Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1950) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for crafting an outstanding piece of legislation. As we all know, he guided and shepherded through this body landmark legislation on AIDS which would not have been written into law without his effective leadership. I also thank the gentleman for including so many provisions which I proposed either as amendments or as base text.

In particular, including an amendment on refugees I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that increases refugee protection monies by $310 million over 2 years, and my bill called the Belarus Democracy Act. This legislation which is embodied now into the text of the bill, would provide for effective help to civil society, human rights promotion, and democracy promotion in Belarus; the victims of torture which gets a modest but necessary increase in the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; and there are many others.

This is a consensus bill in many ways, but there are some points of divergence. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has put into the bill by a very narrow vote, an amendment that seriously and fundamentally weakens America's core anti-coercion law which says no funding goes to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control program.

We in this Congress do not make the determination as to whether or not a group gets population control money. We set the standard. It is then left to the executive branch which relies on all relevant information to make a finding. Last year, Secretary Powell made that finding and said that the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births and that this regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the harsh penalties.

``UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,'' Secretary Powell said.

I say to my colleagues, this debate is all about coercion. I would hope that my friends who support abortion would realize that coercion, whether it be forced sterilization or forced abortion, is an unconscionable act; and when it is done with impunity by the Chinese government with their partner, the U.N. Population Fund, we need to disassociate ourselves from that kind of activity. We need to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor, and the friends of the oppressor. We need to stand with the victims.

I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering, cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that would strike this language from the bill. I would hope that we would stand with the women of China who are being oppressed by their government and with their partners in these crimes against humanity, the U.N. Population Fund. I urge Members to vote for our amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Title XV of the State Department authorization bill incorporates key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which I sponsored earlier this year. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report on Belarus states that the Belarusian regime's ``human rights record remained very poor and worsened in several areas.'' Thanks to Alexander Lukashenka--aptly cited by The Washington Post as ``Europe's last dictator''--Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today. The Helskinki Commission, which I Chair, as well as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe including its Parliamentary Assembly, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international entities have all chronicled the appalling state of human rights and democracy in a country located in the heart of Europe. Belarus already borders NATO. In just a few years, Belarus will border the European Union.

The Lukashenka regime has blatantly and repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. The independent media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and democratic opposition have all faced harassment. Indeed, in the last few months, his war against civil society has intensified--resulting in the closure of non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and Western-funded media support groups, such as Internews Network group, an international organization that helps develop independent media in countries in transition.

Just last week, the Lukashenka regime denied continuation of the accreditation of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), an American organization that has implemented a variety of assistance programs in Belarus for years, including programs that helped the struggling independent media. Last week, they ordered the closure of the Minsk bureau of Russian NTV television. Just a few weeks ago, Lukashenka closed down the National Humanities Lyceum, a highly respected school promoting the study of the Belarusian language and culture. There are growing, legitimate fears that Lukashenka is aiming to remove Belarus from its vestiges of democracy dissent.

In October, Lukashenka signed into law the most restrictive religion law in Europe. Independent journalists have been sentenced to ``corrective labor'' for their writings. There are credible allegations of the Lukashenka regime's involvement in the disappearances of leading opposition figures and a journalist. Here in Washington and at various OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I've had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared, Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky. These meetings have been heart- wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--are a stark illustration of the climate of fear that pervades in Belarus.

On the security front, reports of arms deals between the Belarusian regime and rogue states, including Iraq and North Korea, continue to circulate. Lukashenka and his regime were open in their support of Saddam Hussein.

One of the primary purposes of this initiative is to demonstrate U.S. support for those persevering to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the onerous pressures they face from the anti-democratic regime. Necessary assistance is authorized for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, independent media--including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus--and international exchanges.

The bill also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, conducted in a manner consistent with international standards--in sharp contrast to the 2000 parliamentary and 2001 presidential elections in Belarus which flagrantly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in 2004, and we should encourage those who seek to create the laws and environment conducive to a free and fair election.

In addition, the Executive Branch is encouraged to impose sanctions against the

Lukashenka regime and deny high-ranking officials of the regime entry into the United States. U.S. Government financing would be prohibited, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs.

Madam Chairman, we are seeking to help put an end to the pattern of clear and uncorrected human rights violations by the Lukashenka regime and are hoping this will serve as a catalyst to facilitate Belarus' integration into democratic Europe. The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is preeminent. The Belarusian people--who have endured so much both under past and current dictatorships--deserve our support as they work to overcome the legacy of the past and develop a genuinely independent, democratic country.

In addition, Madam Chairman, in keeping with this authorization for the Department of State, I want to express my appreciation for the work of the Department in bringing needed attention to the concerns about ongoing anti-Semitism, an age-old plague that still haunts many countries in the OSCE, including our own. I have sought to identify effective responses to this troubling phenomenon, including the introduction of the resolution, H. Con. Res. 49 which passed last month.

Last month, I joined Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Hastings in Vienna for an OSCE conference specifically focused on anti-Semitism. Having the OSCE itself take up this important cause is significant. In fact, the idea was first raised in the May 2002 hearing of the Helsinki Commission and also suggested in the resolution condemning anti- Semitism I presented at the Berlin Parliamentary Assembly meeting last summer. I offered a similar resolution week before last at the Rotterdam OSCE PA meeting. Both resolutions passed the Assembly unanimously. While the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has actively denounced anti-Semitic acts, I give great credit to the State Department for making the Vienna Conference a reality. Notably, one initiative emerging from the Vienna Conference was a pledge by our German friends to hold a follow-up meeting in Berlin next year to focus on anti-Semitism. I hope this meeting will rally the troops from Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say in one voice ``never again.''

