to do with abortion and
abortion only.
Mr. Engel. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. Ellmers. I will yield at the end of my time--I don't
believe the clock was started, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am so sorry.
Mrs. Ellmers. To the point of the feelings of the American
people, when President Obama put back the provisions for
funding for family planning--and let me clarify, family
planning, which would include all of the things that you said--
family planning providers may be at the least popular thing he
has done so far. This was an Executive Order that forbade
Federal Government money from going to overseas family planning
groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans opposed it, 35 percent
supported it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Ellmers.
Thank you so much. The time has expired. I think that we
might have messed up on the clock for you, because it doesn't
seem like you were there for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Ellmers. No, I don't think so.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. May I ask unanimous consent that she
be given 2 more minutes? Because I know that that wasn't 5.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. My point, again, is very simple. I
understand the position that my friends have on this issue.
But this particular section of the bill has nothing to do
with family planning other than the thought that abortion would
be part of family planning. And this is against family
planning. I completely and totally am against this amendment
put forward by Mr. Berman. And if I do have time left, I would
like to yield to my colleague from Ohio.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
And I just want to echo that what this says is as long as
these NGOs are doing family planning other than abortion, they
get money. But the minute they include abortion as part of
family planning, which I believe all of us here will agree that
the ending of a life should not be part of family planning--I
think it is counterintuitive to the whole nature of family
planning--that then those moneys would not be given because
moneys are fungible.
Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentlelady yield to a question?
Mrs. Schmidt. The Helms amendment, which has been in place
since 1973, had to be resupported by Reagan with the Mexico
City Policy because money was being used for abortions. Nobody
is against family planning. But the public in the United States
is against using our taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions,
whether it is here or it is abroad. And all this amendment does
is codify something that Ronald Reagan did in 1984, which was
continued, except under the Clinton administration and the
Obama administration. And all it does is codify a standing
position of the Helms amendment that had wiggle room, that
Ronald Reagan took the wiggle room out of with abortion. I
yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt.
And Mrs. Ellmers' time has run out.
I would like to recognize Mr. Murphy for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Listen, I think it is clear we are not going to bridge some
pretty substantial divides of opinion on the underlying
question. But I think what you hear from our side is a very
sincere concern for the unintended consequences of the
underlying policy.
I accept the Hyde provision, and yet I have a lot of
trouble with the Mexico City Policy because of the underlying
facts here. And the facts are this: Within months of the Mexico
City Policy being reinstituted in 2001, 16 different African
countries immediately had shipments of contraception from the
United States ceased. Millions of African women lost access to
basic contraception. That is the reality of what happened. That
is not in the United States' interests. The reality is that
71,000 women in this world die from unsafe abortions. And
though the Mexico City Policy doesn't specifically prohibit
care for post-abortion treatment, it essentially prohibits
providers from having the equipment necessary to deal with that
care. So you are putting at risk tens of thousands of women who
have unsafe abortions because they don't have providers who can
deal with it because of the Mexico City Policy.
And while my colleagues keep on talking about this just
being about prohibiting funding to providers that provide
abortion, that is not what the policy says. It says provide or
promote. And that is why it is called a gag policy. Because you
could be a family planning provider who has never performed an
abortion, who has never referred anyone to an abortion
provider, and all you want to do is advocate on that issue, and
you are shut down under this policy.
Mr. Fortenberry. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Murphy. I will finish, and then I know Mr. Cicilline
wants some time as well. So when you say provide and promote,
that is why this becomes called the gag policy. And as we spend
billions of dollars as a Nation trying to promote democracy,
trying to tell other nations that they should have vigorous,
open debates about policy, it seems pretty inconsistent to then
say that the one issue that is off limits is abortion; that we
want you to openly debate everything, but we are going to cut
off funding to anybody that wants to debate this particular
subject on one side of the subject. And that is why it is
called a gag rule, because it seems to run contrary to decades
of investment in open conversation and open democracy.
Let me yield to Representative Cicilline.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
wanted to underscore the point that my friend from Connecticut
just made with respect to the performance requirement, that
this actually prevents family health agencies from making
either a referral, someone who doesn't perform an abortion, but
it really interferes with the ability of a physician or health
care provider to have a candid and full conversation with a
woman about a whole range of health care choices. And we ought
not be interfering with the relationship between a woman and
her physician and the ability of a physician to share in a
complete and professional way all of the options available to a
woman as she makes important health care decisions. It
undermines that relationship as well. So I think that is one of
the other dangers of this. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
I am pretty sure that the time has run out.
Mr. Murphy. I miraculously got 4 more minutes.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for understanding, Mr.
Murphy and Mr. Cicilline. I would like to yield now to Mr.
Burton. Let's look at that clock.
Mr. Burton. Madam Speaker, I yield my time to the gentleman
New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say to my colleagues on both sides of this
issue, I certainly respect each and every one of you, but I do
believe that we are forgetting someone, a child who is growing,
developing, maturing each and every minute of every day, who,
when abortion is performed, is decimated. It is an act of
violence. If you did the exact same thing to a newly born child
or a 1-year-old child, or even as we saw during the partial
birth abortion debates, where the scissors were literally
thrust into the brain of a child and then the brain sucked out,
simply because that was done while the child was almost in
utero, abortion proponents defended it and did so. Bill Clinton
vetoed the bill twice; it finally was approved and signed into
law by George Bush. It is violence. Why is that so hard to
understand? The methods, the act is an act of violence.
Whether it be legal or illegal, abortion is violence
against children. It also is highly injurious to women's
health. I mentioned earlier the numbers of women who suffer
chronic deleterious effects to their psychological health. The
studies couldn't be more clear. Read them. Over 100 studies
show it, no matter where the studies are undertaken. Whether it
be in the Nordic countries, New Zealand, or anywhere else,
including the United States, the women suffer. Not immediately,
but it has a lag time. It is an intermediate and a longer-term
terrible psychological impact that is largely disregarded by
the abortion rights proponents.
Let me also say to my colleagues that in 1984, I offered
the first amendment on the Mexico City Policy and frankly, the
U.N. population fund ban because of forced abortion in China.
And opponents got up, including Olympia Snowe, now over in the
Senate, and others, Sam Gejdenson, who used to be a member from
Connecticut, said no one will accept these safeguards, so the
money will lie fallow; it will not go to family planning
organizations.
After that year was over, with the Mexico City Policy the
law of the land, virtually every dollar was allocated, either
obligated or spent, by a family planning organization. And just
like any grant money, there are always more grant requests than
we have money to fund, whether it be in our own districts for
name the issue or name the project. So all the money was
accounted for. So when I hear how family planning dollars were
reduced or restricted, nothing could be further from the truth.
During the Bush era, 2002 to 2007, this is USAID numbers,
Ethiopia, family planning went up from $5 million to $19.5
million, a 300 percent increase; Haiti, a 144 percent increase;
Pakistan, a 1,100 percent increase; D.R. Congo, 800 percent
increase. This is family planning money going to organizations
that accepted the safeguards and provided family planning, and
not the demise and the wounding of a baby and the wounding of
their mothers. This is all about who we fund.
My colleague from Ohio talked about the Helms amendment. We
found in the early 1980s that the Helms amendment was infirm
because money is fungible. The organizations figured it out.
They simply do a little bit of bookkeeping and segregation of
funds, and if they did that--assuming they did, they were
unfettered in their ability to promote abortion and to
perform--and again when you talk gag rule, a very, very poor
choice. Maybe the news media will amplify it, and you think you
have a public relations coup on your hands, but frankly, it is
such a misleading term. We are talking about lobbying in
capitals all over the world. And the people we give this money
to, frankly, are our surrogates. They are ambassadors, in a
way. They are doing things that we hope they will do, whether
it be family planning or other kinds of health care
interventions. But they set up shop in country after country,
and they try to topple the pro-life laws.
