Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5522) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to present to the House of Representatives H.R. 5522, the fiscal year 2007 appropriation bills for foreign operations, export financing and related programs. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am pleased to have you back in the Chair for I am not sure how many of the consecutive years since I have been doing this bill that you have been there, but it feels very good to have you back with us.

Before I turn to the bill, let me just mention that this is the last appropriations bill that I will be bringing to the floor, at least the last regular foreign operations appropriations bill.

As with nearly every other foreign operations bill over the last 6 years, this bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation, something I could not have done without the support and cooperation of my esteemed ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, or my vice chairman, Mr. Sherwood and every member of the subcommittee.

I am proud of this bill. I can honestly say it has probably been one of the more difficult ones that we have put together. The bill before you totals $21.3 billion. While this level is $597 million above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006, not counting supplementals, it is fully $2.4 billion below the amount requested by the President. In other words, by reducing the allocation by $2.4 billion, we have freed up that amount for pressing domestic needs.

The bill includes increases for three priorities, the war on terror, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and international health spending, priorities which lie at the core of the United States interests abroad. For the war on terror, this bill includes $962.3 million for Afghanistan. This amount is $137 million below the President's request, but $85 million over fiscal year 2006.

As with last year's bill, this bill continues a provision that withholds $385 million until the Afghan government, both at national and local levels, fully cooperates with our efforts against narcotics production and trafficking. I want to be clear that I appreciate the support of the government of Afghanistan in the war on terror. However, that government must take difficult but necessary measures to fight narcotics production and trafficking, measures that it has so far been unwilling or unable to take.

The bill also includes $521.9 million for Iraq. While below the President's request, it represents a very large increase of $461 million over what we provided in fiscal year 2006. That is because last year we required the administration to fund Iraq programs from unexpended relief and reconstruction funds that were in the very original supplemental appropriation. Now, however, these funds are nearly all expended.

This bill would normalize Iraq and Afghanistan assistance programs, moving them away from emergency supplementals that exceed budget limits.

The bill contains no funding in the economic support fund for West Bank and Gaza programs. Although the President's requested $150 million for this purpose, the request was made before Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian Authority. The subcommittee believes that humanitarian assistance must continue to the Palestinian people, a view, I might add, that is shared by the Israeli government and by the administration.

Such funding is not affected by this bill. It does contain humanitarian pro democracy funding with restrictions and safeguards that have been included in the past.

For international health, the bill contains the President's requested amount of $3.4 billion for the emergency plan for AIDS relief, and increase of $751.6 million. Within this sum, we more than double the President's request for a contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, to attain last year's level of $444.5 million.

At the same time, I am pleased that the bill maintains last year's funding levels for other health programs, including an increase for malaria programs of $243 million. For several years now the President's budget request has included deep cuts to international health programs. We have worked hard to restore them to at least the level of the previous year.

In order to bring these accounts back up, we have had to cut some other programs that are also priority programs. We provide $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, but that is $1 billion below the request of the President. It is $248 million above the amount that we provided in 2006.

This is a difficult decision for me, but I saw no way to move forward with a bill that gave the full amount that the President asked for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. My goal was very simple, I wanted to send a clear message that Congress supports the MCCs innovative, accountable approach to help countries move away from reliance on donor funding. I think a $248 million increase does send that very clear message, while it frees up funds above that level that enables us to bring before you today a bipartisan bill.

The bill contains two important innovations. First, it includes a Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund which consolidates trade capacity funding from a variety of accounts. This new account includes $522 million, virtually all of what is spent for trade capacity by agencies and accounts that are under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. And it is about half of the $1.3 billion that is spent on a government-wide basis.

Since we will now require a coherent strategy for the use of these funds, it is my hope and my belief that this new account will provide a strong incentive for countries to liberalize their trade regimes.

This bill would also restructure assistance to Colombia, formerly provided only through the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI. I want to be very clear about one point. This

bill does not cut funding from the President's request for Colombia.

It simply reallocates the funds requested and appropriated to regular assistance accounts. It begins to treat Colombia as we treat other strategic partners.

I think it should be clear to all of us by this time that Colombia has made significant progress in the war on drugs. They are now bringing guerilla forces in from the jungle, they are prosecuting those who are implicated in serious crimes, and they are reintegrating others back into society. Coca interdiction, although not eradication, but interdiction, continues to improve. I spoke with Speaker Hastert, who years ago fathered the legislation creating the ACI, about this reformulation of assistance. It has his support. The Colombian government also supports this move. It is time to recognize both successes of Colombia and its strategic importance to the region.

Finally, this bill includes the President's full request for Israel and for Egypt, our two partners of longstanding in the Middle East. Report language from previous years is continued directing $50 million of Egypt Economic Support Fund assistance to be used for democracy and another $50 million for education. Other language, again the same as last year, would withhold expenditures until Egypt implements financial sector reforms. Importantly, this bill would also rescind $200 million from unexpended balances made available for Egypt in previous years.

In closing, let me say, again, it has been a great pleasure to work with my distinguished colleague, ranking member on the minority side, Mrs. Lowey, who I have the greatest respect and affection for. It has been a pleasure to work with her and with her staff, with Beth Tritter and Nisha Desai. And I don't want to neglect mentioning the fine work of the majority staff, Betsy Phillips, Rob Blair, Craig Higgins, Delia Scott, and Lori Maes, and also Todd Calongne, a USAID fellow working on my personal staff. They are all competent, professional, and a joy to work with. The work that we have accomplished together, and I want to underscore the word ``together,'' has helped make America more secure. It has improved the lives of millions throughout the world.

We have accomplished much over these last 6 years. My colleagues have often heard me say that foreign assistance is a vital component of United States economic and security interests, to say nothing of the humanitarian imperative. And while two significant initiatives were begun under my watch, the Emergency Plan For Aids Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the changes we have implemented in 6 years of appropriations run even deeper. We have worked to direct our nonsecurity foreign assistance around three primary issues, which I believe are at the heart of global development: Health, trade, and governance. This bill continues that direction.

In 2001, international HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis spending from these accounts was $535 million. Today, just 5 years later, we are at $3.4 billion. With these steady increases, we have provided life-saving medicines to hundreds of thousands of people in the developing world, people who are still alive to take care of their children and be productive members of their economies, thanks to the antiretroviral drugs that we are now providing to them and other important therapies. As importantly, these are people who now live with hope, and I believe that people with hope are less likely to be attracted to crime and violence.

The New Trade Capacity Enhancement fund will place trade where it belongs, at the center of our international development agenda. Without trade, sustained global development is simply not possible. This new account will provide further incentives for countries to enter constructive trade agreements with the United States and others. It will also help to ensure that the right programs and policies are in place to make sure the poor are not left behind as economies improve.

Finally, the bill provides further support, as I mentioned, to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I see as our best hope for weaning countries from foreign assistance. The MCC provides another set of incentives to countries to make the correct policy decisions, policies which improve rule of law and economic policies, investments in the health and education of people.

I am proud to have served in this institution, and I am especially proud of the work of this committee and this subcommittee. The package of foreign assistance before you is built on a solid basis of experience, funds programs that are more accountable and transparent, and, most importantly, helps to protect U.S. security at home and abroad. It is an example of the good that can be accomplished with a bipartisan effort, and I can think of no arena more important for a unified American voice than in foreign affairs.

