Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2601) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 as it was reported out of committee.

At the outset I want to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for conducting the complex discussions and debates leading to this legislation with statesmanlike dignity.

Mr. Chairman, today our great Nation continues to face a grave terrorist threat. Despite our many successes at disrupting al Qaeda and other violent and brutal Islamic extremists, our determination to defeat terror remains unshakable, and we know we shall prevail in this struggle.

We saw a tragic demonstration of terror this month in London's underground and on its famed double-decker buses. While a number of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants have been captured and killed, he remains at large, as do otherkey terrorist figures. In this security environment, Mr. Chairman, legislation on foreign policy should be bipartisan. And our legislation, passed unanimously by the Committee on International Relations by a vote of 44 to 0, is a tribute to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and his effort to work in a bipartisan fashion.

Chairman Hyde has outlined many of the features of our legislation, and I will merely add a footnote. To address the dangers of terrorist attacks on our embassies, which are the platform abroad for every agency of the U.S. Government, our bill fully funds the administration's request for worldwide embassy security.

Mr. Chairman, in 2003, when an extremist involved in attacks against the British consulate in Istanbul and other British facilities was captured, he said that he had explored the U.S. consulate as a possible target but had decided to move elsewhere, and I quote, ``Because even a bird cannot fly into the U.S. embassy.'' This statement is a dramatic

demonstration that our embassy security program, begun after the East Africa bombings in 1998, is bearing fruit.

I am pleased that our bill fully funds the administration's request for the State Department and contains most of the provisions that Secretary Rice has requested and needs to help her administer the Department more effectively.

Our bill, Mr. Chairman, also launches a critical initiative to address the key issue of disrupting nuclear black markets. The Nuclear Black Market Elimination Act, which is included in our bill, authorizes sanctions against individuals and companies that provide nuclear enrichment technology to countries which do not have it or have not signed the additional IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, protocols relating to verification. Our initiative will help prevent nuclear weapons technology from getting into the hands of terrorists and rogue states, and clearly that is our most significant national security concern.

Our bill contains provisions of the Missile Threat Reduction Act, which I introduced in the last Congress with the support of Chairman Hyde. These provisions are designed to confront the alarming spread of offensive ballistic missiles, which can be used 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 and components. It strengthens U.S. sanctions against those who trade in missiles, and it provides assistance to countries that agree to destroy their missile arsenals.

Let me just say a word, Mr. Chairman, about another important initiative in our bill, the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005. I introduced a version of this legislation earlier this year with my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my cochairman of the congressional Human Rights Caucus. We consulted extensively with democracy experts, former diplomats, and U.S. Government officials. I am delighted to report that our work stimulated much discussion about how the U.S. Government could organize better to promote democracy around the globe.

With invaluable input from Chairman Hyde, the ADVANCE Democracy Act that is included as part of this legislation will require forward- looking strategies for democracy promotion, enhanced training for our diplomats, and increased resources for those who are responsible for democracy promotion. We trust that our bill will help institutionalize the advancement of democracy throughout the U.S. Government.

Mr. Chairman, our bill also provides support for the next critical phase in Afghanistan's transition from chaos, civil war, and disorder to an increasingly prosperous and democratic state by providing assistance for that country's upcoming parliamentary elections. Continued attention from the international community on this critical next step is essential if reformers are not to be intimidated by narcotraffickers and warlords.

Given the general bipartisan nature of our legislation, Mr. Chairman, I regret that the majority has decided to offer some ill-advised partisan amendments to our bill. In particular, I am profoundly disappointed that a U.N. reform amendment, virtually identical to the bill considered and barely passed by a sharply divided House last month, is going to be offered. I see no need to debate this controversial and divisive topic yet another time. The House has already spoken.

This amendment requires withholding 50 percent of our contributions to the United Nations if any one of 46 conditions is not fully implemented. During debates earlier, I called this an automatic guillotine, and it certainly has not changed since that debate. Adding this amendment threatens to undermine bipartisan support for our legislation. I will oppose this amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. Chairman, we are considering this important legislation at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. We are engaged in intense diplomacy on every continent. We are working to resolve long-festering disputes and crises in North Korea, in Iran, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Congo, in Colombia, and countless other places. And we are doing this in the midst of a critical conflict against the violent forces of nihilism and bloodthirsty Islamic fanaticism.

I believe that enactment of our legislation will provide important tools that can help resolve these international disputes and crises. I continue to hope that at the end of this legislative process we will all be able to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a serious and hard-working member of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member

of the Committee on International Relations and the conscience on environmental issues of both the committee and the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a valued member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has done extraordinary work on the Helsinki Commission.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

The changes entailed in this amendment are technical, noncontroversial, and fully acceptable to our side.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I deeply regret that the majority has chosen to offer this amendment. If adopted, this amendment, which barely passed along partisan lines last month, will blight a very serious and bipartisan effort by the Committee on International Relations to create the authorization bill before us.

Let me state at the outset, Madam Chairman, that I share the passionate commitment of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to meaningful and thorough reforms at the United Nations. This global institution must become more transparent and more accountable. Its employees must be held to the highest ethical and moral standards, and the abuses of the Oil-for-Food Program must never be repeated.

But, Madam Chairman, the deluge of stories of scandal at the United Nations has forced a long overdue recognition of a fundamental fact: the United Nations is a derivative reality, reflecting its less-than- perfect member states in a deeply flawed world.

