The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2415, AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H5680-H5684 on July 15, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2415, AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT
OF 1999
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 247
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the first amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Gilman or his designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against that amendment are waived. After disposition of that amendment, the provisions of the bill as then amended shall be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. No further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution. Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 2415, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 886 and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are waived.
{time} 0010
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 247 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations.
In addition, the rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the first amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) or his designee.
This amendment, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment. Further, this amendment shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and all points of order are waived against that amendment.
The rule also provides that no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the Committee on Rules report and the amendments en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution.
The rule provides that each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. Each amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Further, the rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendment numbered 4 through 41 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, or germane modifications of any such amendment which shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be reported, and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and control by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations or their designees.
The en bloc amendments shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Also, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
The rule further provides that after passage of H.R. 2415, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill, S. 886, and to consider the Senate bill in the House. The rule waives all points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration.
Finally, the rule provides that it shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are waived.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why we are making H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999, in order as the base text. Unfortunately, H.R. 1211, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, as reported by the Committee on International Relations, increased discretionary spending in excess of what the committee was allowed to spend under the budget.
In full consultation with the minority on the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) introduced H.R. 2415 on July 1 to make their bill comply with the budget.
Also on July 1, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) announced on the House floor and the Committee on Rules sent out a Dear Colleague informing Members of the likely consideration of this new bill, H.R. 2415, this week. In this announcement, Members were advised that their amendments should be drafted to 2415 and not 1211.
I hope that this clears up any confusion over the process involved with with today's legislation.
In considering amendments, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules was as fair and open as possible, while keeping the commitment made to refrain from allowing any U.N. arrearages amendments or Mexico City policy amendments.
Aside from the manager's amendment, which was given waivers so that it may be considered separately, as opposed to being self-executed by the rule, only amendments which would have otherwise been in order under an open rule were allowed. In fact, of the 50 amendments filed before the Committee on Rules, we were able to make 41 of them in order. Twenty-two from Democrats, 12 from Republicans, and 7 bipartisan amendments have been made in order. I believe this is a generous composition, and I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and my colleagues on the committee for reaching this balance.
I am pleased to support, Mr. Speaker, this fair rule, which brings forth very important legislation aimed at providing U.S. diplomats, security agents, and law enforcement personnel the ability to safely defend U.S. interests around the world.
Among the many strong points in this legislation, I am pleased to see that we are taking effective steps toward enhancing security at our embassies. I know none of us would like to relive the tragedies that occurred almost a year ago in some of our embassies in Africa, and I believe H.R. 2415 will provide necessary resources to help prevent such acts of terrorism.
I am also encouraged that the bill is moving in the right direction in our fight against narco-trafficking by requiring the Clinton administration to inform Congress on the extent, the genuine extent of international narcotics trafficking through Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also correctly expresses the sense of Congress, and I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on this, that the U.S. should increase its support for pro-democracy and human rights activists in Cuba. The time has clearly come to implement a plan to assist the brave internal opposition in Cuba like the administration of President Reagan did with such brilliance with the Polish opposition during the dark years of martial law there.
This rule is not without precedent, Mr. Speaker. In the 103rd Congress, at the request of the Committee on International Relations chairman, the State Department authorization bill was considered under a structured rule. I look forward to a vigorous debate on this bill.
I see that a primary author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is here and will address us, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). It is an honor to serve with both of them in this House, and I look forward to listening to them, as I am sure all of our colleagues do, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. It will allow for the consideration of H.R. 2415, which is a bill that authorizes funding for the operations of the State Department in fiscal year 2000.
As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has explained, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, which will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations.
Only amendments specified in the report of the Committee on Rules to accompany this rule will be permitted to be offered on the House floor. The bill authorizes more than $1 billion for much needed improvements in the security of U.S. missions abroad, and in order to carry out foreign policy, our diplomats and their staffs in other countries must be able to work without fear.
Last April I was in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and was astonished at the low security in the American Embassy there. This was as precarious as any I have ever seen in some of the embassies I have visited. The embassy's vulnerability is compounded by the unrest that is common in the city. I hope that the money from this bill will be used to improve the security in our Cambodian embassy.
Though this rule is restrictive, the Committee on Rules made in order nearly all of the germane amendments that were submitted in advance. I am pleased that the committee was generous in making in order a large number of Democratic amendments.