Mr. Chairman, fellow members, I am pleased to submit this bill and urge your favorable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.006

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has identified a problem that we think is absolutely of critical importance. We have moved from, I believe, no money just in 2003 to 1 million to 5 million to $7 million in this year, so I think we are moving very substantially in this area.

The report accompanying H.R. 5522 does indicate the committee's awareness of the Gift of Life International's Project Iraqi Hearts. It is an initiative that should be thoroughly explored. The ranking minority member and I are both committed to working with the gentleman from New York to ensure that this proposal gets careful consideration from the Department of State and USAID. Specific funds have not been set aside, but if review by State and AID show the program can deliver results that save lives, it would have the committees's strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, a very important Member who has contributed much to the work of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Kansas for his discussion on this very important subject, and certainly as the subcommittee was crafting this bill, we acknowledge how important these issues are.

I want to assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to pay close attention to the reports from USAID of possible and confirmed violations of this amendment. We also will work with the USAID to ensure the timely reporting of violations if, and when, they occur.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a member of the House International Relations Committee for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for the statement you have just made and

your commitment to the international environment.

As you pointed out, I have in the past supported the mission of the GEF. I had the opportunity to sit down with the CEO of the GEF, Mr. Good, to engage in some very good discussions about their reforms and also on their programs in the past.

I have in the past been concerned about the pace of reform at the GEF. Last year, the House withheld funding for the GEF because it had not completed reforms associated with the third replenishment when our bill came to the floor. There were subsequent agreements that allowed us, in the end, to fund the GEF fully last year.

It is my understanding the GEF has now adopted the reforms sought by the committee and the administration for the fourth replenishment. We will certainly take this into consideration when we meet with the Senate in conference on this bill. In order to facilitate this, I urge the administration to consider a budget amendment requesting additional funds should they decide that is appropriate.

I thank the gentleman again for his commitment to GEF and the environment and will work with him as the bill moves through the process.

If I am correct, I think I have 30 seconds remaining, and I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's comments and strong support for ECESP. We will have those discussions with USAID to emphasize the importance of continuing ECESP activities in Albania and Macedonia this fiscal year to shape future utilization of ECESP's expertise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I won't take that much time, but let me just respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin and let me just say that he has been very cooperative, and I appreciate very much his cooperation in trying to work out some time limitations so that we could work our way through this bill in an orderly fashion, and hopefully in a timely fashion, and get everybody home at a reasonable hour.

With the number of amendments that we have, it does not appear that we can get any kind of a unanimous consent agreement that would allow us to finish the bill by the time that the gentleman has said that he would prefer us to be out and not considering major issues of appropriations of taxpayers' dollars after the hour of 10 o'clock at night.

So it is beyond my pay grade at this point to decide how we proceed, whether or not we do agree to a unanimous

consent agreement to have some limitation on the time of amendments and stop at a reasonable time tonight, or whether we simply plunge on through without any kind of agreement and get as far as we can tonight, which will certainly be much shorter, but we will not get nearly as far or nearly as fast.

So I am hoping the leadership, that is not on this floor at this time, will shortly be able to come back to us with some understanding of how we are going to proceed, and I hope we can just move on and do the reading, and we will get to amendments as we can here.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, if the gentleman would be prepared to proceed in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I would just rise to say that I am prepared, if the gentlewoman will keep her remarks very short, to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the kind of amendment that we are going to hear a great deal about this afternoon and this evening. It is the kind of amendment that if the world were different, if we lived in a world

with unlimited resources, it would be wonderful to say ``yes'' to an amendment like this.

But, of course, we do not live in a world of unlimited resources. As described in general debate, the allocation for our bill is $2.4 billion below the amount requested by the President, and certainly lower even than what all Members would like to see in the bill.

We have $1.29 billion for development assistance. That is $12 million above what the President requested. So in this particular area, despite the fact that we are $2 billion below the President's request, we have actually exceeded the amount in this area. It is equal to the amount we provided in fiscal year 2006 once you adjust for the trade capacity funds that have been moved to the new account.

We have some very tough choices that we have to make in this bill, and yet we have provided at least steady funding levels for the Development Assistance Account.

Now, the difficult part of this amendment is where the money comes out of. The gentleman says it is more important to provide safe drinking water than it is to make military sales to other countries. I would agree with that statement certainly when it is phrased that way. But I think it is important, and the gentleman understand, that of the $4 billion that we have in our bill for military assistance, foreign military financing, all but $900 million is designated for countries. It is designated to Egypt, Israel, Jordan and some for Colombia, and a couple of other countries. But there is only $900 million that is not designated.

The gentleman's amendment takes this money out of it, but does not touch the earmarks, of course; and so it comes out of that $900 million that is left. What he is doing is taking the money away from a handful of countries which would absolutely decimate the handful of countries left. You would be talking about taking away the small amounts of money that we give to such countries as Armenia, the substantial amounts that we give to Pakistan, Turkey, the small amounts that we give to countries like Liberia and Ethiopia. All of it would come out of the funds that go to those countries, which money is important, very important in terms of their security, very important in terms of their international obligations. In many cases, it goes for things so those countries can meet their international obligations towards peacekeeping forces.

So the amendment is going to reduce funding out of 68 small country programs which would have to be cut by 50 percent or more in each of those cases in order to accommodate the gentleman's amendment. I think to do this would be absolutely irresponsible on the part of the House of Representatives, and we should not allow this to happen.

Let me conclude by saying what we have done on water programs in this legislation. We have directed the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide not less than $50 million from the development assistance accounts to build wells in rural areas and to secure water systems in urban areas of Africa and communities that lack access to fresh water.

In addition, we have language, bill language within the Development Assistance Account, that mandates $20 million specifically for water programs in East Africa, and that of course is where we know the need is the very greatest.

These directives, these mandates, will double the fiscal year 2006 allocation for Africa in the Development Assistance Account. No one, certainly not the least of whom is me, doubts the need to provide clean, safe water for drinking around the world. I believe this bill as presented to the House helps us deliver on that promise.

Does it do everything we would like it to do? No. But in so many other areas, this bill so necessarily falls shorts, as do other appropriations bills.

This amendment is not the right way to proceed and the consequences for the small countries that rely importantly on our foreign military financing programs and are affected by this reduction would be absolutely drastic. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this well- meaning amendment, but with consequences that are quite dire to the effect of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and I say so with the greatest respect to my colleague David Obey. Often on this floor, we say things about each other and we say things because it is the oil that helps make this place move forward, but I do have the greatest respect for him and I believe he has been a great part of this institution, it has been a privilege to serve with him. We just differ on this amendment. We had a very good debate in the full Appropriations Committee on this, and I hope the debate this afternoon will be as constructive and as good as the debate that we had in the committee.

We both agree that Egypt should strive toward greater democracy and greater freedoms, and I believe the approach taken by this amendment is the wrong approach.

Mr. Obey suggests that we would take $100 million of funding in economic support funds from Egypt. The intent is to take these funds from the amounts that are designated as budget support for Egypt. These are the funds that are transferred to Egypt when it successfully completes certain financial sector reforms. In other words, we have put benchmarks in front and said the money can't be released until they meet these reforms. As they meet these reforms, the money is then released. This would then take the money away from that, reducing that incentive to make these kinds of reforms.

