Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in London, England, on July 7, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 365 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. It is a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate and provides for the orderly consideration of 38 separate amendments specified in the text of the resolution. It is important to note that the rules made in order the majority of the amendments that were filed, even some that will be reconsidered here on the floor, and will provide for a wide-ranging debate on virtually all aspects of U.S. foreign policy. The rule also ensures that the bill fits within the budget resolution, thereby also maintaining fiscal discipline within this year's budget.

H.R. 2601 was reported out of the Committee on International Relations with a unanimous vote which is a testament to the tremendous efforts on both sides of the aisle which have gone into this bill. Even though they have dealt with some of the most controversial issues before us, this bipartisanship demonstrated in the unanimous vote by the Committee on International Relations is all that more remarkable and a testament to the fairness, the professionalism, and the statesmanship of both the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We will also be joining in an en bloc amendment, further illustrating their unique efforts in this particular matter.

They are to be commended for demonstrating to the rest of us how Members can work through differences in a constructive manner to move legislation forward for the best interest of our country. Indeed, the Prime Minister of India just a few minutes ago on this floor said there is much we can do together, and this committee has illustrated they can do that.

That is not to say there will not be differences of opinions or views on some of the matters. The rule which we are considering would provide for adequate as well as a wide-ranging debate on all sides of different issues.

The bill, H.R. 2601, is a 2-year authorization for the U.S. Department of State, their activities and programs. Since 1985, or for the past 20 years, the foreign assistance authorization measures have been folded into the State Department authorization legislation. H.R. 2601 continues this pattern. It authorizes for fiscal year 2006 $10.8 billion and $10 billion for 2007. Included in that is $1.5 billion to fortify U.S. embassies and $690 million to bolster security for American diplomatic workers abroad.

It was significant that the ranking member did bring before testimony of the Committee on Rules that this bill fully funds the administration request for worldwide security for our embassies and our personnel working abroad. As he illustrated in 2003, one of the terrorist extremists attacked the British consulate and other British interests in the city of Istanbul. When interrogated, he said that he considered the U.S. consulate, but in his terms, even a bird cannot fly in there, which means that our efforts for security since the tragic bombings in East Africa in 1998 have had some success.

This continues on with that particular practice.

$930 million will also be authorized for border security; $67 million to continue broadcasts into Cuba. The ranking member also illustrated that once again there is an initiative to disrupt the nuclear black markets, that this initiative will help prevent nuclear weapons and weapons technology from getting into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations which is extremely important for our national security. The measure also commits new international mechanisms to restrict the trade in missiles and their components. As the ranking member also pointed out, Secretary Rice is continuing the practices of Secretary Powell in trying to reform the Department of State and this bill authorizes adequate resources for a first-class and well-trained diplomatic service and diplomatic corps.

These are some of the issues that were brought forth with a plethora of amendments that were adopted on both sides of the aisle during the International Relations Committee markup of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 356 provides for a structured rule and makes in order the majority of the amendments which were filed in the Rules Committee. Once again, it is a fair, comprehensive and balanced rule. I urge its adoption as well as the adoption of the underlying legislation.

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

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

I appreciate the remarks that have been given so far by the gentleman from Florida as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts. Saying there were 70 amendments proposed happens to be rounding up the number, but of those that were not allowed in the process, six were withdrawn by their sponsors. The majority of the others were either duplicative or not germane. And may I remind this body that why we are talking in a structured rule is because the bulk of the issues should have been done in the hearing and in the committee level. The committee who did hear these issues did pass this bill, I remind you once again, unanimously from both sides of the body. The issues that have been addressed so far will have a chance because there is also another amendment that deals with Colombia, so the gentleman from Massachusetts will have a chance once again to give some dramatic rhetoric one more time on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the subcommittee chairmen, one who has spent a great deal of time working on this significant piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the introduction of this particular rule, this bill covers a wide range of issues. As you can see from the discussion we have had so far, there are a wide range of issues that are covered in this particular bill. That is why it is also remarkable, one more time, that this particular bill came through its committee in a uniquely bipartisan way, in which there were hearings and then a markup, over 62 amendments presented, bipartisan, discussed, and once again with a bipartisan result were submitted to us.

The committee process that we have in the House is of a unique and supreme importance. Without trying to make any kind of value statement on what is done on the other side of this particular Capitol, former Senator McCarthy of Minnesota once said that the Senate has rules, but it does not

matter because no one over there follows them.

