Urging the European Union to maintain its arms embargo on the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to speak certainly in favor of the Solomon Amendment and remind my colleagues that it does not apply to institutions of higher education that have had a longstanding practice of pacificism based on historic religious grounds, and it exempts Federal student financial assistance from termination. But what it does do is allow students to look at career opportunities in the Army. And as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said, there are so many legal issues involved in the military today and to go beyond that, to let people look at careers in, I would say, intelligence as much as anything, homeland security, there is a great opportunity for students to go into.

But we are also seeing so much push-back really from a crowd that is basically anti-American and anti-conservative. Indeed, there are so many prejudices against everyday middle-class values on college campuses, and serving in the military and being pro-American just seems to be one of them.

Students at Wells College, for example, were ridiculed by their professors

if they supported the war in Iraq. At the University of Missouri, a professor, a science professor, offered extra credit for students to protest a speech given by conservative activist David Horowitz. At the University of Richmond, a professor called President Bush a moron in his class. And at the University of Oregon, students were labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for expressing their opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a double standard. And examples go on and on.

Another statistic, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban or punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative speech, and that campus funds are unequally distributed to left-wing groups as opposed to conservative groups by a ratio of 50 to one.

I think the judicial attack on the Solomon Amendment is just one of a series of a trend that is against, again, anything that is pro- American, pro-conservative, pro-traditional values. And so I would submit for the Record an article that was an opinion in the Wall Street Journal recently and then something on the academic bill of rights that I think also touches into this same subject.

The bill would express the continued support of Congress for the so- called ``Solomon law'' in title 10, U.S. Code, which improves DOD's ability to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and to ensure military recruiters have access to college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to other employers.

The bill would:

State Congress's resolve to achieve military personnel readiness through vigorous application of the ``Solomon law'' relating to equal access for military recruits to institutions of higher education, and express Congress's commitment to explore all options, including the use of its Constitutional power to appropriate funds, to achieve that equal access.

Express the Sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the operation of the ``Solomon law.''

Encourage the Executive Branch to follow a doctrine of non- acquiescene by not finding a judicial decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on other jurisdictions. The so-called ``Solomon law,'' section 983, title 10, U.S. Code, named for its original proponent Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), is based on the principle that if a college or university accepts federal funding it must permit military recruiters and/or ROTC access to campus and to students. Enacted first in 1994, and added to by Congress in 1996, 1999 and 2002, and 2004, the ``Solomon law'' prohibits some defense-related and other federal funding from going to colleges and universities that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus.

The Solomon law: (1) does not apply to institutions of higher education that have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical religious grounds; and, (2) exempts federal student financial assistance from termination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on 29 November 2004, reversed a district court decision, which had upheld the Constitutionality of the ``Solomon law,'' by ruling that the ``Solomon law'' violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association held by institutions of higher education. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law.''

The acting Solicitor General has announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit Court. The Government also filed a motion on 14 January 2005 with the Third Circuit Court seeking to stay the Court's mandate for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law'' until the Supreme Court decides the Government's petition. The Third Circuit granted the stay on 19 January.

H. Con. Res. 36, in expressing continued support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education, makes the following points regarding the ``Solomon law'':

Under article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress exclusively has the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces.

Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces obtain highly qualified new military personnel and is an integral, effective and necessary part of overall military recruiting. Efforts by colleges and universities to restrict or prohibit military recruiter access will have the harmful effects of increasing Federal spending to achieve desired recruiting outcomes and of compromising military readiness and performance. Such harm conflicts with Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense. Any reduction in the performance by the Armed Forces amidst the present national emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001, operates against the national interest.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate spending and in that role Congress has chosen over time to appropriate funds for a variety of Government programs to be provided to institutions of higher learning. However, these funds are not an entitlement to any college or university and can be provided subject to criteria and conditions set by Congress.

The ``Solomon law'' is a legislative safeguard that links Federal funding of educational institutions to the willingness of those institutions to abide by a rule of access by military recruiters to campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope that is provided to any other employer.

For the last several years, a growing number of university law schools and colleges of law have treated military recruiters in ways significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a result, military recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have been subjected to various degrees of official and unofficial harassment or ill treatment that is designed to make military recruiting difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. The underlying reason for this differing treatment is opposition to Federal law that prohibits military service by openly gay people--the so-called ``don't ask, don't tell'' law.