{time} 0020
Unfortunately, the bill does not authorize the United States to pay the Dreierback dues it owes to the United Nations. This is a major embarrassment for the United States. We owe more than $1 billion to the United Nations, going back almost a decade. We are the world's greatest superpower, but also the world's biggest deadbeat.
For all its faults, the United Nations is one of the best hopes for world peace. The UN's food and health programs have improved the lives of countless people. We should be supporting the UN, not causing a financial drain.
If we do not pay our back dues, eventually we will lose our vote in the UN General Assembly. We cannot let that happen.
The Senate version of the State Department Reauthorization Act, as passed by the committee, does include some money to pay back our back dues to the UN. I hope that the Senate language will prevail in conference.
One of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment I plan to offer expressing the sense of Congress in support of humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma.
Earlier this year, I visited humanitarian projects in Burma. I also met with government leaders, the leader of that country's democracy movement, and humanitarian aid workers. I heard a lot about hunger and disease in Burma.
President Reagan said, ``A hungry child knows no politics.'' That is every bit as true in Burma as it is anywhere else in the world. The people of Burma have the added misfortune of not living under a democracy. My amendment affirms the concern of Congress for the people of Burma without endorsing the policies of their government.
I urge adoption of the rule and of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating, not only the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his superb management of this rule, but also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the vice chairman of the committee who joins us here, and the entire Committee on Rules staff, well not the entire staff, but many members of the Committee on Rules staff who are here.
I am proud of the fact that we, well many hours ago, opened this legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. We are ending what will be this legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. In just about 8\1/2\ short hours, we will be beginning the next legislative day with work of the House Committee on Rules. So we thank them very much. We enjoy this support and enthusiasm.
We also have a Committee on Rules member and staff members of the minority side who are here.
So I think that it is a great testimony to the hard work of this very important committee, which I am proud to chair.
As has been said by both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we were able to make a large number of amendments in order for the minority. In fact, by a 22 to 12 ratio, the Democrats are favored when it comes to amendments here. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) said, we have seven bipartisan amendments.
Now, frankly, this is a very, very serious measure. It was just a little less than a year ago that we saw the tragic bombings that took place in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. It had a very, very devastating effect on, not only Americans here at home, but obviously on any American who was overseas.
This bill is designed to ensure that those Americans who proudly stand and represent the greatest Nation on the face of the earth and missions around the world have enhanced safety as they proceed with that very important work.
I want to say that we have successfully seen the demise of the Soviet Union and an end to the Cold War due in large part to the stellar leadership of President's Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
We have, however, come to the realization that we do not live in a world that is free of any kind of threat. We not only face military threats, but we of course, as this bill addresses, continue to face the threat of terrorism.
So it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead with, again, what I believe to be a very fair and balanced rule.
I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), all of whom are again here at this late hour to help us proceed with debate on the rule.
Then we will, in the coming days, consider this important legislation. I hope that we will finally be able to see this bill, the State Department authorization language, become public law, which is something to which many of us have aspired for a long period of time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the Committee on Rules for their excellent job in presenting this measure to the floor at this time. We thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his astute leadership, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our distinguished chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the ranking minority member, for being here with us today, and the staff members, at this late hour as well as the staff of our Committee on International Relations.
I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act. The Committee on Rules, as I indicated, has done an outstanding job in working through the process to produce a fair rule. This rule, although technically structured, accommodates most all of the submitted amendments, and I think we will have some 40 amendments before us before we are done.
We have a very important bill to be considered by the House, one that will provide the authorization of funds to invest in the security of our Nation's personnel overseas and their workplaces, the 260 United States embassies and consulates around the world.
This bill also authorizes the operations and programs of the United States Department of State that will allow this agency to conduct diplomatic relations to provide our U.S. citizens services, passports, screen visa applicants, and provide antiterrorism assistance.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the rule if they support securing the lives of our American citizens and foreign national employees presently serving overseas.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me time on the rule for the American Embassy Security Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address my concerns briefly with regard to U.S.- India relations and how this legislation would affect that vitally important relationship between the world's two largest democracies.
The rule makes in order a manager's amendment introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. This manager's amendment contains an important provision regarding the sanctions that were imposed last year on India and Pakistan following the nuclear tests conducted by the two South Asian nations.
It would extend for another year the waiver authority provided for under the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, giving the President the authority to waive the unilateral U.S. sanctions that were proposed pursuant to the Glenn amendment of the Arms Export Control Act.
I wanted to stress, however, I believe we should be going further than the 1-year extension provided for in this legislation. Recently, the Senate approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill that would suspend for 5 years the sanctions against India and Pakistan as opposed to continuing to waive the sanctions for only 1 year.
