Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3057, the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations appropriations bill, and I want to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his hard work in putting together this bill. The good working relationship we share is evident in the product we present to the House today.

The President's fiscal year 2006 request, when compared with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, presented us with an array of difficult choices. Our allocation is a full $2.55 billion below the request level, and into this reduced allocation we had to fit increases in administration priorities, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief.

While I do believe that the bill reflects, for the most part, a bipartisan compromise on the distribution of resources, I feel that this allocation fails to meet our overall foreign policy and national security needs at a time when the world is facing greater instability due to disease, deprivation and conflict.

The world's attention is focused on the upcoming G-8 Summit, in which wealthy nations will announce new commitments to achieve development progress. It is in this context that we must consider the bill before us today. We must ask if it is sufficient to lead the community of developed nations in creating a new compact for global development; if it will make the United States the standard bearer in a renewed effort to lift the least fortunate among us out of poverty; if it represents the commitment we must make to achieving the good governance and adequate financial resources to address the world's challenges.

My colleagues, we did the best we could with what we had, and I commend the chairman for that, but it is not enough. We are missing an opportunity today to demonstrate that the United States understands not just the need but the urgency of beating back the AIDS pandemic, getting children in school, encouraging reformers and oppressive societies, an opportunity to show that we understand business as usual simply will not do the job and that we are willing to take dramatic steps to bring the rest of the world on board.

This bill will do a great deal of good for a lot of people. It will address many of the challenges around the world that most directly affect U.S. national security, but it is not the bold statement that we all know it could be. Nevertheless, I generally agree with my chairman on the spending levels recommended within the reduced allocation. We worked closely together to ensure that in the face of these devastating cuts, we at least level-funded child survival and health and development assistance priorities.

We provided an increase over the President's request for HIV/AIDS, doubling his request for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Although I wish we could have done more for the Global Fund, I believe we are doing the best we can with the resources we have. We provided $465 million for basic education. We continued the U.S. reconstruction program in Afghanistan, and we fully funded our commitments in the Middle East, a powerful statement at such a critical time in the peace process.

The message we have sent with this bill is clear: In contrast with the President's request, Congress will not increase funding for MCC and PEPFAR on the backs of our core development accounts.

I am pleased that we were also able to restore deep cuts the President requested in reproductive health programs. This bill provides $432 million of bilateral funding, the fiscal year 2005 House-passed level, and earmarks an additional $25 million in International Organizations and Program funds for the United Nations Population Fund. The bill further specifies that any funds for the UNFPA that cannot be spent should be transferred to USAID specifically for bilateral family planning programs, a provision we carried in the fiscal year 2004 bill as well.

As I said, I am also pleased that this bill provides a total of $465 million for basic education, $65 million more than the fiscal year 2005 level. And, once again, we provide $15 million for a pilot program to eliminate school fees and, for the first time, require a GAO study on our education programs to ensure that we maximize the effectiveness of our aid dollars.

This bill fully funds Israel's annual economic and military aid package, including early disbursal of these funds within 30 days of the bill's passage. It also includes language carried in previous years, placing conditions on U.S. support for any future Palestinian state. This year, the bill includes an additional provision requiring a GAO audit of the fiscal year 2006 West Bank and Gaza program, as well as a project-by-project plan from the State Department on how these funds are being spent. And it extends a reporting requirement included in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental on the Palestinians' progress in reforming their security services, dismantling terrorist groups, and ending incitement against Israel. I agree with the chairman that these provisions are critical to monitoring the results we achieve as well as the money we disburse.

I am proud that the bill and report carry a number of provisions aimed at increasing the U.S. commitment to fighting gender-based violence around the world, including in areas with high HIV infection rates and in areas undergoing conflict and civil strife. I want to thank the chairman for including a provision requiring police, judicial, and military training programs funded in the bill to develop training curricula on how to prevent and deal with victims of gender- based violence. And I am pleased that we were able to increase funding for UNIFEM and the UNIFEM Trust Fund to a total of $5 million.

I want to point out a few specific concerns, however, I have with the bill. First, it provides no funding to the Global Environmental Facility, GEF. The GEF is the largest single funder of projects to improve the global environment, and every dollar invested by the U.S. in the GEF leverages $14 from other sources.

I do understand why the chairman has proposed this cut. The GEF has dragged its feet in implementing a performance-based allocation system. And while I agree with the chairman's desire to send a message that we are serious about reform, I do believe cutting funding is not the right way to accomplish this. I hope we will have the opportunity to restore funding to the GEF as this bill moves to the Senate and through conference.

I am also concerned that the bill places no conditionality whatsoever on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and international military education and training for Guatemala. For the first time since Indonesian military-backed militias laid waste to East Timor in the wake of its August 1999 independence referendum, we will provide FMF to Indonesia free of any conditions. And despite the Guatemalan government's noncompliance with military reform stipulated in the Peace Accords, we have removed IMET restrictions on that country as well.

I regret that we were not able to fully fund the President's request for

refugees and peacekeeping. The reduced allocation simply made it impossible. I am pleased that we were able to provide additional funding as part of the fiscal year 2005 supplemental, and I am optimistic we can increase funding for these accounts in conference.