We on the House side though, have an orderly process in which to discuss issues and bring them in a timely and consistent manner, and the specifics of those are the importance that we put on the committee, and especially the hearing process in the committee. It is the committee process in which issues of specifics as well as long-range importance should be debated and discussed and allow that hearing process to go forward, so that what is brought to the floor becomes a significantly refined model, and that therefore on the floor we can narrow our process and narrow our discussion into those particular areas and into certain particular areas.

This bill is still a significant issue. It is a significant bill. It is a 2-year authorization, and within that authorization is a blueprint for the reform of the State Department. It is significant that that move forward, because we are talking about how we fully authorize and fully purport to have a well-balanced and strong core of diplomatic personnel representing us in every institution.

Within this bill are specific and important issues that fully authorize the safety and security of that personnel. Those are significant issues, and though we may differ with specifics of what is happening today, we must also look to the fact that this bill deals with long-term results, long-term goals, long-term aspirations of our State Department and our foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is this bill has had significant debate on a wide variety of issues within the committee process, and that is the way the House tries to function, by also authorizing 38, which is a majority of the resolutions. Once again, the majority of the amendments not offered were taken away either from withdrawal or from redundancy or from germaneness issues.

But by authorizing 38 and providing a process for that discussion means that, once again, we are going to take these issues in a wide range and a wide variety and move forward with those with that type of discussion on the floor. My only hope at this stage is that as a floor, we can be as wise as the Committee on International Relations was when they came up with a bipartisan product and a 44-0 vote and presented it here for our further considerations.

Hopefully we will maintain the same kind of collegiality and standards that particular committee did, because I think it sets a standard and a goal for us to try and emulate as we go through with the floor discussion.

I am proud of the underlying bill and I am proud of the rule because it provides the fair representation for this bill as a continuation of the committee process, but does not supplant the committee process, which is what we do here on the House floor for an orderly discussion of those particular issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

I appreciate the debate that we have heard so far. It has been very riveting rhetoric that has gone on. Sometimes I am a little bit surprised at it, as we are told we cannot debate the things we are debating.

In specific, if I could mention something about the Colombia policy, which, once again, it was said we are not going to be able to talk about, even though we have, I think the United States has a great record in what it has been doing so far down there. We are making progress. There is much to do, but we are making progress.

There is already a 17 percent reduction in South American purity of heroin that is coming from Colombia. Hospital overdoses from that same issue are down by one-third.

It is significant that that issue, that issue that was brought up before was debated in the Committee on International Relations. They debated demobilization of terrorists. They adopted two resolutions. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) presented a resolution on this same issue that was adopted that dealt with section 944 on the issue, and it was about the demobilization of Colombia, and it was passed with bipartisan support in that particular committee.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) also had an issue that dealt with Colombian tax policy. What I am trying to emphasize is, once again, we have had opportunity to discuss these issues in the committee process, which is the appropriate process. There will also be other opportunities to discuss this issue, not only here but, again, in other areas.

I appreciate what the gentlewoman from New York just said. On the issue of Iraq, we have had a defense authorization bill as well as defense appropriations for 3 days. We have had the opportunity to debate these particular issues on the floor. There will also be one other time to bring those positions up. Whether the amendment is passed, either for or against, that opportunity will still be here.

These issues are before us; but, once again, what we are trying to do with this rule is what we are trying to do with the House process, that is, to do things in an orderly fashion so that the bulk of these issues can be heard in the committee and could go forward in the committee where the true interaction takes place in a much, much more specific way by those people who become experts in this particular area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue on after the passage of this rule, I am looking forward to an hour of general debate, which will be as riveting as what we have had discussing this particular rule.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule. At a time when America's role in international affairs is greater than it has been in over 60 years, it is reprehensible that the majority is trying to block all but a select few from offering amendments to improve the underlying bill.

Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, 70 amendments were brought to the committee. Seventy amendments, Mr. Speaker. Predictably, under the rule, barely 50 percent of those amendments were actually made in order. And of the 39 amendments made in order under the rule, only nine of them are Democratic amendments. In stark contrast, Republican Members will be permitted to offer 24 amendments under this rule, almost three times as many as those on this side of the aisle will be able to offer. And of those 24 amendments, two are downright inflammatory and completely unnecessary.

For starters, as public support for the war in Iraq wavers, Republicans are pulling out every political maneuver they can to regain the support of the American people for a war that has not uncovered any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and certainly not made us any safer today than we were 3 years ago. Later today, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) will offer an amendment in direct contrast to language that her committee unanimously included in the underlying legislation regarding the war in Iraq. The bill rightfully urges the President to develop and provide to Congress a plan for the establishment of a stable government in Iraq that will permit a decreased presence. Three years after this war began and 1,700 American casualties later, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment would provide the President with the same blank-check, open-ended support that got us into this mess in the first place. Have we not learned anything?