I would like to remind all of my colleagues that there will be no quick fix for an organization composed of 191 member states that in varying degrees have their own shortcomings, injustices, flaws, and hypocrisies of all types. Because a quick fix is not to be expected, nor will a rigid and unbending punitive measure bring about long-term solution, I must oppose this amendment.

I want to tell my Republican colleagues that this Republican administration also opposes the Hyde amendment. It has stated unambiguously its strong opposition to the automatic withholding provisions of this measure.

Madam Chairman, the Lord gave us ten commandments, but the amendment before us gives us 46. What is worse, if the United Nations achieves 45 of those goals and only achieves half of the 46th requirement, this amendment will automatically cut off 50 percent of U.S. contribution to the United Nations. With such a mindlessly inflexible mechanism, this amendment is a guillotine on autopilot. It will force us to cut 50 percent of our dues to the U.N. even if that institution is moving quickly and effectively to implement meaningful reform.

The amendment would also be a death blow to peacekeeping. Immediately upon enactment, the United States would be forced to oppose any new or expanded mission until every single reform is implemented, many of which will take years to implement. Rwanda-style genocides could unfold before our eyes, and the United States would be paralyzed and would be incapable of acting.

Madam Chairman, this amendment will cause our Nation to go back into arrears at the United Nations without achieving its desired outcome. Given the important role the United Nations is currently playing in Afghanistan, in Darfur and elsewhere, I fail to see how our going into arrears will promote American national security interests. It will only force the United States to take on global responsibilities on a unilateral basis at a moment when our troops and our diplomats are already spread thin.

For these reasons, and because it would significantly undermine the underlying authorization act, which does reflect a unique bipartisan consensus about our Nation's foreign policy priorities, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I particularly appeal to my Republican colleagues. During an earlier debate on this very issue, practically every single Democrat voted to approve a more flexible measure that would put the punitive power into the hands of our distinguished Secretary of State, not leave it on automatic pilot. I hope we will find a dozen Republicans who will put the national interests ahead of a partisan consideration. Certainly the administration has done so. The administration is on record opposing this amendment. Practically the

entire Democratic side of this body is opposed to this amendment. We trust that there will be a dozen Republicans who will listen to reason and will see the virtue of providing our distinguished Secretary of State with the discretion that she needs and will be fully prepared to use.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I briefly would like to respond to both of my good friends.

We are not offering a resolution. Our legislation is identical to the Republican legislation. The only difference is that your punitive provision is automatic; our punitive provision provides discretion to the Secretary of State to implement it or not. So please do not talk about resolutions. We are not talking about toothless resolutions. Our legislation is as binding as the Republican legislation is. We just do not put it on autopilot. The guillotine does not fall automatically; it is put in the hands of a singularly intelligent Secretary of State.

With respect to the long list of items that my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, outlined, every single one of them is part of our legislation. Every single one of them is part of our legislation. The only difference is that the Republican proposal, looking years ahead into the future, automatically mandates a 50 percent cut in funding if only one of 46 goals is not achieved. Our legislation allows the Secretary of State to implement that provision as she sees fit.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this amendment. This amendment serves only to divide this House, which is ready to pass an important State Department authorization bill practically on a unanimous basis. There is no earthly reason to have a divisive provision which we have debated and on which we have voted.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides to reject this amendment and move on with the bipartisan authorization measure.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for offering this very valuable and important amendment.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has undertaken numerous post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Haiti, Somalia, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the dangerous and ever-changing world we live in, we will most surely have to undertake many more similar operations. Today, we witness numerous international crises that, if left ignored, will most certainly threaten not only the security of the United States, but the entire world.

We need to look no further than September 11, 2001, to understand why the failure to respond adequately to weak and failed states can have catastrophic consequences for our country.

In 2004, in response to the threat of failing and post-conflict states and our national and international security interests, the administration established the Office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to enhance our Nation's institutional capability to respond to crises involving failing, failed, post- conflict countries, and complex emergencies.

The Dreier amendment will enhance our capacity to support reconstruction and stabilization activities in conflict and post- conflict countries by establishing an Active Response Corps. This will consist of United States Government personnel with the training and expertise to participate in stabilization and reconstruction activities, thereby improving our capacity to assist countries in recovering from conflict. It

will be a critically important weapon in our arsenal in supporting post-conflict countries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.

Over half a million ethnic minorities have been forced from their homes in Eastern Burma. These minorities have left their homes because they have no other option. Burmese military forces are committing horrendous human rights abuses which give families living in Eastern Burma no option.

Ethnic minorities which remain in their homes in Eastern Burma face forced relocation, rape, village destruction and forced labor.

The half a million ethnic minorities who live life on the run in the jungles of Eastern Burma face horrendous conditions. They have no homes, no ability to grow their own food, no access to medical facilities or education for their children.

Exposed to ongoing state-sponsored violence and systematic human rights abuses, they lack protection from both the government and the international humanitarian community.

The Poe amendment would provide $3 million per year to established reputable NGOs working on the Thai-Burma border to provide direct humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons inside Burma. It will be extremely difficult work, but it is imperative that the international community get aid to these ethnic minorities in Burma as soon as possible.