Let me also say that even though this bill provides no funding for Iraq reconstruction, I take seriously the role this committee plays in exercising oversight over this effort. Reports of wasted money and poor accounting for taxpayer funds are certainly alarming. Congress, and particularly this subcommittee, has a responsibility to ensure that these funds are used properly and efficiently, and the chairman and I will continue to make this a priority.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Senate's allocation for foreign operations is a full $1.6 billion above the House. It is my hope that this allocation will enable us to significantly increase funding for a number of critical priorities in the final conference measure.

I want to thank the chairman once again for being such a good partner in the process. I particularly want to thank him and wish him a very happy birthday from all of us. With few exceptions, I believe we have put together a good bill within the context of our difficult allocation.

I appreciate the gentleman's help and the work of the staff, Nisha, Betsy, Alice, Rodney, Rob, Lori, Sean, and Beth, in bringing this bill to the floor and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished new member of the committee.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California for raising this important issue. As I have said repeatedly throughout the process of moving this bill to the House floor, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not fulfill the U.S. commitment to the Global Environmental Facility.

Since its establishment in 1991, the GEF has provided $5 billion in grants, leveraged $16 billion in co-financing for projects in 140 countries around the world, has provided more than 4,000 grants directly to smaller organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion to the GEF over this same time frame.

The GEF is unique in its laser-like focus on environmental sustainability. It is the most effective way for the United States and other donor nations

to support biodiversity and prevent climate change.

House passage of the bill with no funding for the GEF will send a strong message, but I hope not the wrong message. I agree with the chairman that the U.S. should encourage transparency, responsibility, and accountability of the institution. And I hope that is what the international community takes away from today's debate.

However, I do believe that in cutting off all funding to the GEF, we run the risk of sending the message that the United States no longer supports the good work of the organization. I am pleased that today's discussion will clarify that this is not true, and I join the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) in looking forward to the August GEF Council meeting, which will hopefully include the adoption of a performance-based Resource Allocation Framework. I am optimistic that the Senate will do the right thing by the GEF and that we will be able to provide the requested levels in conference. I look forward to working with the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to see that this happens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a real advocate for the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority leader, who has been a strong advocate for the United States' increased role in the world today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), distinguished member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has been very active in a whole range of issues involving our foreign aid program.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California for raising this issue. I too am very concerned about the repressive and totalitarian turns that Zimbabwe has taken in recent years under Mr. Mugabe.

The decision to evict thousands of poor people from their homes and bulldoze their property is one of the worst forms of brutality Mr. Mugabe has used against his own people, who are already suffering from food shortages and economic stagnation. He is truly relentless in his effort to quash any opposition he perceives.

As the chairman has said, there is no U.S. funding for Mr. Mugabe's regime contained in the bill. However, at a time when Zimbabweans are suffering so much, I am loathe to place conditions or limitations on any assistance that might help the beleaguered people of the country and ease their isolation from the rest of the international community. I am particularly concerned about any limitations on HIV/AIDS programs which comprise the bulk of our assistance to Zimbabwe.

Once again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for raising this issue, and I hope to work with him and the chairman as the bill progresses.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for raising this important issue today. I agree with him that ensuring a robust level of funding for all of Latin America, particularly in the Child Survival and Development Assistance account, serves U.S. national interests. We need to remember that the challenges of development are not only found halfway around the world, they exist in America's own backyard as well.

I want the gentleman to know that the chairman and I worked hard to restore cuts proposed to these two accounts in the President's budget request, and it would be my expectation that the funding in this bill is sufficient to ensure that at least the fiscal year 2005 levels would be achieved. That was certainly our intent in working to avoid the proposed cuts.

I thank the gentleman again for raising this very important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I want to thank the gentlewoman for her commitment to combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic. She has been a strong and constant voice championing the cause of the poorest, and I agree with my colleague from California that more needs to be done to help address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) discussed the funding in the bill. However, we all agree, and I know the chairman agrees, that more needs to be done. And the U.N. has estimated the total resources needed to combat HIV/AIDS around the world to be $15 billion per year. An additional $5 billion is needed to combat TB and malaria. And while I do not believe that the United States can or should fulfill all of the need on our own, the amount that we are currently contributing, about 15 percent of the total need, is not representative of what we are capable of doing.

So although the Chair has mentioned, and I would agree that we have done as much as we possibly can in this bill, I would like to work with him, you, and certainly with the Chair to make sure that we continue to increase our commitment to HIV/AIDS. I thank the gentlewoman for entering into this colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises important issues. For the last several years, I have joined many of my colleagues in expressing concern about the composition of the U.S. aid package to Egypt. Why, at a time when Egypt has no major enemies, should we be providing over $1 billion each year in military assistance? Why, when Egypt lacks economic prosperity, should we maintain such a high level of military aid even as economic assistance levels drop?

In Cairo last week, Secretary of State Rice announced a new commitment to human rights in the Arab world, imploring the Egyptian Government to hold free and transparent elections and end human rights abuses, and I was very pleased to hear her remarks. For too long, we have coddled undemocratic regimes, looking the other way as democracy and freedom have been stifled.

Despite President Mubarak's pronouncements to the contrary, Egypt is a hotbed neither of democratic reform nor respect for the rights of the opposition.