Additionally, the rule also fails to make in order amendments offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) regarding Haiti. While I am not 100 percent supportive of any of their approaches toward bringing about peace and stability in Haiti, doing nothing should not be an option. Congressional silence in improving the lives of Haitians and Haitian refugees is completely unacceptable. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has blocked the House from debating the issue today.

Realize, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is generally a decent bill. As a member of the Helsinki Commission and as the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's parliamentary assembly, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the bill's commitment to the United States' role in the OSCE and the OSCE sphere, including authorizations for OSCE religious tolerance and anti-Semitism awareness programs.

The underlying legislation includes crackdowns on the trading of nuclear material on the black market, establishes the Rangel Fellowship Program to encourage minority recruitment at the State Department, reexamines our export control laws, reaffirms Congress' position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and calls for a crackdown on terrorist activities in the Gaza strip and West Bank.

Despite all of these positive measures, Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned about what the bill does not do regarding the Sudan. The underlying legislation includes a sense of Congress that the United States should work with the International Criminal Court to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. I support this provision but am deeply disappointed that nothing exists in the bill that will actually bring an end to the genocide in Sudan. When will the United States say enough is enough and do the right thing to end the heinous act of genocide in Darfur? Our inaction in Rwanda cost the lives of nearly 1 million and our absence in Darfur has permitted instability to manifest itself into murder and ethnic cleansing. I ask, at what point did we decide that the life of an African is worth less than the life of anyone else? We must place ending genocide anywhere in the world above anything else. Frankly, the ignorance in the House about this particular issue is appalling.

Mr. Speaker, when history judges this Congress and this President, we will be judged not only by what we do during these trying times but also by what we have neglected. America must act responsibly not only in helping to facilitate democracy in the world but also in combating poverty, disease, famine and hunger in the world's poorest countries. In all of these areas, despite the honest efforts of a few, we are failing. Blocking Members from offering amendments that speak to these and many other issues of critical importance to the United States' role in the world today is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and take into account my concerns throughout consideration of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, my good friend and classmate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

I will be asking members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Ros-Lehtinen amendment on Iraq as a separate, freestanding bill with an open amendment process instead of just another amendment to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House have very strong opinions on the war in Iraq. We also have many different viewpoints on our Nation's continued role in that country. But regardless of our individual positions on this conflict, we all support the courageous men and women who put their lives on the line every day.

Any vote on Iraq significantly impacts these brave Americans and should not be taken irresponsibly, and it should not be taken for blatantly political purposes. The Ros-Lehtinen amendment, which came to light only yesterday when it was submitted to the Committee on Rules, is a good example of exploiting the current situation in Iraq purely for partisan gain. The original version of this amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules accused opponents of the President's plan, whatever that is, of supporting a ``cut-and-run'' Iraq policy that is a ``craven surrender to terrorism.'' This inflammatory language has now been removed, but it still appears that the sole intention of this amendment is to polarize Members of this House on a crucial question of national security.

Under this rule, Members can only vote up or down, take it or leave it, with no opportunity for amendment or any position except that of the amendment's author.

If we are going to discuss and vote on the U.S. presence in Iraq, it deserves a thorough and respectful debate. We owe our brave young men and women more than a divisive and meaningless sense of Congress resolution.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, and it will not affect any of the other amendments that are in order under this rule.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I do need to have an explanation. I am not familiar with this process, and I do not know whether there has been an agreement reached, and I am trying to learn the answer to that.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

Last night, the Republican leadership decided to refuse this House the right to debate U.S. policy towards Colombia. Out of 70 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee, only two dealt substantively with U.S. Colombia policy. I offered an amendment to match language approved by the Senate that would strengthen the accountability over U.S. funds for Colombia's demobilization of right- wing paramilitary forces. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) offered another amendment to ensure that 40 percent of U.S. aid to Colombia would be used for alternative economic development, human rights, rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to strengthening democratic institutions, the Republican leadership certainly does not believe in teaching the Colombians by example. At the end of June, I stood here on the House floor during debate on military aid to Colombia and was criticized by Republicans for not talking about what kind of policy I stood for. But here we are today taking up a bill that only comes to the House floor every 2 years and is one of the only bills where an amendment on U.S. Colombia policy can actually be offered, and both the Lee and the McGovern amendments are banned from the debate.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican leadership has rejected any attempt to bring some kind of accountability to our policy on Colombia. Once again, the Republican leadership is serving as the chief apologist for the Colombian government. When it comes to Colombia, the Republican leadership continues to engage in a policy of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Once again, the House is being asked to look the other way, to sit down and to shut up, as Colombia moves towards carrying out what appears to be a deeply flawed plan for demobilizing the right-wing paramilitary forces, forces that are on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. The State Department estimates it will cost about $80 million to carry out the demobilization. Who do you think the Colombian government is going to ask to bankroll this process? The American taxpayer, that is who.

