Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This en bloc amendment has been prepared in coordination with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, and all the changes it contains are noncontroversial and make either technical, clarifying, or minor changes. The en bloc contains adjustments to section 205 regarding surcharges on the U.S. passport based on the sound recommendation of the Committee on Ways and Means. We appreciate the contributions the Committee on Ways and Means made to further refine the purpose of section 205. As a matter of budget policy, it is important that fees that are collected and retained by the State Department are collected and used for a specific purpose. This amendment also makes some useful additions to section 1021 by adding to the sense of Congress that the al-Manar TV station in Lebanon poses a threat because Hezbollah uses the station to recruit terrorists and adds to the report section efforts taken to end broadcasts by al-Manar. The en bloc also includes a clarification that licenses shall be required under an arms embargo when dual-use goods or technology are knowingly sold or transferred for military end use to the military intelligence or other security forces of the embargoed government.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment attaches the Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, passed by this Chamber on June 17 to H.R. 2601. The Hyde United Nations Reform Act addresses key areas such as streamlining the budget, strengthening accountability and oversight, restoring credibility and integrity to the United Nations human rights bodies, strengthening IAEA monitoring and compliance apparatus, addressing sexual abuse and exploitation scandals with U.N. peacekeepers and injustices toward Israel, areas that no one denies must be reformed. From the debate that took place 4 weeks ago, there is no question that Members of this body agree the U.N. is in desperate need of reform. As discussed, corruption is rampant. Look no further than the ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal. U.N. peacekeepers have sexually abused children in Bosnia, Congo, Haiti, and Sierra Leone. A culture of concealment makes rudimentary oversight virtually impossible. A casual attitude toward conflict of interest rules undermines trust in the U.N.'s basic governance. If you recall, the debate focused very little on what the U.N. needs to do to reform itself and instead very much on how. We should ensure these reforms are actually implemented. There was a lengthy exchange on the issue of withholding of dues, and I want to make it clear that Congress must take action to withhold dues if we truly want to see the U.N. reformed. To do less, to set forth aspirational suggestions or to cede total congressional authority of the power of the purse to the executive branch would send a clear message that Congress does not think the U.N. is doing too bad a job, that Congress does not really care how the U.N. spends taxpayer money, and the U.N. can continue operating under the status quo. Let me also be clear: the withholdings called for are not immediate. The United Nations has 2 years to get its act together before certification kicks in; and then, if the U.N. implements 32 of the reforms, no funds are withheld. The U.N. has another year to accomplish the remaining 14 reforms before any withholdings would occur. That is a total of 3 years. A reasonable person would have to ask, is this not enough time? When is enough enough? Are we serious about U.N. reform, or not? History shows that when Congress stands tough, when it says if you do not reform, we are not going to pay, then change occurs. Look at the Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in the mid-80s. That amendment eventually led to the implementation of consensus-based budgeting, a reform that no one said could be achieved. What about UNESCO? We withdrew in protest. We stopped paying our assessed dues. Let me repeat, we stopped paying our assessed dues. Reforms of that agency were made, and we rejoined. Does anyone remember the genesis of the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the middle 1990s? The U.S. threatened to withhold funding. Lo and behold, the U.N. created an oversight function. Even with Helms-Biden, Congress leveraged the fact that in order for us to pay arrears the U.N. had to undertake certain reforms. All of these requirements were legislated and directed actions which resulted in reforms that were actually implemented. Let the lesson be lost on no one: Congress taking action to withhold dues equals reform of the U.N. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I just want to briefly respond to the comments of my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), on the U.N. amendment. If you are serious about reforming the U.N., and we all say that we are, then you have to have some leverage over them. More resolutions, we have endured a blizzard of resolutions and rhetoric about reform, but nothing ever happens. It just gets worse and worse. Look at Oil-For-Food. But the way to get reform is to threaten them with cutting off the money pipeline. It has worked in the past; it will work again. Now, this does not mean that it is going to happen. This bill, if it goes anywhere, has to go through the other body, then through a conference. You go into those things with as much strength as you can, and it seems to me that we ought to do that with U.N. reform. But if we do not cut off the money if they fail to get certifications on 46 points that we all agree are essentially reform, we do not dispute, the Democrats and Republicans, the need for reform nor the items of reform. The dispute is how to implement. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) suggests to leave it up to the Secretary of State to have a waiver or not. My suggestion is, legislate the withholding if they do not live up to reform. What is more likely to get reform? In any event, I hope that we will support the U.N. reform bill that puts some teeth into the implementation. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I just want to say to my good friend that it is not on automatic pilot. There are 3 years over which there is time to comply, the U.N. can comply. So that is a pretty slow automatic. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When H.R. 3100, the East Asia Security Act of 2005, fell short last week of the two-thirds' majority required under suspension of the rules, it was a welcome development for the People's Republic of China. It was also good news for European firms seeking ever more lucrative arms contracts with China. Since the vote took place on July 14, Bastille Day, it was a very good day for the French, who had been championing European arms sales to China as a way of balancing U.S. influence. But, most assuredly, it was the wrong outcome for U.S. national security, and that is why I am bringing this matter up again today as an amendment to the State Department bill. I am very honored to be joined on this amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democratic member of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. I am also delighted that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business, now joins in cosponsoring the East Asia Security Act. Certain changes have been made to make it abundantly clear that its purpose and provisions relate to international transfers of armaments and associated technology to China, and not to normal commercial trade involving the civilian economy. Some Members may believe the bill could be stronger, and no doubt it could be stronger, and it may become necessary to do that in future years. But for now, I am persuaded the legislation does what is needed to reflect the profound concerns we have about European arms technology in China's growing arsenal. It also provides a legislative framework for managing this issue, which a majority of both parties can strongly endorse. The right outcome for our national security interests is to add the East Asia Security Act to the State bill by adopting this amendment. This will send a strong message to European companies that their arms sales to China must stop. It will let China know it must cease its unjustified and threatening military buildup. Most importantly, it will assure our Armed Forces deployed in East Asia that their security is not subordinate to any commercial interest, foreign or domestic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HYDE