In late May, members of the Egyptian movement Kifaya, which means ``enough'' in Arabic, were beaten and dragged through the street by a government-organized mob. Police stood by as women were sexually assaulted; and in some cases, police actively participated in beating and arresting protesters. What radical agenda does Kifaya have? Free, fair, and transparent elections.

Or consider the case of Ayman Nour, leader of a small Egyptian opposition party, who was jailed on charges of faking signatures to form his party. In the weeks leading up to his arrest, Nour had called for a constitutional overhaul to restrain Mubarak's powers.

Nour spent 42 days in prison being beaten and held under inhumane conditions and is awaiting a trial that will start next week.

The Egyptian record on human rights is rivaled by its record on incitement in the media. Even as diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt continue to progress, with the recent return of Egypt's ambassador to Israel, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks in the official Egyptian media persist, with claims of Holocaust exaggeration, Zionist-Nazi collaboration, and anti-Semitic canards.

The amendment sends the message that the status quo is not okay. Baby steps toward political reform are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. Tepid efforts to stop smuggling along Egypt's border with Gaza are not enough. Disclaimers that the Egyptian press is free and cannot be influenced by the government will not be believed.

The tide in the Middle East is turning toward democracy and freedom, toward rights for women and educational opportunities for children. The tide is turning toward peace between Israel and its neighbors, toward economic cooperation and coexistence.

Egypt has been part of this turning tide. It was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, and it is a needed partner in closing any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. But too often we have seen this powerful player in regional affairs place stumbling blocks in front of progress instead of easing the way.

We know Egypt is listening to our debate today. A lot is at stake. So the one message I have is this: great nations recognize when the changing times will leave them behind, and they stay ahead of the curve. I hope we will see the pace of reform quicken and the quality of cooperation increase in the coming weeks and months.

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

I am very pleased to present to the House H.R. 3057, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs. This bill provides important funding for programs that support the global war on terror, the battle against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and the national interests of the United States.

The bill includes a total of $20.3 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 2006. This represents a reduction of $2.6 billion, or 11 percent, from the President's budget request. The bill is $533 million above the fiscal year 2005-enacted level, not including the most recent supplemental appropriations of 2005. With all of the supplemental appropriations of last year included, the recommendation represents a decrease of $2 billion from the 2005 level.

As to whether this amount is considered adequate, I quote from two headlines in Associated Press articles that appeared after the subcommittee markup of June 14. The first reads: ``Lawmakers Propose U.S. Foreign Aid Boost,'' and less than an hour later the headline reads: ``GOP-Led Panel Slashes Foreign Aid Program.'' Those were headlines an hour apart. So Members can lend their support to this bill because it increases foreign aid, or they can oppose it because it slashes foreign aid, or they can do either way with either one of those ideas.

It is important to state at the outset that the bill was developed in a bipartisan manner. I give enormous credit to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking minority member, for engaging in a process that resulted in agreement on the basic components of this package, even if funding compromises had to be found on both sides.

We have made a focus of this year's proposal greater oversight of the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. The report accompanying this bill includes language that requires more accountability of our foreign assistance dollars by urging the Department to set transparent goals and in tangible ways that measure progress toward these goals. Results, rather than resource levels, should be the yardstick for measuring U.S. assistance programs.

Furthermore, this bill and report include many requirements for the submission of financial plans, limiting expenditures until certain reforms are

implemented, and continuation of congressional notification requirements prior to the obligation or expenditure of funds.

With that, let me turn to some of the highlights of the bill.

First, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The administration requests $3 billion for MCC. That would have doubled our $1.5 billion appropriation last year. We are funding it at $1.75 billion, or an increase of $250 million, 17 percent, over 2005, but $1.25 billion less than the President asked for.

As chairman of the subcommittee, I have made the MCC a priority in this bill. I believe in the President's vision for a new form of development assistance, where a country's commitment to fighting corruption, its commitment to reform, its commitment to investing in its people is complemented by an assistance package from the United States, negotiated by the country in the form of a signed compact.

On the Global Environmental Facility, the budget included a $107 million request for the GEF, up from $106 million last year. Our bill has no appropriation for GEF. As part of this multilateral agreement with donors in 2002, the GEF agreed to establish a performance-based allocation system for the disbursement of funds. Despite this agreement, GEF has resisted attempts to establish this performance- based allocation system, and I think our reduction, not including any funds for this, sends a clear message about the imperative of reform to

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) that I sympathize with his statement. He makes his case with passion and knowledge. I want to clarify my intent with respect to the language in the committee report referring to applications from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

The report language urged the Export-Import Bank to act promptly on requests for assistance. It also asked for the bank to report on the status of pending applications.

The report further noted the committee's request for ``an explanation for any rejection of any requests for assistance, specifically applications affecting the semiconductor industry.'' This sentence could be misconstrued as prejudicing or prejudging possible applications for bank assistance.

Let me be clear. It was not and is not my intention to prejudice or prejudge the outcome of any pending application at the bank. This language is not intended to influence in any way any matter that is pending before the bank or reflect negatively on any decision made by the chairman or any other board member regarding any pending or past matter.