The funds that are targeted by this amendment support one of our strongest allies in this region. And I say that very carefully, one of our strategic partners, our very strong allies in this region, to help them meet the memorandum of understanding that we made in March of 2005 about these financial sector reforms.

Last month in the same kind of debate that we had in Committee, the Secretary of State said in a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, ``Reducing U.S. assistance would seriously damage our partnership as well as the broader strategic interests of the United States.'' And she also went on to state, ``We firmly believe the U.S. assistance to Egypt could continue at the full level requested by the administration, and ask your support for that request.''

In the past, the ranking member Mr. Obey has himself recognized this when he has stated on the floor his support for the funding for Egypt. Now, I recognize and he could argue quite correctly, times have changed, there are different things that have happened, and he could say this is a different source of funds perhaps from it. But nonetheless, he himself has recognized the importance of Egypt as an ally.

While it is sometimes important to dispense tough love by withholding or eliminating funds, we also have to ensure that Egypt remains allied with the United States as a leading moderate nation within the Middle East. And I believe that, in this case, any attempt to pressure Egypt into hastening its transition to democracy could push this country away from the United States and allow another foreign power to gain a foothold in the region that could be very detrimental not only to our interests, but to the interest of peace in the region. This certainly would not be good for any of us.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that is before us today already has a $200 million rescission in funds for Egypt in the economic support fund. So for those who want to make this claim, the bill already has sent a signal to the Egyptians, and I think this amendment just simply piles on. It is overkill, in my opinion.

As in the programs that would receive funds with the Obey amendment, he would put some of it to the global HIV/AIDS initiative. I don't believe that anybody could claim that we have not supported this program or provided all the funds that could reasonably and effectively be spent. In fact, this bill has a total of $3.4 billion for HIV/AIDS programs. The President's request, $750 million increase over the 2006 level, this is the largest increase in this bill, and that demonstrates how much I think all of us on this committee and in this body care about fighting the HIV/AIDS. To increase it by another $50 million is simply not necessary and doesn't do anything more to meet in any way, certainly not as much as it detracts from the strategic interests that we have in Egypt.

The second area is in the international disaster and famine assistance, and this is a contingency count for uses when disaster strikes. In this bill there is a total of $348 million, again, the President's request for this account. The supplemental that 2 days ago was considered by the House and Senate conferees includes an additional $161 million for IDFA to accommodate emergencies that have recently arisen. We have done what I think is the responsible thing in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Obey-Lantos amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to correct some statements that were made by previous speakers with regard to the International Republican Institute having been denied the ability to operate in Egypt. I have the privilege of serving on the board of the IRI, and I did speak yesterday to the president of the IRI.

There has been some disagreement, some misunderstanding, I think, really in terms of the registration process for the IRI in Egypt, but it is the belief of the President of the IRI that this is going to be worked out very shortly. But we do not believe it will, in any way, affect the programs of IRI in Egypt.

So I think he would agree, and certainly I would suggest to you that $100 million whack at Egypt over the slowness of registering an organization, an NGO that has engaged in democracy building, is a little bit of an overkill.

That leads me to my larger point, and this has been a bipartisan debate, and we have seen speakers here on both sides of the aisle speaking against this amendment and appreciate my colleagues who have come to the floor to make the points about how important Egypt is as a strategic partner.

That is the bottom line here. Egypt is a strategic partner. Egypt is a country that is in transition as we speak. Everybody knows that we are moving on to a post-Mubarak age. The question is, where do we want to be 10 years from now? Where do we want Egypt to be? Where do we want to be with regard to our relationship with Egypt. I would suggest to you that Egypt which has been since 1979, with the Camp David Accord, the key part of our strategic effort to achieve peace in the Middle East, that this would not be the time, this would not be the way to achieve that, to continue on that path by kicking sand in the face of Egypt.

This is not the right move, Mr. Chairman. This is not the way to go about this. We need to continue this strategic partnership. We need to continue to say to Egypt, we do expect you to reform. We do expect these kinds of political reforms to be made. We will work with you and we will stand with you and we will stand with the people of Egypt to make these reforms. And

we are glad that you have moved towards the multi-party presidential election. We are glad some of these things are happening. We expect more to be done, but we are not going to achieve that if we do not continue the partnership. If we jerk the rug out from under them, if we take away that partnership, we can hardly expect that to continue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope in just a moment here that we will be able to have the committee rise and we will have a unanimous consent agreement to propound. But let me say before that moment that I do think this debate that we have just concluded has been a very constructive debate, a very productive one.

As I said in the committee, I hope that our friends in Egypt, whether they are here in the United States or whether they are listening to this abroad, have taken some message from this debate that we have just had on the question of our relationship with Egypt and the support and the strategic partnership which we all recognize as an important one. But I hope the message that our friends in Egypt take from this is that democracy is about this kind of a debate.

In a democracy, you not only allow this kind of debate, you encourage it. What we hope to be able to say to our friends in Egypt is that this debate is an important one, and we have had a very constructive debate that I believe is very important.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Our 302(b) allocation, which was nearly $2.4 billion below the President's requested level, presented us with several challenges. Within this sharply reduced allocation, we were compelled to fit dramatic increases in presidential priorities such as the Millennium Challenge Account and the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, as well as increased funding for Afghanistan and Iraq.

I generally agree with Chairman Kolbe on the spending levels recommended within the reduced allocation. We worked closely together as always to ensure that, in the face of devastating cuts, we at least level funded child survival and health and development assistance priorities. The bill provides the President's request of $3.4 billion for HIV/AIDS, increasing the overall amount for HIV/AIDS and TB by $751 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and more than doubling the President's request for the global fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $444.5 million. Although I know we both wish we could have done more for the global fund, I believe we are doing the best we can with the resources we have.

The bill maintains level funding for basic education in the development assistance account at last year's level of $365 million. And I am pleased that we have been able to increase non-DA funds for basic education in the bill for a total of $550 million. We also continue the U.S. reconstruction program in Afghanistan, fully fund the requested levels for Liberia, Haiti, and Sudan, and fully fund our strategic commitments in the Middle East. I am pleased that we have also restored deep cuts the President requested in family planning and reproductive health programs. The bill substantially increases family planning funding and the child survival and health account from the President's request, fully restores bill-wide bilateral funding to $432 million, the fiscal year 2006 House-passed level, and earmarks $34 million for the United Nations population fund.

I am also pleased that the bill restores funding for several key U.N. agencies, including UNICEF; UNDP, UNIFEM, and the UNIFEM Trust Fund.

I want to commend the chairman for his willingness to take a critical look at the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative, and specifically how the continuation of a special program aimed primarily at eradication of coca is consistent with the myriad U.S. foreign policy goals in the Andean region. I do believe that our overemphasis on the drug war has caused us to neglect many of the critical objectives throughout Latin America, and it is my hope that the changes made by the chairman in the allocation of funds in this bill are the first steps toward a wholesale reevaluation of our foreign aid program in the region.