Given that opposition, it is imperative that the safeguards that the ``Solomon law'' provides not only for military recruiters, but also for ROTC, be maintained. Without such safeguards, grave harm to military recruiting will result as colleges and universities move to limit or deny access to campuses and students by representatives of the Armed Forces.

Academic Bill of Rights

background

Hiring Practices for Professors

Faculty hiring is controlled by more senior members of the

faculty itself:

As Conservative faculty forced to keep political views

quiet until they achieve tenure.

Usually hire those who agree with them,

Creates a perpetual cycle.

Creates an environment where Marxists, Post-Modernists,

etc. can still dominate in academic fields even while their

views have been discredited:

Numbers of Liberal Professors vs. Conservative Professors

The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the 32

schools studied was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134

Republicans).

Not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools

managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two main

political parties:

In the nation at large, registered Democrats and

Republicans are roughly equal in number.

The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern

University--Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a

ratio of 4-1.

Other Schools:

Brown--30-1

Bowdoin, Wellesley--23-1

Swarthmore--21-1

Amherst, Bates--18-1

Columbia, Yale--14-1

Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley--12-1

Smith--11-1

Other Schools had ZERO registered Republicans:

Williams--51 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Oberlin--19 Democrats, 0 Republicans

MIT--17 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Haverford--15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Most students probably graduate without ever having a class

taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.

Not Just a Faculty Problem But A Campus-Wide Bias

For example, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie

Melon, and Cornell could not identify a single Republican

administrator.

In the entire Ivy League, there were only 3 Republican

administrators identified.

Impact on Students

Remarks belittling conservative ideas convey that these

views are not accepted on campus--Grading based on these

ideas reinforce this perception.

One student called a ``fascist'' for inviting Oliver North

to campus.

University of Oregon--Student labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for

expressing his opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a

double standard.

University of Richmond--Professor called President Bush a

``moron'' in the classroom.

University of Missouri in Columbia--Professor offered extra

credit to protest a speech by David Horowitz.

Students at Wells College were ridiculed by professors for

their support on Iraq war and their views on feminism.

``It didn't take long to see how liberal it was after I

came here. The professors and the education I receive is

excellent, but the professors seem to use class as a

political soapbox,''--Kristy L. Hochenberger, a student at

Wells College.

Slogan circulated by Biology professor at Wells College--

``Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's

the law!''.

Many students conceal what they actually think in order to

protect their academic standing--a reality clearly at odds

with the educational mission of the university.

Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching

students with professors who have compatible interests.

Preferential treatment shown to those with similar liberal

ideals.

Campus Guests, Speech Police and Commencement Speakers

Campus funds are unequally distributed to leftwing student

groups as opposed to groups with conservative agendas by a

ratio close to 50:1: These student groups are many times in

charge of hiring campus speakers.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found

that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have

speech codes intended to ban and punish politically

incorrect, almost always conservative, speech.

The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right

was 226-15, a ratio of over 15:1: Commencement speakers are

selected through committees composed of administrative staff,

faculty, and students.

Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have

a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in

the entire ten years surveyed: Six of the remaining schools

invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared

to 38 liberals or Democrats.

Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA, which host multiple

speakers every year, did not feature a single Republican or

conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and

Democrats.

Academic Bill of Rights

Recognizes that political partisanship by professors is an

abuse of students' academic freedom.

Designed to take politics out of the university curriculum:

Does not call for more classics in curriculum,

Reading lists should provide students with dissenting

viewpoints so they may form their own opinions.

Designed to protect the right of students to ``get an

education rather than an indoctrination'':

Should not make professors afraid of what they say,

We defend professors' right to say anything and forbids

administration from punishing them for their political

opinions,

Professors should always be open to dissenting opinions.

Unequal funding of student organizations which host guest

speakers is unacceptable: Calls for pluralism in selection of

guest speakers.

Learning environment hostile to conservatives is wrong.

There is a lack of ``intellectual diversity'' within

faculties on college campuses:

University should be ``inclusive'' to all viewpoints,

Without it, free exchange of ideas are impaired.