Loans brought before the bank must meet the bank's criteria for export additionality, foreign competition, and net benefit for the American economy. The Export-Import Bank has five full-time board members whose job it is to assess whether applications meet the bank's criteria for export additionality, foreign competition, and net benefit to the U.S. economy.

They are the ones who should make the judgments about which transactions the bank will support and those it would turn down. The committee report language in no way is intended to influence those judgments. I understand the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) still has some concerns with the language, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman and the Senate in conference regarding the committee's intent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), an outstanding member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California for raising this important issue. I also support international conservation efforts, and I applaud the gentleman for his leadership as co-chair of the International Conservation Caucus.

I believe that the Global Environment Facility has done good work over the years to help conserve the environment and to address some of the more difficult international environmental problems that require international cooperation to be solved. Nevertheless, I have been concerned about the pace of reform within this organization.

My purpose in eliminating its funding is to ensure that the limited amount of resources in this bill are used in the most efficient possible way. My goal is not to definitively end U.S. contributions to the GEF this year or in the future. However, until the final GEF reforms are in place, I am concerned that GEF funding is not being used optimally.

I appreciate the unique role that GEF can play in international conservation, and I believe that a reformed and functioning GEF is worthy of support. If the GEF agrees to implement a performance-based allocation system at the August-September, 2005, Special Meeting of the GEF Council, then I would be willing and will be willing to work with the gentleman and the other body to help restore the U.S. contribution to the GEF during conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the full committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am happy to respond. I want to thank the gentleman for his stalwart efforts in fighting narcoterrorism in Latin America. I share the gentleman's concerns and thank him for raising this issue here today.

Since 2002, Peru's budget under ACI has decreased slightly each year, but the decrease in the 2006 request was for an astounding 16 percent. Therefore, the committee included language in the House report rejecting these cuts and directing that not less than $61 million be made available for eradication and interdiction for Peru and not less than $53 million shall be available for alternative development and institution-building in Peru.

When the committee proceeds to conference negotiations with the Senate later this summer or fall, I commit to the gentleman that we will push for this funding in the final agreement.

The report language does not specifically raise the topic raised by the gentleman from Washington. I am certainly glad that he has taken this moment on the floor because of his interest in this issue, and I agree with him about the importance of our counternarcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico.

He correctly points out that the bill includes $40 million in international narcotics and law enforcement assistance for the country of Mexico. Part of this represents a restoration of funding to last year's level. The President had only requested $30 million for this purpose in this year's bill.

So I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Washington as we move forward with this bill with the Senate and in conference. We can work together to make sure that the issue of methamphetamine trafficking as it relates to Mexico is forthrightly addressed in the administration's request or in the final budget account. In representing a district right along the border, I understand fully the importance of this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I share my colleague's abhorrence regarding the rule in Zimbabwe, and he has outlined it, I think, extraordinarily well. Through his mismanagement and outright oppression, he has driven Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of southern Africa, into the greatest source of instability in the region. I want to make it clear that no funding, no funding from this bill will be used to support Mr. Mugabe's government.

The bill does include $15 million to help the people of Zimbabwe. I feel strongly that this assistance is critical and must be sustained. Over $11 million of this is for HIV/AIDS and other health programs. Most of the rest is used to help strengthen citizen groups and other organizations, so one day the people may have an effective voice against Mr. Mugabe and his cronies.

Democratic change must be driven by the people. As we have seen in Georgia and Ukraine, our democracy programs can be effective in supporting that process. And, the people of Zimbabwe must not feel that the international community has given up on them.

While I feel strongly that our assistance to the Zimbabwean people must be sustained, I will be happy to work with the gentleman to find ways to increase pressure on President Mugabe.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her kind remarks about my support for HIV/AIDS funding. It is a commitment that I share with the gentlewoman from California. I believe very strongly in the importance of this. In fact, when I became chairman of this subcommittee, I said there were three primary things that I wanted to do, and this was one of them.

I think the gentlewoman is forgetting something, and that is there is funding in another appropriation bill for international AIDS, largely in CDC and NIH, in the Labor-HHS bill. When you add those amounts in, this year, we are at $3.2 billion total funding for HIV/AIDS and international programs, so we are above. If you take the $15 billion over 5 years that the President talked about, $3 billion would be a level funding. We started off below that. This year in the third year we are above it. We are not only on target to meet the $15 billion; we will be above that by the end of the fifth year. So we are moving clearly in that direction. And I believe that we are showing our commitment.

We are $131 million this year above the amount requested by the President. We are $502 million above the amount that was appropriated in 2005. That is just in our particular appropriation bill.

So I do share the gentlewoman's concerns about this, and I believe, however, that we are moving very strongly in that direction. And perhaps the gentlewoman from New York would like to add something.