{time} 0030
When we discussed the legislation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Security Assistance Act, in the House about a month ago, the chairman indicated his support for lifting the sanctions on a longer-term basis, and I look forward to working with him on that effort.
But, Mr. Speaker, the rule also makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that would prohibit foreign military assistance to countries which fail to support the U.S. at least 25 percent of the time in the U.N. General Assembly. I hope the House will defeat this amendment.
According to the Goodling amendment, the sole method for determining how pro- or anti-U.S. a country is would be how the country votes in the U.N. General Assembly. This is largely an irrelevant way of determining who our friends and foes are, in my opinion. Under the Goodling amendment, all of our other diplomatic political strategic or economic interests would be sacrificed to the mostly symbolic indicator of General Assembly votes, often on issues of peripheral importance.
In practical terms, the Goodling amendment would serve as a symbolic slap at India at a time when Congress is working on a bipartisan basis to lift the unilateral sanctions imposed on India last year, as evidenced by the manager's amendment; and enactment of the Goodling amendment would set back much of the progress we are trying to make. It would be seen as purely a punitive action, creating an atmosphere of distrust that would make it much more difficult to achieve vitally important goals.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are adopted by consensus. When we count those votes, India votes with the U.S. 84 percent of the time. If we look at the votes identified as important by our State Department, including the consensus votes, India is with us 75 percent of the time. And India also cooperates with the U.S. on a wide range of other U.N. activities, ranging from health issues to cultural and scientific matters. India has sent significant troop contingents to various peacekeeping missions around the world.
But the U.N. is only a small part of the story of how the U.S. and India work in partnership. Passage of the Goodling amendment would create a poisonous atmosphere that would set back these other efforts.
Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, in conclusion, most of the other countries that would be affected by this amendment are already barred from receiving U.S. assistance under various sanctions; and thus, realistically, the Goodling amendment would cut $130,000 in IMET funding to one country, India, a democracy that shares many of our values.
When we get to debate and votes on the bill, I hope we will approve provisions to build on the significant issues that unite America and India and not magnify our minor disagreements.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for managing this rule, and I also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his statements as well.
I also wish to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, both of whom have been very instrumental in working on this bill. And my thanks also to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), who is a cosponsor of this legislation. She is the ranking member of our subcommittee, and we have worked very cooperatively on this legislation as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the prime sponsor of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act. This legislation is the result of four hearings that we held, several days of markup in both subcommittee and full committee, and several weeks of negotiations with our friends on the other side of the aisle. Virtually every member of the committee had some input, had provisions that he or she thought should be included.
We worked very, very hard during a lengthy process. And Joseph Rees, my chief of staff and general counsel, and other members of the full committee on the other side of the aisle all worked in a cooperative way to try to craft a bipartisan bill.
The bill's unifying theme is about the promotion of American values. I am particularly proud that the bill authorizes $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 in security upgrades for our missions and for our personnel around the world. This is the worldwide security budget recommended by Admiral Crowe's commission, which was charged with investigating the terrorist bombings of our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania and determining how to protect our embassies and overseas personnel from future attacks.
Unfortunately, the administration recommended only $290 million for embassy security in its fiscal year 2000 budget, about one-fifth of the Crowe recommendation, and a fifth of what Congress appropriated last year. So without this bill, we would have faced an 80 percent cut from the recommendation in security of our overseas missions and personnel.
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that if our Congress has one single responsibility with respect to foreign policy, and to me this is the most important, it is the protection of our people who work overseas in our embassies, our consulates, and other missions. They have to be our priority number one. This bill reflects that concern.
Let me also point out that we held, as part of those hearings, a hearing on March 12 on the security of U.S. missions abroad. Admiral Crowe testified, and I would like to just quote him briefly in talking about security, ``the Boards were most disturbed regarding two interconnected issues,'' he said. ``The first of these was the inadequacy of the resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and the second was the relatively low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. Government and by the Department of State.'' He also pointed out, and I just want to continue quoting him, that he found it very ``troubling,'' the failure of the U.S. Government to take the necessary steps to prevent such tragedies, talking about the time since Bobby Inman's report on terrorism.
We also heard, Mr. Speaker, from David Carpenter, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the United States Department of State, and he pointed out, and I quote briefly, ``The terrorist threat is global, lethal, multidimensional and growing. Our analysts estimate that during the 12-month period, there were over 2,400 threats or incidents against U.S. interests overseas. Their estimate for the same period for a year ago,'' he goes on, ``is approximately 1,150 such threats or incidents. This is an increase of over 100 percent in the past year.''