Again, Madam Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Texas, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Plan Colombia and its successive program, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, are essential for strengthening the most viable democracy and the most loyal U.S. ally in the Andean region. The amendment offered by the two distinguished gentlemen from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and (Mr. Souder) will aid the Colombian security forces in their effort to track the movement of narcotics traffickers in the air, and for that reason I will support the amendment.

I have one concern which I do want to register for the record. Colombia faces many challenges in addition to fighting narcotrafficking. Poverty is endemic in much of the countryside. The police, judges, prosecutors, doctors and teachers are often not present in many small towns because of the security situation and the lack of resources by the Colombian government.

We should seek to ensure that as we support the efforts of the Uribe administration to beat back the terrorists and their drug-dealing accomplices, we also provide resources to him so that he can extend basic government services to those most in need.

I was very disappointed that a provision seeking to ensure the maintenance of just such a balance in our approach to Colombia was rejected along party lines in our committee and in the Committee on Rules.

If the Souder amendment were to be adopted, the purchase of the two aircraft it mandates would represent approximately 20 percent of the amount budgeted this year for the development of all of Colombia under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. This illustrates the point that a significant rebalancing of our assistance package to Colombia is in order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

The scourge of methamphetamine addiction is overtaking our streets and ruining the lives of thousands of Americans. This amendment will identify the top five countries which export the precursor chemicals for methamphetamine as well as the top five importers. The amendment also threatens to withhold 50 percent of U.S. assistance from the top five exporters and importers of methamphetamines if they fail to cooperate with the United States in the war on illegal drugs. Hopefully, this threat will persuade them to cooperate fully with us to end this abhorrent trade.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is important the drug kingpins of Afghanistan who are the source of so much misery, corruption, and continued instability in that long-suffering nation come to fear that they will be brought to justice.

Unfortunately, there is as yet no functioning legal or penal system in Afghanistan, and there may not be one for some time to come. In many cases, extradition of these drug kingpins to the United States to face trial may be the only justice they will face.

This amendment requires our Secretary of State to submit a report describing all pending United States requests for extradition from Afghanistan of illicit drug traffickers and kingpins who are under indictment in the United States as well as the response from the government of Afghanistan.

This will be the first necessary step in determining how best we in Congress may address this issue with the government in Afghanistan, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is of critical importance that the United States not be outgunned or outmaneuvered by narcotics traffickers either in the streets of our towns or on the high seas.

It is very disturbing to learn that drug traffickers are in fact developing their own navies with at-sea refueling capabilities for their drug cargo vessels, yet our own Coast Guard is not similarly equipped when it hunts and pursues these deep water vessels in the eastern Pacific.

This amendment will authorize $50 million for the next two fiscal years to the Department of State International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau to purchase or lease a maritime refueling support vessel to refuel U.S. Coast Guard and other drug interdiction vessels in the eastern Pacific. In the drug war, unilateral disarmament is the worst position to be in. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to address H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. This legislation is far reaching and will have a broad impact on the direction of our foreign policy. I hope that this Authorization Act will serve as an instrument for international cooperation, instead of the Administration's current policy of antagonizing the international community.

This Authorization Act funds the Department of State at virtually the same level as the Administration's request, representing a substantial increase from FY2005. Minor cuts to the request were made to substantially increase funds for refugee protection and to increase funding for the Asia Foundation. This bill funds international broadcasting, international exchanges, U.S. dues for international organizations, U.N. peacekeeping, and the National Endowment for Democracy at the FY2006 request level.

To be specific, this bill authorizes $10.8 billion in 2006 and $10 billion in 2007 for the Department of State, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs,

and related agencies. The bill includes the following authorization levels: $3.77 billion for FY06 and $3.89 billion for FY07 for Diplomatic and Consular programs; $1.52 billion for FY06 and $1.55 billion for FY07 Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, and $689 million in FY06 and $710 million in FY07 for worldwide security upgrades; $1.3 billion in FY06 and FY07 for contributions to international organizations; $955 million in FY06 and $985 million in FY07 for migration and refugee assistance; $661 million in FY06 for international broadcasting activities.

I am heartened that this bill contains a number of Democratic initiatives that were either included by Chairman Hyde or were added by amendment in Committee. This bill funds virtually all of the President's requests for the State Department, including funding for embassy security and expanding the U.S. diplomatic corps. The bill includes provisions to strangle nuclear black markets; to provide an institutional framework for the promotion of democracy; and to provide the State Department with tools to confront the alarming spread of ballistic missiles.

In addition, this legislation includes provisions related to creating a more formal structure for the promotion of democracy at the Department of State. It also requires a report on Administration strategy and efforts to advance democracy around the world, and it increases funding for the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund, which currently faces a 20 percent decrease in the FY2006 budget request. It is my sincere hope that these provisions will actually take our talk of promoting democracy through peaceful means and make it a reality.

I appreciate the fact that this Authorization includes a sense of Congress that the United States should render assistance to the efforts of the International Criminal Court to bring to justice persons accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan. However, this nation must do more to stop the genocide in Darfur. The genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million people displaced and at least 380,000 people dead in the Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die each month. Tragically, many of the women and young girls have been raped. In addition, water and food supplies have been completely destroyed making it impossible for many Sudanese to survive. Furthermore, under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program for FY05, up to 20,000 refugees from parts of Africa may be allowed to enter the U.S. As of May 31, 2005 there have been 10,326 persons allowed in the U.S. from Africa and only 1,190 of them have been Sudanese refugees. Truly, we have not gone as far as we can to aid these suffering people and end the genocide in Darfur. We can not allow the war in Iraq to divert us from this humanitarian crisis. As the world's most powerful nation we have an obligation to ensure that we do not turn a blind eye to those who are truly suffering.