If the gentlewoman would yield just for one clarification, I think the gentlewoman is mistaken on that. The $15 billion was a total for all HIV/AIDS programs, not just the PEPFAR's program. So when you look at all the programs that were already under way in bilateral programs, things being done in NIH and CDC as well as in the new PEPFAR program, the global fund, all of that, we will be well above, I think we will be considerably above the $15 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, continuing this colloquy, just so you have the numbers correct here as we see them here: in 2004, total appropriations for international AIDS programs was $2.4 billion. In 2005 it was $2.9 billion; and in 2006, the current year that we are funding, it is $3.2 billion. That gives you a total of $8.5 billion which means that we have $6.5 billion left to do in the next 2 years in order to reach the $15 billion. That would be slightly less, actually, than $3 billion a year to meet that. So I do believe we are on target.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

My purpose in going through those numbers was simply to illustrate that we are meeting this commitment, not as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) suggested, not that it is enough. There is not enough. We are not doing enough. But I think we are meeting the commitment we did make. This is a pandemic of absolutely unprecedented proportions, and we need to be doing a lot more in Africa, in the Caribbean, in Southeast Asia, now in countries like China and in Russia where it is growing with great rapidity. So there is a lot more that needs to be done. I thank the gentlewoman for highlighting that and providing the clarion call today for this country and for the AIDS community around the world to respond to this need in this pandemic.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that I am prepared to accept this amendment.

I have concerns about a large cut in Ex-Im Bank expenses, but I certainly agree that the need in Mexico is very great to fight methamphetamines, and I certainly am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Our assistance to Egypt has been longstanding and Egypt remains an important ally in the Middle East.

I would be among the first in this body to admit my concerns about Egypt's actions or sometimes their lack of actions when it comes to building programs of democracy in that country. And we have had a lot of discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee levels regarding ways to address these concerns.

I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fence $100 million of our economic assistance to Egypt and to put an earmark around those or to fence it so they could be used specifically for democracy and education programs. That is the first time that we have ever done that in this earmark for Egypt.

I think that sends a very strong message to Egypt. So this amendment, however well-intentioned, is not going to be constructive.

The relationship that we have with Egypt goes back 2 decades. We should not forget that prior to the Camp David agreement Egypt and Israel engaged in several wars and Egypt was an ally of the Soviet Union. That changed when President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin negotiated a peace agreement in 1978 with the help of the United States.

As part of that agreement and in an effort to bring stability and security to the region, the United States agreed to provide major economic and military assistance packages for both Israel and Egypt. Six years ago, the Committee on Appropriations under the leadership of my predecessor, former Congressman Sonny Callahan, initiated a policy to begin a phase-down of economic assistance for both Israel and Egypt. This resulted in a decision to phase out Israel's economic assistance by $120 million per year over 10 years, while increasing military assistance by $60 million. Egypt's economic assistance declines $40 million per year with no increase in military assistance.

The agreement reached 6 years ago modifying the Camp David funding formula was agreed to by the parties involved, including the administration. An amendment that would help to impose a new funding regime, a new funding formula on this money, this carefully balanced money that goes to the partners in the Camp David accords, not as a result of any discussion or negotiations with them, but by unilateral action by this body, would undo the delicate balance of economic and military assistance and would be diplomatically disastrous for the United States.

It would not be wise for Congress to disrupt any cooperation that exists between Israel and Egypt by cutting the military assistance to Egypt; and I can assure my colleagues, this is certainly not supported, though I do not speak for them, I feel quite certain in saying this is not supported by the Government of Israel.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my significant concerns about the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2006. The substance of the underlying legislation will be addressed later in my statement.

Madam Speaker, while the rule is similar to that of other appropriations bills, I am extremely disappointed that the majority has blocked our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) from offering an amendment that would have provided $1 billion in emergency funding for the Veterans' Administration. All of our colleagues here in the House know that the Bush administration and the Republican majority, by their own admission, have underfunded the Veterans' Administration by $1 billion. Without the emergency funding proposed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the VA will shortly run out of money, leaving veterans, and there are 86,000 of them coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, with nowhere to turn. But because my friends in the majority on the Committee on Rules did not make the Edwards amendment in order, the House will not have an opportunity to consider this critical amendment now. Shame on all of us.

Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation has some admirable provisions yet, in several areas, it falls far short of meeting the United States' near and long-term policy needs.

The majority's excuse that the budget constraints prevent greater generosity is just that: an excuse. The simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible

economic policies have left the United States with little room to meet our important international and domestic obligations.

Realize, I think that it is appropriate that we have funding allocated to fighting the plagues of our time, HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. I applaud the current appropriations and encourage this body to continue supporting these efforts until these diseases have been completely eradicated.

I am also appreciative of the assistance levels for the Middle East. This past April, with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I had an opportunity to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories, and we met with officials from both sides of the conflict. I found them at that time to be committed to the pursuit of a fair and just peace and dedicated to ensuring an equitable resolution to the many issues that divide the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United States must continue to show its commitment to Israel, our most reliable ally in the Middle East. This legislation does just that. Further, we must be engaged in the region and reward positive efforts by the Palestinians with appropriate levels of assistance.

I am also pleased to note that the United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Darfur, with $350 million appropriated in this legislation. This assistance is important, but not nearly enough. Frankly, the Bush administration has been neglectful of the realities on the ground, even while acknowledging that genocide is taking place. There should be no action on earth that compels us to act more than genocide. However, the House continues to refuse to move the Darfur Accountability Act, which provides for sanctions against the regime and authorizes the President to use force, if needed, to save the lives of innocent civilians.

Is there a reason vastly more compelling than halting genocide that is forcing the United States to merely shake our finger in admonishment at the Sudanese Government? The world long remembers those instances in which the United States failed to take action to prevent genocide, and I fear that this is going to be another one of those times.

