Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. 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?

Mr. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS. 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. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for offering this very valuable and important amendment. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has undertaken numerous post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Haiti, Somalia, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the dangerous and ever-changing world we live in, we will most surely have to undertake many more similar operations. Today, we witness numerous international crises that, if left ignored, will most certainly threaten not only the security of the United States, but the entire world. We need to look no further than September 11, 2001, to understand why the failure to respond adequately to weak and failed states can have catastrophic consequences for our country. In 2004, in response to the threat of failing and post-conflict states and our national and international security interests, the administration established the Office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to enhance our Nation's institutional capability to respond to crises involving failing, failed, post- conflict countries, and complex emergencies. The Dreier amendment will enhance our capacity to support reconstruction and stabilization activities in conflict and post- conflict countries by establishing an Active Response Corps. This will consist of United States Government personnel with the training and expertise to participate in stabilization and reconstruction activities, thereby improving our capacity to assist countries in recovering from conflict. It will be a critically important weapon in our arsenal in supporting post-conflict countries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is of critical importance that the United States not be outgunned or outmaneuvered by narcotics traffickers either in the streets of our towns or on the high seas. It is very disturbing to learn that drug traffickers are in fact developing their own navies with at-sea refueling capabilities for their drug cargo vessels, yet our own Coast Guard is not similarly equipped when it hunts and pursues these deep water vessels in the eastern Pacific. This amendment will authorize $50 million for the next two fiscal years to the Department of State International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau to purchase or lease a maritime refueling support vessel to refuel U.S. Coast Guard and other drug interdiction vessels in the eastern Pacific. In the drug war, unilateral disarmament is the worst position to be in. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a serious and hard-working member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The changes entailed in this amendment are technical, noncontroversial, and fully acceptable to our side.

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

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

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I briefly would like to respond to both of my good friends. We are not offering a resolution. Our legislation is identical to the Republican legislation. The only difference is that your punitive provision is automatic; our punitive provision provides discretion to the Secretary of State to implement it or not. So please do not talk about resolutions. We are not talking about toothless resolutions. Our legislation is as binding as the Republican legislation is. We just do not put it on autopilot. The guillotine does not fall automatically; it is put in the hands of a singularly intelligent Secretary of State. With respect to the long list of items that my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, outlined, every single one of them is part of our legislation. Every single one of them is part of our legislation. The only difference is that the Republican proposal, looking years ahead into the future, automatically mandates a 50 percent cut in funding if only one of 46 goals is not achieved. Our legislation allows the Secretary of State to implement that provision as she sees fit. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 as it was reported out of committee. At the outset I want to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for conducting the complex discussions and debates leading to this legislation with statesmanlike dignity. Mr. Chairman, today our great Nation continues to face a grave terrorist threat. Despite our many successes at disrupting al Qaeda and other violent and brutal Islamic extremists, our determination to defeat terror remains unshakable, and we know we shall prevail in this struggle. We saw a tragic demonstration of terror this month in London's underground and on its famed double-decker buses. While a number of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants have been captured and killed, he remains at large, as do otherkey terrorist figures. In this security environment, Mr. Chairman, legislation on foreign policy should be bipartisan. And our legislation, passed unanimously by the Committee on International Relations by a vote of 44 to 0, is a tribute to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and his effort to work in a bipartisan fashion. Chairman Hyde has outlined many of the features of our legislation, and I will merely add a footnote. To address the dangers of terrorist attacks on our embassies, which are the platform abroad for every agency of the U.S. Government, our bill fully funds the administration's request for worldwide embassy security. Mr. Chairman, in 2003, when an extremist involved in attacks against the British consulate in Istanbul and other British facilities was captured, he said that he had explored the U.S. consulate as a possible target but had decided to move elsewhere, and I quote, ``Because even a bird cannot fly into the U.S. embassy.'' This statement is a dramatic demonstration that our embassy security program, begun after the East Africa bombings in 1998, is bearing fruit. I am pleased that our bill fully funds the administration's request for the State Department and contains most of the provisions that Secretary Rice has requested and needs to help her administer the Department more effectively. Our bill, Mr. Chairman, also launches a critical initiative to address the key issue of disrupting nuclear black markets. The Nuclear Black Market Elimination Act, which is included in our bill, authorizes sanctions against individuals and companies that provide nuclear enrichment technology to countries which do not have it or have not signed the additional IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, protocols relating to verification. Our initiative will help prevent nuclear weapons technology from getting into the hands of terrorists and rogue states, and clearly that is our most significant national security concern. Our bill contains provisions of the Missile Threat Reduction Act, which I introduced in the last Congress with the support of Chairman Hyde. These provisions are designed to confront the alarming spread of offensive ballistic missiles, which can be used for launching nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads. This measure commits the United States to seeking a new international mechanism to restrict the trade in missiles and components. It strengthens U.S. sanctions against those who trade in missiles, and it provides assistance to countries that agree to destroy their missile arsenals. Let me just say a word, Mr. Chairman, about another important initiative in our bill, the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005. I introduced a version of this legislation earlier this year with my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my cochairman of the congressional Human Rights Caucus. We consulted extensively with democracy experts, former diplomats, and U.S. Government officials. I am delighted to report that our work stimulated much discussion about how the U.S. Government could organize better to promote democracy around the globe. With invaluable input from Chairman Hyde, the ADVANCE Democracy Act that is included as part of this legislation will require forward- looking strategies for democracy promotion, enhanced training for our diplomats, and increased resources for those who are responsible for democracy promotion. We trust that our bill will help institutionalize the advancement of democracy throughout the U.S. Government. Mr. Chairman, our bill also provides support for the next critical phase in Afghanistan's transition from chaos, civil war, and disorder to an increasingly prosperous and democratic state by providing assistance for that country's upcoming parliamentary elections. Continued attention from the international community on this critical next step is essential if reformers are not to be intimidated by narcotraffickers and warlords. Given the general bipartisan nature of our legislation, Mr. Chairman, I regret that the majority has decided to offer some ill-advised partisan amendments to our bill. In particular, I am profoundly disappointed that a U.N. reform amendment, virtually identical to the bill considered and barely passed by a sharply divided House last month, is going to be offered. I see no need to debate this controversial and divisive topic yet another time. The House has already spoken. This amendment requires withholding 50 percent of our contributions to the United Nations if any one of 46 conditions is not fully implemented. During debates earlier, I called this an automatic guillotine, and it certainly has not changed since that debate. Adding this amendment threatens to undermine bipartisan support for our legislation. I will oppose this amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting against it. Mr. Chairman, we are considering this important legislation at a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. We are engaged in intense diplomacy on every continent. We are working to resolve long-festering disputes and crises in North Korea, in Iran, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Congo, in Colombia, and countless other places. And we are doing this in the midst of a critical conflict against the violent forces of nihilism and bloodthirsty Islamic fanaticism. I believe that enactment of our legislation will provide important tools that can help resolve these international disputes and crises. I continue to hope that at the end of this legislative process we will all be able to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is important the drug kingpins of Afghanistan who are the source of so much misery, corruption, and continued instability in that long-suffering nation come to fear that they will be brought to justice. Unfortunately, there is as yet no functioning legal or penal system in Afghanistan, and there may not be one for some time to come. In many cases, extradition of these drug kingpins to the United States to face trial may be the only justice they will face. This amendment requires our Secretary of State to submit a report describing all pending United States requests for extradition from Afghanistan of illicit drug traffickers and kingpins who are under indictment in the United States as well as the response from the government of Afghanistan. This will be the first necessary step in determining how best we in Congress may address this issue with the government in Afghanistan, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.