The war in Iraq continues unabated and yet this Administration finds the need to hide the true cost of this war from the American people. I wrote a letter to President Bush on Memorial Day along with my Congressional colleague to ask him to allow the public to once again view the flag draped coffins of our soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to their nation. I find it sad that this President has changed a long standing precedent of showing the flag draped coffins when they return to be buried here in the United States. This ceremony is a true sign of honor, which should be shared with the American people, both young and old as a reminder of the bravery of our Armed Forces. I truly hope that President Bush will change his policy and allow Americans to once again pay proper tribute to our fallen soldiers who we hold dear in our hearts.

I am disappointed that this Authorization Act does not address the deteriorating situation in Haiti. I am also extremely disturbed by the role our own Administration has played in suppressing the voice of the people of Haiti. The Bush Administration has given tacit approval to the current Haitian government in their efforts to impose their regime. It is time for our Administration to play an active role in restoring real representative government in Haiti. We can not continue to turn a blind eye to the needs and desires of the Haitian people. The Haitian people were already suffering after the illegal overthrow of President Aristide and the subsequent unrest. Today they are faced with a new challenge of trying to hold their nation together in the face of an illegitimate and collapsing government. The United States must play the lead role in rebuilding the institutions and capabilities of the nation of Haiti.

I am pleased that this Authorization contains support for famine relief in Ethiopia up to $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Ethiopia is another nation in which we must support democracy and give the people reason to hope. Recently, the first official results from Ethiopia's disputed May elections show the ruling party and the opposition won roughly the same number of seats. The National Election Board said it was investigating allegations of fraud in up to 200 seats. The United States must support free and fair elections regardless of who may eventually win. I hope that all cases of election fraud will be properly investigated and that the final results will reflect the will of the Ethiopian people.

It was an honor today to welcome such a distinguished guest as Prime Minister Singh to the United States Capitol. I am pleased to have signed a letter to Speaker Hastert requesting that the Prime Minister be able to address a joint session of Congress. I must say that the international development that I feel most positively about is the continued peace talks between Pakistan and India. I was heartened to see the effort made by Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf in April, when they managed to turn a small visit to India to watch a cricket match into a three-day summit that yielded a series of agreements.Together these two nations agreed to set up a joint business council to improve trade and open more meeting points and travel routes for divided families along the Line of Control, which divides the region of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Both Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf declared that the peace process is now ``irreversible.'' In addition, they agreed that they would continue talks on Kashmir in ``a sincere and purposeful and forward-looking manner for a final settlement.'' It's due to this that I introduced H. Res. 272, the India-Pakistan Peace Resolution which recognizes the historic steps India and Pakistan have taken toward achieving bilateral peace. I am proud to say that this resolution passed through the International Relations Committee by unanimous consent. I have long advocated for the idea that both these great nations have much to offer and the promise of regional stability can only be in the interest of the United States.

I do have concerns about China and especially its bid to purchase Unocal. I am satisfied that the House of Representatives recently voted to not approve any sale of Unocal to China based on national security grounds. In addition, the Chinese yuan continues to be undervalued in relation to the U.S. dollar.The yuan has been pegged to the dollar at an exchange rate of about 8.28 yuan for 14 years, a rate which gives China an unfair edge in the export market. At its current level, China's goods are very inexpensive relative to American products, which ultimately threaten U.S. jobs. I am not asking to close our relationship with China, but only to have some reasonableness in our dealings with them.

This Foreign Relations Authorization Act addresses a number of international issues. However, I feel it does not go far enough on many vital international issues such as the genocide in Darfur and the deteriorating situation in Haiti. I hope that this Congress and this Administration will sincerely work to address these pressing international issues. Truly, those conflicts, which we ignore, will only be to the detriment of our Nation later.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde Amendment to add the text of H.R. 2745, the U.N. Reform Act of 2005 to the underlying bill. This legislation sends the signal to the world that our Nation has a disdain for the United Nations and I for one can not support that idea. There are many instances in which the U.N. has been instrumental in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives. In the past year alone, the U.N. helped organize parliamentary elections in Iraq, reconstruction efforts following the Indian Ocean tsunami, and helped mediate the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon. A reformed U.N. could be even

more complementary to U.S. interests abroad, but only if the U.S. does not alienate other Member States and create animosity in the process. The inflexibility of the Hyde legislation would create resentment among Member States, and the automatic withholding of dues would cripple the institution.

Chairman Hyde's unilateral approach to U.N. reform promises to thwart the growing international consensus for reform, which will be addressed by at least 174 nations at the September Summit in New York. We need a more flexible approach which does not dictate unrealistic deadlines for changes or threaten automatic withholding of dues, will achieve U.S. goals without causing widespread resentment among Member States whose support we depend on.