But they also, and this is where the gag rule language
falls totally flat, what about the child? The language is,
promote and perform, except in cases of rape and incest and
life of the mother. And you know, the debate that now has been
engaged on Planned Parenthood domestically; I love the way
Planned Parenthood domestically is going into overdrive trying
to suggest that only 3 percent of what they do actually is
about abortion. That 3 percent is over 900 abortions every
single day in Planned Parenthood clinics around this country.
That is the kind of movement that will follow if IPPF and the
other pro-abortion groups are not inhibited in their promotion
of performance of abortions. Nine hundred a day is a lot of
dead children and wounded mothers.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Deutch is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is a very personal issue for all of us. I am sensitive
to that. But really what is at stake here is whether our
taxpayer dollars are going to fund abortions. That is what we
should be debating.
I understand that it is the goal of some of my friends to
outlaw abortion all together. I understand it is the goal to
stop all abortions from being performed. I understand that. And
they are entitled to that view.
But what we are talking about here is whether taxpayer
dollars should be funded. And for almost four decades, for
almost four decades, no taxpayer dollars have been spent to
provide or promote abortion services overseas. The Helms
amendment, renewed annually by Congress, forbids these
activities. It is not happening. The gag rule has failed. And
it is a gag rule. It gags overseas counseling. It gags overseas
community groups, health experts, and prevents them from
discussing access to safe and legal abortion--legal abortion--
even when this needed counseling is funded with their own
money, kept separate from Federal dollars.
This is not a debate about Planned Parenthood, but I can't
help, since the point has been raised, to point out that it is
the same debate that takes place domestically, and we had this
debate before, and I trust we will have it again. I understand
the efforts, the goals of some of my colleagues to stop all
abortions. But as long as abortion is legal, then I believe
that while we ensure that there are no taxpayer dollars going
to it as required by law, that we don't turn around and
penalize those groups who are helping to ensure that of the
more than 46,000 women around the world who die annually, that
other families won't face that same fate. Millions more suffer
debilitating injuries and disabilities.
And if we impose this global gag rule again, we will only
exacerbate the situation. The level of harm from unsafe
abortions is quite high. Twenty one million unsafe abortions
every year. Nearly all of them in low-income countries. More
than 95 percent of abortions in Africa and Latin America are
performed under unsafe conditions.
And while it may be the goal to end all abortions for some
of my colleagues, the fact is this gag rule is unnecessary. It
shuts down debate. It will force clinics to close. It will make
outreach efforts to try to reduce the number of unsafe
abortions to cease. That is what is at stake here. I will
finish where I started. I know how difficult an issue this is.
But the law as it currently exists is quite clear that taxpayer
dollars cannot be funded.
Mr. Fortenberry. Would the gentleman yield? Would the
gentleman yield? Right here. I am right here.
Mr. Deutch. I will yield.
Mr. Fortenberry. So let me try to clarify what you are
saying. You support the Helms law, and you believe taxpayer
dollars should not be going toward abortion. Are you saying
that?
Mr. Deutch. No. What I am saying is that the Helms law has
been renewed----
Mr. Fortenberry. Because I thought you might be able to
accept our position on this if you were saying that. But you
are not.
Mr. Deutch. What I am say is that the Helms law, because it
has now been almost 40 years, it has been renewed, that this
gag rule is unnecessary and is damaging. And what we are
ultimately striving for, those who put forth the Helms
amendment, which is preventing taxpayer funding of abortions,
is already the law. This will result in changes that will be
damaging to women, that will yield only more abortions, unsafe
abortions. So I support this amendment, and urge others to do
so as well. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would certainly agree with my colleague as he began his
statement when he talked about one's belief in abortion is a
very personal, very, very personal issue. And let me just note
that I wasn't always opposed to abortion, and I didn't really
start thinking about it until later on. But once I started
thinking about it, and once I came to the conclusion that we
are talking about the life of a child, at that point, there was
just no other direction.
Let me note that God blessed my family with triplets 7
years ago. And I will tell you we struggled to have children.
And we followed those children as little babies from very early
on in their development. And you could see that beep beep beep
on the screen. And it really, once you have gone through that,
it is very difficult to think that we are not really talking
about a baby after that. Because we know that that early stage
led to these wonderful children that I have in my life right
now.
And I think that these medical steps taken to snuff out the
potential for life while in the mother's body was the taking of
a human life. And I think that that is something that when
someone actually comes to that conclusion, that we are talking
about human life, we are talking--that then there is just no
choice. And I think that maybe when I am talking to my
colleagues, I am just hoping that their eyes will be opened, as
mine were, to the fact that we can't let some baby be killed
with some central planning or some idea about health care,
general health care in mind.
Now, let me just note that, again, we are not talking
necessarily just about abortion. Here the only thing we are
really talking about today is the taxpayer dollars being used
to sponsor abortion. So even if you don't agree that life, as I
saw it, and inside my wife after 2 or 3 months appeared, that
that was life, even if you disagree with that, you would
probably--you should be able to agree that taxpayer money
shouldn't be used if there is that type of question. And so
many wonderful people are on both sides of the argument. But if
someone who you know is honest believes it could be a baby, you
don't want their money to be taken from them in the name of
killing a baby. So it is not about abortion; it is whether or
not the government is going to be paying for abortions, and in
this case, whether or not we are going to be permitting U.S.
dollars that are sent overseas to help with family planning for
poor women overseas, whether or not that money can be used for
abortion. And to show you how, and I think just how obsessed
the other side is with making sure that there can be abortions,
that they are insisting so much that abortion not be excluded,
that they are willing to give up all of the money that is going
into these clinics in order for them to have the right to
advise a woman or provide a woman with abortion.
There are no restrictions that anyone is considering on
family planning. The only restrictions are being placed on
abortion. So if someone says that they would rather just not
have family planning at all unless I can advocate abortions
because it is not complete family planning unless you can
actually recommend that, I don't buy that. I don't buy that at
all.
And I would yield my remaining time to Mrs. Schmidt.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 50
seconds.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Some people have been saying the Helms amendment is enough.
But I would like to remind them why we got the Mexico City
Policy in the first place. It was when President Ronald Reagan
realized that taxpayer money, under the Helms amendment, was
supporting NGOs overseas that promoted and performed abortions.
Money is fungible. We know that. And so he, at a population
conference in Mexico City, he put a halt to the practice, hence
the term Mexico City Policy. We want to keep that in place. We
don't want to give Presidents the opportunity to allow it to go
back to a loosey-goosey Helms amendment that allows it to be
fungible money. We want to codify the intent of Helms. Mexico
City codifies the intent of Helms. And that is all this is
about.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
I believe that the time is done.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Who is asking?
Oh, Mr. Connolly, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Just a quick, funny observation. When I
worked with and for Senator Jesse Helms, the idea that----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't know under whose time, but I
will be glad to----
Mr. Connolly. Well, just I find it funny that anyone would
refer to him as loosey-goosey on any subject, let alone this
one.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
And Mr. Poe is recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield my time to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I will be very brief. I just want to remind my colleagues
that we really have known for more than 60 years what actually
saves women's lives. It is skilled attendants at birth,
treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood. I actually
held a hearing in this room, and a World Health Organization
physician told us that if women had access to safe blood in
sub-Saharan Africa, some 44 percent of maternal mortality
disappears. They don't have access to it. And I work with a lot
of NGOs, including one that pushes safe passages to ensure that
women are well-resourced as they approach the time of the
birthing of their child in order to preclude either a dead baby
and/or a dead mother. It is all about how we respond to both.