Finally, Madam Chairman, I was pleased to learn of Senator Voinovich's amendment to the Senate's State Department reauthorization bill requiring the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include specific coverage of anti-Semitism. The amendment calls for the report to cover ``acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country'' and ``the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence.'' Importantly, the amendment would mandate the report to chronicle ``actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith.'' I think this is a worthwhile idea and hope it will be enacted into law.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to strike the Crowley language in the State Department bill under consideration.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, just 10 months ago a sweeping, comprehensive reiteration of China's Draconian population control program went into effect in all of China. Sadly, the new law is as harsh, brutal, and violent as ever. Lest anyone be deceived that Beijing is somehow easing up on coercive population control, it is all there in the new law, the infamous one-child-per-couple policy, the crippling fines on those women who attempt to resist, and severe punishment to those women who have a child without explicit government permission.

Since 1979, the U.N. population fund has been the chief apologist for China's coercive one-child-per-couple policy. By its words and by its actions, the UNFPA has chosen to partner with those who oppress women. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered, their mothers robbed of their children by the state. The UNFPA has aggressively defended this barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the pawns of population control cadres.

One terrifying consequence of China's policy is the disproportionate number of girl murders. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in China, currently there may be as many as 100 million more men than women, clearly a direct result of the one-child-per-couple policy.

Time and again, Madam Chairman, the officials at the UNFPA have defended the indefensible. The former executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its experience and social expertise to help other countries.'' God forbid. Let them export the one-child-per- couple policy which relies on coercion to achieve its ends? I hope not! On CBS ``Nightwatch,'' the executive director of the UNFPA said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, as does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a total voluntary program.'' Madam Chairman, that is unmitigated nonsense and that is a lie.

UNFPA Beijing representative Sven Burmester said and I quote, and please listen to this. This is the U.N.'s man in Beijing:

``China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind.'' That does not sound like a criticism of coercion or involuntary or forced abortion. That sounds like a partner defending a fellow partner gushing with praise. Of course it ``works,'' and of course the Chinese program is ``successful.'' Coercion works every day of the week.

Forced abortion, I would remind my colleagues, was construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is no less of a crime today as it is practiced by China with its partners in that crime, the UNFPA.

Madam Chairman, having failed the important review required by the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) today is now attempting to gut, to weaken, to rig the 18-year-old Kemp- Kasten law by requiring that it only be operative if an organization ``knowingly and intentionally'' advances or expands coerced abortion or forced sterilization. If we adopt the Crowley language, enforcement of the current anticoercive law would be dead. Clearly, the whole idea behind this is that the money will flow to the UNFPA unfettered because with this standard, the weakened standard, there is little doubt that the money will flow.

U.S. investigators, if we adopted this language that is in the underlying bill, would now be required to investigate UNFPA personnel and ascertain their knowledge and their intent: What did they know and when did they know it? Given UNFPA's deplorable track record of denying that coercion even exists in China, it would be nearly impossible to prove intent. Even the hard-liners in China, in the government, deny coercion or any knowledge of coercion or intent to compel abortions.

I have made three human rights trips to China. I met with the head of China's population control program, Peng Peiyun. Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over in that lengthy conversation that there was no coercion in China and then she backed that up by citing UNFPA's participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA leaders have defended and said there is no coercion in China. For the past 24 years, again despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, UNFPA has declared China's program to be, quote, purely voluntary, free of coercion and a model to be emulated by other countries. Let us not forget that proving intent, this weakening standard offered by the gentleman from New York, is usually the stuff of criminal prosecutions, not grant-making.

I would point out to my colleagues, also, if we applied the misguided Crowley standard to any other human rights standard, human trafficking or religious persecution, we would seriously undercut, even destroy, our efforts to mitigate these abuses around the world.

Crowley sets a dangerous precedent in human rights law.

Let me just point out to my colleagues I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Pursuant to that law, Secretary Powell recently placed 15 countries on what we call the tier 3 sanctions list. Those sanctions will soon be imposed. Nowhere in the statute do we require

the Secretary of State to divine the intent of the officials or whether or not they knowingly engaged in these human rights abuses. To give the oppressors that out, that escape clause, would be a gross betrayal of the victims.

In like manner, I respectfully submit we betray the victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, millions of Chinese women, millions of Chinese children, when we give the oppressors or the friends of the oppressors this engraved invitation to continue denying and obfuscating the truth and, of course, enabling this kind of carnage to go on.

I ask Members to support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds.

I just want to point out to my colleagues that the State Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on many sources to make their determination, and Secretary Powell made this comment in his letter of finding: ``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a program of coercive abortion.'' He pointed out ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.''

Every dollar, Madam Chairman, that does not go to the UNFPA the Secretary of State has said in writing he wants to reprogram to family planning and to maternal healthcare initiatives elsewhere around the world.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues that we provide almost half a billion dollars in family planning monies that go to Haiti, that go to Nicaragua, that go to El Salvador. We provide government-to-government and through nongovernmental organization support. And the money that does not go to the UNFPA will be reprogrammed dollar-for-dollar for these kinds of services.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend and colleague.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, presumably the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and virtually everybody in this Chamber opposes the tyrannical forced abortion policy of China, but not the UNFPA. Let me say that again, not the United Nations Population Fund.

Their representative has called this the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind. They call it voluntary when it is not. They aid and abet this cruel policy in many, many tangible ways.

The State Department has it right. In the 32 counties as well as in the rest of China, when a woman gets pregnant and the baby is out of ``plan'', in other words, an illegal pregnancy--an illegal child--she faces Draconian fines of up to 6 years of salary. That is what compels the abortion. Desperate, with nowhere to turn, she aborts the child to avoid those fines. I urge support for Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have one final speaker to close debate on my side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, to close debate for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), for his stellar management of it, as well as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

The Committee on Rules, as was said by both gentlemen, worked into the night to fashion this rule, and it will allow for the consideration of a wide range of very important issues. As was further pointed out by both of my colleagues, 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to us were made in order. We have 23 Republican amendments, 13 Democratic amendments, and six bipartisan amendments in that package, which will, I believe, allow us to consider many, many different issues of this important piece of legislation.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), Mr. Speaker, raised a number of important issues on amendments that, quite frankly, have not been made in order; and, obviously, everyone understands that we have to have some kind of constraint on the amendment process as we proceed with 75 amendments, many of which are duplicative. And so we have to put some kind of structure in order. That is the raison d'etre for the Committee on Rules, in fact.