The Hyde bill on U.N. reform contains many serious flaws which if implemented would not be welcome by the international community. Peacekeeping is one such area where this bill contains deeply flawed logic. The Hyde bill points to peacekeeping reforms that everyone agrees are needed. These reforms are in fact endorsed by the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and in most cases, these reforms are already underway to address recent concerns raised about sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions. However, the Hyde bill says that starting this fall, the U.S. must prevent the expansion of existing missions or the creation of any new U.N. peacekeeping missions until all specified reforms are completed and certified by the Secretary of State. The truth is that some of these requirements simply cannot be met by the fall, true reform takes time. Reforms will require careful implementation at the U.N. as well as by the 100-plus troop contributing countries, and in some cases will require additional U.N. staff and funding which of course is not provided by this legislation. And yet, the Hyde bill will likely prevent Security Council resolutions to enable the creation or expansion of important U.N. missions in places like Darfur in Sudan, Haiti, Congo, and Afghanistan. We as the United States of America have always prided ourselves on helping those who can not help themselves, on aiding those who are being massacred simply because of who they are, but now this bill seeks for our nation to turn a blind eye to these people. We, as the 109th Congress can not allow ourselves to be the ones who cut off assistance to these desperate people.

Not only does the Hyde bill take a wrong approach to peacekeeping, but it will also create great problems with the budget at the United Nations. The Hyde bill claims to ``pursue a streamline, efficient, and accountable regular assessed budget of the United Nations,'' yet in reality the approach taken by the bill will wreak havoc on the U.N. budget process and will result in the automatic withholding of U.S. financial obligations to the U.N. regular budget. This flawed bill attempts to shift funding for 18 specific programs from assessed contributions to voluntary contributions. To achieve these goals, the bill mandates the withholding of up to $100 million in U.S. dues to the U.N. regular budget. While this idea may have merit, the U.S. should work with its allies to advance it through the Budget Committee at the U.N. instead of starting from the point of withholding dues, which should be our nation's last resort. Furthermore, the Hyde proposal links 50 percent of U.N. dues to a list of 39 conditions, not only at the U.N. Secretariat, but also at various U.N. specialized agencies over which the U.N. has no direct control. All of this will create a new U.S. debt at the U.N., since many of the conditions are so rigid and specific that they are not achievable. In the end, all that any of this will do is create resentment towards the United States in the international community. As the Washington Post editorialized, ``This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into an antique table: Even if you're aiming at the right nail, you're going to cause damage.''

The Hyde bill also calls for certain steps supported by the U.N. and the U.S., such as the strengthening of the U.N.'s oversight functions, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, and reforms in U.N. peacekeeping. However, it calls for these reforms to be funded solely within existing resources. If the U.S. withholds dues as this bill calls for, even less funding will be available to support these reforms. This bill also calls for the creation of new positions in several departments, including the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, without allowing resources to fund these positions.

Clearly, too many of the provisions of the Hyde U.N. reform bill will only cause resentment against the United States in the international community. Achieving reform by consensus in a body with 191 members is difficult, but this is not in itself a reason by by-pass the consensus building process. The more Member States that are engaged in achieving reform, the more legitimate and effective the changes will be. The U.S. should lead the way by actively promoting a tough reform agenda and retaining the threat of withholding dues as a last resort. Reform should not, however, be a crusade led by the U.S. against the institution and its Member States. Unfortunately, this bill on U.N. reform will not lead to reform, but only to the weakening of the United Nations. I urge support against the Hyde amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me time. I think he realizes that some of us who have met with leadership from Colombia recognize that there are multiple problems, and certainly the resources needed to interdict drug traffickers responds to a series of those problems. So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. But I hope as well in listening to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), that we also emphasize the impoverishment of that area.

This week I met with the governor of the region that governs Afro- Colombians. It is a region very small, but well populated. In addition to these resources, they are, if you will, isolated by law enforcement to protect them against the drug cartels and violence. They are lacking in educational resources and health resources.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to acknowledge the needs of Afro-Colombians, those who are descendents of the continent of Africa and former slaves. They want to work with the Colombian Government, but they need more resources. We in the United States can give them the strength and also the backbone and pressure to ask Colombia to provide them with more resources.

Drug interdiction is needed and necessary, but we must stop the poverty for those who cannot survive.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment though not without reservation. Fighting the war on drugs is an important part of creating a safe and stable hemisphere and Mr. Burton must be thanked for his efforts to assist the Colombian government in fighting drug trafficking.

Drug trafficking is the cause of many evils that befall upon our society. It creates violence and feeds off of the weakest members of society. We must take every effort to root out this heinous activity in all corners of the world.

The Burton amendment will help to wage the war on drugs and will make it more difficult for Colombian drug traffickers to export their products. I support this amendment for those reasons, yet acknowledge that there is an entire other part of the war on drugs that we must face.

Our anti-drug activities in the region must also take the shape of social development programs. We must insist that our actions in the war on drugs are not simply military programs, but social and economic as well. To truly win the war on drugs we must take action to help sectors of Colombian society most adversely affected. These communities; the poor, indigenous, and Afro-Colombians, are most often the worst affected from the violence associated with the drug trade. The social marginalization that these groups already face is exacerbated intensely by the conflict. In our course of action in the war on drugs we must be vigilant in maintaining support for the socially marginalized. We cannot accept the undue burden placed on these groups as an acceptable side effect of the Andean Counter-drug initiative.