Abortion, I do believe, needs to be looked at as an
abandonment of both, certainly of the child, and I would argue
equally the mother. A landmark study by the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation and published in the British journal Lancet in
2010, backed up by a WHO report about maternal mortality, shows
that we are making progress, not as much as all of us would
like, but it is some 40 percent lower than in 1980. But
contrary to prevailing myth, the study underscored that many
nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of
the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, including
Ireland, Chile, and Poland among them.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that, you know,
Bernard Nathanson founded NARAL, Betty Friedan, Lawrence Lader,
and Bernard Nathanson, the leading abortionists in the 1960s
and the 1970s. He actually ran the largest abortion clinic in
New York City. Dr. Nathanson quit doing abortions and wrote in
the New England Journal of Medicine, ``I have come to the
agonizing conclusion that I have presided over 60,000 deaths.''
And he said what brought him to that conclusion. He was working
in St. Luke's Hospital on prenatal interventions, blood
transfusions, prenatal surgeries, which then were really in
their infancy, but have now blossomed to the point where
children can be treated for all kinds of diseases and anomalies
while still in utero. But he came to the conclusion that it was
schizophrenic to, in one operating room to be treating that
child as an unborn patient, one of his patients, and then in
another operating room to be dismembering, or chemically
poisoning, or in some other way committing an act of violence
against that child.
You know, we have seen breathtaking breakthroughs in the
area of fetal surgeries over the last decades, ever since
Nathanson made that discovery in his own heart and mind. We
need to look at the unborn child as a patient who may be in
great, desperate need of intervention. Abortion is antithetical
to that. It kills. And not all the babies die, especially when
there are twins involved. And I have actually met some abortion
survivors. One woman, who was the object of a chemical
abortion, saline amniocentesis, that didn't work all the way,
and she now has cerebral palsy as a direct result of that. So
some of these children do survive. The reason for partial birth
abortion, according to the originator of that terrible method,
he has said is that it is one way of precluding a live birth,
in other words, an abortion where the child is a survivor.
Years ago, CDC used to note that some 500 children per year
would survive later-term abortions. Now the abortionists try to
ensure that that possibility is precluded by using the most
lethal means possible to kill the baby. The Mexico City is all
about holding harmless the child, as I said earlier, equally
the mother. Abortion is not health care. We provide three
exceptions in the language. The three exceptions were in the
original Mexico City promulgated by Ronald Reagan by regulation
back in 1984. And that would be rape, incest, and life of the
mother. But after that--and that is a very, very small number
of abortions. And we recognize a child dies there as well. So I
would urge my colleagues to at least give this some additional
thought.
These children need your help. You need to be an advocate,
or at least consider being an advocate for them. Why does
wantedness dictate whether or not you have a right to live?
Birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us; it
is the beginning of a life. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Poe, do you yield back?
Mr. Poe. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
this measure, Mr. Berman's amendment, is postponed until 9:15
a.m. today, Thursday.
Such a sad statement, today, Thursday.
We have Mr. Berman, I know that we have other members who
have amendments as well. Mr. Rohrabacher has two amendments, I
believe, and Mr. Fortenberry has two amendments.
Mr. Rohrabacher, may we go to one of your amendments?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would be very happy to, but I was asked
by your staff to perhaps allow Mr. Berman 5 minutes if he
wanted to present something.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman has an amendment on the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman
of California. Strike section 411 and insert the following:
Section 411. Quadrennial diplomacy and development review. (a)
Review of diplomacy and development. (1) In General. Not later
than December 15, 2014, and every 4 years thereafter, the
Secretary of State (in this section referred to as the
``Secretary'') and the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development (in this section referred
to as the ``Administrator'') shall complete a comprehensive
examination----
Mr. Berman. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct. That is true. And the Chair
reserves a point of order, recognizes the author for 5 minutes
to explain his amendment.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The last time we marked up a State Department authorization
bill in this committee, in June 2009, we included a requirement
for the administration to undertake a quadrennial review of
diplomacy and development.
The idea was a bipartisan one. In addition to the provision
in our bill, there was a bill introduced by a Republican, Mac
Thornberry, requiring a quadrennial review of foreign affairs.
At the time our bill was under consideration, the State
Department was strongly opposed to that provision. However,
shortly after it passed the House, they decided to do the
review anyway. Just like the State Department.
The initial review was completed in the middle of December
2010. And one of the things they found was that in order for
our development assistance to become more efficient and more
effective, and I repeat it, in order for the development
assistance to become more efficient and more effective, USAID
needed to have control of its own budget. And I quote from the
QDDR that I made reference to,
``Effective development depends on the strategic
deployment of resources that advance particular
programs and align with overall policy goals. USAID
must have sufficient control of its budget to
systematically deploy its resources where they will
have the greatest impact. To ensure this essential role
in budget preparation and funding requests, USAID has
created a new Office of Budget and Resource Management
(BRM), charged with developing USAID's annual budget
proposal and overseeing budget execution.''
To alleviate any concerns that this office would be
duplicative, the QDDR explains that the Deputy Secretary of
State will consolidate and review the USAID and State budget
components, and the Director of foreign assistance resources,
who is located at State, will analyze and integrate all foreign
assistance budgets. The F bureau at State and USAID's new
budget office are currently working together on finalizing the
Fiscal Year 2011 foreign assistance allocations.
Yet without a single word of explanation, section 411 of
this bill specifically prohibits and repeals the new USAID
budget office. I assume this is nothing more than a political
stab at the administration. There is no foreign policy
objective to be advanced by this, no budgetary savings to be
accomplished. USAID's budget office costs no extra money. The
16 total staff positions now assigned to that office were
funded by reallocating funding and positions from other bureaus
and offices at USAID.
If anything, the new office will result in significant
budget savings, as USAID is finally allowed to start matching
resources with results, instead of being told what to fund,
regardless of whether the program works or not. My amendment
would replace section 411 with a statutory mandate to continue
doing the QDDR every 4 years like the Defense Department does
in its Quadrennial Defense Review. Just as there was no special
authorization or appropriation of funds for the first QDDR
process, the State Department and USAID managed to do it within
their regular budgets. This amendment does not require or
authorize any additional funds.
I really urge the committee to consider the mistake in
knocking out this USAID budget office. If you want to abolish
USAID, consolidate with the State Department, have all the
foreign development assistance going from the State Department,
I understand that. If you want to separate USAID completely
from the State Department and give them all the authorities, I
understand that. But what I don't understand is having USAID
separate from the State Department, although under the
Secretary's direction, but not having the ability to budget
their own operations or determine the extent to which their
programs are meeting their goals. This is a fundamental
capacity of reforming and making foreign assistance more
efficient.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back my 7
seconds.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
And I apologize for going to you right away. I thought this
was an amendment that you were going to offer and take out,
whatever, withdraw.
Mr. Berman. I could find one to do that with.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. I apologize.
Mr. Rivera is recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My understanding of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, or the QDDR, is that it was an attempt to
advertise the elevation of civilian power and aimed to set out
a new blueprint for U.S. foreign assistance, with the objective
of making foreign assistance more effective and accountable.
In trying to achieve those objectives, it failed in
achieving its goal. It not only failed to adequately address
the underlying fundamental issues, such as distinguishing clear
lines of authority and accountability between the Department of
State and USAID, but more importantly, failed to provide a
meaningful assessment of overall U.S. assistance efforts abroad
and the effectiveness of such spending.