So as he addressed those issues, I was thinking that many of those are important and need to be looked at, obviously focusing on environmental issues, focusing on the issue of the transfer of uranium. These are all questions that should be addressed. I agree with him that they should be addressed, but I would argue that this institution is effectively and very responsibly taking them on. Today, for example, on the issue of the Schiff amendment, we have the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here in the House, very ably chaired by the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and in the Senate our colleague Pat Roberts is working on this issue; and obviously that is going to be an issue of discussion there and I believe will be responsibly addressing that question.

On other issues which the administration can very effectively address, I know that they are committed to improved environmental quality and other issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) brought forward as well.

I want to, Mr. Speaker, talk about a number of very important measures in this legislation which I am particularly supportive of, and I want to talk about a couple of amendments that I am going to be dealing with. First, I had the privilege of cochairing, along with our former colleague Lee Hamilton, who was in fact the predecessor of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), having served as chairman of what was called then the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Hamilton and I cochaired a task force that was put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, and the particular charge was to look at the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations. We obviously know, leading up to U.N. resolution 1441, before the war with Iraq, and the challenge of trying to put together a multinational coalition in dealing with the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism and a wide range of other international challenges that we face, that there has been a question out there about the U.S. leadership role. So this task force, I believe, came forward with some very, very first-rate recommendations, and I am happy that we have been able to include those recommendations as part of this bill.

I introduced, along with the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, our very able colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the package that is basically described as the International Leadership Act; and it will, I believe, take us down the road towards improving the role of the United States in the United Nations.

Now, many of the recommendations that are there are designed to deal with challenges like the fact, and this is unbelievable, the United States of America's being removed from the Human Rights Commission within the United Nations and one of the most repressive anti-human rights entities on the face of the Earth, Libya, being given the opportunity to preside over that structure looking at human rights. Well, obviously, there is something wrong with this picture, Mr. Speaker; and I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that.

We need to do what we can to encourage self-determination, political pluralism, and the rule of law worldwide; and I believe that those are goals that the United States and most nations that are members of the United Nations share. But, unfortunately, we have not had the kind of success in doing that that we would like, so it is for that reason that we have in this legislation the U.S. International Leadership Act, which will do things like encourage the establishment of a democracy caucus. It will encourage the United States to engage even more actively than we already do under the very able leadership of our first-rate ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. We will be involved in a lot of things that, frankly, are modeled after the work here in the United States Congress, which I hope can be utilized to enhance the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations.

So I want to congratulate both my friends Lee Hamilton and the other great members who served on our task force, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and I want to say that this has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from our friends, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others. And so I look forward to discussing this further. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) will, but I wanted to raise that now at this juncture.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there are a couple of other issues that are very, very important that need to be addressed here. One of them has to do with the challenge we have been dealing with in California, and it has to do with the issue of extradition.

Very tragically, last year a constituent of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), happened to be near the area that I represent, Irwindale, California. He was with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and he was, unfortunately, killed. His murder was reportedly by a Mexican national, who, after murdering Deputy Sheriff David March, shooting him point-blank, fled to Mexico. We have been dealing with the challenge of trying to extradite this man who we believe is responsible for this murder back to the United States so that he can face justice here.

We know that there is a challenge within the Mexican constitution. They prevent extradition to countries that have a death penalty. And while I happen to personally be a proponent of the death penalty, we know that is a hotly debated issue here in the United States. But for that reason, because of the prospect of this individual facing the death penalty, he has not been extradited; and, in fact, the request has not formally been made for his extradition.

But there is another decision the Mexican Government made, and it had to do with the Supreme Court in December of 2001. They came down with a ruling that said that life imprisonment is, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment, and that has played a role in hindering the opportunity for this individual to be extradited back to the United States to face justice.

The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has an amendment, which I will be strongly supporting, that basically calls on both countries to try and bring about a resolution to work this issue out. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been working closely with the very able Mexican ambassador to the United States on this issue; and I am convinced that within the leadership of Mexico, President Fox and other leaders obviously want justice. And so the McKeon amendment simply encourages a resolution to that which I hope will take place in the near future.

Having spent time talking with family members of Sheriff March and others in Los Angeles who have spent a lot of time focusing on this issue, it is very clear that justice is a priority. And I want to say that I hope that with passage of the McKeon amendment it will help us in our attempt to deal with this question.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be offering an amendment here which will deal with the overall issue of migration. I know there was a lot of discussion in the Committee on International Relations on this. I know the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and others; and I am joining, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), with whom I am privileged to serve as cochairman of the U.S.-Mexico Caucus, which was established at the encouragement of Ambassador Bremer, and our goal has been to focus on the overall issue of trade between Mexico and the United States and the fact that we have seen tremendous benefits that have come about because of the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In fact, we have seen trade between our two countries move from 1993, prepassage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, at about $83 billion, to around $230 billion. So virtually a tripling of the trade between our two countries. So the U.S.-Mexico Caucus has been charged with looking at the real benefits and ways that we can actually enhance the relationship between our two countries.

So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have joined as coauthors of an amendment which will deal with the overall issue of migration and encourage action on that, and I am hoping that we will be able to enhance the level of bipartisan support we have for this measure. It does, in fact, rectify something that I believe should not have been in the measure that was reported out of the Committee on International Relations with the United States basically calling on the Mexican Government to privatize Pemex, which is the oil company in Mexico.