The current situation in regions where these groups reside is unacceptable. Choco, a province consisting of approximately 75 percent

Afro-Colombian inhabitants, is perhaps the most adversely affected region of Colombia as a result of the armed conflict. In 2003 the region had the highest number of internally displaced persons in the country. As the only province with access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans it has been a highly desirable location for drug traffickers. With little or no government presence in the region, its inhabitants have had virtually no means to halt this invasion of drug traffickers.

I recently met with Mr. Julio Ibarguen, Governor of Choco, and he could not emphasize enough the necessity of more assistance to the Afro-Colombian population. The Afro-Colombian population was already impoverished, marginalized, and discriminated against. Governor Ibarguen illustrated how the conflict worsened this already horrible situation. The Afro-Colombian community has literally been decimated by the armed conflict and has been forcibly dispersed through Colombia. Those who have remained in Choco are faced with little or no access to healthcare, education, or law enforcement. Approximately 80 percent of Afro-Colombians live in extreme poverty.

In the war on drugs, Afro-Colombians have become the forgotten victims of the conflict. We must strive to ensure that their plight is not overshadowed by our efforts to eradicate drug trafficking. We must insist that the U.S. government provide more aid to Afro-Colombian regions. American resources must be used to help alleviate the pain and suffering on the part of Afro-Colombians and provide them access to a better, more stable, livelihood. Members of Congress should take an active role in working with their Colombian counterparts and must convince the Colombian government that the United States is interested in the well-being of Colombia's minority populations. During this time of conflict and distress for Afro-Colombians, the United States must be vigilant in providing support and assistance.

I support the Burton amendment because it assists the Colombian government in fighting the war on drugs. We must take our commitment to fight this war, and match it with a commitment to support the victims of the Colombian Conflict. Attention must be paid to Afro-Colombian populations so that they receive the aid they deserve. We must use our resources to fight drugs and poverty, corruption and racism, and insurgency and bigotry.

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. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and the others who have been working on this amendment and many others over the last few weeks on methamphetamines, a scourge that is sweeping our country, starting to hammer some of our major cities, and is going to be something that we have not seen for a long time in America unless we can get control of this.

Starting in Oklahoma, many States, including my home State of Indiana, have tried to regulate pseudoephedrine through drug stores and grocery stores by putting it behind the counter. But unless we control it internationally, it is irrelevant because what they will do is they will go to the Internet. These large trafficking organizations will bring it in. We have to get at it at the manufacturing level and the wholesale level.

Laws like these at the State level may work for a year, but they are not a long-term solution. We have to address it from an international perspective.

In Mexico alone, the Mexican imports of pseudoephedrine, and these are coming from just a few countries in the world, with India having most of the plants, China, and one in Europe, they are estimating imports have risen from 100 tons to 224 tons and their demand is 70 tons. That means we have 150 new tons of pseudoephedrine pouring across the border from Mexico. We must get control of this from a national and international perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), myself, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), and many others, to H.R. 2601.

This amendment addresses the growing problem of meth production as we have talked about, in particular in Mexico. Like the amendment just offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), this amendment is targeted at the superlabs in Mexico that produce most of the meth. Cooperative efforts with Mexico can work if they are vigorously pursued by the State Department and other Federal agencies.

For example, until only recently, Canada was the primary conduit for illegal pseudoephedrine tracking, largely because Canada has no internal regulation for the chemical, which obviously presents a problem as you go to the Internet and start to move this. But under pressure from the U.S., Canada adopted controls on the chemical. And that, combined with better joint law enforcement, helped dry up the U.S.-Canadian smuggling.

The gentlewoman from Oregon recently introduced, and the House adopted, an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations appropriation bill that added $5 million to the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs. This amendment was intended to help INL work much more closely with Mexican law enforcement officials to stem the tide of illegal diversion and superlab meth production.

This amendment would build on that approach by requiring INL to provide assistance to Mexico to prevent the production of methamphetamine in that country and to encourage Mexico to stop the illegal diversion of meth precursor chemicals. The amendment would authorize the use of $4 million of the $5 million for these purposes. The remaining funds would be available to help the State Department implement the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for her leadership, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for his leadership, and continuing to work with those of us who are committed to trying to tackle the scourge of methamphetamines before it overwhelms the United States.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues' support for this amendment which seeks to obtain vital information necessary for congressional oversight of our policies in Afghanistan.

I first want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership in bringing this legislation before the House. Chairman Hyde has been a consistent champion in the fight against international drug trafficking, and I thank him for his tireless efforts in that regard.

This amendment is quite simple. It would require a report from the State Department identifying all requests made by the U.S. Government for extradition of drug traffickers from Afghanistan, the status of those requests, and the response of the Afghan government. This report will enable Congress to evaluate the level of cooperation from the Afghan government on this vital aspect of counterdrug activity.

The U.S. will not be able to take effective action against the heroin trade if the Afghan government refuses to apprehend and extradite major opium traffickers.

Mr. Chairman, extradition is one of the most important tools in the struggle against international narcoterrorism. We need to be very sure that tool is functioning properly in Afghanistan, the epicenter of the world's heroin trade. As we vote to keep our troops still in Afghanistan, they are not being shot at by missiles and bullets and guns bought by making microcomputers or by sales from their local Wal- Mart. It is coming from the heroin trade.