It is not our intention to suggest that there should be

quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at

universities:

We support removing all politics and political affiliation

from the hiring process,

It is our purpose to point out the gross imbalance of

liberal vs. conservative professors.

While nearly all university administrations devote

extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity

in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown

interest in the diversity of ideas.

Universities have the privilege of being separate from the

society they inhabit:

Society grants faculty protection from the influence of

outside politics,

With that privilege comes a responsibility by the faculty

to also safeguard the free exchange of ideas.

Correcting this should be the goal and an integral part of

educational policy under the Academic Bill of Rights.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2005]

Wisdom of Solomon--The Disgrace of Blocking Military Recruiters From

Campus

Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail

server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for

another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the

military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree

that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can

use the best attorneys it can get.

So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools,

objecting to the Pentagon's ``discrimination policies,''

refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on

campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus

venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be

wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables

at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the

local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.

To put it another way, the same liberals who object that

the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let

military recruiters near the schools that contain students

who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough

to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law

school students.

Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down

well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon

Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald

Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds

to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the

House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama

Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support

for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House

and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was

incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill.

The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by

the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group

of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the

Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment

violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech

and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is

expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans

to bring.

There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with

the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for

Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the

names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its

coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and

Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit

was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their

own don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

In any event, there should be no legal question about

Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds

to universities. It does this all the time--including

requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and

gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no

trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them.

If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals

court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all

universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in

federal money that would be next to impossible to give up.

That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and

private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's

universities would welcome the military for reasons other

than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps?

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. 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 Hyde-Lantos amendment, the East Asia Security Act of 2005, to stop the transfer of sophisticated arms and military technology to China. At the outset I want to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, one day, which we all hope will never come, tens of thousands of American troops may be called upon to help in the defense of Taiwan against Chinese aggression. China is vastly increasing its military power, especially its ability to utilize high-tech weaponry to quickly overwhelm Taiwan's defenses. China is actively seeking Western arms and high technology to further this goal, and, unfortunately, some European companies and some European countries are all too willing to sell them whatever they wish. In 2003 alone, France, Italy, Germany and the Czech Republic sold some half a billion dollars worth of high-tech military equipment to China.

Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, we faced a very serious problem in this body when the European Union announced its intention to lift the arms embargo on the sale of sophisticated weapons to China.

In February of this year, this House adopted H. Res. 57, sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and myself. That resolution called upon the Europeans to maintain their embargo on arms sales to China. Our resolution was adopted by a vote of 411 to 3. The European countries received the message and the effort to lift the embargo was quietly dropped. I welcomed that action by the European Union.

However, it is no longer enough just to maintain a paper embargo. Europe must give up any plans to engage in this dangerous trade, which could be potentially devastating, and the Hyde-Lantos amendment provides the President with the necessary tools to deal with the issue.

Our amendment covers any nation whose policies permit the export of dangerous military technology to China. At the President's discretion, he can publicize the activities of any country that is transferring militarily sensitive goods and technology to the People's Republic of China, and the President will have the authority to impose sanctions if he chooses.

Our amendment is important to persuade all other countries that there will be severe consequences if they fail to respect the security interests of their most important ally, the United States of America. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague on the Committee on International Relations. For many years now, the City of New York has provided invaluable services to the Federal Government by providing protection on behalf of the Department of State in New York to the U.N. and to the permanent missions of its member states.

The State Department's representatives have recently informed our committee that they are in full agreement with the City of New York that the Federal Government owes some $20 million to the city for services provided.

The Ackerman amendment would provide the authority to the Secretary of State to make good on this debt, and it will provide new resources to the protection of foreign missions as we move forward to ensure that further arrearages to the City of New York will be avoided.

I commend the gentleman on his amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I offer amendment No. 16 as provided under the rule on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) and the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. It extends the same rights and privileges regarding transfer allowances to State Department employees who are residents of the United States territories and possessions that are accorded to State Department employees residing in the 50 States. My understanding is that this provision is a very modest one that will affect very few State Department employees with little cost to the government. In the interest of providing fair and equitable treatment to all U.S. citizens who are employees of our Department of State, regardless of their domicile, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for addressing a very important issue of alien smuggling from the Andean region. The leadership which the gentleman demonstrated many years ago as the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Committee has been renewed in his current tenure at the helm of that subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the northern migration of individuals between countries of the Western hemisphere historically has benefited our country and, through remittances and other means, the countries of origin.