Instead, the QDDR suggested an actual expansion and growth
of government, recommending the additional hiring of Federal
employees, the establishment of more bureaucracy, the
establishment of more offices, and the call for ongoing
assistance programs without evaluating their actual
effectiveness. So, in other words, the QDDR's recommendations
have done little to change the business as usual attitude that
has characterized our failed strategies for the past 50 years
within U.S. assistance efforts. So, for all those reasons, I am
going to oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to
do as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Do any
members seek recognition? Hearing no further speakers, pursuant
to committee rule 4 and the prior announcement of the Chair,
the recorded vote on this amendment is postponed until 9:15
a.m. today, Thursday.
Again, so cruel.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 33.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California. At the end of title IV of the bill,
add the following: Section 4xx. Limitation on assistance to
Pakistan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no
funds made available to carry out this act or any amendment
made by this act may be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
Strike part V of subtitle B of title IX of the bill (relating
to security assistance to Pakistan).
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
And the amendment is being distributed, so we will give it
just a few seconds.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair, would you entertain a question
while we are waiting?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. You may recall that I have written you and
the ranking member on what I think are the need for
comprehensive, in-depth hearings on U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
I am just wondering if you have had a chance to review that
request and what, if any, position you have on it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. I think if the gentleman would
yield, I believe that we want Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to be present for that. So I am sure that she will get
back to us soon. We will do so.
And with that, Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you very much. My amendment
takes Pakistan off the list of countries for which we will
borrow money from China to support, then stick our children and
grandchildren with the responsibility of paying off the debt.
In other words, my amendment eliminates our aid going to
Pakistan. The Pakistani ISI, their equivalent of the CIA,
through its long support of Osama bin Laden in the years
leading to 9/11, is directly responsible for the violent death
of thousands of our people. To this day, they still support the
Taliban, which of course the ISI, the Pakistani CIA, created,
as well as they support other terrorist organizations who are
killing U.S. soldiers, U.S. military personnel as we speak.
So what good has all of our aid to Pakistan done? We have
given out since 9/11 over $18 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.
Our billions of dollars in aid have not pulled Pakistan away
from China, nor ended Pakistan's support for terrorists
operating in Afghanistan and India. Osama bin Laden, who was
the one who personally organized the slaughter of those 3,000
Americans on 9/11, was given refuge in Pakistan for 5 years.
And when our Special Forces killed him, Pakistan arrested those
who helped us find him. Making matters worse, Pakistan is in an
alliance with China, and has been for a number of decades. It
is actively pursuing a China-backed alignment with Iran against
the United States. And Pakistan is actively engaged in trying
to convince other governments to ditch the United States and
cast their lot with China. They obviously consider the United
States a strategic enemy. Yet they keep taking our money, and
we don't fault them for that. We should fault ourselves. They
are treating us like fools because we are acting like fools.
The Obama administration has already cut some aid to Pakistan,
a third of it in fact. So why play games? Let's make our intent
clear. No more American money should go to a regime that
actively participates in the murder of American civilians and
soldiers. We have been playing the sucker for too long.
It is time to stop. We should cut off the billions of
dollars we have been giving to Pakistan. And we should
energetically seek a new strategic relationship in South Asia
which puts us on the side of India, a democratic government,
rather than the side of a government which is aligned with
radical Islam and Communist China.
Well, I ask my colleagues to support this effort. We should
have the courage to say, now is the time to recognize the Cold
War is over. That is what started our relationship with
Pakistan to begin with. And we should now, instead of hanging
on to that relationship in a way that is proving detrimental to
us because Pakistan, itself, is allied with our enemies, move
to try to set a new strategic relationship with India. And the
first step to doing that and creating a more peaceful world is
to quit giving support to a country that is engaged in anti-
American activity and undermines our national security.
So I would ask my----
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Just a question. Has my colleague given
thought to the unintended consequence that, by doing this, what
we risk is destabilizing an already-rickety Pakistan and
leading to a far worse outcome in terms of----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, we have been hearing that for years.
And it is not an unintended consequence; it is something that
you--it is a risk. It is risk that you take. Every time you
take a step forward to try to create a better world, you are
taking a risk that something may go wrong. And, in this case,
that is a risk that--I think it is riskier to continue in the
relationship that we have had with Pakistan than it is to try
to demand a change in the status quo.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My friend from California says this is a matter of courage.
Do we have the courage, can we summon up the courage to cut it
off? The aid to Pakistan, that is. I say it is question of
wisdom. It is not about courage.
Congress is correct to conduct additional scrutiny over the
assistance to Pakistan. We in the United States are very
rightfully skeptical of Pakistan's commitment to fighting
extremism following the many incidents that have come to light
in the weeks following the killing of bin Laden. I even have
some problems with the base bill in terms of what it does with
Pakistan, which I will address not in an amendment but in a
motion to strike the last word later in this markup.
But cutting off all assistance to punish Pakistan, without
proper consideration of the national security ramifications of
doing so, is lazy, it is shortsighted, and it is quite
irresponsible.
I meet with Indian Government officials all the time about
this issue, and I have never heard one of them suggest that
they thought it was in their interest for us to cut off every
aspect of our economic assistance to Pakistan. To the contrary,
they want to see civilian institutions built. They know that
the direction that Pakistan could be headed leads to chaos and
massive instability, implied in the question from my friend of
Virginia to the author of this amendment.
And the other thing that should be part of this amendment,
if it makes sense, is, if you are going to cut off all
assistance here to Pakistan, decide that Pakistan is the enemy,
this is one of those rare issues that are black and white, and
align ourselves with India. You ought to at least, on behalf of
our troops in Afghanistan, call for the immediate withdrawal of
all our troops in Afghanistan. Because what you are proposing,
without withdrawing our troops in Afghanistan, puts them in so
much greater jeopardy than they are even now. Our effort in
Afghanistan, supplying our troops there, remains highly reliant
upon continued Pakistani cooperation, both in terms of access
to Pakistani territory but also with regard to Pakistani
intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation.
Is it as good as I would want? Absolutely not. Are they not
doing things they should be doing? You are absolutely right.
But Pakistan's strategic location, the possession of nuclear
weapons, the ongoing insurgency along the country's border with
Afghanistan makes it imperative for the U.S. to keep the lines
of communication with Pakistan open.
It is in our national security interest--not an entitlement
program, not some obligation, but our national security
interest to ensure we have a productive relationship with
Pakistan, both for the short-term gains in Afghanistan and for
long-term regional stability. Unless we are able to find a path
toward that stability in South Asia, we could potentially find
ourselves in a similar situation years from now.
This becomes all the more difficult if we were to
significantly cut--to abolish all security and economic
assistance to the country. And I point out, the amendment is
drafted not to the Government of Pakistan, not simply to
economic assistance, but all assistance of any kind to the
people of Pakistan, through NGOs, through any other mechanism.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this well-intended but
wrong-headed amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield my time to
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't know how much more Pakistan has to
do to prove to us that they are not our friend and, in fact,
are our enemy and that if we rely on them for our security, we
are going to get hurt, as we have been hurt.
Let's just--again, our relationship with Pakistan started
during the Cold War. When I came here 22 years ago, let me note
that I was Pakistan's best friend in Congress, because I had
been working in the Reagan administration in the Cold War,
during the Cold War.
And times have changed. The Soviet Union has disintegrated.
India, which was in a positive relationship with the Soviet
Union, is no longer an ally to our adversary. Instead, what we
have now is a former ally, Pakistan, who has gone its way and
has allied itself, now, in this world, with America's worst
enemies. Radical Islam is Pakistan's ally, if not their brother
and sister. The Pakistani Government, and especially their ISI,
helped create the radical Islamic threat that threatens us
today.
