Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 532 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution

532 is a traditional standard rule for consideration of the conference report for the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today appropriates almost $21 billion. It is an increase of about actually over $1 billion for operations across the globe. The bill is fiscally sound. It has grown at a small, very small rate, while at the same time I think it is responsive to the needs, not only the national security interests or the foreign policy interests of the United States, but also it is responsive to the needs of millions plagued by disease and famine and disaster throughout the world.

H.R. 3057, for example, Mr. Speaker, bolsters the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation to nearly $1.8 billion. It is about a quarter of a billion more than last year. This is an expansion of assistance meant to help bring really economic security and the rule of law to some of the world's poorest countries by insisting on American aid going to countries where there is transparency for the aid that we send, not corruption.

It is an important initiative.

The Millennium Challenge provides assistance through a competitive selection process to developing nations that are genuinely in the path of political and economic reforms in three areas: ruling justly, in other words, treating their people decently; investing in people; and fostering economic freedom. Economic development genuinely succeeds when it is linked to free market economic and democratic principles and policies and where governments are committed to implementing reform measures when they are needed to achieve such goals.

Two years ago in the State of the Union address, President Bush announced the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. It is the largest international health initiative in history initiated by a single government to address one disease. This legislation shows Congress's continued support to the fight against HIV/AIDS. It includes $2.8 billion, an increase of over $600 million over last year to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, as well as tuberculosis and malaria.

The resolve of this Congress to help all those across the globe to fight this disease is strong and serious, as is the commitment of the President of the United States. In addition to funding, the Federal Government enlists the expertise of agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, which assures that the medicines we send to the areas most affected by this horrible pandemic are safe and effective to help those with HIV/AIDS.

In other foreign assistance, H.R. 3057 funds the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at the President's request, $735 million, $9 million more than in 2005. Economic growth in the area since the start of Plan Colombia, for example, is proof that the assistance that we have provided Colombia has made a difference in that country.

I visited Colombia in April of last year. It was a great honor for me to do so. I have tens of thousands of distinguished constituents, very hard-working, honorable people from Colombia.

It was a pleasure to visit that country and to witness, Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary progress that the Colombian Government and the Colombian people have made against the narcoterrorists. They constantly reiterate, they did so during my visit and they have done so since and I know they have done so to countless colleagues in this House, they reiterate their gratitude to this Congress for the important assistance that the American people, the taxpayers of this country, through their Congress have provided them and continue to do so in their fight against narcoterrorism.

Now, we must not take progress in the Andean region for granted. If the United States turns its back on the region, a scenario may very well ensue that would require greater U.S. investment at a time when we have significant responsibilities worldwide.

The underlying legislation provides also $2.5 billion for military and economic assistance to Israel. We have to continue to ensure that our friends and allies remain secure; and, of course, we have no better friend, no better ally than Israel. We are committed to doing everything we can to see that Israel is safe and secure within its borders as it continues to move in this very difficult era toward the achievement of a lasting peace with all of its neighbors.

The conference report funds the President's request to fund the foreign military financing for Egypt at $1.3 billion. It provides almost half a billion dollars for economic assistance to Egypt, including assistance set to help with political reform programs and education assistance. Of course, that is a very, very important initiative that this country has been involved in for decades now.

I would like to thank Chairman Lewis, who has worked very hard again, and Chairman Kolbe for their extraordinary leadership in moving this bill forward for our consideration today. I obviously support the conference report. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation, the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned about Colombia, and we are concerned about increased assistance from the terrorist network throughout the world, the Iranians, Chavez in Venezuela, Castro's Cuba. We are concerned about their support for the narcoterrorists in Colombia, and that is why it is so important to provide assistance to the democratically elected government of Colombia.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship, a dictatorship that supports the regime in Iran publicly; a dictatorship, the regime in Caracas. The first foreign head of State to visit Saddam Hussein while Saddam Hussein was in power after the Gulf War of the 1990s was the President of Venezuela. So, yes, I am concerned about the President of Venezuela's links to terrorism and his assistance to the FARC guerillas in Colombia.

