To establish the Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform, and for other purposes.

I thank my distinguished friend from Washington State.

A little bit of irony here. I had an amendment that we fully debated in committee on students' free speech, and I wanted to offer it today. But isn't it ironic that while I was trying to argue for a student bill of rights and free speech, that we're not allowed to have free speech and a bill of rights in the United States Congress. How in the world, when we're having 27 amendments, and this amendment was overwhelmingly supported by our party, we only have, out of 27, four from Republicans, and two of those are Republican opposed. If we have time for 27 amendments, why can't we have an amendment for free speech? I just don't understand.

I never understood the opposition to the amendment, but what an insult to the American people that when we want to debate whether there should be a student bill of rights on campuses, which is being adopted and introduced in many places around the country, that the United States Congress can't even debate on the House floor a free speech amendment and protection for speech in colleges. This is an outrage, an embarrassment, and a humiliation to the Rules Committee. Why 27 amendments, but not one on a student bill of rights? Could it be that it's a difficult vote?

David Horowitz, and I will insert into the Record an article, ``In Defense of Intellectual Diversity,'' has been a champion of this problem. Now, we had a very interesting debate in committee. The chairman of the committee said that some of these students who have been complaining should grow up, and cited a case of where he struggled. And certainly when I was a college student in the late sixties and early seventies and wore a button ``I'm proud to be a square'' when most of America wasn't proud to be a square, I certainly had my share of debates, my share of harassment, my share of being yelled down, trying to offer a differing view than the view that was popular in the late sixties. And some of that goes with being on a college campus, but there are examples all over this country where intellectual diversity, intellectual alternatives are being stymied in academia. This amendment would try to protect those rights.

Some of it's from the far left; a lot of it is on the conservative side right now. In fact, next Tuesday Ben Stein has a movie coming out, ``Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,'' that will debut about one of those debates in science. Where there is an effort to stamp it out, particularly when you get into government, economics, sociology, philosophy, and so on, increasingly there is a rigidity; and if you disagree you are harassed, your grades can be altered, your papers can be given back to you, speeches and alternative speakers are shouted down. And, yes, there are nominal processes to do it, but if there are nominal processes to do it, what is wrong? This amendment says, for example, ``Individual colleges and universities have different missions and each institution should design its academic program in accordance. Within the context of institutional mission, the college should promote intellectual pluralism and facilitate free and open exchange of ideas.'' Well, that's not very controversial.

``D, Students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from speaking out, discriminated against, or subject to official sanctions because of their personal, political, ideological or religious beliefs.'' Isn't that a terrible, risky, difficult vote?

``Students should be treated equally and fairly, including evaluation and grading, without regard to or consideration of their personal political views or ideological beliefs.'' That's just awful. How could we vote on that in the United States Congress to say there would be no persecution? There is no ``whereas'' clauses here. There's nothing in here that says campuses are liberal, campuses are conservative. We don't have any ``whereas'' clauses that are insulting in here. There is nothing in here that's partisan; I just read you the guts of the bill.

Why can't we vote on this? Why is this opposed? Why is it opposed so much that we're not even allowed to debate it on the floor of Congress? How can we say, in a higher education bill, that we believe in inquiry, that we believe in searching for knowledge, but when we had an amendment to protect students who might have a difference of opinion that we wouldn't even allow a vote?

[From the Chronicle Review, Feb. 13, 2004]

In Defense of Intellectual Diversity

(By David Horowitz)

I am the author of the Academic Bill of Rights, which many

student governments, colleges and universities, education

commissions, and legislatures are considering adopting.

Already, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a

version as legislation, and the Senate should soon follow

suit.

State governments are also starting to rally around efforts

to protect student rights and intellectual diversity on

campuses: In Colorado, the State Senate president, John K.

Andrews Jr., has been very concerned about the issue, and

State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just introduced legislation

requiring public institutions to create and publicize

processes for protecting students against political bias.

Lawmakers in four other states have also expressed a strong

interest in legislation of their own, based on some version

of the Academic Bill of Rights. Students for Academic Freedom

is working to secure the measure's adoption by student

governments and university administrations on 105 member

campuses across the country (http:// www.studentsforacademicfreedom .org).

The Academic Bill of Rights is based squarely on the almost

100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American

Association of University Professors has established. The

bill's purposes are to codify that tradition; to emphasize

the value of ``intellectual diversity,'' already implicit in

the concept of academic freedom; and, most important, to

enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or

otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the

classroom or any educational setting.

Although the AAUP has recognized student rights since its

inception, however, most campuses have rarely given them the

attention or support they deserve. In fact, it is safe to say

that no college or university now adequately defends them.