Who is our--okay, what is the second threat that we face?
China. We have a looming China. And guess what? Pakistan is
China's best friend. So Pakistan is best friend to the two
forces in the world that most threaten the United States.
For us to continue giving them billions of dollars is
insane. Let's just recognize the world is different, and try to
establish a new status quo which will, indeed, create a more
stable world.
We can't just create an illusion that the Pakistanis are so
important to us because they cooperate with us in intelligence.
Intelligence? The ISI is the focal point of their intelligence,
and we rely on the ISI for guidance? I think that most people
understand that the ISI has been lying to us and has been
responsible for supporting radical Islam and creating that
threat to the world all of these years.
Let's admit that times have changed and try to create a
better future, not trying to keep ahold of an illusion that the
Pakistanis are still our friends. We can make a more peaceful
world by making sure that India is our friend.
And I would disagree with my colleague totally, when he
suggests that India wouldn't want us to move closer to India
and eliminate this alliance that we have had with the Pakistani
Government? No. I think that India understands that Pakistan
has allied with China.
And let's get back down it. The Chinese, through Pakistan,
have what? Have been engaged in one of the worst proliferations
of nuclear technology in recent--actually, in the history of
the nuclear problems. The fact is that China has worked through
Pakistan to provide nuclear material and know-how to North
Korea, to Iran.
And if there is a threat in the world today, yes, Pakistan
is that threat. But that is not any reason that we should
continue giving them money. Talk about bribe money. No, we
should be trying our very best to develop a new system of
alliances that will help create the world that is a more
peaceful world. And that does not include living in a dream
world, that Pakistan can be relied upon.
And I do agree--and I will end with this. My colleague has
made me a challenge, and the challenge is, you can't be in
favor of eliminating this aid to Pakistan unless you are
calling for an immediate withdrawal of American troops from
Afghanistan. Well, let me make it very clear: I think there
should be an immediate withdrawal of all American troops from
Pakistan. This is a no--or, from Afghanistan. This is a no-win
situation, no matter what is going on, but especially when we
are living in a dream world and giving money to Pakistan while
it conspires----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. To kill American troops.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Has expired.
Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to
give my time over to our ranking member.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but I
wonder, do we think about what we have done and what we say and
see if there is any relationship between the two?
The gentleman talks about the flowering of a new strategic
relationship with India, an alliance deep--the world's
greatest, the world's oldest democracies coming together. I
love the idea. And about 1\1/2\ hours ago, the gentleman voted
to eliminate that very little economic assistance we give to
India because they don't vote with us 50 percent of the time at
the U.N.
At what point do we have to be accountable for what we do
and square it with what we say? Give me a break.
Again, I repeat that I spend a great deal of time with
Indian officials; I have not only never heard them suggest that
we cut off all economic assistance to Pakistan, I have, to the
contrary, heard them suggest that they want a stable Pakistan.
What they don't want is a Pakistan that is taking our military
assistance to use it in some military confrontation with India.
They want it to be focused on counterterrorism, not on the
India-Pakistan conflict.
So this ally you want us to join up with--and I want us to
join up with them, as well--number one, I don't think the best
way to start that alliance is by saying, we are prohibited from
any more PEPFAR cooperation because they don't vote with us at
the U.N.; and, secondly, when we hear what they want, they
aren't suggesting what this amendment does, they are opposing
what this amendment does.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, I just want----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to add on to what the
gentleman from California was saying. And I submit to my
friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, the situation in Pakistan is not a
simple one. In fact, it is a very complicated issue, sometimes,
historically, on issues that have come about not necessarily
because of our doing, but that is just the way it is. Just as
we understand on the border line between Afghanistan and
Pakistan there are 12 million Pashtuns living in Afghanistan,
where all the Taliban are, and then just across the border are
27 million Pashtuns living in Pakistan.
And I can appreciate my good friend's concerns, but I think
it is not as simple as----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If the gentleman would remember----
Mr. Faleomavaega. We are talking about a nuclear power. And
when you add in the nuclear issues, that changes the whole
landscape on how we deal.
My hope and desire, hopefully, that part of our national
policy is that we should establish friendships with both
Pakistan and India.
And I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I hope the gentleman remembers that, about
20 years ago, the two of us----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Were on the Afghan-Pakistan
border----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Of course.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Sleeping in a fortress. And I
think you got the shotgun and I got the pistol. Or it was one
way or the other.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, I can say to the good
gentleman, I still remember that day. We were in Peshawar.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yep.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And we met with a lot of the tribal
chiefs there in Pakistan. We went to Afghanistan.
But what I just wanted to share with my good friend is that
I think denying this funding, which I think is--I thought it
was only $8 billion, and now I realize it is $18 billion since
we have established this relationship.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But then to understand, too, we have to
give Pakistan some credit when the Soviet Union decided to
invade Afghanistan, for which Pakistan played a very critical
role----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is right.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. In terms of how we were
trying to be helpful.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And those days are over.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I just wanted to share that with my
good friend.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to--oh, Mr. Connolly.
I am sorry.
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry, Madam Chairman, but I----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Usually, you are more aggressive in
seeking time. Have we mellowed you?
Mr. Connolly. Yes, you have. You really have.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is how you get after 1 o'clock
in the morning.
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I want to say that, in listening to my friend from
California, my heart wants to go where he goes. My head,
however, says, as Mr. Faleomavaega said, it is more complicated
than that.
I think his critique of Pakistan's behavior is
devastatingly on point. And I think we have to acknowledge
that. This has gone beyond the realm of a troubled
relationship. And the behavior across a broad spectrum--nuclear
behavior, new reports about collaboration, allowing North Korea
to develop a nuclear capability; actual hostile firing on the
border against U.S. allies, if not U.S. troops; the compromise
of intelligence on very important missions within Pakistan,
aimed at what is ostensibly a joint goal of putting out of
business insurgents and terrorists; of course, the obvious one
with respect to bin Laden's location for 6 or 7 years in the
middle of a military retirement community--who knew?--stretches
credulity and strains the relationship.
Having said that, it is a nuclear power. And for good or
real, we need each other at some level. We can't simply walk
away and abandon the relationship.
And I listened carefully to my friend's answer. I don't
know the answer, but I do think this: We, as policymakers,
cannot afford to simply say, I am willing to roll the dice on
the unraveling of Pakistan and the outcomes that may flow from
that.
So, for all of these reasons, I would be troubled by simply
precipitously ending any and all aid right now to Pakistan,
though I am tempted.
And I would suggest to my friend from California that he
may want to think about joining me in the request I have put
before the chairman and the ranking member. I think this is--
and it is going to sound strange--but I almost think this is a
Vietnam hearing moment for this committee. You know, J.W.
Fulbright, the then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, actually helped change the course of U.S. policy by
having an in-depth series of hearings covering Vietnam rather
exhaustively. And I think the time has come for some, at least,
mini-version, frankly, that covers all aspects of the U.S.-
Pakistan relationship to help air these issues and these
problems and, hopefully, to help us find some common ground
with what next steps are.
And I would renew that request and urge my colleague to
think about joining, on a bipartisan basis, in making--not to
even imply there is any resistance. I just think that moment
has come.
But, at this time, I would have a lot of trouble crossing
the precipice and pulling the plug entirely on aid to Pakistan.
But I must confess I am not unsympathetic with the motivation
and the analysis our good friend from California has put behind
us. And----
Mr. Fortenberry. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I would yield, certainly.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Just to note on your point as to how we
properly think through the dynamics you well outlaid, our
colleague Frank Wolf has proposed the formation of an Afghan-
Pakistan study group. Now, I believe before you came to
Congress, the Iraq Study Group was formulated, and it made a
significant impact on policy, I believe, and I think made a
significant contribution in turning that situation around.