We all recognize that there are problems within the operations of Pemex. In fact, I have yet to talk to a Mexican who has said to me anything other than that there are problems with Pemex. But I do not believe it is correct for the United States Congress to basically provide as a contingency for dealing with our very important migration policy, which Secretary Powell and this administration obviously want to address in a very responsible way, I do not believe that that should in any way be contingent upon our seeing Mexico deal with their challenge with Pemex. We want them to do that, but we obviously are not going to tie our goal of dealing with migration to a resolution to that.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. It is a balanced rule that, as I said, allows 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to us to be considered. This legislation has some problems with it. I will admit it is not perfect. And I know there are some in the administration who have raised understandable concerns about a number of issues. But I believe that we can work very positively towards dealing with a number of those with the amendment process that has been put into place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has offered a very strong statement, much of which I agree with. I believe that it is very important for us to vigorously pursue our goal of putting into place a comprehensive migration accord, and I think it is the right thing to do.

I will admit that I do not believe it was the correct thing for that Ballenger amendment to have been included in the legislation, and that is one of the reasons that in the role that I play on the Committee on Rules we chose to take and make the following amendment in order which I believe very responsibly deals with our shared goal and the goal that, as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States has on this.

The amendment reads as follows, ``(1) that the United States and Mexico should as soon as is practicable commence negotiations in an attempt to reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as possible and which addresses the key issues of concern for both nations; and (2) that as part of any migration agreement between the United States and Mexico, the issues of extradition of violent criminals and law enforcement cooperation between the two nations be addressed.''

Mr. Speaker, I have raised these issues of concern on the issue of extradition, and I have been working with my California colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), on this issue dealing with a particular case in California. I do believe, as the gentleman said, the President does want to responsibly move ahead with this.

On the second issue of global warming, I have no doubt that this administration is very committed to dealing with that. We made a determination when 75 amendments had been submitted to us that we would include 42 of them, so there has been nothing secretive about this process. It is very open. We, in fact, are discussing it right now on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope we bring about an expeditious conclusion to this. Obviously, that is our goal. Secretary Powell has indicated his support of our amendment, and we know full well that he wants to deal with this.

I want to say this issue of immigration is something that we can address in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues to realize that as we proceed to work to pass this rule and move ahead with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I congratulate my friend on his statement and I believe that we clearly do have the shared goal of trying to address that concern that was raised from the State of the Union message. The reason that we did not make the amendment in order was very simply that we do believe that the work that is being done by both the Intelligence Committee in the House and the Intelligence Committee in the Senate will effectively address this. I know that the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, has already had a lengthy discussion as I heard on the radio this morning with the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet; and I know that this is an issue that will be addressed in their committee tomorrow. I believe that we will be seeing attention focused on it within our Intelligence Committee. I know that, in a bipartisan way, concern has been addressed from members of the Intelligence Committee that the establishment of this could in fact play a role in undermining them. That was the reason that we did not make the amendment in order.

But I want to say to my friend that I do believe that since the ratio was 2 to 1, I hope that my friend will come down in support of the rule based on that. Two amendments he liked, one he did not; so I hope that he will join with us in supporting the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who chairs our Committee on Veterans Affairs' and has long worked on so many of these very important issues.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say it is my intention to close the debate here single-handedly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. As was said, 75 amendments were submitted to us; 42 of those 75 were made in order. We are going to be debating a wide range of issues.

The question that was just raised by my friend from Massachusetts is one that will be very effectively addressed by the majority and the minority on our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To try to portray a concern about that other amendment is partisan. I will tell the Members that there are minority members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who believe that we did the right thing here.

There are concerns that exist with this legislation, but I do believe with we should allow for a full debate, and we are going to be doing that. The establishment of the International Leadership Act, very important; dealing responsibly with the issue of migration, very important; dealing with the millennium challenge issue which the President has put forward and enjoys bipartisan support; these are all important issues that we will be able to move forward with once we pass this rule and pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1950, the foreign relations authorization bill for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 as it was reported out of committee. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill; and I am proud to have cosponsored it with my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman; and I want to pay public tribute to his extraordinary leadership of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, every single item that our committee deals with represents the daily menu of all our international and domestic media: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, Pakistan, Colombia, North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, NATO, Europe, Africa. They are all part of this legislation, and our committee and its staff deserves commendation for being able to deal with these issues in a bipartisan fashion.

I am very pleased that our bill fully funds the administration's request for the State Department and contains many of the provisions that Secretary of State Colin Powell has requested to help him better manage the Department of State. I want to commend Secretary Powell for his effort to strengthen what has traditionally been one of our Nation's greatest resources, our diplomatic corps. I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that under the authority provided in our bill, the Secretary's diplomatic readiness initiative will reach its final goal of putting 1,158 new professional American diplomats in place to serve our country across the globe.

I am also very pleased to be joining my good friend from Illinois in a continuing effort to make sure that we reduce as rapidly as possible the period of time in which our embassy employees are left in compounds and facilities that are vulnerable to terrorist attack. To support this, our bill provides over $1.3 billion over the next 2 years for security upgrades at our embassies in all parts of the world.

Our bill also contains a number of critical foreign policy initiatives that will give our State Department the tools it needs to promote and protect our national security interests in an increasingly complex world.

I am very pleased to have had the chance to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our distinguished Committee on Rules chairman, in crafting one such measure, the International Leadership Act of 2003, which has been folded into this bill. Mr. Chairman, the Leadership Act is designed to give our diplomats the tools they need to ensure that America once again punches at its weight class at the United Nations.