The overwhelming majority of individuals who enter the United States without documentation from Latin American countries do so in search of the American dream. While we certainly do not support illegal immigration into this country, we must not assume that those answering the call of the Statue of Liberty are hardened criminals, nor are the vast majority of individuals victims of trafficking who are brought to our shores and borders under fraudulent circumstances through alien smuggling networks.

So when we encourage the administration to grant assistance to the security forces of Ecuador or any other country which the State Department

has found to have committed serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and torture, it is vital that we understand and communicate these differences to the foreign government receiving our largesse.

Mr. Chairman, although the gentleman's amendment does not distinguish between those who seek a better life for themselves and their families and those who intend to do us or our allies harm, the administration should have a better strategy for addressing alien smuggling in Ecuador and elsewhere. The report which is required by the Burton amendment is a step in the right direction.

For these reasons we are prepared to accept this amendment.

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

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

I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). It is imperative that the coalition forces fighting in the global war on terrorism not be hobbled in their efforts. The recent declaration of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia and China, calling for coalition forces to set a withdrawal timetable from use of critical forward bases in countries such as Uzbekistan, would greatly hobble our efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the declaration is a transparent attempt by China and Russia, to force the United States out of the region which they obviously consider in their sphere of influence. Yet we do not see their forces participating beyond their own borders in the global war on terrorism.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Crowley amendment and formally express the concern of this House over this unfortunate declaration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the International Relations Committee, the author of this amendment.

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

This is a parallel issue to the one we had with respect to cutting off 50 percent of the funding for the United Nations.

Every single Member of this body is in full agreement that rogue states should not be chairing United Nations organizations. But it is equally clear that an intelligent approach to making it impossible to keep rogue states from chairing United States bodies is to give our Secretary of State the discretion to cut off funding and not to put things on automatic pilot.

Given our concerns, I would ask the gentleman if he would modify the amendment to make the authority to withhold funds subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Could we insert on line 4, after the comma, the relevant secretary or head of agencies authorized to withhold the funds? Would the gentleman be willing to ask unanimous consent to do so?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. Under those circumstances, we oppose the amendment. It is absurd to put U.S. foreign policy on automatic pilot. We have an intelligent and capable Secretary of State who has all the capability of exercising her discretion in withholding funds from the United Nations when warranted. I ask all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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 opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, women who develop fistula as a result of childbirth are often abandoned by their husbands, rejected by their communities, and forced to live in an isolated existence. For that reason I am very pleased that the State bill contains $5 million for treatment of women with obstetric fistula and for fistula prevention services. The fistula prevention section of the bill was added in committee by an amendment that I sponsored that had enjoyed unanimous support, including support of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Because the fistula provision enjoyed strong bipartisan support in committee, I am disappointed that my friend has chosen to offer this amendment. The Smith amendment establishes two tiers of fistula services to be carried out by clinics supported by the United States. Fistula repair and rehabilitation services are ``mandatory,'' while fistula prevention services, including the provision of contraception, is considered ``discretionary.'' Also, references to ``contraceptives'' have been removed.

Mr. Chairman, the most effective way to decrease the incidence of fistula is to ensure that 12-year-old girls in rural Africa and other young high-risk women do not get pregnant in the first place. For the life of me, I fail to understand why we would want to downgrade the attention paid in this bill to fistula prevention and remove any discussion of contraceptives. I understand the concerns raised by the gentleman from New Jersey that some faith-based hospitals do not wish, as a matter of conscience, to distribute contraceptives. I have no problem with that exemption.

But in order to deal with the faith-based hospitals, the entire fistula prevention section of the bill, which I authored in committee and, again, had the support of every member of the Committee International Relations, was accepted, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), it is a shame, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is offered, and I therefore oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Once again I have to express my disappointment that we find ourselves here now in final passage of this bill when we had an amicable agreement in the committee and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, somewhat working together in the committee, agreed to this initial amendment to include my language.

I will just say for the record it says in the underlying text of the bill: ``Each center established pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall, to the maximum extent practicable.'' It is not mandatory. It does not say they have to do this. Shall ``carry out the following activities,'' and included in that is contraception.