I would just submit that for your consideration because
that is out there, and I would like to see that actually gain
some momentum.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to add also to the
gentleman's comment about Senator Fulbright and the Vietnam
war. I recall Senator Byrd, throughout the whole time when we
were going through the Iraq crisis, he singlehandedly, again,
on every point of contention in terms of whether or not the
policy was really sound before we committed our troops--and, of
course, I don't need to say what happened.
But I just wanted to say that, of interest, that is
something that we should all learn from what Senator Byrd had
warned us against, and the very things that he said. It is
almost like saying, ``See? I told you so.'' But anyway----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
``I left my heart in Islamabad.'' It doesn't have the same
ring.
So, hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule
4--oh, Mr. Rivera. Thank you. I would not want to jump ahead of
you. Of course you are recognized.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, with your
permission, I respectfully request to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will try not to take the entire 5
minutes.
So we got $18 billion that we have provided for Pakistan
since 9/11--$18 billion. And from all the intelligence reports
that we have been privately briefed on, we know full well that,
as we have been handing them that $18 billion, they have been
supporting elements in Afghanistan who are killing American
troops. We know that.
And we now know that Osama bin Laden, who was the
mastermind behind slaughtering 3,000 American civilians, that
they were hiding him the whole time. I guess they didn't really
notice he was, as you say, in the middle of that city with all
those other military people around him. No, we know they knew
that.
So I guess now we just want to continue along; we don't
want to really try to create a new status quo in South Asia.
No, we have to do that. We have to do that or we can expect
even more problems, more killing of our people. Because the
people who run the Pakistani Government, especially their
military and their ISI, obviously look at the United States as
their enemy. Perhaps it is because of cultural differences.
Whatever reason, they think that they need to be against the
United States, even as we give them billions of dollars and
they plot to murder Americans.
I wonder if giving them money, does anyone think that
generates a respect or is going to make the relationship
better? It is going to make it worse. They think we are fools,
because we are fools. Nobody in their right mind gives money to
someone who is killing their civilians and being involved with
an organized, worldwide movement to kill Westerners, to kill
people of another religious faith. Nobody in their right mind
does that.
And we also know that we are borrowing money to give to
them. Every penny that we give to them, yes, I am afraid every
penny of that money is being borrowed, because, you know, that
60 percent of the budget that we aren't borrowing is going to
take care of the needs of the American people. These things are
being borrowed. And we are borrowing money from China in order
to give to Pakistan, which is China's ally, which is China,
which is doing China's bidding. And I guess China must think we
are stupid, too.
So now we are going to borrow that money, and who is going
to pay for it? Our children and our grandchildren. They are
going to pay it back because we are acting stupid today. Not
just stupid, we are acting irresponsibly and we are acting in a
cowardly way, because we are afraid of what is going to happen
if we change the way we do things with Pakistan.
The future belongs to people with courage and insight and,
yes, wisdom. It is not wise to give money to people who are
engaged in killing your population. It is not wise to give
money to someone who has allied themselves with Communist
China, which is the world's worst human rights abuser and sees
itself as a global adversary of the United States.
While we have India next-door, who would like to be part--
and I reject the notion that they don't want to be part of a
new strategic relationship with the United States. Okay? And I
believe that India would--and, by the way, I would say,
probably India will vote with us more in the United Nations if
we quit financing the terrorists who are going into their
country and murdering their civilians. Because the attack in
Mumbai that represented the slaughter of their civilians
started out in Pakistan, and we know that. And we know the ISI
was involved.
Let's face reality. Let's have the courage to face reality
and start building a new world.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is what this is. We can start by
defunding Pakistan.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And now I am not going to jump the
gun and say, ``Hearing no further speakers.'' Does any member
wish to be recognized?
Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
this amendment is postponed until 9:15 a.m. today, Thursday.
Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher, would you like to have your other
amendment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher has an amendment at
the desk. The clerk--sorry, sorry. I forgot that, Mr. Deutch,
that you were not on the list. I forgot.
Mr. Rohrabacher, would you hold it a second?
Mr. Rohrabacher. As a matter of courtesy and seeing that it
is so late anyway, yes, I would be----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will
report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
of Florida. At the end of title IV, insert the following:
Section 4 [blank]. International narcotics control and law
enforcement. For international narcotics control and law
enforcement programs, not more than $1,597,000,000 is
authorized to be appropriated to the President for Fiscal Year
2012.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
The amendment is being given out, and Mr. Deutch is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In the spirit of my previous amendment, offered some 12 or
13 days ago, I would like to highlight another critical area of
assistance beyond development that was omitted from the base
text. The international narcotics control and law enforcement
account funds the State Department's counternarcotics,
transnational crime, and police training programs.
These programs are focused where security situations are
the most precarious. Funding in Fiscal Year 2012 will support
Liberia's transition to peace through funding of police
training and justice institutions. It will strengthen law
enforcement and judicial institutions in Latin America and
Mexico. It will train judges in Afghanistan and fortify
criminal justice sectors in West Africa.
We talk a lot, Madam Chairman, in Congress about fighting
terrorism and crime. We all agree that we need to reduce
violence in Mexico and safeguard our borders. This account, the
international narcotics control and law enforcement account, is
a key way to do that, and we should acknowledge so by
authorizing it.
I would point out, Madam Chairman, that my amendment
authorizes this account at the Fiscal Year 2011 budget amount.
My previous amendment, if you recall, by unanimous consent, we
adopted the President's budget, which seemed preferable. I
would accept that amendment, in which case we would be funding
this, rather than the $1,597,000,000, the President had
requested $2,511,000,000. If you wanted to entertain that, I
would gladly accept that amendment.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, will you be willing to
accept victory?
Is this higher, or is this lower? Let me have that number
again, the 2012 and your amendment.
Mr. Deutch. The Fiscal Year 2011 number that is in here is
$1,597,000,000. The President's requested amount, which is the
number that we used for nonproliferation and antiterrorism,
that number is $2,511,838,000.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, sorry. We are just looking at
the President's request, and apparently we have a different
number that says--$1,511,838,000.
Sorry. We were looking at different numbers--wrong numbers,
incorrect numbers.
So what we are doing is that we are looking at the
President's number, which is Fiscal Year 2012, which is
$1,511,838,000.
Mr. Deutch. So I will look forward to claiming victory at
the earliest possible moment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Sorry for the victory tease.
That is not right. So if we could just suspend for a few
moments.
So, Mr. Deutch, since the numbers that we had had are
different--and I apologize--you still have time to continue to
speak on your amendment. Would you like more time on your
amendment, Mr. Deutch? Sorry for the fuss. No?
Then we are once again teasing you with victory. Yes, we
are teasing you again with victory. They are saying that we
will accept the amendment.
Stalling works with us every time.
Mr. Deutch. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
So that amendment has been accepted. Thank you. I am glad
we went to you, Mr. Deutch.
Now, I have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Rohrabacher of California. At the end of title IV, add the
following: Section 4xx. Limitation on assistance to Iraq. None
of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or any
amendment made by this act may be used to provide assistance to
Iraq unless the President certifies to the appropriate
congressional----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
amendment as having been read. And Mr. Rohrabacher is
recognized.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
The current government, under Prime Minister Maliki, in
Iraq is realigning Iraq with Iran. That is a reality that we
have to face. And, of course, my amendment would recognize that
reality and say, well, let us not fund this transition, and
let's basically get our troops out and end our involvement in
that country, rather than not admitting reality.