Despite all of the positive provisions in the bill, Mr. Speaker, there are several aspects of this bill that project the wrong message to the global community. At a time of intense international hostility toward many aspects of United States foreign policy, we should not be compounding the problem with a ``sore loser'' attitude and a lack of commitment to protecting human rights.

Allow me to expand. Section 528 of the underlying legislation withholds 25 percent of funding to the World Bank's International Development Association if it fails to continue implementing some procurement reforms that are supported by the United States. Once again, as with last week's United Nations Reform Act, Republicans are insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. This is plain wrong. We will never reform these institutions by staying at home and complaining. We must accept compromise and continue to press for change while remaining a committed participant.

Mr. Speaker, typically, the foreign operations bill is one of the most bipartisan bills that this body passes every year. While I will most likely support the underlying legislation, I am greatly concerned by the overall amount of money appropriated in this bill. Later today, we will hear from the chairman and other Republican leaders who will claim that they did the best they could with what they were given. I do not doubt that, Mr. Speaker; and I applaud the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for the hard and dedicated work which they do for all of us. Nevertheless, the budget constraints which the chairman and others will speak of are the creation of the Republicans' fiscal mismanagement.

I am appalled that we have the money to provide egregious tax cuts to extremely wealthy people in our country; yet we do not have the money to meet our international humanitarian commitment. We have the money to provide billions in tax giveaways to the Bush administration's favorite corporate donors; yet we do not have the money to provide the necessary assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. This is beyond shameful. It is negligent, and it leads many in the world to understandably question the seriousness of our rhetoric on human rights and the promotion of democracy.

Just once, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come to this floor with Republicans in the majority and President Bush in the White House and say, We do not have the money for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires because we have to fulfill our commitment to improving the lives of billions of people around the world, including millions right here in our own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the Rules Committee.

What my colleague from Florida ignores is that we could do something today for those same veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations who has a great deal of dedication and skill in this arena.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida, the distinguished gentleman, amazes me with his logic. We gave the veterans $2 billion more he said last year. What does that have to do with today and the fact that there is a $1 billion shortfall? This shortfall that has come to the attention of people is a mistake. When can this administration say that we were wrong about something? The veterans need $1 billion and that is that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has been denigrated for arguing this point over the last 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) was talking a moment ago about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) either being lucky or being good, he chose that he was lucky during the last 2 years. However, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) spoke with hospital administrators, and that is how he got his information. And if somehow or another we were not so interested in hanging the picture of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman somewhere rather than trying to figure out what hospital administrators need, all of us could be good.

I know this much: At the Veterans Hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, veterans wait 6 months on occasion to get themselves treated, and I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Edwards amendment would provide additional badly needed health care funds for our Nation's veterans today. The Edwards amendment uses the supplemental authority provided in the 2006 budget resolution to correct the current $1 billion shortfall mistake in funding for the health care needs of America's veterans, including the approximately 86,000 new Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of my colleagues are aware by now of the announcement last week by the Bush administration's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs that the VA is facing a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care. This is not news to this side of the aisle. We have known all along the funding was woefully inadequate. We have tried on numerous occasions to increase funding to care for our returning soldiers, but the Republican leadership has ignored our demands and has consistently rejected our many attempts to add money to the VA health care budget. Maybe now they will listen. Today, they will have a chance to show just how much they support our soldiers.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the foreign operations appropriations bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Edwards amendment to help our brave returning veterans get the health care they need and deserve. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment and, sadly, once again, this leadership will turn its back on our wounded veterans.

We make much of visiting veterans' hospitals. We make much of Veterans Day. All of these are appropriate undertakings. But when we learn that this administration has made a big mistake with reference to veterans in this Nation, we cannot muster here in the House of Representatives the oomph to do the things necessary for people that are putting their lives on the line for us and returning home in need of care.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to cut military aid to Colombia by $100 million.

For the past several years, we have debated Colombia policy here in the House. We are always being told that things are getting better; but they are not getting better, Mr. Chairman.

This policy has failed as an antidrug policy. It has failed as a human rights policy, and it has failed to have any impact whatsoever in reducing the availability, price or purity of drugs in the streets of America. In fact, illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago. And yet we will hear again today from supporters of Plan Colombia that everything is just rosy in Colombia, that we are winning the drug war, and respect for human rights is flourishing. Not true, Mr. Chairman.

It makes no difference whether you are looking at the United Nations numbers, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy numbers, the Colombian National Police, or the CIA's. It all adds up to the same picture. Compared to where we were in 1999, right before the start of Plan Colombia, coca cultivation in Colombia has declined by only 7 percent and in the Andean region by only 9 percent. And the growing of coca did not decrease at all in the year 2004.

On top of that, the U.N. and the Colombian National Police agree that opium growing in Colombia did not decrease at all in 2004.

You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make something good out of these numbers. You do that by deliberately ignoring where we were 6 years ago before Plan Colombia and picking and choosing bits and pieces of statistics, like starting your comparisons in 2003. Well, that only works because you ignore the huge increases in coca production in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

But, ultimately, the most damning numbers come from our own Department of Justice, which states that cocaine remains readily available on the streets of America, with wholesale and retail prices for cocaine and heroin at an all-time low and purity at or near historic highs.