Especially recently, with the growing partisan activities of

some faculty members and the consequent politicization of

some aspects of the curriculum, that lack of support has

become one of the most pressing issues in the academy.

Moreover, because I am a well-known conservative and have

published studies of political bias in the hiring of college

and university professors, critics have suggested that the

Academic Bill of Rights is really a ``right-wing plot'' to

stack faculties with political conservatives by imposing

hiring quotas. Indeed, opponents of legislation in Colorado

have exploited that fear, writing numerous op-ed pieces about

alleged right-wing plans to create affirmative-action

programs for conservative professors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent

of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics

from the classroom. The bill that I'm proposing explicitly

forbids political hiring or firing: ``No faculty shall be

hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of

his or her political or religious beliefs.'' The bill thus

protects all faculty members--left-leaning critics of the war

in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it, for

example--from being penalized for their political beliefs.

Academic liberals should be as eager to support that

principle as conservatives.

Some liberal faculty members have expressed concern about a

phrase in the bill of rights that singles out the social

sciences and humanities and says hiring in those

areas should be based on competence and expertise and with

a view toward ``fostering a plurality of methodologies and

perspectives.'' In fact, the view that there should be a

diversity of methodologies is already accepted practice.

Considering that truth is unsettled in these discipline

areas, why should there not be an attempt to nurture a

diversity of perspectives as well?

Perhaps the concern is that ``fostering'' would be

equivalent to ``mandating.'' The Academic Bill of Rights

contains no intention, implicit or otherwise, to mandate or

produce an artificial ``balance'' of intellectual

perspectives. That would be impossible to achieve and would

create more mischief than it would remedy. On the other hand.

a lack of diversity is not all that difficult to detect or

correct.

By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution

would recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an

appropriate academic enterprise. It would strengthen

educational values that have been eroded by the unwarranted

intrusion of faculty members' political views into the

classroom. That corrosive trend has caused some academics to

focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon

their responsibilities as professional educators with

obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such

professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between

education and indoctrination, which--as the AAUP recognized

in its first report on academic freedom, in 1915--is not a

legitimate educational function.

Because the intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to

restore academic values, I deliberately submitted it in draft

form to potential critics who did not share my political

views. They included Stanley Fish, dean of the College of

Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at

Chicago; Michael Berube, a professor of English at

Pennsylvania State University at University Park; Todd

Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia

University; and Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at

Hamilton College. While their responses differed, I tried to

accommodate the criticisms I got, for example deleting a

clause in the original that would have required the

deliberations of all committees in charge of hiring and

promotion to be recorded and made available to a ``duly

constituted authority.''

I even lifted wholesale one of the bill's chief tenets--

that colleges and professional academic associations should

remain institutionally neutral on controversial political

issues--from an article that Dean Fish wrote for The

Chronicle (``Save the World on Your Own Time,'' January 23,

2003). He has also written an admirable book, Professional

Correctness (Clarendon Press, 1995), which explores the

inherent conflict between ideological thinking and

scholarship.

Since the Academic Bill of Rights is designed to clarify

and extend existing principles of academic freedom, its

opponents have generally been unable to identify specific

provisions that they find objectionable. Instead, they have

tried to distort the plain meaning of the text. The AAUP

itself has been part of that effort, suggesting in a formal

statement that the bill's intent is to introduce political

criteria for judging intellectual diversity and, thus, to

subvert scholarly standards. It contends that the bill of

rights ``proclaims that all opinions are equally valid,''

which ``negates an essential function of university

education.'' The AAUP singles out for attack a phrase that

refers to ``the uncertainty and unsettled character of all

human knowledge'' as the rationale for respecting diverse

viewpoints in curricula and reading lists in the humanities

and social sciences. The AAUP claims that ``this premise . .

. is anti-thetical to the basic scholarly enterprise of the

university, which is to establish and transmit knowledge.''

The association's statements are incomprehensible. After

all, major schools of thought in the contemporary academy--

pragmatism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism, to name

three--operate on the premise that knowledge is uncertain

and, at times, relative. Even the hard sciences, which do not

share such relativistic assumptions, are inspired to continue

their research efforts by the incomplete state of received

knowledge. The university's mission is not only to

transmit knowledge but to pursue it--and from all vantage

points. What could be controversial about acknowledging

that? Further, the AAUP's contention that the Academic

Bill of Rights threatens true academic standards by

suggesting that all opinions are equally valid is a red

herring, as the bill's statement on intellectual diversity

makes clear: ``Exposing students to the spectrum of

significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined

in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty.''

(Emphasis added.)

As the Academic Bill of Rights states, ``Academic

disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to

unsettled questions.'' That is common sense. Why not make it

university policy?