We also heard at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, from Daniel Geisler, who is the President of the American Foreign Service Association, and he pointed out that our core message to the committee, to the Congress, to all of us is that we must commit ourselves to never again suffer needless loss of life from terrorism and directed violence. He pointed out in his testimony that he had ``grave doubts,'' and I am quoting him now,
``that this failure will be corrected. Our doubts were heightened by the administration's grossly inadequate request for funds to build safer embassies. The fiscal year 2000 budget request,'' he goes on,
``does not have a single penny for construction funds, even though the State Department has proposed that OMB request $1.4 billion for worldwide security.''
This legislation meets that commitment of $1.4 billion, and I think it is very important. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) had a hand in this, and we all are working to make sure that that happens. We hope the appropriators will do likewise.
The bill also promotes American values by promoting human rights and protecting refugees. We authorize a modest increase for refugee protection, bringing the total to $750 million. And at a time when the world seems awash in refugees, we must do our fair share.
I think it is worth noting that year after year the State Department has requested and gotten a raise for its own operating expenses, while at the same time cutting the budget for refugee protection. Our bill includes special provisions for protection of refugees from Kosovo, Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, and Sierra Leone, as well as refugees resettling in Israel.
We also single out the grossly underfunded Human Rights Bureau for an increase as well. This bureau of the State Department is charged with ensuring that the protection of fundamental human rights is afforded its rightful place in our foreign policy; yet it has only 65 employees, about half the size of the Office of Public Affairs and about the same size as the Office of Protocol.
Mr. Speaker, the $7 million the Department now spends on human rights in its bureau is only slightly more than half the amount, and that is
$12 million, it plans to spend on public relations next year. If human rights matter, we ought to be putting more not less resources into the bureau charged with seeing to it that our embassies abroad and also the reporting and our message is that human rights do matter.
The bill further promotes American values by permanently authorizing Radio Free Asia, which would otherwise be required to close its doors on September 30 of this year. It continues the effort to ensure 24-hour freedom broadcasting into the People's Republic of China, and will also make possible additional RFA broadcasts to the people of North Korea and Vietnam. It also ensures the survival of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty into the next millennium and increases funding for the National Endowment for Democracy.
{time} 0040
Mr. Speaker, these relatively small programs are among the most cost effective of efforts to promote freedom and democracy around the world.
H.R. 2415 also directs that our international exchange programs be conducted in a way that again promotes American values and fundamental beliefs. It authorizes carefully targeted exchange programs for the peoples of Tibet, Burma, East Timor, and sub-Saharan Africa. It requires that all of our exchange programs be administered so as to prevent them from being taken advantage of by spies and thugs from totalitarian governments and to include more people who are genuinely open to the principles of freedom and democracy.
There are a number of amendments that will be offered. There will be an amendment that will get an hour's time on the United Nations Population Fund. I continue to believe that until the U.N. Population Fund gets out of China and stops its complicity with the most brutal and barbaric programs that have been used against women that we should stop our funding, as we did last year, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way.
The current law for fiscal year 1999 that was signed by the President says no money to the UNFPA, and our language says no money again unless they get out of China. And we will have that debate, of course, when that amendment is offered next week.
This is a bipartisan bill. I support the rule, as well.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 2415 and, of course, the legislation.
I want to particularly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the members of the Committee on Rules and their staff for crafting a very fair, thorough, well-structured rule. I know that they gave intense and very thorough consideration to the amendments that are offered. They will make it easier for the Committee on International Relations to discharge its duties and to pass an authorization bill for the State Department and related agencies.
I think it is particularly appropriate that the legislation is indeed called the American Embassy Security Act. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) explained, the chairman of the relevant subcommittee, this is a priority for our committee. It should be a priority for the Congress and the American people.
Those of us who visit the embassies, the consulates and missions abroad have on our conscience the concerns about the security of our personnel working abroad. They need attention. We have seen too many problems that exist today.
We have, as the gentleman from New Jersey emphasized, authorized the full amount requested and suggested by the distinguished commission led by Admiral Crowe. We believe that is appropriate emphasis. We look forward to the debate on the legislation upcoming.
Again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for their excellent job in crafting this fair rule, which will bring the legislation before the floor.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, supporting the underlying legislation, as well as the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