Congress was told that we had to support Plan Colombia. We had to pour billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars into the Colombian military to stop the surge of drugs in America.

Well, what a waste of money it has been. Six years ago, the Rand Corporation told us that every dollar we spent trying to wipe out coca in remote areas of Colombia would be 23 times more effective if we spent it right here at home on drug treatment, prevention, and education and on local law enforcement.

But Congress chose to ignore that good advice; and here we are, 6 years and $4 billion later. Now, we may have thought our policy was tough on drugs, but it sure was not very smart.

So how about human rights? Is Colombia's human rights situation any better today? Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade union leader. It is the second most dangerous place to be a religious pastor or lay leader.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calls the issue of Colombia's internally displaced a great humanitarian crisis second only to Sudan. Death threats against human rights defenders have increased significantly over the past 18 months.

Abuses by the Colombian military are on the rise and the armed forces commit crimes with impunity, with no high-level Colombian military officer ever having been successfully prosecuted for human rights crimes.

Even our own State Department has not been able to certify any human rights progress in Colombia since March because the situation is so untenable. But has Colombia tried to improve their human rights situation at all so that the State Department could have something, anything that will allow it to certify? Not at all.

But so much pressure from the Pentagon and the Colombian Government and even from some members of Congress is building on the State Department to go ahead and certify anyway that I hear that the State Department is likely to certify right after this Congress breaks for the Fourth of July recess.

But the most galling thing of all is this: while U.S. taxpayers have sent over $4 billion of their hard-earned money to Colombia over the past 6 years, the wealthy elites of Colombia have hardly contributed a dime. Out of a population of 42 million people, only 740,000 Colombians pay any income tax at all, and even that is a pitiful amount. So Colombians are not paying to fight their own war, and they are not paying to improve the conditions that keep so many of their own people in poverty.

It is time that this House stood up and decided to stop sending a blank check to Colombia, year after year. It is time that we demand real progress on human rights as a condition to our aid. It is time that we stop being a cheap date.

We are not walking away from Colombia. We are just sending a long overdue message that it is time to take a cold hard look at our current course and change it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman I have been to Colombia several times and have gone well beyond the areas that the embassy has recommended me to go, and I assure the gentleman things are quite bad.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. Maybe he has not been reading the newspapers but the Colombian government just passed an amnesty law that gives narco-traffickers and the paramilitaries and people who have been guilty of crimes against humanity a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is one of the reasons why I am here today expressing my outrage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. I believe we need a balanced policy. And some of us tried in the Committee on International Relations and in the Committee on Appropriations to make some modest changes in support of increased alternative development aid, but we were shut down on even those modest changes. Maybe the gentleman did not listen to my statistics.

Also, we have a critique of the letter of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that he sent to Members of Congress, and I think the gentleman would be interested to know that some of the figures that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has cited we believe are totally inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

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

Let me just respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, if I can, by saying, if the Colombian people support this policy so much, then why is it that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million people? That is a fact. That was stated in the Council on Foreign Relations report that came out last year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts. The facts are that illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago when we began Plan Colombia. The facts are that the elites in Colombia want us to bankroll this war. It remains an embarrassing fact that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million. They are relying on us to bankroll this war.

Mr. Chairman, the other fact is that widespread impunity for human rights abusers is getting worse. It has been widely publicized in our newspapers about the new law that the Colombian Government has passed to grant immunity and to grant amnesty, for the most part, to individuals in the paramilitaries who are guilty of crimes again humanity, many of them involved in the drug trade, and they are doing that right before our eyes.

The facts are that the human rights situation is so bad that our own State Department has yet to certify human rights progress in Colombia. We are being drawn into a quagmire. The legal limit on the number of military and contractor personnel had to be increased in 2004 from 400 to 800 military, from 400 to 600 contractors.

Let us try to solve the problem of drug abuse, not just throw money at failing strategies. We need to invest in drug treatment and prevention here at home and in the Andes, in alternative development programs to help small farmers transition permanently from growing illicit drugs. But this policy has failed.

Mr. Chairman, the question was raised before what are we for. I include for the Record a statement of what we are for.

Rethinking Plan Colombia

Low-cost: use U.S. leverage far more vigorously in support

of human rights and the rule of law; support the

recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights for Colombia; insist upon the complete

dismantlement of paramilitary forces and structures, within

an effective legal framework for justice, truth, and

reparations; make trade consistent with sustainable drug

policy and human rights; encourage negotiations with the

guerrillas for a just and lasting peace; encourage Colombia's

elite to use more of its own resources to improve governance.

Fund by reducing security assistance: support a strong

judiciary and an independent

human rights sector; expand alternative development within a

comprehensive rural development strategy, and end aerial

spraying; encourage the strengthening of civilian governance

in rural areas, including local peace-building initiatives;

increase and improve humanitarian assistance, and expand

protection, to displaced persons and refugees; reduce U.S.

demand for drugs through evidence-based prevention strategies

and improved access to high-quality treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, if this policy is succeeding, why does cocaine remain readily available on U.S. streets at lower prices than ever, and the levels of use are stable if not rising? There is increased availability.