The men and women dying in Afghanistan are dying because of illegal narcotics and the heroin trade, which funded al Qaeda and the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan and continues to fund those who are shooting at us. We have to understand, and the Afghan Government has to understand, the necessity of going after these traffickers aggressively. To do that, we need information here in Congress. Because of that, although I know that the committee supports this, I am going to ask for a rollcall vote because I believe it is important that we in a bipartisan way go on record and say we must pursue in Afghanistan, for the protection of our soldiers and families and workers all over the world, as heroin pours out of Afghanistan at three times the level of anything that ever happened under the Taliban. The greatest flow of heroin in world history is occurring now, and we have to get to the traffickers behind this.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his steadfast leadership against drug traffickers around the world, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). They have been yeomen in the fight against narcotics, human trafficking, terrorism, and in defense of international human rights.

I urge unanimous consent, if not an overwhelming majority, asking that these drug traffickers be extradited and we get adequate information from the State Department so we know what we are requesting because we have not been able to get that data.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I ask my colleagues for their support on this amendment which would authorize new resources for our drug interdiction efforts. I again want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his assistance in getting this much-needed help for drug interdiction throughout the world.

The amendment I propose seeks to build on the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) by authorizing the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, INL, to acquire a refueling vessel for the benefit of the U.S. and allied drug interdiction activities, such as the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy, operating in the eastern Pacific region. That would be the area on the west side of Mexico and as you come down through Central America.

According to testimony provided by the Coast Guard, Department of Defense, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and other agencies to the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I chair, drug traffickers have increasingly pushed their routes into that area further and further west from landfall. U.S. vessels have no refueling capability in that area, often coming from San Diego, and thus cannot operate for any significant length of time.

The traffickers, by contrast, have developed their own sophisticated refueling system and can now simply bypass our interdiction forces. Today we face an almost unique situation in drug interdiction history. We now have more intelligence about drug trafficking than assets to act on it, meaning that we have to watch helplessly while some shipments of poisonous narcotics are brought to the U.S.

The testimony provided to the subcommittee by Federal agencies has indicated that the acquisition of a refueling vessel would be of significant benefit in stopping this gaping hole. By allowing Coast Guard and other ships to carry out longer patrols in the eastern Pacific region, we will no longer be at such major logistical disadvantage vis-a-vis the drug kingpins.

Moreover, although the amendment authorizes up to $25 million for the refueler, it also authorizes INL to purchase or lease the vessel, thus allowing INL to obtain this vital asset at the lowest cost.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership and support in the fight against drug trafficking, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I would like to seek the support of the chairman in acquiring three cables from the State Department: one cable from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul describing the lack of assistance from the Afghan government on heroin trade, and two cables from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota regarding lack of U.S. support thus far for the demobilization program.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) again, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their support on these amendments. It is important that we have a bipartisan effort to send a message, whether it is to methamphetamine traffickers, pseudoephedrine, cocaine traffickers around the world, or heroin traffickers in Afghan. The fact is we lose 20,000 to 30,000 Americans every year to drug deaths. Because they do not happen on the same day at the same place, it is not as dramatic as what happened on 9/11, but they are still dead.

I thank the leadership of the committee for their support on these important amendments so we can, in a bipartisan way, make a dent in this terrible scourge, drug use.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I would echo the statements of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in applauding Chairman Hyde for his extraordinary leadership on the Committee on International Relations. He is the best and the most effective chairman I have ever seen, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2006 and 2007 is a comprehensive 332-page bill. With 11 titles, it authorizes funding for the State Department, international broadcasting, education and exchange programs, peacekeeping, international organizations and much, much more. H.R. 2601 funds the all-important framework by which the United States carries out its foreign aid and foreign policy programs and authorizes U.S. contributions to the United Nations, NATO, the OSCE, and other vital international organizations.

The cost of the bill is $10.8 billion for fiscal year 2006, $10 billion for 2007, with some costs in the outyears totaling $1.9 billion, for a total multiyear price tag of $22.3 billion, and it is within budget.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Relations, I chaired eight hearings on issues related to the bill, and the full committee met twice for consideration of these provisions. There were 10 amendments considered during markup in our subcommittee and another 52 amendments considered during the full committee. This bipartisan bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, passed 42 to 0, and the rule today permits 39 additional amendments for consideration.

The legislation, Mr. Chairman, puts a heavy emphasis on security and authorizes $1.5 billion for security-related construction at U.S. missions, $690 million to increase security for diplomatic personnel and $930 million for border security programs.

This funding continues the work begun after the devastating terrorist bombings in the late 1990s of our two U.S. embassies in Africa. Subsequent to that, Admiral Crowe, who headed up the Accountability Review Board, reported that some 85 percent of our missions at the time were vulnerable. Since then, Congress has stepped up and provided funding to try to close that gap.

This bill continues that work and includes funding for 55 additional diplomatic security personnel positions and 55 new consular positions. Under the capital security construction program, eight new embassy compounds in Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Ukraine, Rwanda, Zambia, Mozambique, Bosnia, and for St. Petersburg in Russia, and four USAID annexes in Nigeria, Ghana, Nicaragua, and Georgia would be funded.

The bill also increases funding for minority recruitment, and continues the annual report on minority recruiting efforts at the Department of State. It increases the ceiling on differential pay for hardship and danger at a time when we are operating new posts in extremely dangerous locations. It supports human rights efforts at the Department through targeted funding for the Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; promotes programs to fight anti-Semitism, protects religious freedom in OSCE countries; provides a permanent authorization for Radio Free Asia; and funds scholarships for outstanding individuals from the Southern Sudan region to study in the United States.