Our legislation achieves this by creating a Democracy Caucus to support the United States at the United Nations by directing our President to use his influence to reform U.N. rules, so that rogue regimes cannot gain leadership positions, and by providing new training to make our diplomats more effective in multilateral diplomacy. As my colleagues well know, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of years ago, the United States was removed from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, a body we founded; and Libya was put in charge of that commission, a theater of the absurd if we ever saw one.

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that with the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), on a historic measure, we succeeded in making provisions for offering significant assistance to a new and democratic Palestinian state if performance benchmarks can be reached, including a total cessation of terrorism and the establishment of a transparent, democratic, and independent judiciary and Palestinian government responsive to its people.

An important provision to our bill was added by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). His provision reverses the administration's harmful

and highly political decision to withhold U.S. funding from the United Nations Population Fund. The administration's move came after its own hand-picked investigative team concluded that there was no evidence that the population fund would be involved in any way in coercive family planning in China. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Crowley) measure will help the population fund to demonstrate that voluntary family planning is the only humane and effective way for China to control its population explosion.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that this provision will be debated later today, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the committee position on this matter.

Another important initiative included in our bill is the International Free Media Act of 2003. It will help the State Department to encourage the development of sources of accurate, objective reporting in societies which are currently polluted by messages of propaganda and hate in state-controlled media, such as the media in Egypt. I am particularly pleased that this initiative includes a new $15 million fund to support independent and ethical journalism across the globe.

Our bill also contains the Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003, which is designed to confront the alarming spread of offensive ballistic missiles for launching nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads. This measure commits the United States to seeking a new international mechanism to restrict the trade in missiles. It strengthens United States sanctions against those who trade in missiles, and it provides assistance to countries which agree to destroy their missile arsenals.

The bill also recognizes the United States' vital interests in promoting Afghanistan's transition from chaos, civil war, and disorder to an increasingly prosperous and democratic state. To prevent the spiral downward, the bill directs the President to ensure that there is adequate security along major transportation routes in Afghanistan and urges him to expand the international security assistance force.

I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, that our bill authorizes all funds necessary to pay our assessed dues upon reentry to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Full funding is critical, Mr. Chairman, if we are to fulfill the President's commitment of last year to rejoin this most important international organization. When UNESCO was founded at the end of the Second World War, its motto was, ``Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be constructed.'' Never was this statement more appropriate and timely than it is now; and our rejoining UNESCO will demonstrate that, far from being unilateral, we want to accept our full responsibility as a cooperative member of the international community.

I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the rule for our bill has struck out the amendment sponsored by my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) which addresses global climate change, a very real and immediate threat to our national security, an issue that has been neglected far too long.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that later today we will be debating an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and me authorizing the President's Millennium Challenge Assistance Initiative and the proposal to dramatically expand our Peace Corps. This amendment will dramatically improve the ability of the United States to help the least fortunate on this planet and to promote a world where hope thrives and the despair that leads to support for international terrorism vanishes.

I want to thank the chairman of our committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for working with me and all of the other members of our committee in crafting an excellent bill. Virtually every element of this bill has the support of both Republicans and Democrats, and this is in large part due to the statesmanlike leadership of the gentleman from Illinois. I want to commend our distinguished chairman and thank him for the open, collegial, and witty manner in which he has brought this bill through the committee and he will bring it through this House.

Mr. Chairman, we are considering this legislation at a pivotal moment in global history. We are engaged in intense diplomacy on every continent, with opportunities to solve long-festering disputes and crises in Levant, in Iraq, in the Eastern Mediterranean, in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Afghanistan, in Colombia, and in scores of other places.

It is in the midst of this critical conflict against the forces of terror and Islamic fanaticism that our bill will make a major contribution to building a safe, secure and more democratic world. I believe that enactment of our legislation will leave a lasting legacy towards solving all of these disputes and crises, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my good friend, the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA), and I ask unanimous consent that during the period of time I am making a presentation at the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) may control the time on this side and yield it to others.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I am second to no one in this body in my criticism of China's horrendous human rights record, including its population control policies. But the U.N. funds program in China is specifically designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of voluntary family planning programs free of coercion and free of quotas. In fact, for over three decades the U.N. fund has helped couples in scores of countries around the globe, avoiding unwanted pregnancies through voluntary family planning programs that fully respect individual rights.

Today, 99 percent of U.N. funds, and let me repeat, 99 percent of the funds are spent outside of China. But this amendment ignores 99 percent of the programs and cuts off our contribution solely over China. If this amendment should pass, more unwanted children will come into the world, and more unnecessary abortions will occur.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for the power and integrity of his convictions. The Millennium Challenge Account would not have been possible without his leadership and commitment to a bipartisan approach to international poverty reduction.

The Millennium Challenge Account, as conceived by the President and crafted by the Committee on International Relations, marks the beginning of a revolution in U.S. international development assistance by recognizing the importance of democratic rule, good governance, and human rights. In achieving sustainable levels of economic growth and social development, the MCA creates the political and economic linkages critical to reducing poverty and to achieving progress.

At the same time, the MCA removes the Cold War-era strategic calculus from the development assistance equation. Each potential recipient of our assistance is to be judged on its own merits, based on their commitment to progress and our commitment to the political, economic, social, and humanitarian value of development assistance.

Finally, the MCA implicitly endorses a critical aspect of our approach to combatting international terrorism. Although the administration has not focused on this point, modern terrorism of the kind that struck our Nation on September 11 is fueled in part by the desperation and hopelessness that pervades much of the developing world. The MCA provides new hope, and as such, represents a powerful antidote to terrorism and other forms of violent conflict that have stalled the developing world.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on International Relations held its first meeting on the MCA, I expressed a range of concerns about various aspects of the administration's initial proposal. I am pleased to say that the legislation included in this amendment has addressed satisfactorily each of my earlier concerns, and the Hyde-Lantos amendment before us has my very strong support.