My question for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is, is contraception included in family planning?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, it is not clear to me. It is again unfortunate we find ourselves here at this point. And I stand, again, in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment on fistula.

While we are similarly concerned about preventing fistula and the impact it has on women's lives in the developing world, I must rise in opposition to this specific language as it does not expressly support contraception as a means of preventing fistula.

While this may sound like nit picking to some, it goes to the heart of preventing this horrific tragedy in women.

Mr. Smith and I were in agreement in Committee on my original language on fistula prevention, and I appreciated your initial comments about this language on our plan to prevent fistulas from occurring by focusing on prevention of pregnancy through contraception.

May amendment, which was universally accepted by the committee, expressly called for support of contraception because this is often the only way girls, young women, and women whose bodies are not prepared for pregnancy-contraception is often the only way they can protect themselves.

This language takes out contraception--which is the best way to prevent fistula.

It would be nice to imagine that all young girls in the developing world--who are especially vulnerable to fistula--would delay their first pregnancy. But that is simply not the reality that many young girls face.

As such, we must include contraception in this bill when we talk about fistula. Otherwise we are--

In fact, I recently met with a physician who repairs fistulas in Nigeria. He said that Nigeria sees 20,000 new fistulas cases per year and--to use his words--``we can't only treat these cases, we have to prevent them.''

And how do we prevent them--the answer is clear. Contraception.

But for millions of girls and women who in the developing world-- fistula is an all too real part of their everyday existence.

I am pleased that the base bill addresses the fistula issue, by providing funding for fistula treatment. And I applaud this committee for including language on fistula.

However, we need to do both prevention and treatment. Unless the incidence of fistula can be reduced through prevention activities, women and girls in the developing world will face a never-ending cycle of despair. And the backlog of women needing surgical repair will never be erased.

But for many, the simplest and best answer is to make family planning

available to those who want to use it. In fact, one estimate finds access to family planning--including contraception--would reduce maternal disability and death by at least 20%.

To be sure, we need to address the larger social issues that contribute to the problem--girls' education, general access to healthcare, and women's economic development and empowerment are all an important part of confronting the fistula tragedy.

And that must include contraception. It is as simple as life and death. It is as important as the humanity that unites all of us.

If we understand fistula to be as tragic as it truly is, then the best response must include steps to prevent women and girls from ever having to face it in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for being here to offer my amendment and to take the position in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with the July 5 declaration of the heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization known as SCO, which is made up of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the People's Republic of China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

This declaration called upon the antiterrorist coalition to set a deadline for the temporary use of the infrastructure facilities of the SCO member states and for the military presence in these countries.

I do not believe it is appropriate to begin to pull out of Central Asia while al Qaeda and the Taliban are still an active threat to the emerging government in Afghanistan and coalition troops seeking to root out the remaining fighters of the Taliban as well as al Qaeda.

China and Russia should not be pushing policy on their smaller neighbors just because they are uncomfortable with having Western antiterrorist coalition troops in Central Asia.

Terrorism is not an issue for the United States alone but for the entire world, and we must all work together to fight these sick individuals.

Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States has no territorial designs on the region and they should not view coalition troops as a threat.

Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith said in an interview recently that U.S. military operations are based on circumstance, not dates, and the circumstances in Afghanistan remain dangerous. So we must not allow China and Russia to dictate the timetables on our security.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls on the administration to open a dialogue with the appropriate members of the SCO and let them know about the importance of retaining the antiterrorist coalition troops.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, for several years now I have pushed USAID and the Congress to establish a program to assist women who suffer from obstetric fistula. According to the USAID, an estimated 2 million women suffer needlessly from fistula and from 50,000 to 100,000 new cases are added every year, mostly in Africa.

Fistula occurs during obstetric labor, which sometime damages soft tissues. The destroyed tissues leave a hole or fistula in the pelvic floor area which causes incontinence. Tragically, the constant leaking of urine and feces leads to sickness, desertion by husbands and family, extreme social isolation, and poverty. Who are vulnerable, according to the USAID, very young mothers, women experiencing their first birth, women whose growth has been stunted due to malnutrition or illness, and poor women who lack access to the most basic of obstetric services.