I want to point out a few specific concerns I have with the bill. Our shamefully low allocation required us to make cuts from the requests in several key areas, including Migration and Refugee Assistance, peacekeeping, programs for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, key Economic Support Fund programs, and Congo debt relief. It is my hope we will be able to restore these cuts and even provide increases where warranted, in conference, in addition to providing funding for many of these priorities in the supplemental conference report expected on the House floor tomorrow.

I also hope that we can restore full funding for the United States commitment to the Global Environmental Facility. The President's requested level granted in this bill is more than $20 million less than what we had pledged. In light of the GEF's adoption just this week of a number of U.S. initiated matters and reforms, I believe we have a particular responsibility to fully fund our commitment to this organization.

I am disappointed that this bill places no conditionality whatsoever on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and Guatemala. Despite constructive language on Indonesia included in the FY 06 bill, this bill fails to send the message that the United States does expect Indonesia to continue on the path of achieving true civilian control over the military and accountability for human rights abuses. Again, I hope this is something we can remedy in conference.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Kolbe for his hard work this year and every year throughout his tenure in creating a bipartisan environment for examining our foreign aid policy priorities and addressing the funding needs of our foreign assistance program. The chairman has shown tremendous leadership in steering our subcommittee, setting an example of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration that, unfortunately, is too rare in Congress today, and, Chairman Kolbe leaves behind an impressive legacy as he prepares to retire.

Chairman Kolbe has overseen the largest increases in the foreign aid budget post-Cold War, understanding implicitly the key role foreign aid plays in maintaining United States national security. Under his stewardship, funding in the bill to combat HIV-AIDS has increased from $485 million in FY 02 to $3.43 billion in the mark before us today. Basic education has increased more than five-fold. I know he is particularly proud of his work on trade capacity building, as well as on shaping and promoting the Millennium Challenge Account.

Today, the last time Chairman Kolbe will manage the Foreign Operations bill during floor consideration, I do hope we can all take a moment to express our appreciation for the chairman's leadership and his friendship. This Congress and the American people are richer for his service to this body, and his departure will leave a void of intelligence, expertise, professionalism and decency that will not easily be filled.

Chairman Kolbe, you are really a great Member and a great friend. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it has been an honor and a pleasure to work with you.

I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and with our Senate counterparts as the bill moves into conference. However, I think the bill before us today is a good product. I appreciate the chairman's leadership, the involvement of all of our subcommittee members and associate staff, of course, the hard work of our staff, as exemplified by Nisha Desai and Betsy Phillips celebrating their birthday here in this Capitol at about 1 or 2 in the morning. So we all say happy birthday. Happy birthday, Betsy.

We thank Beth Tritter, Craig Higgens, Rob Blair, Delia Scott, Lori Maes, Kevin Hernandez and Todd Calongne for their hard work in crafting this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished member of the committee, Ms. Kilpatrick.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlewoman for her interest in the issue, and I understand that Radio Al Mahaba has given Iraqi women the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression during a very confusing and dangerous time in their country.

I will look forward to working with my colleague from New York to support the continued operation of this vital resource. And I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it to our attention.

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

I just want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey. I appreciate your advocacy on this very critical issue. Many of us in the Congress on both sides of the aisle understand the urgency, and I do hope we can work together on the next step because these young women come there with this terrible, terrible problem and then they are repaired. And without contraceptive coverage, without family planning, they come back again and again and again. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue and I thank you for your advocacy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that this program should be thoroughly considered by the Department of State and USAID. It can save lives that would otherwise be lost, and advance our national interest by demonstrating the compassion of the American people. It deserves a chance to go forward. I look forward to working with the Chair and the gentleman from New York to ensure that Project Iraqi Hearts gets the attention and consideration it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, since the time has expired, I will just say that I will be happy to work with him, too.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been one of the strongest advocates for clean water in the world, and we thank you for your important work.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Kolbe. I understand and support what the gentleman from Oregon seeks to accomplish; but I believe passage of this amendment would upset the delicate balance of funding we have achieved in this bill on a bipartisan basis.

It would also severely disrupt foreign military financing programs that are a key part of our overall national security strategy.

I was pleased that the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations bill included a $200 million earmark for drinking water supply projects in the developing world, and I understand that USAID will indeed meet that earmark in this current fiscal year. As we have not reduced development assistance funding below the 2006 enacted level, and have not reduced disaster assistance significantly from the enacted level, I am confident this bill has room to at least meet the 2006 earmark for water supply projects.

As I said, the potential effect of the gentleman's amendment, and the chairman referred to that, would be to cut nearly in half the 68 unearmarked recipients of foreign military financing. So I am very concerned, but I hope to work with the chairman and the gentleman from Oregon in conference to ensure a high level of funding is earmarked for water supply projects.

In the meantime, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in support of the Obey amendment and I want my colleagues to know that the decision to support this amendment has not been an easy one for me. I support it out of a deep sense of disappointment and unease with recent actions taken by the Egyptian government.

I returned from Egypt with many of the members of the committee just a couple of weeks ago. Our brief visit there was filled with candid meetings with key Egyptian officials. We heard about Egypt's support for the Darfur peace process, its pledges of support for a U.N. peacekeeping force.

We heard the fears of Egyptian officials about the prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the threats to Egyptian society and industry from terrorism, and that what happened in the Palestinian elections with Hamas could happen to them.

We also heard about the great strides Egypt has made on economic reforms and the difficult reforms still ahead, and we heard about Egypt's cooperation on the Middle East peace process and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and on ensuring speedy passage for U.S. military vessels through the Suez Canal.

However, in recent weeks and months, we heard other stories as well, of thousands of riot police being deployed to crush peaceful demonstrations by supporters of judicial independence, of judges being punished for publicly saying that past elections have been rife with fraud, of efforts to quash moderate opposition parties, including through the prosecution, brutal physical abuse and lengthy incarceration of an opposition candidate, of the extension of the sweeping emergency law despite explicit statements that it would not be removed and, most recently, of the termination of democracy-building projects under the auspices of the International Republican Institute simply because IRI's Cairo director criticized the slow pace of Egyptian reform.

I have such great respect for the chairman and am delighted that he had conversations with the IRI as a board member, and I do hope that there has been a misinterpretation of the public information with that issue, and I do hope it can be straightened out.

I am concerned about these developments, and I just finally came to the conclusion that the U.S. has an obligation to speak out; and to those who say that Egypt is a close ally of the United States and we should deal with these

issues in private, I believe that we are a close ally, we will remain a close ally. We understand how important the United States-Egyptian relationship is, but I would say that we have dealt with them in private, countless times; but the Mubarak government refuses to acknowledge our messages.

We, as members of the committee, delivered those messages in person. We understand that Egypt is a close, essential, strategic ally which is precisely why we tried to deliver those messages quietly, in private. It did not work. The reports kept appearing. The pictures on CNN when we were even in Egypt kept appearing.

Since 1979, Egypt has received more than $60 billion in military and economic aid from the United States, and I have supported it every time I had the opportunity to vote for that, understanding the importance of Egypt in that very difficult region of the world. This is proof enough of the importance of Egypt's continued strength, stability, and friendship to the United States.