One of the reasons why we continue to help and assist the democratically elected government of Colombia, elected by an overwhelming majority of the Colombian people, is because they face multiple challenges. That is one of the reasons why, in a bipartisan fashion, this Congress continues to help the democratically elected government.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we have certification language. We do not condone in any way terrorism from any source in Colombia. We have consistently had safeguards in our legislation to make sure that our assistance is not used by terrorists of any sort in Colombia, but I think that we have to keep our eye on the ball here, and that is that there is a democratically elected government challenged by narcoterrorists, heavily funded because of their trade in narcotics, their narcotrafficking, and that that government, that democratically elected government, is a friend of this country and merits our continued support.

So I am honestly very pleased that, in a bipartisan fashion, this Congress continues to support the democratically elected government of Colombia; and that is one of the great foreign policy initiatives, bipartisan foreign policy initiatives, by the way, that this country is engaged in, which is very connected to the security of this country in addition to the foreign policy objectives of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a great leader in this House, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank each and every distinguished Member of the House who has spoken this morning on this legislation. Obviously, this is, appropriately so, a tremendous amount, really a consensus, which is pleasing to see support for what we are doing as a Congress and as a government, as a Nation in this legislation.

I want to take one final moment, if I may, to explain a point that I made in response to a question to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) when I said that it is my belief that the Government of Venezuela is a dictatorship.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a second or a minute to explain why. Democracy, in order for it to exist, requires two fundamental pillars or legitimacies; the legitimacy of origin, which is obtained through free and fair elections, and the Government of Venezuela was elected. So it obviously had the legitimacy of origin.

But then I believe that for a government to be democratic, it has to have another form of legitimacy, which is legitimacy in its conduct in the process of governing. And if a government, even if democratically elected, represses the opposition, persecutes the opposition, represses the press, for example the free press, in my view, it loses that other legitimacy which is required, the legitimacy of conduct for a democracy to be a democracy.

Mr. Speaker, so I am convinced that the Government of Venezuela has lost its democratic legitimacy, and it is not a democracy. So I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I believe, as I stated before, that it is at this moment a dictatorship.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his extraordinary work once again in bringing forward this legislation. He is one of the people that I greatly admire in this House.

I urge all of our colleagues to support what we are doing, the very important step we are taking for our foreign policy interests and great humanitarian causes today in this legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Kolbe, Ranking Member Lowey, and their respective staffs for consistently working in a bipartisan fashion and trying year after year to bring before the House a bill that all Members can support.

For those of us who care in particular about the contributions made by the United States in reducing global poverty and hunger, increasing educational opportunities, access to health care and food security in some of the poorest places on this Earth, we very much appreciate the time and the effort that they invest in making sure that this bill responds to these needs and priorities.

I must express, however, Mr. Speaker, my regret that the final conference report did not include the Leahy-McConnell language dealing with the paramilitary demobilization taking place in Colombia. I recognize the language in the conference report is the result of some compromise, but it appears to me that the majority of compromising had to be done on the Senate side.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about news reports that demobilized paramilitary groups are regrouping into Mafia-like criminal organizations. New paramilitary groups seem to be springing up like daisies and their ranks are often made up of newly demobilized paramilitary troops.

Like all Members of Congress who follow Colombia, I want the demobilization process to work. I want it to succeed. But the process is not helped when the Congress or the administration turns a blind eye to serious failings in its implementation, as has been done over and over and over again.

For these reasons, I believe that the certification provision on Colombia's demobilization process in this bill, even though it is watered down, I think is important and needs to be faithfully implemented.

Last night during the Rules Committee hearing, I was very reassured when Chairman Kolbe told me that his committee would be vigilant in monitoring the demobilization of Colombia's paramilitary organizations and in overseeing the implementation of the certification conditions contained in the bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have often raised on the floor of this House my concerns about the long-standing ties between Colombia's armed forces and paramilitary forces and drug traffickers. I have constantly been told by the administration, by the Colombian Government, and even by some Members of this House, that these allegations also simply are not true.