My amendment and the underlying language in H.R. 2601, section 901, that I put into the bill, establishes 12 centers for the treatment and prevention of obstetric fistula. Funding is authorized at $5 million in 2006, and the amendment increases the authorization by $2.5 million to $7.5 million in fiscal year 2007.

Amazingly, for $150 to a couple hundred dollars, a woman victimized by fistula can obtain a surgical repair that gives her back her life. No woman should be denied this minimal, life-saving surgical repair. My amendment requires that the centers include increased access for women to emergency obstetrical care, including increased access to skilled birth attendants and care facilities.

My amendment states that the centers may include activities to expand abstinence education, postponement of marriage and child bearing until after the teenage years, and access to family-planning services.

During markup, an amendment was offered to exclude, and this would be the result of that language, certain faith-based health care providers who, while deeply committed to mitigating the pain of fistula, would be barred from receiving funds. I have been in contact with Dr. Kent Hill, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Global Health at USAID, and he concurs that my amendment is preferable and balanced because it permits inclusion of family planning programs, gives USAID the flexibility to get the job done, and is consistent with the conscience clause we secured through an amendment I inserted in Mr. Hyde's $15 billion HIV/ AIDS law.

Section 901 is a modest $5 million in 2006, $7.5 million in 2007, and we need to begin in earnest to give women who suffer the tragedy of fistula the basic care that they need.

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

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

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

Just to make the very clear point to my colleagues, this section 901 creates a brand new program that, until this legislation is enacted, has not existed. I authored section 901, and the emphasis is on surgical repair. We have 2 million women who are in dire need of repair--the walking wounded--and it takes a very modest amount of money to effectuate the repair of their damaged bodies so, again, they can get their lives back.

Secondly, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Crowley) amendment, wittingly or unwittingly, will preclude a number of faith-based hospitals--language that he added that at first blush looked okay but upon further scrutiny and study, we found that it was a major problem. There are at least four hospitals, one in Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, and in Bangladesh, that would be denied fistula funding, because under Crawley, inclusion of contraception is absolutely mandatory. It should be discretionary. These are proposed fistula centers pursuant to AID's plan to role out and to implement. So we are talking about those who could provide fistula services being told they cannot have the money.

Let me also point out to my friends and colleagues that the U.S. spends about $450 million in overseas family planning per year in the budget. Nobody is touching that. That will go forward in FY '06. Some of that money can be used to try to prevent and repair fistula and to incorporate the two. But let me point out to my colleagues, that my language says the centers may include: ``Activities to expand abstinence education, postponement of marriage'' and ``expand access to family planning services.'' That is my amendment. Expand access to family planning services. It is discretionary however. I would suspect that some--maybe most--of the fistula centers will do just that. But there are faith-based health centers for which that is a problem, and we want to get this fistula repair program out to as many women as humanly possible.

Let me just tell my colleagues as well if they vote against this amendment, they are also voting against $2.5 million in addition to what is in the bill to expand surgical repairs for these women.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is very obvious that family planning includes contraception, and our language makes that very clear.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 2601 funds the protection of foreign missions operations' account at the administration's request of $9.39 million, there are ongoing recurrent high expenses for the protection of foreign missions and officials, especially in New York, that make this amendment necessary. In addition, the Department of State agrees that the City of New York is owed $19.58 million in back payments for security work the city has done in relation to the United Nations.

This amendment authorizes the necessary funds to pay what we owe to New York for protection services already provided and covers projected costs in the next two fiscal years. The majority accepts and supports the 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.

I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), my good friend and colleague, who was unavoidably detained on official business. As a supporter of the Fossella amendment, I offer it on his behalf.

This amendment very simply seeks to withhold U.S. funding from any U.N. commission, organization or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism until such time that the President determines that they are no longer doing so.

If Members of the U.N. elect known state sponsors of terrorism to lead U.N. organizations, we believe U.S. tax dollars should not support those entities.

In a post-9/11 world we are seeking to build multilateral strategies to address threats of global terror. We must use all available diplomatic tools and leverage such as U.S. contributions, to halt the influence of countries that sponsor and export terror.

This amendment seeks to prevent identified state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Libya from being able to attain leadership positions at U.N. commissions, organizations or affiliated agencies such as the Conference on Disarmament and U.N. human rights bodies.