The only serious opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights

is raised by those who claim that, although its principles

are valid, it duplicates academic-freedom guidelines that

already exist. Elizabeth Hoffman, president of the University

of Colorado System, for example, has personally told me that

she takes that position.

But with all due respect, such critics are also mistaken.

Most universities' academic-freedom policies generally fail

to make explicit, let alone codify, the institutions'

commitment to intellectual diversity or the academic rights

of students. The institutions also do not make their policies

readily available to students--who, therefore, are generally

not even aware that such policies exist.

For example, when I met with Elizabeth Hoffman, she

directed me to the University of Colorado's Web site, where

its academic-freedom guidelines are posted. Even if those

guidelines were adequate, posting them on an Internet site

does not provide sufficient protection for students, who are

unlikely to visit it. Contrast the way that institutions

aggressively promote other types of diversity guidelines--

often establishing special offices to organize and enforce

all sorts of special diversity-related programs--to such a

passive approach to intellectual diversity.

At Colorado's Web site, for example, one can read the

following: ``Sections of the AAUP's 1940 Statement of

Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have been adopted

as a statement of policy by the Board of Regents.'' Few

people reading that article or visiting the site would

suspect that the following protection for students is

contained in the AAUP's 1940 statement: ``Teachers are

entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their

subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into

their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to

their subject.''

Is there a college or university in America--including the

University of Colorado--where at least one professor has not

introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the

Bush White House in a class whose subject matter is not the

war in Iraq, or international relations, or presidential

administrations? Yet intrusion of such subject matter, in

which the professor has no academic expertise, is a breach of

professional responsibility and a violation of a student's

academic rights.

We do not go to our doctors' offices and expect to see

partisan propaganda posted on the doors, or go to hospital

operating rooms and expect to hear political lectures from

our surgeons. The same should be true of our classrooms and

professors, yet it is not. When I visited the political-

science department at the University of Colorado at Denver

this year, the office doors and bulletin boards were

plastered with cartoons and statements ridiculing

Republicans, and only Republicans. When I asked President

Hoffman about that, she assured me that she would request

that such partisan materials be removed and an appropriate

educational environment restored. To the best of my

knowledge, that has yet to happen.

Not everyone would agree about the need for such restraint,

and it should be said that the Academic Bill of Rights makes

no mention of postings and cartoons--although that does not

mean that they are appropriate. I refer to them only to

illustrate the problem that exists in the academic culture

when it comes to fulfilling professional obligations that

professors owe to all students. I would ask liberal

professors who are comfortable with such partisan

expressions how they would have felt as students seeking

guidance from their own professors if they had to walk a

gantlet of cartoons portraying Bill Clinton as a lecher,

or attacking antiwar protesters as traitors.

The politicized culture of the university is the heart of

the problem. At Duke University this year, a history

professor welcomed his class with the warning that he had

strong ``liberal'' opinions, and that Republican students

should probably drop his course. One student did. Aided by

Duke Students for Academic Freedom, the young man then

complained. To his credit, the professor apologized. Although

some people on the campus said the professor had been joking,

the student clearly felt he faced a hostile environment. Why

should the professor have thought that partisanship in the

classroom was professionally acceptable in the first place?

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a

required summer-reading program for entering freshmen stirred

a controversy in the state legislature last fall. The

required text was Barbara Ehrenreich's socialist tract on

poverty in America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in

America (Metropolitan Books, 2001). Other universities have

required the identical text in similar programs, and several

have invited Ehrenreich to campus to present her views under

the imprimatur of the institution and without rebuttal.

That reflects an academic culture unhinged. When a

university requires a single partisan text of all its

students, it is a form of indoctrination, entirely

inappropriate for an academic institution. If many

universities had required Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal

Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Vintage

Books, 1992) or Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery From

the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003) as

their lone freshman-reading text, there would have been a

collective howl from liberal faculties, who would have

immediately recognized the inappropriateness of such

institutional endorsement of controversial views. Why not

require two texts, or four? (My stepson, who is a high-school

senior, was required to read seven texts during his summer

vacation.)

The remedy is so simple. Requiring readings on more than

one side of a political controversy would be appropriate

educational policy and would strengthen, not weaken, the

democracy that supports our educational

system. Why is that not obvious to the administrators at

Chapel Hill and the other universities that have instituted

such required-reading programs? It's the academic culture,

stupid.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1065 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1065.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1065 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, a structured rule. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate and makes in order four amendments, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House should be very proud of the bipartisan collaboration and careful compromises that have resulted in the underlying bill before us today, H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. I wish to express my appreciation to the work of the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Donald Payne, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Smith, as well as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. And, like all of my House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am grateful that the committee named this bill after the great leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairmen Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, who guided the original 2003 act into law. May the collegial spirit of these two great champions for global health guide us all during today's debate.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 would authorize $50 billion over the next 5 years for U.S. global programs that address the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. It strengthens, sustains, and expands a program that is universally recognized as one of the shining accomplishments of the Bush administration.