So, Prime Minister Maliki's ruling coalition is dependent
on a Shiite radical, Mr. al-Sadr, who is very well-known. And
while he is an important part of their coalition, we know he is
also an open agent of Iran.
Prime Minister Maliki has been and continues to be
unresponsive to American requests to keep even a minimal
detachment of American troops in Iraq. Why? Because the mullahs
in Iran want all U.S. forces out of Iraq, and Prime Minister
Maliki is doing their bidding. That was made clear when, under
his authority, Iraqi troops invaded Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp
for Iranian dissidents, and massacred unarmed residents,
leaving 35 dead and hundreds more wounded.
The United States has already spent $1 trillion and nearly
4,500 lives, not to mention the tens of thousands who have been
wounded, trying to liberate and rebuild Iraq, only to have a
government come to power that is in league with the Iran
mullah's regime, who is our worst enemy in the region and
perhaps in the world. The mullah dictatorship in Tehran is the
most dangerous and violent terrorist state in the Middle East,
and Maliki is buddy-buddy with them.
Well, enough is enough. American troops won the war, but
U.S. State Department bureaucrats have lost the peace. Only a
new government in Baghdad, one that is grateful for our
liberation of the Iraqi people from the monstrous Saddam
Hussein dictatorship and which will be willing to repay,
perhaps, when they are prosperous, repay the United States for
what we have expended on their behalf and the behalf of the
Iraqi people, only then would it be worth for the United States
to continue aid and support for Iraq.
Such a government does not exist, however, and it is not in
the offing as we consider this bill. The ingratitude of the
current Iraqi Government for all of the sacrifice by Americans
on their behalf is overwhelming and should dictate that no more
American blood, nor money, should be expended on their behalf,
especially when we have to borrow the money in order to provide
it for them.
My amendment would shut off the spigot. Those who thumb
their noses at us after the expenditure of blood and treasure
that we have given to the people of Iraq do not deserve more of
that treasure and certainly not more of our people's blood.
They deserve not one more red cent from the United States.
And, in that, I am quoting a spokesman from the Maliki
government, who, after a recent codel where it was requested
that they might consider the fact that once Iraq is wealthy--
because it has greater oil and gas reserves than Saudi Arabia--
that they might consider paying back a little bit to the United
States because we are entering a financial crisis, responded,
``Not one red cent.''
Well, with that in mind, why do we continue to give money
to them, millions of dollars to them, at a time when we have to
borrow the money to give it to them? So I would suggest that
the State Department funds for Fiscal Year 2012, that is $2.36
billion, that we decide not to send that to them, and instead--
we should not be giving them----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Money at a time when we are
broke and they don't have gratitude.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Do members seek recognition?
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman. I think I am going to
oppose this amendment.
So let me just go through this again. We authorized the
war. The gentleman voted aye. We spent, by his terms, $1
trillion on the costs of defense and economic. And for the last
$1 billion, if they give us back $999 billion, we will give
them another $1 billion. I don't think they are going to take
that deal.
Where was the gentleman on this issue when the
administration was talking about, this war will pay for itself
with reimbursements? Where were the conditions on the money
then? Where were the conditions on all those appropriation
fights in the 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 period of time
when we were asked to spend more and more to deal with all of
the problems we were confronting? There was never a suggestion
that those appropriations would be limited. We are going to do
it on the last $1 billion?
The issue of whether or not to provide any more assistance
to Iraq should be decided on its own merits, not on a condition
they pay us back the $999 billion that we have already spent
trying to bring freedom and democracy there, to a greater or
lesser extent successful, depending on where you are coming
from on that issue. And I don't think this amendment is worthy
of support.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time to Mr.
Rohrabacher, Chairman Rohrabacher.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you very much.
Let me just note that when we--I think one of the biggest
mistakes that I have made as a Member of Congress was believing
the Bush administration when they told us we had to go into
Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein. I admit it, I made a mistake.
And I think it is important that we do admit our mistakes and
make up for it and not just continue down with policies that
are taking our country into bankruptcy and continuing leaving
our people in harm's way.
Yes, I voted--but let me note that when my Democrat
colleagues suggested an amendment, early on, that would have
required the Iraqis to repay the money that we were spending to
liberate them, I was one of the few Republicans, Mr. Berman, I
was one of the few Republicans that sided with the Democrats
when that amendment was proposed. I think there were three of
us. And so I am not Johnny-come-lately to the idea that they
should have been required to pay the price that we were putting
out to liberate them from Saddam Hussein's vicious and
monstrous dictatorship.
Let me also note that the Kuwaitis repaid us when we
liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's troops. There is no
reason in the world why we couldn't expect that same position
from the Iraqis.
And let us note that your party actually proposed that
early on. I know because I sided with you and supported it.
Well, now that they have committed that expenditure, I don't
think it is wrong, the fact that we are going into a financial
crisis, to ask them to repay some of that money.
And maybe we could also ask them--maybe it would be a good
idea for them not to ally themselves with America's worst enemy
and the worst enemy of freedom and security and stability in
that region. They are allying themselves with the mullah
dictatorship in Iran. There is no reason why we shouldn't ask
that they not do that and use our influence and, if they decide
that they are going to do it, pull our support for them. Let
them know there are consequences if they ally themselves with
people who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the
instability of the region and enemies of the United States.
Let me also note, I don't think there is anything wrong
with holding a government accountable for massacring civilians,
massacring unarmed people at a refugee camp, doing the dirty
work for the mullah regime. And if there was anything that
indicated that these people--that the current Government of
Iraq are going to be doing the bidding of the ayatollahs and
the mullah regime, it was this massacre that happened of
unarmed people at Camp Ashraf.
So, considering all of those details and the points that I
have made--number one, the Kuwaitis repaid us; number two, it
was the position of your party, Mr. Berman, that suggested
repayment early on, which I supported; and the current trend
among the leadership of Iraq today is to head toward making an
alliance with our enemies, the mullahs in Iran--all of that
suggests to me that we should cut off spending any more of our
limited money to support that regime.
And we should get our troops out of that country as soon as
possible, as well. So whether it is Afghanistan or Iraq, it is
time for us to start building a better future and having the
courage to leave behind policies that are counterproductive and
helping our enemies.
And so that is why I would suggest it is time to stop
acting like fools and financing our enemies and financing
people who are making themselves allies of our enemies. I would
ask my colleagues to support my amendment to defund the foreign
aid that is going to Iraq.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any members seek recognition on
the Rohrabacher amendment?
Thank you.
Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
this amendment is postponed until 9:15 a.m. today, Thursday.
Thank you.
And just for clarity--I am not good with the mumbo jumbo--
without objection, the amendment offered by Mr. Deutch on
international narcotics control and law enforcement is adopted.
Because I said it is ``accepted,'' and that is not the right
phrase. So, just to be clear.
And now we have Mr. Fortenberry's amendment.
Mr. Fortenberry. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Fortenberry. No. 66.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Which one, sir?
Mr. Fortenberry. 66. Oh, I am being told no. I don't know
why.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think it is--she has the right one
for you. You can trust her. I don't know about that one on your
right, but the one in front of you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Can I ask unanimous consent to hear that
one right now, even though it has been moved to----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It has to be on this title, as we
had discussed.
Mr. Fortenberry. I know, but I have sat here for----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. We were pretty clear. I am
sorry. We are on title IV, and that is the one that we will be
debating. And we will be debating it until it ends. So whatever
you have for title IV, we will take.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, let's move to the first one we have.
I think we have two.
Well, Madam Chair, while we straighten out the other issue,
No. 64.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will let us know if that
is on title IV?