The Obey amendment is not about devaluing that relationship or causing instability. It is, rather, a strong, unequivocal message that only a friend can deliver, that the way in which the government of Egypt currently approaches its moderate political opposition is simply inexcusable; and for this reason, I do urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I respond to my colleague, I feel strongly that I am not going to tell Mr. Mubarak or his son, with whom we were very impressed, I am not going to tell them whether they should democratize in 1 year, 2 years or 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, in response to my good friend Mr. Wicker, as you well know, we had some very, very solid, powerful dialogue with both President Mubarak and his very impressive son, and we both felt that his words were very strong, very optimistic about the future of the continuance of our relationship and the importance of their role in that region.

I am not even suggesting to my good friend Mr. Wicker that we should tell them they should democratize in 2 years or 3 years. They are living in a tough neighborhood, and they are taking actions that they may think are appropriate in their move towards democratization.

However, I happen to believe, from the bottom of my heart, that those pictures on the camera of 10,000 riot police beating people over the head or the jailing of political opposition for 5 years on forgery charges, and I know we heard that he was not a very good, upstanding citizen, I believe that, however, I am taking this action because of the behavior which I think is inexcusable and because I have confidence that they will continue to move towards the path of democracy.

So I am taking this action not because I am commenting on their slow move towards democracy, but because of the actions that they have taken that I think are inexcusable and, in my judgment, would be problematic if you are moving towards democratic reform.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope the headline would emphasize the over $1 billion that we are providing in assistance to Egypt because we acknowledge the very critical role in that region: the critical role they are playing in Darfur; the critical role they are playing in the peace process. And I have confidence that that relationship is so strong that we will continue to work together to make sure that someday, in our lifetime, we will see peace in that region of the world and hopefully it will be based on democratic principles.

I thank my good colleague for your very thoughtful question.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. It increases funding by $30 million for the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, and it decreases the Andean Counter Drug Initiative by the same amount. The reduction in the ACI account should come from eradication and military related aid above the President's request level. It is my understanding from figures provided by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that, under the ACI, the President requested $506.2 million for Colombia; the committee provided $545.2 million for all these categories of aid. So even after this amount is reduced by $30 million, aid for Colombia requested by the President would still total $515.2 million, or $9 million above the President's fiscal year 2007 request.

Mr. Chairman, I have been on this House floor before expressing my concerns about our policy in Colombia. The drug eradication policy, to be blunt, has been a miserable failure. The Colombian military continues to commit heinous acts with impunity.

Now, I know that some of my esteemed colleagues who oppose this amendment will once again come to the House floor with their charts and graphs and arrows pointing this way and that, but no matter how you slice and dice it, the bottom line is that after 6 years and $4.7 billion for Colombia, we are exactly where we started out as far as drug cultivation is concerned. The same amount of coca is being grown today in Colombia as in 1999. And this isn't Jim McGovern just saying this; this fact comes from our own Office of Narcotics Control and Drug Policy. It is their figures, their findings, their conclusion; the State Department backs them up on this. $4.7 billion.

As the committee report accompanying this bill states so eloquently on page 62: after a massive increase in fumigation from 47,000 hectares at the start of Plan Colombia to today when we fumigated 138,775 hectares last year, we have accomplished zilch, Mr. Chairman. Coca cultivation in Columbia is at the same level or maybe slightly above from where it was when we started.

On Monday, Mr. Chairman, headlines in the newspapers informed us that a Colombian military unit murdered in a deliberate cold-blooded ambush one of the most successful U.S.-trained antidrug units in Colombia. Yesterday the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee froze $30 million in military aid because it was so enraged over these murders and the State Department's recent human rights certification.

Mr. Chairman, we have to respond to this. This House has to respond, and this is the moment to do so. We are not undermining President Uribe by adopting this amendment. Colombia will still receive more than what the President of the United States of America

asked for in fiscal year 2007. But we can send a powerful message to the Colombian Armed Forces that we won't keep writing blank checks, we won't keep turning a blind eye, we aren't a cheap date you can take advantage of.

Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity to do some real good with this amendment. We can fund the President's request for U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund. The fund currently stands at its lowest balance in over a decade. The State Department generally draws down between $60 million and $70 million in ERMA funds each year. There are just too many unexpected emergencies happening around the world. Without the increase provided by the amendment, we could be threatening the life-saving assistance that can mean the difference of life and death to persons caught in tragic violence or natural disaster. Whether we are looking at an increasingly explosive border between Chad and Sudan to preventing food aid pipeline breaks in Kenya and Uganda, to being able to respond quickly to victims of earthquakes or volcanoes, this fund is one of the President's most effective tools. With this amendment we can give the President what he has requested and needs for Colombia and ACI, and we can give him what he asked for and needs to meet emergency refugee crises. And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, and for the first time, we can send a powerful message to the Colombian military that our pockets and our patience are wearing thin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague is absolutely right, eradication has dramatically increased in Colombia, but it has achieved absolutely nothing. There is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We have gone from 336,000 acres in 2000 to 355,000 acres, and that is actually a 6 percent increase. How is that success?

When Plan Colombia started, it was supposed to decrease coca growing by 50 percent over 5 years. That is what we were promised. Well, $4.7 billion later, we have a 6 percent increase over 5 years the amount of coca being grown in Colombia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is a Colombian expert and who was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia.

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

I will insert in the Record at this point an article that recently appeared in the Financial Times entitled, ``Colombia `most dangerous' place for trade unionists'' in the world.

[From the Financial Times, June 6, 2006]

Colombia ``Most Dangerous'' Place for Trade Unionists

(By Frances Williams)

Colombia remains the most dangerous place on earth to be a

trade unionist, with 70 people killed there last year for

union activities.

In addition, 260 Colombian trade unionists received death

threats ``in a climate of continuing impunity for the

assassins, according to the annual survey released today by

the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Right-wing paramilitary groups and the state security

forces have been blamed for most of the violence in Colombia.

The ICFTU also records slayings in Brazil and Honduras, and a

``pervasive climate of violence and fear'' in Guatemala.

Worldwide, a total of 115 people were murdered for

defending workers' rights in 2005, more than 1,600 were

subjected to violent assaults and some 9,000 were arrested.

Apart from Colombia, the report highlights violence and

repression in Iraq, Iran, El Salvador, Djibouti, China,

Cambodia, Guatemala, Zimbabwe and Burma.

Though the death toll was down from 145 in 2004, almost

entirely due to fewer killings in Colombia, ``we are

nevertheless witnessing increasingly severe violence and

hostility against working people who stand up for their

rights,'' said Guy Ryder, ICFTU general secretary.

Even in the industrialised world workers' rights are

frequently violated or eroded, the report says. The Bush

administration is accused of encouraging ``union-busting''

through measures via its National Labour Relations Board to

reduce the influence of trade unions.

The ICFTU also notes aggressive publicity campaigns in the

US aimed at weakening workers' trust in trade unions.

Australia is criticised for a wave of anti-union laws that

it said would deprive most workers of protection from unfair

dismissal.

Publication of the report by Brussels-based ICFTU, whose

233 affiliated organisations represent 145m workers, is timed

to coincide with the annual conference of the International

Labour Organisation now underway in Geneva.