The administration's initial proposal relegated USAID, the most capable agency within our government in administering international assistance, to a bit part in managing this massive account. Our bipartisan amendment restores USAID to its rightful role by providing its administrator with a seat and a vote on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's board of directors. Together with the interagency coordination that our amendment requires, this improvement promises to strengthen the MCA considerably.

Our bipartisan amendment also addresses my earlier concerns about the rigid application of strict eligibility criteria by mandating congressional and societal consultations on the finalization of criteria. By providing for an annual reevaluation process and by authorizing limited assistance to those countries on the cusp of eligibility, our legislation safeguards against the inherently arbitrary nature of mechanically selecting qualified states.

Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-Lantos MCA amendment will not single handedly eradicate poverty, nor will it place the United States in the same company as Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, the global leaders in this field, in terms of per capita levels of development assistance; but our legislation will renew our commitment to poor, but striving, countries in our common fight against hunger and despair.

Speaking as someone who as a youth experienced both tremendous deprivation and the bounty of American generosity, I can testify to the profound influence that U.S. assistance can have on shaping the perceptions of foreign nations of our great country.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude by addressing the reauthorization of the Peace Corps, which is also included in this amendment. It is fitting that we consider the Millennium Challenge Account and the Peace Corps jointly because both are critical to enhancing U.S. international development assistance.

Since President Kennedy first deployed the Peace Corps in 1961, the program's 168,000 volunteers, men and women, young and old, have made an immeasurable contribution to reducing poverty and promoting American values literally all over the globe. Reauthorizing this inspirational initiative is clearly in our national interests and in the interests of reducing poverty and restoring hope across the globe.

Two of our colleagues deserve special recognition for bringing the Peace Corps reauthorization before us. The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a new, but invaluable, member of our committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a former Peace Corps volunteer himself, were instrumental in crafting this amendment; and I am deeply indebted to both of them.

Mr. Chairman, today this Chamber has the opportunity to reauthorize the Peace Corps and to establish the Millennium Challenge Account. Both initiatives offer the best hope to defeat international poverty and international terrorism, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the Hyde-Lantos amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my good friend and colleague and a former Peace Corps volunteer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the gentleman's excellent amendment, and I support his efforts in enhancing our capability to provide post-conflict reconstruction assistance.

The legislation of the gentleman addresses the importance of providing a coherent strategy in the provision of assistance to postconflict reconstruction in countries and regions. In today's world, we are continually faced with humanitarian disasters, wars and other crises, and enhancing our capability in providing reconstruction assistance in times of such crises is a vital and necessary goal that we must achieve.

I want to commend my friend for proposing this very useful approach.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished ranking member of our Subcommittee on Africa.

(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations and Security Assistance Bill. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan bill, which is co-sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), authorizes the funding and activities of the Department of State for 2 fiscal years, 2004 and 2005. This bill is focused on authorities necessary to operate the State Department and its overseas facilities. In addition, it includes a modernization of the defense trade and security assistance authorities and missile proliferation policy and laws.

The accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request. The President's request for these accounts is approximately $14.3 billion. The total authorization for this bill, including the State Department operation accounts and the security assistance provisions for fiscal 2004, is $15.2 billion. The increases will fund additional refugee assistance, international broadcasting and a more robust public diplomacy program.

The proposed amount for fiscal 2005 is approximately the same as that of fiscal 2004 with some modest percentage increases for typical cost- of-living adjustments. A significant portion of these increases reflect the need to improve the effectiveness of our public diplomacy programs and our international broadcasting as well as to strengthen our democracy-building programs overseas.

H.R. 1950 also incorporates the Public Diplomacy Bill, H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002, that was approved by the House during the last

Congress. The provisions in this act are focused on enhancing the role of public diplomacy in our foreign policy and specifically place the responsibility for the formulation and execution of these programs on the Secretary of State. These provisions also authorize funding for student and other exchanges, as well as for a number of other public diplomacy programs, with a focus on countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

H.R. 1950 includes a much-needed reorganization of the decision- making process of our international broadcasting efforts. It would authorize $657 million for fiscal year 2004 and $651 million for fiscal 2005 for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is responsible for the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti.

It also includes the request from the Broadcasting Board of Governors regarding the establishment of a separate grantee to run the New Middle East Television and Radio Network. This new network will add 24 hours a day TV and radio broadcasts to the Middle East and thereby greatly contribute to an enhancement of our efforts to combat the misinformation and propaganda that contribute to the rising anti- American sentiment in the region.

Construction, maintenance, and security for our 260 embassies, consulates and various other posts around the world continue to be a top priority. To that end, we have fully funded the State request in that area while also encouraging the establishment of a cost-share program. This cost-sharing program is designed to collect funds from each agency that has staff stationed at a U.S. embassy or consulate.

These funds will be used to supplement the construction costs of new facilities.

At the appropriate time, I intend to offer an amendment that will add H.R. 2441, the Millennium Challenge Account Authorization and Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003, to this bill. Recently reported by the Committee on International Relations, this bill advances the President's foreign assistance initiative and enjoys bipartisan support. In March of last year, President Bush proposed the further expansion of United States foreign assistance through the establishment of the Millennium Challenge Account, now known as MCA. He did so in a revolutionary manner, by proposing a new and additional assistance program only for those countries that meet certain standards of respecting human rights, investing in the future of their people and promoting economic opportunity and freedom.

With this proposal, the President has issued a challenge to help those less fortunate, the poorest of the poor, to promote universal human rights and values around the world, and be part of the spread of democracy and freedom worldwide.

This legislation also includes a provision I authored more than a decade ago known as the Foreign Aid Effectiveness Act. This provision requires the President to describe the actual results of U.S. foreign assistance relative to the goals and to identify the most and the least successful foreign assistance programs.

The Millennium Challenge Account Act authorizes 3 years of funding, $1.3 billion in fiscal 2004, $3 billion in fiscal 2005, and $5 billion in fiscal 2006.