Well, last week, on October 28, the New York Times reported how the top two directors of Colombia's intelligence agency, commonly called their secret police, have been forced to resign because the attorney general's office has finally begun an investigation into how the 7,100- member agency has been engaged in a money-making operation to sell intelligence and surveillance equipment to right-wing paramilitary groups.

Mr. Speaker, I will include the New York Times article in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned by a new wave of threats, disappearances and murders of Colombian trade unionists, human rights defenders, legal advocates and community leaders which appears to be under way.

The violence in Colombia appears to be sharply escalating once again. I would like to mention in particular the murder of Mr. Orlando Valencia, an Afro-Colombian community leader who was forcibly captured off the street by paramilitary forces shortly after he was first briefly detained and then released by the Colombian police on October 15, which shows you the collaboration between the security forces and paramilitaries. His tortured and mutilated body was found a few days later along the side of a local road.

At the time of his disappearance, I wrote to our embassy in Bogota, asking them to do all they could to find Mr. Valencia before he was killed; and I am still waiting for a response from our embassy to that letter.

So let me say to those who continue to champion billions of dollars in additional aid to the Colombian military and security forces, please pay attention not only to the spokespeople of the Colombian government but to the realities in that country. We should be more concerned. For all that we have invested in that country, we should expect better.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me the time to express these concerns. I support the rule, and I will support the bill.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 28, 2005]

Two Top Directors Leave Colombia's Secret Police as Scandal Mounts

(By Juan Forero)

Bogota, Colombia, Oct. 27.--The top two directors of

Colombia's secret police were forced out this week as the

government investigated allegations that the agency was

mounting a money-making operation to sell intelligence and

surveillance equipment to right-wing death squads.

The scandal at the agency, the Administrative Department of

Security, comes as human rights groups and some legislators

have exposed heightened paramilitary activity, including

infiltrations of Congress and the attorney general's office.

The paramilitaries also continue trafficking in cocaine,

despite disarmament talks that underpin President Alvaro

Uribe's effort to pacify Colombia with billions in American

aid.

The 7,100-member intelligence agency has long been dogged

by allegations that its

agents have worked with paramilitaries of the United Self-

Defense Forces of Colombia, an illegal antiguerrilla

organization that the State Department has branded a

terrorist group. But the latest scandal has been especially

explosive, coming amid international criticism that the

government has been overly generous with paramilitaries who

disarm by treating them leniently in prosecutions.

On Tuesday, after consultations with Mr. Uribe, Jorge

Noguera, the director of the agency, resigned and its sub-

director, Jose Miguel Narvaez, was dismissed.

The agency's internal affairs unit and the attorney

general's office are investigating whether the Special

Intelligence Group, controlled by Enrique Ariza, a close ally

of Mr. Noguera, had been planning to sell phone-tapping

equipment to Javier Montanes, one of several powerful

paramilitary commanders who could then use the system to

monitor police and military activity.

Mr. Noguera denied the accusations, calling them part of a

smear campaign.

Mr. Narvaez said in an interview that he and Mr. Noguera

were not involved in a conspiracy with the militias. But he

said there were agents at the agency ``who veered away from

their mission and may have committed crimes.''

The allegations are particularly grave because they add to

a string of revelations of paramilitary influence in

everything from local governments and the health care system

to provincial lotteries. Indeed, a former official at the

intelligence agency, Rafael Garcia, has been under

investigation for having erased computerized case files

containing information on paramilitaries and drug

traffickers.

``This is more serious because this is not just having

sources on the inside and knowing when they're coming against

you,'' said Sergio Jaramillo, a former Defense Ministry

official, referring to infiltration of the intelligence

agency. ``It is something closer, having active help.''

A political scientist who closely studies the

paramilitaries, Mauricio Romero, said the disclosures also

showed that the paramilitaries were ``not playing clean'' in

peace talks.

``It would be understandable if they were at war with the

state,'' said Mr. Romero, a professor at Rosario University

in Bogota. ``The fact that there is infiltration and that

they are mounting a parallel intelligence system is a

security problem not just for the state, but for society.''