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

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

Mr. HYDE. 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. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 191) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the War in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. 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 H. Con. Res. 191.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the 60th anniversary of the final victory in one of the greatest campaigns for the preservation of freedom in the history of the world. The heroic struggle of America's Greatest Generation and the peoples of the allied countries to defeat the scourge of Fascist militarism and liberate millions from its iron fist was the most monumental endeavor of the entire 20th century. World leaders quite properly gathered in Moscow on May 9 to commemorate V-E Day, the 60th anniversary of the victory in Europe. We certainly join in honoring our heroic veterans of the D-Day landing and those of the entire Atlantic theater for their valiant efforts to liberate the people of Continental Europe, especially those trapped in death camps from Nazi tyranny. We should well remember, however, that for the American people, the Second World War neither began nor ended in Europe. For our Nation, the war began on a quiet Sunday morning in Hawaii, when the U.S. was suddenly and deliberately attacked at Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 lives were lost, including those buried in the sunken hull of the battleship USS Arizona. These dead represent the greatest number of American casualties in any such attack prior to September 11, 2001, another date which will live in infamy. The war for America did not end on May 19 with the defeat of the axis powers in Europe. The battle for Okinawa, the largest sea-land air battle in history was largely fought after the surrender in Europe. It was not until General Douglas McArthur crossed the deck of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay to accept the final surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945, that America and the world were finally at peace. V-E Day had been the beginning of the end, but V-J Day was the final victory. I stand in strong support, therefore, for this concurrent resolution, which gives equal recognition to veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theatres as inscribed in the World War II Memorial which was dedicated last year on our National Mall. This resolution calls upon generations of Americans who followed those who fought and died in this historic conflict to pause and give remembrance to the sacrifices of the greatest generation as the 60th anniversary of V-J Day approaches. The events of that war are slowly fading, and a distant memory, rekindled only in our national consciousness by readings in history textbooks or by clips from old war films, therefore we must assure, through commemorations like the one contained in this resolution that the sacrifices of the World War II generation are never diminished or never forgotten. We here today should dedicate ourselves to preserving these memories, even as we stand once again to thank our World War II veterans for their sacrifice and their valor. As Americans reflect on the decades of unparalleled stability and prosperity following the aftermath of the Second World War, they may recall the words of the great British Scientist, Sir Isaac Newton who said, ``If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.'' The blessings we enjoy today come from standing on the shoulders of those giants who fought, bled and died 6 decades ago so we might be free. And so to all those who fought, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude. Their legacy today is a peaceful and increasingly prosperous Asian Pacific region, where democratic institutions have taken root and market economies have flourished. Their gift to us is an America which still stands as a beacon of liberty to the people of Asia who remember well the horrors inflicted by the coming of the Second World War. With pride and boundless gratitude do we acknowledge the unpayable debt we all owe to veterans, who together with our allies and those on the home front, won the final victory which we commemorate today. Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has been incredibly generous in his remarks, and I would like to comment on his history for the edification of our colleagues. Hitler's forces occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944. Along with the Nazi invaders came the notorious Adolf Eichmann, with orders to exterminate the Jewish population of Hungary. A 16-year-old boy viewing these somber events decided he had to take a stand. He joined the Hungarian underground, a loose-knit group which was made up of small clusters of individuals. Sent to a work camp to perform forced labor to maintain a railway bridge, this boy was the sole survivor of an allied bombing raid. ``I was convinced I would not survive,'' the boy recalled. But fate had greater things in store for this young hero. Escaping from the camp, the young man made his way to Budapest where he joined Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in his rescue operation to save much of the Jewish community of Hungary. The young man ran operations for the underground carrying food and medicine through Nazi lines to Jews hiding throughout the city. After the war, the young man was reunited with his childhood friend, who was to become his wife, Annette. Together they immigrated to America to start a new life. Fortunately for all of us on the International Relations Committee and in Congress and in America, that brave lad from Budapest is here with us today. After a distinguished academic career in California, the same determination which kept him alive at the bombed out railway bridge has now brought him to Congress, where he serves as the ranking Democratic member of the International Relations Committee. For his courage in war, for his service in peace, especially here in Congress, I would like to express sincere and profound appreciation to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos.) Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 356) condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in London, England, on July 7, 2005.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).