The President, in his State of the Union address January 2002, announced his goal of doubling the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. As the U.S. fights global terrorism, extremism and forces which are inimical to our way of life, we can and must fight on many fronts to protect our interests, promote our values and provide hope to captive, destitute and vulnerable people across the globe.

This legislation makes amendments to the Peace Corps Act in support of the goal announced by the President of doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers to 14,000 by the year 2007. It authorizes a gradual expansion of the budget of the Peace Corps from $366.8 million in fiscal 2004 to $499.4 million in fiscal 2007.

Since its establishment in 1961, more than 168,000 volunteers have served in 136 different countries throughout the globe. Currently, there are approximately 7,000 volunteers in 70 different countries.

I very much appreciate the bipartisan cooperation and leadership that we have received from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on this committee, in developing this legislation; and I hope we can continue this bipartisan approach on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) very much for yielding me time.

I really do not know where to begin. We have all agreed that the Chinese population control program is coercive and, therefore, violative of human rights. We ought to stay a thousand miles away from anything that facilitates that. And yet this money that we give to the population control fund facilitates the Chinese program.

Now, what no one has mentioned today is the law in China. The population and family planning law which was adopted a couple of years ago has

some chilling phrases in it. Citizens who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of this law may be ordered to pay a premium to a fund. Yes, they are ordered to pay a premium triple the yearly income which forces an abortion, coerces an abortion. And guess who enforces the Chinese population law? The People's Liberation Army, the Chinese People's Liberation Army enforces their population law.

Now, I listened very carefully to criticisms that the countries are going to be denied family planning. We are the largest spender on the globe, in the galaxy for family planning, and nobody will be denied anything. It just does not go through the U.N. You know the U.N. That is the organization that supplanted us on the Commission for Human Rights with Libya.

Now, if you think it is important for us to worry about the population of Mexico, as one of the late speakers did, I can understand a Mexican listening to that and saying, who are they to worry about our population?

I am out of time. I just want to say I am just getting wound up, but that is the way it goes. I hope you support the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to offer amendment No. 2, which includes the text of H.R. 2441, the Millennium Challenge Account Authorization and Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003.

The Millennium Challenge Account is based on the revolutionary idea that countries must be accountable for their actions, be responsible for developing and advancing their own plans of progress, and must show results in order to receive economic assistance from the American taxpayer. The Peace Corps Expansion Act supports the President's vision that he described in this Chamber during his 2002 State of the Union address to double the number by the year 2007 of Peace Corps volunteers serving their Nation overseas.

Many U.S. assistance programs have not achieved results over the years. Some assistance has allowed corrupt leaders to amass personal fortunes and remain in power beyond the will of the citizenry. Other aid has allowed leaders and governments to abdicate responsibility for effective governance and pursue detrimental, self-destructive, or personally self-enriching policies. Other assistance has gone to consultants or middlemen with little results to show in the end.

These failures of the past should not lead us to turn our backs on the developing world. Just the opposite. Now is the time for American leadership and for America to recognize through its aid those countries that respect the rights of citizens, promote democracy, and encourage economic freedom and prosperity. However, we need to demonstrate what works and what does not, and we need to hold accountable those governments and leaders who do not choose the right path of reform.

The President's proposal is the first serious attempt to address the fact that existing U.S. development assistance programs have consistently failed to meet their stated goals. Despite decades of economic aid, many Nations are poorer now than they were before first receiving development assistance. The President's proposal is enthusiastically supported by the relief and development nongovernmental community, as well as by the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, and other organizations that have previously assailed foreign assistance as wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective.

The U.S. must be more selective in aid distribution if the assistance is to be effective and a positive contributor to development. As proposed by the President and included in the legislation before us today, MCA assistance will reward only those recipients who

willingly adopt good policies and institutions. Of the 70-or-so countries currently eligible for development assistance, it is possible that only 10 countries will meet the strict criteria stipulated by the President and endorsed in this bill.

At the funding levels proposed, this may mean a very high level of assistance for MCA-eligible countries. The administration believes this will create a competition among cusp countries which may accelerate reforms and the adoption of good policies. This amendment endorses this approach.

The President's proposal for a Millennium Challenge Account deserves our support. We should embrace the idea of increasing U.S. economic assistance but only to those countries that demonstrate a commitment to human rights, democratic ideals and practices, and investment in people.

H.R. 2441, reported favorably by the Committee on International Relations, is truly a bipartisan bill that supports two of the President's key foreign policy initiatives and has more than 70 cosponsors. The work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on this committee, has been indispensable; and I congratulate and thank him, and I urge my colleagues to support the Hyde-Lantos amendment, which incorporates the text from H.R. 2441.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. At this time, I want to commend both our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our senior ranking member, the gentleman from

California (Mr. Lantos), of the House Committee on International Relations for their outstanding leadership in bringing to the floor the State Department reauthorization bill which has strong bipartisan support.

This bill includes an historic measure offering recognition to a Palestinian state if performance benchmarks can be reached; increases U.S. capacity at the United Nations, where rogue regimes are increasingly trying to hijack the agenda; initiates a new effort to promote free media abroad; and provides the State Department with tools to confront the alarming spread of ballistic missiles.

Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes three amendments which I offered during full committee markup on May 7, 2003, three of which were accepted by unanimous consent and have now been included in the full text of H.R. 1950.

One amendment expresses a sense of Congress relating to the Soviet nuclear tests in Kazakhstan and calls for the Secretary of State to establish a joint working group with the government of Kazakhstan to assist in assessing the environmental damage and health effects caused by Soviet nuclear tests Semipalatinsk.

The other amendment requires the State Department to prepare and transmit to Congress a report that contains a description of the extent to which the government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistani-held Kashmir, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the line of control into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated technologies, to any third country or terrorist organization.