Given the unparalleled threat to the United States and to the world from the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, strengthening our nuclear nonproliferation effort is an important and vital piece of this legislation. Title VII of the bill revises and strengthens strategic export controls and mandates

a comprehensive review of U.S. strategic exports, including arms and dual-use items. Its aim is to ensure that U.S. military superiority remains, and that terrorist states and organizations are denied the means to advance their nefarious goals.

The bill also states that U.S. national interests would be advanced by a stronger International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, including ensuring that a recurring delay in the U.S. annual payment is corrected.

Title VIII upgrades policies related to the elimination of the U.N. nuclear black market and establishes that nonproliferation is a condition of U.S. foreign aid. The bill mandates that countries must be fully cooperative with U.S. efforts to eliminate the nuclear black- market network, again as a precondition to receiving U.S. foreign aid.

One title, title VI, the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005, authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), creates a new office at State to work with democratic movements, establishes an annual report and a list of countries, countries that are either undemocratic or democratic transition countries, and launches a more robust coordinated effort to systematically promote democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful the committee has included a number of provisions that I proposed, including services for overseas children suffering from autism; a global prevalence study on autism; steps to promote human rights and democracy in Vietnam, Belarus, and Zimbabwe; support for a strengthened rule of law in Northern Ireland, as well as assistance to maternal and child victims of Chernobyl; and the creation of a program to repair and prevent the tragic condition of obstetric fistula.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for this bill.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Madam Chairman, despite almost universal acknowledgment of the problems that exist within the U.N. human rights system and in its peacekeeping operations, there has been little reform, a lot of talk, but very little actual reform. This amendment is needed to help end this deplorable state of affairs.

Even U.N. officials like Kofi Annan have said, ``Unless we remake our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the U.N. itself.'' No truer words have ever been spoken. It is a mess and it must be rectified.

But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken. Other U.N. bodies, especially the treaty bodies, have strayed from core mandates and failed to act against severe violations of human rights. Groups like CEDAW and others, without absolutely any mandate, promote a right to abortion, nothing mentioned about the unborn child. They promote violence against children and they call it a human right. Nowhere in their documents, including the CEDAW Convention, can that be found.

Let me also point out that the Hyde amendment mandates that countries that fail to uphold the Human Declaration of Human Rights should be ineligible for membership on the Human Rights Commission or any followup, like the Human Rights Council that is being proposed.

We will get rid of those items where Israel is singled out by itself at these Human Rights Commission meetings for all kinds of false charges and slander, and other countries like Sudan or the People's Republic of China get away unscathed.

The Hyde amendment also mandates that the Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC, abolish secret voting, which has led to all kinds of abuse. Like I said, we would no longer allow members, rogue nations with despicable human rights records, to be a part of it.

The Hyde U.N. Reform Act also focuses on the area of peacekeeping. I would ask Members, look at this legislation that is pending before you, H.R. 2601. It doubles the amount of money available for U.N. peacekeeping, doubles it. I will give you the numbers if you would like to hear them. We go from $483 million to $1.035 billion. We are for peacekeeping. We want to assure that the kind of abuses that we have seen in Congo, in other countries are stopped, and hopefully this legislation will help to do that.

Every single reform that has been proposed is eminently doable, if and only if the political will is there to effectuate it.

We need to ensure accountability and transparency in the $1.2 billion in taxpayer money we spend on peacekeeping every year.

The Hyde amendment does it. We need a U.N. that speaks strongly and clearly for the universal respect and observance of fundamental human rights and the dignity and the worth of every human person, the equal rights of men and women, as the foundation for freedom, justice, and peace. The Hyde amendment promotes that.

More high-sounding words will not help the U.N. reform itself. As the chairman said a moment ago, we have seen resolution upon resolution here, as well as in New York at the U.N., and what happens? It dies a slow and ceremonial death because it never gets acted upon. We are giving it a push, a real prod. This will not end peacekeeping as we know it. I think it will make it transparent and, hopefully, make it much more effective and stop the horrific abuses that have been committed by U.N. peacekeepers in places like Congo.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend my friend from Texas for a very constructive amendment which the committee supports. This provision seeks to alleviate the plight of hundreds of thousands of Burmese who have been forced to flee from their native villages by the repressive policies of the military dictatorship in Rangoon, the same dictatorship that represses Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. This amendment would facilitate the provision of much needed food, medical and other humanitarian relief, and I thank the gentleman for offering it on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority, we welcome and support the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). The links between drugs and terrorism and the overall future of a democratic Afghanistan are self-evident and important. It is critical that we take down and extradite to the United States those kingpins and warlords in the drug trade who are affecting our Nation here at home and poisoning the new democracy in Afghanistan and fueling terrorism at the same time.

The Souder amendment will let us know whether we are getting cooperation and support from the government of Afghanistan on this critical part in the fight against illicit drugs: extraditions.

According to DEA, there are four pending U.S. requests for extradition from the government of Afghanistan, including one major kingpin. We need to know if we are getting cooperation on these requests, and if not, why not. I support and strongly urge adoption of the Souder amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that the committee stands ready to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) to ensure that he gets the cables he has requested. It is an important part of the gentleman's work and our Congressional oversight function. We will work very closely with the gentleman on this.