The conference is expected to condemn Belarus for

persistent interference in trade union affairs and to

consider action against Burma for its refusal to end forced

labour.

In Asia, violence against trade unionists by police and

security forces was documented last year in Burma, South

Korea, India, Cambodia and China, where dozens of trade union

activists continue to be incarcerated.

In the Middle East, 13 union representatives were

assassinated in Iraq and there were reports of torture and

violence against strikers in Iran. In several other countries

trade unions are outlawed or severely restricted.

In Africa, the report singles out Djibouti and Zimbabwe,

where the trade union movements suffer constant harassment by

the government of President Robert Mugabe.

Mr. Chairman, I would also insert in the Record an article that I referred to earlier that appeared in the Boston Globe about how ``Colombia says soldiers killed antidrug police.'' That Colombia's military unit assassinated a U.S.-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the bidding of the drug mafia 2 weeks ago. And what is the response of this House? Nothing. The United States Senate froze $30 million in military aid because they were so outraged that the Colombian military, who we finance, went out and killed in cold blood this anti-drug police unit.

Mr. Chairman, we need to send a strong signal that we are not a cheap date, that we are watching, that we care and we demand accountability.

[From the Boston Globe, June 6, 2006]

Colombia Says Soldiers Killed Antidrug Police

authorities probe colonel for link to major trafficker

(By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan)

Bogota.--Suspicions that a Colombian military unit

assassinated a US-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the

bidding of the drug mafia two weeks ago have proven true,

officials say, in a case that has badly shaken public

confidence in the military.

On May 22, 10 of the country's most successful antidrug

police were killed by a military platoon in the outskirts of

Jamundi, an area under the influence of narco-traffickers 195

miles southwest of the capital, near Cali.

Two military officers and six soldiers were arrested

Thursday on the basis of incriminating cellphone text

messages and crimescene evidence that investigators say

prove the eight men planned the killings. The suspects insist

the shootings were a ``friendly fire'' mistake.

``This was not a mistake, this was a crime; this was a

deliberate decision, a criminal decision,'' Attorney General

Mario Iguaran said last week. ``They were doing the bidding

of a drug trafficker.''

Authorities are investigating bank accounts allegedly

containing $44,000 belonging to Army Colonel Bayron Carvajal,

the most senior officer arrested, as well as his alleged

links to Omar Garcia Varela, according to Colombian newspaper

El Tiempo. Varela is accused of being right-hand man of drug

boss Diego Montoya, one of the United States' 10 most-wanted

narcotraffickers, who is believed to control properties and

drug laboratories near the site of fatal attack. The United

States has offered $5 million for information leading to

Montoya's capture.

Questions remain in the Jamundi case about the extent of

alleged collusion with drug traffickers within the armed

forces, and how high up it may go. The arrests came days

after the US State Department certified Colombia's human

rights record, ensuring the flow of most US military aid to

this country. Last year, Congress withheld some military

assistance on worries that the Colombian government, which

has waged a nearly decade-long campaign against drug

corruption, was ignoring extrajudicial killings or

cooperation between the military and right-wing death squads.

The Jamundi case has sparked a national outcry that has

reached up to President Alvaro Uribe, but Uribe on Friday

said he was not ready to oust generals to hold them

responsible for the killings. The best way to restore

military credibility, he said, would be to clarify events and

impose sanctions on the guilty.

Among the most damning evidence against the arrested

soldiers are text messages allegedly sent by Carvajal on the

day of the killing to the lieutenant and sergeant in charge

of the platoon.

``Pull back the ambush. . . . Everything is set for

tonight,'' read one message leaked by authorities to El

Tiempo and the newsmagazine Semana.

That afternoon, Carvajal sent another message, the media

reported: ``Get ready for the group to come with the chicken

so you can get it.''

``Chicken'' was the nickname of civilian informant Luis

Eduardo Betancur, who was leading police to a suspected 440-

pound stash of cocaine. Betancur was also a registered

informant of Carvajal, authorities say. He was found shot in

the neck, with his balaclava removed, investigators say.

Eight of the 10 police killed were shot in the back, and

``the crime scene was contaminated before investigators

arrived,'' said an investigative official yesterday who spoke

on condition of anonymity. Investigators suspect soldiers may

have fired shots from the police officers' weapons after they

died, in an effort to make it look like there was a

confrontation, El Tiempo reported.

Fewer than half of the soldiers in the 28-man platoon fired

at the police. Witnesses interviewed by telephone from

Jamundi say the police identified themselves during the

attack and begged the soldiers not to shoot.

More than half of the shots fired originated from a

military sniper who was hidden from view, said an

investigative official.

When colleagues of the slain police arrived at the scene to

investigate, another text message allegedly demanded to know

why they had been allowed to pass a military roadblock.

The police unit had been trained by the Drug Enforcement

Administration and was responsible for more than 200 arrests

of drug traffickers, including 23 wanted for extradition to

the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is an expert on Colombian's eradication policy.

Mr. Chairman, we are very much committed to Colombia and committed to success, but the fact of the matter is that after $4.7 billion there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We want success. We want to achieve results. We just don't want to go along because we don't want to admit that maybe we can improve this policy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to put this debate in perspective. Nobody is talking about the dismantling our support for Colombia. Nobody is talking about withdrawing all of our support to Colombia. What we are talking about is sending the appropriate message at this appropriate time.

I will agree with the gentleman that fumigation has never been higher. But the problem is that there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. So maybe we need to rethink our strategy. Maybe it is not working. I think any reasonable person who looks at the statistics, provided by our own government, would come to that conclusion.

I will agree with the gentleman that President Uribe deserves credit for lowering the number of kidnappings in Colombia. But I am not prepared to give him a pat on the back in the face of what just happened, where U.S.-funded Colombian military soldiers went out and killed in cold blood antinarcotic policemen who are dedicated to combating drugs in Colombia.

What kind of message are we sending when we respond to that by doing nothing, by saying you have to continue to get everything that you expect? The United States Senate understands what is at stake. They froze $30 million in military aid in response to that. We need to send a signal too: we are not a cheap date. We want to support you, but we want there to be accountability. We want an end to the violence. We want the military not to be above the law.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Facts are stubborn things, and maybe I haven't been clear in this debate, but when the opposition here talks about we are cutting aid to Colombia, that is not true.

The bottom line is we are providing Colombia everything that the President of the United States has requested, plus $9 million more. That is not cutting Colombia. That is not walking away from the drug war.

What we are frustrated with is the billions that we are spending are not accomplishing the goals we were promised. We are concerned there could continue to be gross human rights violations by the Colombian military. We want to send a signal and strengthen President Uribe's hands in helping to bring those military men to justice who committed those terrible murders against those police officers. We also want to call attention to the fact that all of this money that we have been sending down there has done nothing to reduce the amount of coca cultivation and growth in that country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the co-chair of the Refugee Caucus.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have made this point several times before during the appropriations cycle, and I want to put Members on notice one more time. I think the record is pretty clear that the minority has cooperated at every step of the way on every appropriation bill before this House so far this year. We have facilitated time agreements, we have persuaded our own Members to stifle themselves and reduce the amount of time they take on amendments, we have asked numerous people not to introduce duplicative amendments, and we have, in general, worked as a willing partner with the majority to see to it that this House proceeds in an orderly fashion.