Though the paramilitaries have demobilized thousands of

fighters, they continue to wreak havoc.

On Saturday, Hernando Cadavid, who owned a flower farm next

to Mr. Uribe's ranch in northern Colombia, was dragged from

his farm and hacked to death with machetes by former

paramilitaries. Investigators are trying to determine if the

order came from Diego Fernando Murillo, a paramilitary boss

recently jailed on Mr. Uribe's orders.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Two things. Is the gentleman saying that the President of Venezuela is a terrorist?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I appreciate his concerns about the violence by the FARC. I would also just appreciate it if he would also be concerned about the fact that we are supporting the Colombian military and security forces and they continue to be linked to right-wing paramilitary forces which commit crimes.

All I am simply saying is that we have certification language, we should enforce it and not continuously waive it because we want to continue to let the money flow. If we stand for human rights, then we need to put our actions where our rhetoric is, and we have not been doing that in Colombia.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, lately when Americans turn on the news at night, they do not see the government that they recognize. They hear about a war in the Middle East gone wrong, and they see suffering people left to fend for themselves in times of crisis. They learn more and more about a White House under siege, and they are forced to recognize the ugly truth that many of their congressional leaders are entangled in a web of corruption.

While the criticism is justified and the concerns are real, the failures do not define America. It is important to remember that in difficult times, especially in difficult times, we must always keep close, in spite of the challenges at home and abroad, and that no other nation has shined the light of freedom and liberty as brightly as we have here in our country. No nation in history has given so much and asked for so little in return.

That romantic and powerful notion of America as a force for good in a troubled world strikes at the very heart of what it means to be an American. It is that spirit which drives us as a Nation to create a government as good as its people, and today we take one step in helping to restore that feeling in America to embody the ideal of what we hold dear. It is a bill that will help Americans recognize their government once again.

The foreign operations bill funds a number of different foreign assistance agencies and international organizations and, as such, has become both a critical and effective tool for this democracy to spread democratic values and concern for human rights around the world. This is legislation that the American people can take great pride in.

After all, today you will generously give $2.82 billion to some of our noblest callings, such as easing the suffering of those around the world stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and particularly in Africa. $14 billion that Americans earned this year will be used to give foreign assistance.

These moneys will also help economic development in countries like Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Tibet, Colombia, and a number of other Eastern Bloc countries now struggling to become functioning democracies.

It further spends $1.6 billion to help fund many of the well- intentioned international financial institutions which the United States participates in, such as the World Bank, the African Development Fund, and the voluntary U.N. programs such as UNICEF and the U.N. Development Program. These American dollars will assist those struggling societies to build a better life for themselves and their families.

What we often fail to recognize is that foreign operations also help us here at home. The spending in the bill directly benefits our domestic economy. Through our many foreign assistance programs, we export American goods, American services and agricultural products all over the world. That means jobs for American families and a

brighter future for families across the world.

Of course, as with many complex pieces of legislation, I have some concerns with the conference report. Key among them is the Bush administration's insistence on maintaining a global gag rule which prevents critical family planning and health services aid from reaching the U.S. health clinics in underdeveloped and overpopulated countries where abortion counseling services are provided.

Clinics in overpopulated regions are not even allowed to take a public pro-choice position, and the United Nations fund for Population Assistance Program, which provides critical family planning services abroad, has been unfairly targeted by such administration policy.

The UNFPA does not provide abortion services, but the program has been repeatedly denied critical U.S. funding by the Bush administration under the gag rule. As a result, thousands of women in overpopulated developing nations are without the health care and family planning resources each of us takes for granted here in America.

Thankfully, this conference report provides $34 million in funding for this important program. But antichoice House and Senate conferees stripped the language which would protect the funding from the gag rule, and as a result that money will most likely never reach those it was intended to help.

Despite these attempts to politicize the considerable aid this Nation provides abroad, this legislation, on the whole, serves an unqualified good for the people all over the world.