If this policy is such a success, why are there increased abuses by the army? Why are trade union murders on the rise? Murders of trade union leaders increased in 2004 over 2003.

Let us look at the facts here. The bottom line is that this policy has not succeeded. It is time for us to take a fresh look at it and to change course.

Madam Speaker, by direction

of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 341 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I would like to take just a minute, Madam Speaker, to reiterate that we bring this rule forward under an open rule. Historically, appropriations bills have come to the House governed by an open rule, and we continue to do so, in order to allow every Member of this House the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they comply with all of the Rules of the House.

Madam Speaker, the legislation before us appropriates over $20 billion, an increase of $73 million, for operations across the globe. The bill is fiscally sound while, at the same time, compassionate and globally responsive to the needs of those plagued by disease and international disaster.

The bill bolsters the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation to $1.75 billion, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars more than in fiscal year 2005. The expansion of assistance is meant to help bring economic security and the rule of law to some of the most of the poorest nations of the world. The Millennium Challenge provides assistance through a competitive selection process to developing nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms basically in three areas, Madam Speaker: ruling justly, investing in people, and fostering economic freedom. Economic development genuinely succeeds when it is linked to free market economic principles as well as to democracy and where governments are committed to implementing reform measures in order to achieve these goals.

Two years ago in his State of the Union address, President Bush announced the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the largest international health initiative in history initiated by a single government to address one disease. This bill shows Congress's continued support of the fight against HIV/AIDS, as it includes over $2.6 billion to continue the fight against that horrendous deadly disease.

Our resolve to help all those across the globe who fight this disease is strong; it is serious. In addition to funding, the Federal Government enlists the expertise of various agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, which assures that the medicines we send to the developing world are safe and effective to help those with HIV/

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

With regard to some of the many, many points that were made by my distinguished friend, and I am certainly not going to address them all at this point, but I would like to make two points with regard to this foreign aid bill which we are bringing to the floor today with an open rule. We are providing over $20 billion in foreign aid in this bill. That is an increase of $73 million over last year. We are fulfilling our obligations and being quite compassionate as we do so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our support for veterans. A few weeks ago, as a matter of fact, on May 25, this House of Representatives brought to the floor, considered and passed by a vote of 425 to 1 the appropriations bill for the next fiscal year on military quality of life. The legislation included over $28 billion for the Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical services. Medical services were funded $1.6 billion above the current fiscal year. Over the last 2 years, funding for the veterans medical care has increased by 18 percent.

We are very proud of our support for veterans. And I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I know of no two Members of this House who feel and have more concern for the rights of veterans than the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well as the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) of the appropriations subcommittee that funds veterans affairs.

So this matter brought to our attention now of a shortfall is of extreme concern to them. And as we speak, Mr. Speaker, a hearing is taking place to fully investigate the causes and the issues of this shortfall, a hearing is taking place by the appropriations subcommittee dealing with this issue, Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee, called for by the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). And so not only are we not ignoring the issue, we are proud of our record of support for veterans and will continue to support veterans in a way which will make us all proud.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

We will get to the bottom of this problem. We will solve it, and we have heard from the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the veterans issue to that effect. We will hear as well shortly from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and when I say we are going to get to the bottom of this and solve it, it is coming from the history of the House of Representatives that in the last 2 years alone has increased funding for veterans medical care by 18 percent. We are very proud of our record, and we are going to continue to have a record to be proud of.

So having said that, I would simply like to remind any colleagues who may be following this debate that with this rule what we are doing is bringing to the floor the foreign aid bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill, which includes about $22 billion, the foreign aid bill, includes about $22 billion, and it is almost $100 million over the amounts that we appropriated for the current fiscal year. That is what we are bringing to the floor again, Mr. Speaker, with this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my good friend from Florida, as he was wrapping up his remarks, as always with eloquence, talked about the ``yes'' votes and the ``no'' votes, because just 1 month ago, Mr. Speaker, when this House brought forth the bill to fund the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the appropriations bill to fund Veterans' Affairs, there was a very interesting ``yes'' and ``no'' vote on this floor; 425 yes and 1 no.

So I simply want to put in context what has been said today. If we would be acting with such unfairness on the majority side, if we would be neglecting the interests of those men and women who we all hold in such admiration, then why was the vote to fund Veterans' Affairs 425-1 only 1 month ago?

As we have heard from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, from the authorizing committee, and the chairman as well of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations on these issues brought to our attention subsequent to that vote of 425-1, they are being addressed. They are being delved into. They will be solved. And we will continue to be proud of our record of support for our veterans.

Now, with regard to what this rule does, the rule we have been discussing today, it brings forth for consideration by this body the foreign aid appropriations bill, over $20 million in foreign aid. A lot of important programs, humanitarian programs; support for allies and friends; for poor people throughout the world; for the sick and the infirm. It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

So at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would request that the underlying legislation, the foreign operations legislation, be supported, as well as the rule that brings it forth, which is an open rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 341 Rule for H.R. 3057 Foreign Operations,

Export Financing, and Related Programs FY06 Appropriations

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order and before

any other amendment if offered by Representative Edwards of

Texas or a designee. The amendment is not subject to

amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for

a division of the question in the committee of the whole or

in the House.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

Amendment to H.R. 3057, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.