The third amendment authorizes certain sums to allow qualified indigenous inhabitants of Latin America to pursue post-secondary and graduate studies in our Nation's colleges and universities. I feel very strongly that education is the key to the salvation of the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.

At the appropriate time, it is my intention to give strong support to an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) which authorizes the transfer of allowances to residents of the insular areas who are members of the U.S. Foreign Service, just as it is done in the case of the residents of several States.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal years 2004 and 2005. At this time, I want to commend both our Chairman Mr. Hyde and the Ranking Member Mr. Lantos of the House Committee on International Relations for their outstanding leadership in bringing to the floor a State Department Reauthorization bill which has strong bipartisan support.

This bill includes an historic measure offering recognition to a Palestinian state if performance benchmarks can be reached, increases U.S. capacity at the United Nations where rogue regimes are increasingly trying to hijack the agenda, initiates a new effort to promote free media abroad and provides the State Department with tools to confront the alarming spread of ballistic missiles.

This bill also includes three amendments which I offered during full committee markup on May 7, 2003, both of which were accepted by unanimous consent and have now been included in the full text of H.R. 1950. One amendment expresses a sense of Congress relating to Soviet nuclear tests in Kazakhstan and calls for the U.S. Secretary of State to establish a joint working group with the Government of Kazakhstan to assist in assessing the environmental damage and health effects cause by Soviet nuclear testing in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.

The other amendment requires the State Department to prepare and transmit to Congress a report that contains a description of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistani-held Kashmir, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control (LoC) into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated technologies, to any third country or terrorist organization.

The third amendment authorizes a certain sum of funds to allow qualified indigenous inhabitants of Latin America to pursue postsecondary and graduate studies in our nation's colleges and universities. Over the years, Mr. Chairman I feel very strongly that education is the key to the salvation of the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.

At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, it is also my intention to give strong support to an amendment that will be offered by my colleague from the territory of Guam, Ms. Bordallo, which authorizes the transfer of allowances to residents of the insular areas who are members of the U.S. Foreign Service--just as it is the case with residents of the several states.

At this time, I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for supporting this amendment during full committee markup and including it in H.R. 1950. Simply put, their support was critical to passage of this amendment and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California for taking a stand on this important issue at a time when few were willing to do so.

What many do not know is that this amendment came before the House Committee on International Relations on the very day that Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage arrived in Pakistan to begin high-level diplomatic discussions and I commend Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for doing the right thing despite the political pressure they received to set this amendment aside. I also thank the 49 members of the International Relations Committee, both Republican and Democrat, who passed this amendment by voice vote without any objection.

I also want to commend President Bush for his leadership on this issue. Now that President Bush has made this issue popular with his recent announcement that he would also like to place conditions on Pakistan's funding, I am hopeful that the Senate will also support our efforts to make Pakistan live up to its promises.

Congressman Pallone also deserves special recognition for the work he is doing to make Pakistan accountable. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his relentless commitment to monitor the steps Pakistan is taking to bring about democracy and for fully supporting the measures of this bipartisan amendment which has already been included in the text of H.R. 1950.

Like my colleagues, I am appreciative of Pakistan's post-September 11 assistance in the war against terrorism. Nevertheless, tensions in the region are rising and I know I am not alone when I say I have deep reservations about U.S. policy in South Asia. Once again, I want to reiterate that I believe Pakistan should be commended for assisting the U.S. in its efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives and for allowing the U.S. military to use bases within its country.

But I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Pakistan has not closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan. I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Pakistan has not prohibited the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control into Indian Kashmir. I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that General Musharraf promised Deputy Secretary Armitage that infiltration would cease and it has not.

Since 1989, more than 50,000 men, women and children have died in the Kashmir dispute and since September 11 Islamic militants from Pakistan have crossed the Line of Control and claimed the lives of innocent men, women and children--not once, not twice, but three times, committing egregious acts of cross-border terrorism on each and every occasion.

On the other hand, India has not crossed the Line of Control since 1972. In fact, India has exercised incredible restraint in not waging full-scale war to defend itself against these terrorist acts. Although I believe we are fortunate that neither country has yet resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, we also should be very concerned that both Pakistan and India test fired short-range ballistic missiles on March 26 of this year which incidentally (or not) was the same day that Prime Minister Jamali said that Pakistan and China will enhance their defense ties.

On May 15, 2003, 8 days after the International Relations Committee unanimously voted in favor of my amendment, Pakistan's third highest ranking government official, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, requested an appointment to meet with me. We had a meaningful dialogue and he gave me his personal assurances that Pakistan is interested in creating a roadmap for peace to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

I believe Kashmir is one of the most important issues that must be resolved in order to establish peace in the Asia Pacific region. India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir in the past 50 years and came very close to the brink of nuclear war less than 2 years ago. In December of 2001, both countries amassed nearly one million soldiers along their common border and had the U.S. not intervened it was feared that India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir could have led to the first use of nuclear weapons sine World War II.

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as the

only Asia Pacific American serving on both the Subcommittee and the full Committee on International Relations, I am deeply concerned about cross-border terrorism and the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Asia Pacific region. Any threat to regional stability puts our soldiers at risk and some have argued that this situation may become as dangerous as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is why I am pleased that H.R. 1950 includes a provision which requires the State Department to report to Congress about the progress that is being made to resolve the India-Pakistan dispute. I believe this legislation is necessary and given the seriousness of this situation, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1950.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to again express our deepest appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations and also the senior ranking member not only for the outstanding job that they have done in bringing this legislation to the floor but in the spirit of bipartisanship that we are able to bring to this general debate for consideration of the Members of this body and, more importantly, the fact that we have allowed the general Members of this body the opportunity to offer amendments. This is the spirit of bipartisanship and the way democracy should operate. Again, I thank the good chairman of our committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.