I would submit, though, that through the money we spend here today on foreign ops, we do a better job of spreading universal values of democracy and liberty and freedom than with the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent on the war in Iraq.

By helping to improve the quality of life for people all over the world, we export the seeds of our American Dream; and by investing in international organizations that open markets, create trade, foster economic development and promote democracy, we create a rising tide that truly lifts all boats.

This is the way America spreads its values most effectively. By serving the world community and investing as both a partner and leader in the global community, we exemplify what it truly means to be American; and as a result, we provide a living example that the America we have long known is still standing tall.

These programs effectively address global challenges at their root source and seek to overcome those challenges the right way, by fostering hope and opportunity, rather than fear and hostility. They are the best ambassadors of the American spirit that we could ever hope to export. After all, what better way is there for us to spread democracy, freedom, and social justice than through the methods that have proven time and time again to actually work.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report; and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to thank Chairman Kolbe and our colleagues in the Senate for working with me to craft what I believe represents a good bipartisan and bicameral compromise.

This bill demonstrates the commitment of Congress to our Nation's foreign assistance programs and puts foreign assistance where it should be, alongside diplomacy and defense as a pillar of U.S. national security strategy.

In light of our conference allocation, which cuts nearly $2 billion from the President's request, we have put together a very good bill.

While I would have liked to see us maintain the Senate's level of funding for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, I am pleased that we have been able to increase funding by $125 million above the House level and $268 million above the President's request, including $450 million for the Global Fund.

I am also pleased that the conference agreement provides $440 million for bilateral international family planning programs and $34 million for the UNFPA. I am disappointed, however, that we could not retain commonsense provisions passed by the Senate that would have repealed the global gag rule and modified the Kemp-Kasten restriction. These provisions would have helped our programs be more responsive to the need for family planning assistance around the world.

I appreciate that the conference report includes increases over the request, the House-passed level and the fiscal year 2005 level for Development Assistance, including a $65 million increase in funding for basic education. Since Chairman Kolbe and I began working together, we have quadrupled funding for basic education, and I am delighted that the Senate agreed to include the House-passed level for this valuable priority.

The agreement fully funds our commitments to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries and provides increases for programs designed to mitigate ongoing conflicts. I am pleased that we retained the Obey amendment earmarking assistance for democracy and education programs in Egypt. We must use every tool at our disposal to encourage the government of Egypt to make greater strides in reforming its political process, and I think this bill sends that message.

I am greatly concerned about the impact of the October 6 earthquake on the people of Pakistan, and I think it important that we stand by Pakistan in this time of need. While this bill does not contain new funds for earthquake relief, I appreciate the inclusion of language in the Statement of Managers recognizing the need for additional funds and setting forth the expectation that some of the $600 million provided in this bill may be reprogrammed to meet relief and reconstruction needs.

I do feel that the bill has a few shortcomings. One is the funding for the Global Environmental Facility. Since the GEF recently adopted the management and transparency reforms advocated by the United States, I do feel we should have done our part by fully funding the fiscal year 2006 request. However, I understand that budgetary constraints limited our contribution to $80 million, and I hope that we can strive for full funding in fiscal year 2007.

I also regret that, while we fulfilled the administration's request for Sudan, the bill does not contain funding added by Senator Corzine on the Senate floor for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. I hope that the administration will seek these funds at the earliest possible moment and any subsequent request for funding or reprogramming in this fiscal year.

Finally, I am pleased that we were able to achieve compromise language placing restrictions on military assistance for Indonesia and paramilitary demobilization assistance for Colombia. While I would have preferred the more robust Senate language on these issues, I believe the compromises we have reached address the concerns of all interested parties.

Finally, I want to thank again Chairman Kolbe for his hard work on this bill, his commitment on this bill. I really deeply appreciate the close working relationship which we have enjoyed throughout the years. It has really been a pleasure for me to work on these very important issues in this bill with him.

I also want to thank the members of my subcommittee for their commitment to the issues that we worked so hard on included in this bill.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for their commitment and their cooperation in working on this bill and, of course, the staff.