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

With all due respect to my friend and colleague from California, I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), who is really the prime sponsor of this amendment, had prior knowledge of that potential language that you just offered and he did not want to accept it. So on his behalf and my own I would have to reject it regrettably.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3100) to authorize measures to deter arms transfers by foreign countries to the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3100, a bill which I introduced for the purpose of authorizing measures to deter arms transfers by foreign countries to the People's Republic of China.

This bill has 14 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee on International Relations has marked up the bill and ordered it reported unanimously. The background and need for this legislation can be briefly summarized.

When the House passed Resolution 57 overwhelmingly 411 to 3 on February 2, 2005, it did so in the context of a rising chorus from European leaders that it was time to terminate the European Union's arms embargo on China. In response to this development, Resolution 57 called on the European Union to take two steps: one, to maintain its arms embargo on the People's Republic of China; and, two, to eliminate weaknesses in the embargo and in the national policies of the EU member states. Indeed, those weaknesses are loopholes of one form or another that had permitted European weapons technology to flow to China at an increasingly higher level, even while the embargo remained in place.

Now we have word that the EU has decided for the time being not to terminate the China arms embargo. This, of course, is a welcome development, but it only responds to one of the two steps we asked to be taken. Unfortunately, while maintaining the embargo in the formal sense, the EU and its member states have remained silent on whether they will actually stop the flow of arms-related technology from Europe to China. The supply of European arms technology to China has risen steadily in recent years, both in quantity and quality or sophistication.

With respect to quantity, European arms sales to China increased eight-

fold, to $540 million in the 3-year period between 2001 and 2003. Qualitatively, European transfers have included a number of systems which increased the range, reliability, and lethality of China's attack aircraft and other offensive weapons systems.

The implications of these transfers are uniformly negative for the security of U.S. Armed Forces in East Asia, for the defense of our friends and allies in the region, and for regional stability more broadly. In this respect, I note the public testimony by the Director of the CIA, Mr. Goss, on February 16, 2005, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. At that time he pointed out that Beijing's military modernization and military buildup is tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait and that improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region.

H.R. 3100 would address these continuing serious concerns in several ways. First, the bill would ensure Congress has the information it needs from the executive branch concerning foreign support for Chinese weapons acquisitions. Under H.R. 3100, the President would henceforth submit an annual report to Congress on European companies that are aiding China's military buildup and on European governments whose policies condone these sales.

Second, for those European companies and governments that continue dangerous arms relationships with China, the bill would expand U.S. export license requirements and increase congressional oversight in certain circumstances. This will ensure that access to sensible U.S. weapons technology is monitored carefully in the case of foreign companies that are also suppliers to Chinese military programs. As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services noted during our April 14 hearing, the technology control plans which govern access to our weapons technology by foreign contractors who are also aiding the Chinese could be very challenging, if not ``mission impossible.''

Third, the President would be given new authority to help deter future European arms-related sales, should enhanced procedural safeguards not be enough. H.R. 3100 provides a menu of measures the President could draw upon in limiting access of culpable persons to U.S. weapons technology.

Significantly, H.R. 3100 would not have a retroactive character. It will not reach back. This is because the bill is not intended to be punitive; its primary purpose is deterrence. In this context, the optimal report Congress could receive is one in which no European company or government is named. However, if EU member states do not make it possible for this to happen, the President would be in a position to take other steps in consultation with the Congress to safeguard our security interests.

Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 3100.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enclose two letters relating to the consideration of H.R. 3100 The East Asia Security Act.''

House of Representatives, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2005.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill

H.R. 3100 ``The East Asia Security Act of 2005''. The

Committee has marked up the bill and ordered it reported by a

unanimous vote.

Under Rule X of the House Rules the Committee on Ways and

Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning imports. One

provision under Section 7 of H.R. 3100 may suspend the

President's ability to use a license exemption or expedited

procedure for licensing of the temporary importation of

defense articles, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Ways and Means.

In the interest of permitting this Committee to proceed

expeditiously to the floor consideration of this bill, I

request your Committee waive its right to sequential referral

on this matter. I understand that such a waiver only applies

to this language in this bill, and not to the underlying

subject matter. I will urge the Speaker to name Members of

your Committee to any conference committee which is named to

consider this bill.

I appreciate your willingness to allow us to proceed. I

will insert this exchange of letters into the Congressional

Record during the debate of this bill.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.