I have had only one requirement. I do not believe that major issues affecting the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars should be decided in the dead of night, and I do not believe that this House has any business voting on these major issues at 11, 12, or 1 o'clock in the morning. It is clear to me that that is what is going to happen on this bill.

I intend to support this bill, unless two amendments that are pending do not pass. But if that happens, I intend to support this bill. But I do not believe that it serves the interests of this country to be passing this legislation or dealing with major amendments thereto in the midnight hours.

So I want to put every Member on notice. I am perfectly willing to agree to a unanimous consent agreement that enables us to get a substantial way through the consideration of this bill. I would love to see it finished tonight. If it can, by a reasonable hour, no one will be happier than I. But I do not intend to cooperate in a process which pushes all of these votes into 11, 12 or 1 o'clock votes.

We saw that on prescription drugs, we saw that on major tax bills, we have seen that on several appropriation bills last year, and I do not intend to allow that to continue without doing everything I can to prevent it. We can either proceed in an orderly fashion, in a way which is reflective positively on what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, or we can run a death march where we hide most of our major actions after midnight.

I don't intend to participate in the latter. I will be happier to cooperate in the former.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are some problems associated with this amendment. And if it were adopted, I think there would have to be substantial rejiggering of the allocation to the subcommittee. But I just want to make an observation, nonetheless.

With the passage of the defense appropriations bill, we will have spent $450 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812, that war being our involvement in Iraq.

The conferees on the supplemental two nights ago, despite the fact that there were two Senate votes and one House vote which put into that bill a declaration that the Congress was in opposition to creating permanent bases in Iraq, despite that fact, the conferees dropped all three of those.

So we are now in the position where the Congress of the United States will not even take a position that we don't want permanent bases in Iraq. Now, I know there are some people in this Chamber who don't want us to pull out immediately. There are a lot of people who don't want us to do that. But, certainly, the only other option isn't to stay there forever, but that is what is being implied if we accept these permanent bases in Iraq.

Imagine how our influence in the world would be transformed. Right now, since our invasion of Iraq, we are at an all time low in terms of American popularity in every region of the world. Imagine how our popularity would be transformed if we said that, instead of spending $450 billion on a stupid war, imagine how the world would look at us if instead we said we were going to take 1/10 that amount and use it to make certain that every single one of God's creatures who we could reach in the next 10 years would finally have access to water that doesn't make them sick and doesn't make a lot of their kids die. America would be transformed, at least our image would be transformed, into actually living up to our Judeo-Christian principles. Wouldn't that be a shocker?

So I recognize that there are technical problems associated with the gentleman's amendment. But just because my heart moves me on that subject, I am going to vote for it. And if it means that somebody somewhere is not going to get all the weapons they have been planning on, isn't that too bad.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

For some time, Mr. Chairman, I have been troubled by the repression of political freedom in Egypt and the lack of democratic reform. But in light of the historical role that Egypt has played in the region and the continuing stability that Egypt brings to an increasingly troubled region, I have appealed for patience and moderation in efforts to alter Egypt's aid package.

I chaired this subcommittee for 10 years, and during that time I was responsible for providing over $20 billion in military and economic aid to Egypt. In the years since, I have helped to fend off amendments that sought to cut or restrict aid to Egypt.

Last year, during the Full Committee consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment that earmarked some of Egypt's economic aid for democracy purposes, a move that allowed Congress to fend off yet another attempt to restrict the military aid. But in offering that amendment, I gave notice to the government of Egypt that my patience, and the patience of the American people, was wearing thin, and I hoped and expected that the government of Egypt would get the hint and make some moves to loosen its grip on political freedom and democratic reforms.

Instead, I am sad to say, we have gotten backsliding on municipal elections, an extension of emergency laws, repression of judicial freedoms and a crackdown on demonstrations and rallies.

Most recently, we have seen the appellate court in Egypt reject the appeal of Ayman Nour, a political opponent of President Mubarak who was conveniently arrested just prior to last year's presidential elections.

Hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested and jailed in recent weeks, many of them young kids in their teens and 20s who have been beaten and bullied. Reporters have been roughed up and intimidated.

Just this week, the government of Egypt suspended the work of the International Republican Institute in Egypt after the IRI country director criticized in an interview the pace of reform as being too slow.

Now, I am not a naive peddler of global democracy. I am not preaching that we hold elections all across the Middle East and call it a day. I understand that the very free and fair elections in the West Bank in Gaza have resulted in a disastrous consequence for the peace process through the election of Hamas.

But I do fear that Egypt is heading toward a precipice. What is happening in Egypt, Mr. Chairman, is that the government is systematically fencing in and squeezing out its moderate opposition. And if they continue to do that, they are going to wind up with the only viable opposition being the Muslim Brotherhood, the most radical of the forces in the country. That will be disastrous for Mr. Mubarak. It will be disastrous for his government. It will disastrous for the American people, and it will be disastrous for the entire region.

I consider myself a lifelong friend of Egypt, and I have taken a lot of heat on this floor through the years for taking a number of actions that supported Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, sometimes even when I differed with my friends who were supporting various provisions for Israel.

But it seems to me that if you are a friend of Egypt, you will try to make them understand that they are endangering their ability to have a peaceful transfer of power when Mr. Mubarak leaves office.

Now, I have met Mr. Mubarak's son. I understand that Mr. Mubarak would like to see his son succeed him. I am very impressed by his son. I happen to think he would probably be a good leader. But he is not going to get the chance for very long if the moderate opposition in that country is systematically jailed, beaten up and wiped out, because then you will have only the most radical extreme elements left.

So what we are doing in this amendment is to cut $100 million out of the Economic Support Fund, and we are moving 50 million of that to help refugees in the Sudan, and we are moving another 50 million of it to provide increased funding for the President's HIV/AIDS initiative. I am not doing this out of anger at Egypt. I am doing this out of a deep and abiding concern for the future of that country.

I respect Egypt. I think the people of Egypt are a wonderful people. And I think that Mr. Mubarak has done many constructive things that have been in the interest of peace in the region and have helped promote our own national interests as well.

But I am speaking as a friend, and I am saying this Congress has an obligation to recognize the problem and to act before it is too late to salvage the situation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Last year, I said virtually everything that my good friend is now saying today. The problem is that in the last year they have jailed their main opponents, they have beaten up people who are defending an independent judiciary, they have imposed another round of martial law, and they have continued the very things that are totally opposed to our values.

Now, to me the issue is not whether Egypt is a good friend and a good ally. They obviously are. The question is; Are they going to be around to continue to be that. If they do not change the way they are behaving, they are not going to be succeeded by a moderate government. They are systematically alienating every moderate group in that society, and you are going to wind up with the Muslim Brotherhood running that country unless they wake up before it is too late.

I thank the gentleman. We were just told this amendment goes too far. The fact is the State Department made phone calls to a number of people here yesterday indicating they would be willing to support this amendment. The only difference was that they wanted $50 million going to added democratization programs rather than going to AIDS. That was the only difference, because the State Department is getting fed up with the conduct that Egypt is demonstrating, and the State Department recognizes that this is a very dangerous slippery slope the Egyptian government is on.