Chairman Kolbe has an outstanding staff. Betsy Phillips, Alice Hogans, Rodney Bent, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, and Sean Mulvaney have been wonderful partners in this process; and we will miss a few of them who are moving on. Good luck to them.

Of course, our outstanding minority staff, it is always a pleasure for me to work with Nisha Desai and Beth Tritter. I thank them for their hard work as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the newest member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill; but I want to make a few observations, some of which I find to be quite ironic in the process.

I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee. He has done his usual workman-like job. He is a first-rate public servant, and I appreciate the bipartisan and nonideological tone that he brings to his work. That is fully appropriate to the nature of the bill that he brings to this House.

But I must confess a sense of irony. This Congress has already voted to provide $1.2 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires over the next decade. It has voted to provide more than $250 billion in spending for the war in Iraq; and yet, there are a number of Members of this body who begrudge the fact that in this bill you would find roughly $15 billion to be spent on what I would call the tools of peace and mercy: peace because I think economic assistance to the poverty stricken parts of the world help create conditions that avoid war, and mercy because I think a good portion of this bill could be called the most important pro-life bill that we vote on each year.

Literally in the hour that it took to deal with the rule, you will have had several hundred children in this world die, and that is no accident. A lot of it occurs simply because of the negligence of the developed world, and I would like to think that that would rapidly change; but I do not expect to see it, unfortunately.

The New York Times wrote an editorial this morning suggesting that this bill be vetoed because this bill provides $2 billion or so less than the President supposedly requested to attack poverty problems in the Third World. I agree with the concerns expressed in that New York Times editorial; and I would say, imagine how different the world would be if instead of spending $250 billion on the dumbest war in American history, at least since the War of 1812, imagine how changed the world would be if we led the world and provided just 10 percent that amount each year to see that by the end of the next decade we could deliver clean drinking water to every single human being on this planet.

Imagine how the world's attitude toward the United States would change. I doubt very much that you would see some of the poll responses that we see these days where a majority of people in all too many countries consider America to be a threat, unfortunately, rather than a friend. I think the view of the United States is unjustified; but nonetheless, that is the way a lot of people think around the world, and it is in very large part because we put so much money into an action like Iraq and put so little money into helping people achieve the basic necessities of life.

But I do not think that this bill can be blamed for the fact that we fall

short of the President's budget for economic and anti-poverty help. What I do not understand is why anybody takes the President's budget seriously on this, because the President knew full well that while he was asking for this money, he knew full well that his allies in Congress would never allow that kind of an increase in foreign assistance as long as they were gleefully cutting aid to children under Medicaid, as long as they were gleefully about to take 300,000 American families off food stamps, as long as they were gleefully cutting children off the SCHIP welfare rolls in this country. They knew that public opinion would not tolerate providing large increases even for starving people around the world.

So in that sense, I think the New York Times editorial is aiming at the wrong target. It is not the fault of the gentleman from Arizona or the gentlewoman from New York. It is not the fault of this committee that these misbegotten priorities are being carried out. It is the fault of the Republican Party leadership in this country, led by President Bush and the leadership in this House.

I want to say one other thing. We saw yesterday headlines about the fact that $100 million was being surreptitiously spent by this administration to develop secret detention centers where torture is performed around the world. What is ironic is this bill contains $21.5 million in appropriations for the victims of the torture. How hypocritical it must seem for the United States to provide money for the victims of torture at the same time that we allow torture to go on in our name around the world. Do we really want to have people every time they hear the words George W. Bush, do we really want them to think in their minds George W. Pinochet? I do not; but, unfortunately, that is what you are going to trigger in people's minds around the world.

I hope that this Congress will live up to its responsibilities to end that practice by supporting the McCain amendment on the Defense bill. I hope that when that Defense bill leaves the House and goes to the White House that it contains that provision, despite the White House's threat of a veto, despite the action of the Secretary of Defense in opposing the McCain amendment. It is a moral imperative that we adopt that amendment on the Defense bill. Otherwise, the $21 million in this bill for victims of torture is a joke and a sham.