Well, before we spend one more single solitary U.S. tax dollar on this demobilization process, I for one want to make sure that my tax dollars are not paying for some sweetheart deal for Colombian drug lords, terrorists and killers to escape extradition to the United States or serve a couple of years under house arrest at their country estate. These are the paramilitary masterminds and commanders who have flooded our streets and our neighborhoods with cocaine and heroin. Yet on July 1, President Uribe told the Voice of America that their extradition warrants would have to be suspended. If Colombia wants to stand in the way of these drug lords facing U.S. justice, then that is Colombia's decision. They can just do it without U.S. tax dollar support. I want to make sure that my

constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are not paying for a process that will allow paramilitary money laundering and organizational structures to remain intact so that they can transform themselves into Mafia-like political, social and criminal networks.

The OAS has denounced the Colombian law on the paramilitary demobilization. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have denounced it. The U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights in Colombia has raised grave concerns about it. So why, then, Mr. Speaker, is it so hard for this House to even have a debate over having some accountability if the Colombian government asks us to fund this process?

That is all I want, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of accountability. Quite frankly, the majority on the Rules Committee and the Republican leadership should be ashamed of themselves for running away from this debate and for being complicit in a policy that will very likely end up protecting drug lords, terrorists, killers and their profits from facing any kind of genuine justice.

Oppose this rule. Demand that the House be allowed to debate the Lee and McGovern amendments on Colombia.

[From the New York Times, July 4, 2005]

Colombia's Capitulation

Colombia has just passed a law to demobilize paramilitary

fighters that the government calls the ``Justice and Peace

Law.'' It should be called the ``Impunity for Mass Murderers,

Terrorists and Major Cocaine Traffickers Law.''

Colombia's right-wing paramilitary armies, one party in a

40-year civil war, have massacred thousands of people. They

control 40 percent of Colombia's cocaine exports, and many

paramilitary leaders are wanted for extradition to the United

States. The State Department considers the paramilitaries

terrorists.

The new law, which reflects the paramilitaries'

considerable political power, will block the extradition of

paramilitary leaders wanted for trafficking to the United

States and allow them to continue their drug dealing,

extortion, land theft and other criminal activities

undisturbed. Even those responsible for the most heinous

crimes against humanity may go free because of strict time

limits for prosecutions. The few who are convicted will

likely serve sentences of only 22 months.

Several members of Colombia's Congress proposed a good law

that would have given reduced jail time to paramilitaries who

confessed in full, paid reparations, turned over their

illegal assets and provided authorities with the information

necessary to take apart their criminal gangs. The government

opposed the bill; it didn't pass.

The current law will bring neither justice nor peace. No

confession is required to get the shortened sentences offered

by the law. Paramilitary leaders are supposed to disclose

their illegal assets and describe their criminal

organizations. But there is no credible penalty for lying or

hiding their wealth.

The Bush administration could have pushed President Alvaro

Uribe to pass a good bill. Instead, Ambassador William Wood

enthusiastically backed the new law, giving Washington's

endorsement to Colombia's capitulation to a terrorist mafia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentleman that when the Committee on International Relations marked up the provisions on the Colombia issues, this new law in Colombia had not been passed yet. This is since the markup in the committee. So we are dealing with a new law that may very well let go terrorists, killers, paramilitary leaders who have done harm not only to Colombian citizens, but to our citizens. So we need a debate on Colombia.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today commits a small but significant act of principle over convenience: In addition to providing for the consideration of the Foreign Relations bill, it firmly establishes the precedent that this House will not consider legislation on the floor if it exceeds the levels established by the budget resolution. This choice will not make us heroes; it will not win us accolades in The Washington Post. But it does show that we will stick to our budget disciplines, and I rise to commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for this very important decision.