Ms. Carroll. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Great. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Fortenberry of Nebraska and Mr. Payne of New Jersey. At the end
of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Sense of Congress
regarding reducing malaria prevalence and----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. With unanimous consent,
we will dispense with the reading. And Mr. Fortenberry is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment. And I think
that we are on our road to victory.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I should say from the outset, I am pleased to join my
colleague, Mr. Payne, in this amendment, who co-chairs the
Congressional Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Caucus,
in sponsoring this amendment related to U.S. global leadership
on malaria.
For members who are not a part of the caucus, you might ask
why the United States leads the world in this particular
disease. Simply because it is hard for Americans to sit idly by
while the vulnerable are afflicted by a treatable and
preventable disease. Our leadership on this is good for
humanity. It also builds good relationships in some of the most
troubled countries across the world. And like much of our
humanitarian assistance, it aids in global stabilization and,
therefore, national security.
Malaria is a life-threatening but preventable disease that
the U.S. defeated in the 1950s, but other nations are still
struggling to eradicate it. The majority of those killed are
pregnant women and children under 5 years old. A child dies
every 45 seconds from malaria in Africa alone. And 98 percent
of all malaria deaths occur in just 35 countries, the majority
of which are in sub-Saharan Africa.
But we can end this disease. America has asserted strong
global leadership to help vulnerable persons, particularly
children. We have seen that investments in malaria and
neglected tropical diseases control efforts reap significant
success, but the serious work does also remain. This amendment
simply reaffirms our commitment to global leadership on working
to end malaria deaths by 2013, and I urge my colleagues to
support this essential----
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Fortenberry, if you will
yield to Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Yes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is
a very good amendment and I intend to support it. But I do have
to say that none of the goals that you want to see achieved,
and they are very important, and I am very glad you are doing
this--but none of them can be achieved when you don't allow
assistance to countries that are below the median in the
Millennium Challenge's corruption index, or didn't vote with us
more than 50 percent of the time.
All I ask is somewhere we square what we want to see happen
with what we do on these other amendments and rationalize the
two together because you outlined a whole series of things we
want to accomplish and you can't do it----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reclaiming his time, Mr.
Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. I know it is late. Am I dreaming or have I
heard this before?
Mr. Berman. You mean the notion that we should be
accountable for how amendments relate to each other?
Mr. Fortenberry. It was an attempt at levity, but clearly
it was missed.
Mr. Berman. It was definitely missed, but I am not sure any
level of levity would have been caught.
It was not an attack on your levity.
Mr. Fortenberry. I understand. All right. I still control
the time. Do you have anything else to say? Or I will yield
back. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I believe that we like
the amendment and we are ready to accept it. And before I call
for the vote, I would like to tell you, Mr. Fortenberry, that
if we just change the title in your next amendment, it will be
kosher.
Mr. Fortenberry. How do I do that, Madam Chair?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will show you magically. And
hearing no further speakers--oh, yes, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. I would like to think about that amendment the
gentleman wanted to offer, was supposed to come in title VIII.
Why not let that come in title VIII so we can learn a little
more about this amendment which I have never seen until a
couple of minutes ago, rather than--was it in title VIII?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think he misclassified and it--and
I won't get in the way of this, Mr. Fortenberry. Let's just end
with this amendment.
Mr. Fortenberry. Are we still in the malaria amendment?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We would like to pass your amendment
and--no? We would like to consider it, of course. But hearing
no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4 and the prior
announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on the Fortenberry
amendment on malaria with Mr. Payne is postponed until 9:15
a.m. today, Thursday.
Now, we will start the discussion on Mr. Fortenberry's
other amendment. And let's get in the proper posture and then
you will make your suggestion of having it be at the proper
place.
We have not called it up. Would you like to be in a
colloquy with Mr. Fortenberry before we call up that amendment?
Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Are you recognizing me, Madam Chair?
Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Before I call up your amendment,
Mr.--what is your name? Berman--has a question and he is
wondering about the proper title.
Mr. Berman. All amendments that are, with the exception of
this amendment, have been for title IV have been completed.
There are no outstanding amendments. My preference if we--there
is no amendment ready to be offered at this time because there
is no amendment at the desk, as far as I understand it, that
amends title IV. I prefer, but that point may no longer be
correct. Is there an amendment at the desk on title IV?
Ms. Carroll. Yes, sir.
Mr. Berman. And is it stapled? I'm just kidding.
Ms. Carroll. No, it is not.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry has an amendment at
the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
Fortenberry of Nebraska. At the end of title IV, add the
following: Section [blank]. Statement of policy and report on
sex-selection abortion.----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We need to have a copy of that
amendment. While that is handed out, Mr. Fortenberry is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I apologize for the confusion here.
It was my intent to offer this in section 4 all day. But I
do offer this amendment to draw attention to an abhorrent human
rights violation that the United States has not yet officially
acknowledged in its annual human rights report, namely the
practice of targeting unborn girls for abortion simply because
they are girls.
The United States Congress has condemned China for this
practice, but I believe it is time to elevate international
scrutiny of this new human rights effrontery. The tragic
practice known as gendercide, the intentional infanticide of
baby girls, which reports indicate has claimed the lives of
over 100 million girls in China and is responsible for a
staggering demographic imbalance in that nation will also drive
the pernicious practice of human trafficking in the future.
According to a 2006 Zogby poll, 86 percent of Americans
think that discriminatory practice of sex selected abortion
should be illegal. And across the political spectrum, this
serious issue is being given much more attention. The U.N.
population fund, for instance, found that 50 million are girls
missing in India because of gendercide. A recent survey by
TrustLaw, a project through Reuters, ranked India as one of the
worst countries for women in the world because of this plight.
Amnesty International as well has shed light on this
problem recently.
Madam Chairman, I think as a government, we also need to
shed light on the issue of sex-selection abortion, which has
been widely denounced by the U.S. medical community.
One way to do that effectively is to call it out for what
it is, and make sure that the United States is on record in
opposition to this egregious human rights violation.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further requests for
recognition, the question occurs on the amendment----
Mr. Smith. I will be brief.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those in favor, signify by
saying----
Oh, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I know it is late, but this is an
extraordinarily important human rights issue, and I do thank
the chair for yielding. Where are China's missing girls? By the
tens of millions, they are gone, victims of the earliest form
of discrimination against the girl child, sex-selective
abortion. Ten years ago--ten years ago--the U.S. Department of
State reported in the Country Reports of Human Rights Practices
that there may be as many as 100 million girls missing. And
they cited Chinese demographers in stating that.
China's forced abortion policy, and, as a direct
consequence, its missing girls, constitutes a massive crime
against women and the girl child. And as my colleague, Mr.
Fortenberry, pointed out, it is also creating a huge magnet for
sex trafficking.
Finally, everyone remembers Chai Ling, that great leader of
China human rights at Tiananmen Square, and combating human
rights and pushing for freedom. She now heads up a group called
All Girls Allowed. And what they are trying to do at All Girls
Allowed is to make the world aware of this horrible crime of
gendercide, especially as it relates to sex-selective abortions
where ultrasounds are used to find, discover the sex of the
baby, and when the girl is discovered, she is decimated. She is
destroyed.
She said at a press conference that I was a part of just
the other day that the three most dangerous words today in both
China and in India are: ``It's a girl.''
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith.
Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
And with that, I believe that we, our committee is recessed
until 9:15, will be the first vote as agreed upon.
So come early.
Grab a good seat. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank
you, Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you Mr.
Rohrabacher. Hardy ones until the end.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
be reconvened at 9:15 a.m., Thursday, July 21, 2011.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