So some may think this amendment goes far, but based on these conversation yesterday, the State Department is not one of them.

I thank the gentleman. Someone on the other side just said ``What will the headline be tomorrow?''; that it will be that there is a slap in the face of the government. That is the point. That is the point.

Our long-term security is tied not just to Mr. Mubarak, but whoever comes after him. And what we are trying to do is to send a message to all levels in Egyptian society that we stand for what we say we stand for, which is a modicum of decency in dealing with your political opponents, absent other trappings of democracy.

And it is important that a lot of people in Egypt besides Mr. Mubarak understand that we are serious about our democratic values, that we are serious about assuming that the country that is more identified with us than any other Arab country, that it is important that they reflect certain norms of decency with respect to the way they treat their population and treat their political opponents.

And it is in the interest of the United States to make sure that every citizen of Egypt understands that, because otherwise, we allow other groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, to paint caricatures of the United States, which will do us no good in the long run.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order on the amendment and I would allow Mr. Crowley to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 32, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman from Oregon has described this precisely. We all recognize that methamphetamine is a terrible problem. I represent a border district in a border State; we have a terrible problem with that with Mexico. The gentlewoman has described this amendment accurately, in that while it increases and decreases the same time, it does not change the structure of any of the accounts or any of the programs; and, therefore, I am willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman. There are few things in this hemisphere that are more important for us than the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. In our effort to try and fight drugs abroad we can fight drugs here at home.

The gentleman has suggested this money would go to the International Refugee and Migration account, and we believe we have funded that in a fair and reasonable way and will have accounted for the needs of that account.

Let me tell you why my concern is more not that we couldn't use more money in ERMA; my concern here is taking this money out of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Let me tell you why I think this is the wrong thing to do at this time.

We have rewarded in this bill good performers and taken action against those who have not done so well. As I described in my opening statement, we have restructured the accounts that go to Colombia. They are an important strategic partner in the region, and our bill recognizes that by normalizing how we fund Colombia. We move funds for the Colombia Alternative Development programs to the ESF account and to the other accounts; we have moved funds for Colombia rule of law to the INCLE account, the narcotics account. These are the accounts we use to fund similar activities for all of our other strategic partners.

So we have basically said to Colombia, you have graduated. It is time for you to become a strategic partner and for our funding of foreign assistance to fall into normal categories.

I firmly believe that, contrary to what the gentleman said, that Colombia stands as the most successful model of democracy in this region. It is not without its problems, but I think it has made enormous and positive strides in recent years. With our support it has been transformed into a much more secure democratic and economically prosperous country.

So why do I say that? How do I measure the success that we have had? Well, we have got more than 200,000 acres of legal crops that have been planted, 64,000 farm families provided legal farming options, coca eradication through spraying has gone from 47,000 hectares of the first year of Plan Colombian to 138,000 last year, and manual eradication also increased substantially. An additional 1,600 hectares of poppies were eradicated in the year 2005. We have regained Colombian sovereignty over most of the air space, and that has led to a 56 percent decrease in suspected trafficker flights. The drug flow by air to the United States has dropped by about 7 percent. Kidnappings are down 51 percent. Homicides are down 13 percent. All 1,098 Colombian municipalities have a permanent government presence. These are just some of the measures of the things that we have done that I think are very significant.

The bill from which this would take funds also rewards Peru by increasing the funds allocated it by $10.5 million. And I did this because we have decreased over the years the funds to Peru and we have experienced the balloon effect of having drug production move from one part of the region to another part, and that is why we have proposed a $7 million increase to Peru's interdiction and eradication program. The last thing in the world we should be doing right now is making a reduction in these overall accounts.

On the other hand, we have reduced some of the funds provided to Bolivia. We have reduced the President's request by 44 percent. Of course, that request was drafted very early in this year before the problems that we are seeing with the current government in Bolivia have occurred. There, the eradication efforts have gone absolutely the wrong direction, from an historic high in 1999 of 17,000 hectares of coca eradicated, to a goal in 2006 of only 5,000; and they are not on track to even meet that very reduced goal in Bolivia.

And so those are just some of the reasons why we are, as I said, trying to reward those who are doing the right thing in the region, but also make sure that our money is not used inappropriately in countries that are not doing the right thing.

So these are just some of the reasons why I think that this amendment would be absolutely the wrong signal at the wrong time and could be the best possible message that we could send to drug traffickers to reduce this Andean counterdrug initiative by the amount that the amendment calls for. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one of the members of the Drug Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to what the gentlewoman from Illinois said.

First of all, with regard to the accounts. It is true that the total amount in here for Colombia is above where the President requested. But in the ACI, that is absolutely not true.

I would just remind the gentlewoman from Illinois that the amount we have in this bill is $384 million. If you cut another $30 million, you would be at $354. The President requested $506 million for the ACI account. So the gentlewoman is absolutely incorrect in stating the amount that goes for the ACI. She just had her figures incorrect because she wasn't aware, I think, of the restructuring that we have done of this account.

Now, I want to just respond to what she was saying about the failures that we have had. I would stipulate to the gentlewoman from Illinois that our eradication programs have not been as good as we would like. She is wrong about the interdiction. We are having success with the interdiction. And we are having success with the interdiction because we have a president down there that is committed to making it work, committed to making Colombians more secure, and committed to providing people with economic well-being in the country.

Now, do bad things happen still? Yes. There are still too many homicides and there are still too many kidnappings. Sadly, we know our own troops have sometimes strayed and done things wrong. We know in our own cities that police departments sometimes stray and do things that are not right. But things are getting better in Colombia. There is more security in Colombia. There are fewer homicides. There are fewer kidnappings. The presence of the government in municipalities, of police in municipalities has increased. Roads are open and commerce is moving again in the country.

What a time to send a signal to them that we are going to cut them; that we

are going to say you are not successful. What we have done in this bill is to restructure the accounts so that much of the aid now flows through traditional accounts of the Economic Support Fund, the Development Assistance, the INCLE funds, and those kinds of accounts. And we are saying to Colombia, you are a strategic partner. We believe that you are succeeding and we are going to put the aid, as we do with other countries, in these kinds of categories.

But this is not the time to be cutting the funding for drug interdiction. And I hope this body will reject this amendment very soundly.

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

Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who has certainly been at the forefront of this issue.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I just want to respond to one thing that the gentlewoman said before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas. I just want to respond to what she said about the Migration and Refugee account and Darfur. She made a reference to the fact that food rations in Darfur might be cut in half. We have provided in the fiscal year 2006, the current year's bill, we have $320 million for Darfur for food programs. When the United Nations said they might still have to cut the rations in half, the President, out of Public Law 480, pledged another $200 million. That is $520 million that the United States has pledged for food in Darfur. You know what the next largest country is? Libya at $4 million.

So I hardly think the United States has been delinquent in the amount of money that we have provided in Darfur.

Meanwhile, we have problems in our own hemisphere and we have problems on our own streets. We have problems in our schools and in our families with drugs that run rampant in our society. We do have an obligation to ourselves to try to prevent that from happening. We have a partner in Colombia that is attempting to do that.

This amendment is a signal to that partner that we do not believe his country should be a partner in our attack on drugs in this country. This would be the wrong thing for us to do at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).