By way of explanation: As originally reported by the Committee on International Affairs, the bill increases mandatory spending by $103 million over 5 years. Specifically, the bill as reported would allow the State Department to automatically spend leftover funds on other purposes without further legislative action. Traditionally these transfers are subject to appropriations. But the reported bill eliminated that requirement. As a result, the bill converted discretionary spending to mandatory at a time when we are trying to restrain mandatory spending.

This increase in mandatory spending breaches the spending limit, or ``allocation,'' established for the IR Committee in the budget resolution. In technical terms, this violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which precludes the House from considering a bill that exceeds the 302(a) allocation of the committee that reported the bill.

Now, the Rules Committee could have let this slide: The rule could simply have waived the Budget Act restriction, and let the authorizing committee fix the problem through a floor amendment. After all, many will say it wasn't really a large amount of money to worry about--and hardly anyone would have noticed anyway.

While that step might have fixed the problem with this particular bill, it would have done it the wrong way. The principle underlying the congressional budget process is that we should not consider bills on this floor until they comply with spending limits established in the budget resolution. In other words, the burden is on the committee reporting the bill to comply with the budget before the measure reaches the floor. If compliance were left to a floor amendment or a subsequent point of order, it would cost budgetary commitment to the winds of the moment--which is no commitment at all. Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee have shown the appropriate kind of leadership: They have upheld this important principle of fiscal discipline.

Once again, I commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for enforcing the budget resolution and upholding the integrity of the budget process. We may not win any medals for this; we won't get to brag about it to Chris Matthews on Hardball. But this is the right thing to do, and that should be all the reason we need. This is an excellent rule and merits all of our support.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any provision of this resolution,

amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-175 shall not be in

order.

Sec. 3. That immediately upon disposition of H.R. 2601 the

Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee

of the Whole House on the state of the Union for

consideration of a bill proposing to add a new section 1111

as contemplated in amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-

175. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

International Relations. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The

bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such further

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Let me thank the gentleman very, very much for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the rule. I was somewhat disappointed, as expressed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), on the lack of a couple of amendments that we were attempting to insert in the bill dealing with Haiti. Haiti is a tragedy. There is no other way to describe it. They are kind, wonderful, hardworking people who are desperate for a solution to their ever-growing controversy. No matter whose side you believe in, no matter what you thought of past presidents or future presidents, the one thing that is abundantly clear to most of us is that Haiti is drowning in despair. The people have been ravaged not only by political unrest and upheaval, natural disasters, hurricanes and other things and what I was trying to do in the amendment was to provide a new concept much like a Peace Corps, taking Haitian citizens who are now here in the United States who are learning a free economy, learning to be teachers, police officers, pharmacists, to create a structure in the State Department, in cooperation with NGOs, to use those talents and capabilities to help bring some stability to Haiti.

I know we have tried and the White House both past and present have injected significant amounts of resources to try to help the island. For whatever

reason, one side pits the other, the lack of any clear-cut direction, and I believe to some degree the Haitian people lack trust in some of our motives and motivations, which is why I thought of this concept of bringing people who now had learned about the free market concepts of America to send them back to Haiti for a limited time so that they too could use that talent that they have learned here in the United States to help their brothers and sisters in Haiti try to build an economy, build an education system, build a health care dynamic, and try to create a pathway for their future.

We have seen billions, honestly, squandered in Haiti from one regime to the next. None seems to be better than the last. And at the same time, the people in Haiti are starved, some are imprisoned. An election is contemplated, and I do not know how in the world we will structure an election based on the current chaos that is evidenced in Haiti. However, many of us, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), many people in the room, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), I am just naming a couple people. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) I know has had a unique and particular interest in this area. We may come from different political parties, but I think our motives are pure at least on the point of view that it is about the people of Haiti, not about whoever is running the country.

So I commend the bill and of course will support the very important endeavors of our Committee on International Relations as they work across the globe to try to bring unity of purpose to a very complicated and convoluted and dangerous world. But for this Member from Florida, my heart really does truly go out to the Haitian people. I pray that in the days ahead we come up with some significant ways in order to look at the concerns some members of the Congressional Black Caucus have relative to our intervention or activities in Haiti and try to put aside some of our animus towards recognizing that unless we get our act together the people of Haiti will still be starving, they will still be dying of disease, they will still be cleaning up after hurricane debris, and they will still be wondering what is their future to be like.

So I want to thank all who have participated in the debate. I want to thank Members, both Republicans and Democrats, who have submitted amendments yesterday that were not included in the rule. But I can assure my colleagues that we will continue to endeavor to see that our points of view are brought forward either in this vehicle or future vehicles as we move down the road.