The challenge for this reauthorization is to move our HIV/AIDS programs beyond the emergency phase first called for under the President's Emergency Program For Aids Relief, or PEPFAR, and make them sustainable over the long term. Over the past 5 years, we have literally gone from watching people die from HIV/AIDS to watching people live and return to productive lives in their communities.

The 2003 Act provided $15 billion over 5 years; H.R. 5501 provides $50 billion, a direct response to the needs identified over the past 5 years for life-saving medicines and well-trained, effective national health care systems.

The 2003 law relied upon the health care workforce and infrastructure already in place in developing countries. In a farsighted move, Mr. Speaker, today's bill invests in strengthening HIV-related health care systems and building the capacity of the health care workforce in these nations. Under this legislation, funds will be used to train some 144,000 new health care workers over the next 5 years to care for people infected with HIV.

This is just a start on easing the severe shortage of health care workers in the developing world, and it is our hope that other donor nations will follow our lead. If there is ever to be a hope that these programs can become self-sustaining, health care capacity must be significantly strengthened in countries hard hit by HIV/AIDS.

The 2003 bill focused on creating new programs to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis. This reauthorization builds stronger linkages between our global HIV/AIDS initiatives and existing programs designed to alleviate hunger, improve health care, bolster education, and increase income security and stable livelihoods, an approach endorsed by the President's Global AIDS Coordinator in February in his annual report to Congress. These changes ensure that our HIV/AIDS programs no longer operate in isolation from our other development priorities, and that the expertise and benefits from these other programs are provided in an effective manner to HIV/AIDS affected individuals, families, and communities.

In addition, the bill increases U.S. contributions to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and provides benchmarks to improve the transparency and accountability of the Global Fund.

And while the majority of the funding authorized in H.R. 5501 is focused on the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS-infected people and communities, I would like to emphasize that the bill specifically authorizes $4 billion over 5 years for a comprehensive strategy to combat tuberculosis, and $5 billion for the prevention, treatment, control, and elimination of malaria. In addition, it better integrates our HIV/AIDS programs with the diagnosis, testing, counseling, treatment, prevention, care, and health care treatment needed in the fight against TB and malaria.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 also removes the requirement that one-third of all funds for HIV/AIDS prevention be dedicated to abstinence-only programs. Over the past 5 years, this restriction has proven to hamper the effectiveness of our health care efforts in the field, as documented by two recent independent reports produced by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and President Bush's own Office of Personnel Management. This reauthorization now requires the Executive to promote a balanced prevention program that includes every element of abstinence, being faithful, and condoms, the ABC approach toward HIV transmission prevention.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 also allows U.S.-supported family planning organizations to provide HIV/AIDS testing and counseling services. This will ensure that many more women of reproductive age receive vital information related to their HIV status, as well as HIV/AIDS education.

Mr. Speaker, we all need to recall that 20 million men, women, and children have perished from HIV/AIDS; 40 million people around the world are HIV positive; and each and every day another 6,000 people are infected with HIV. It is a moral imperative that we act strongly, decisively, and continue to address this crisis in a forward-looking manner.

Five years ago, President Bush acted to meet a perceived emergency as the AIDS epidemic spread out of control. During that period, the United States has provided drug treatment to nearly 1.5 million people. We have given supportive care to another 6.6 million, including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And, our programs have prevented an estimated 150,000 infant infections. During this first 5- year phase of programming, U.S. bilateral programs to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria were expanded to 114 countries. Today, the U.S. now supports programs in 136 countries, including programs funded by the United States and administered through the Global Fund.

We can all be proud of this record of accomplishment, but there is so much more left to do. Now we must work on making these initial gains sustainable, our programs even more effective, and expanding them to reach an even greater number of HIV/AIDS affected communities.

Specifically, over the next 5-year period, H.R. 5501 aims to:

Prevent 12 million new infections;

Provide anti-retroviral treatment for 3 million people, including 450,000 children;

Provide medical and other care for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans;

And, train over 140,000 health care workers in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, addressing global HIV/AIDS is one of the moral imperatives of our time. And while history will no doubt judge our response, it is more important that each of us recognizes that we can truly make a difference in the lives of millions of people right here and right now.

H.R. 5501 represents a genuine bipartisan compromise. I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and to support the underlying legislation, H.R. 5501.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her incredible work on this bill. And for the Record, there is bipartisan appreciation for her strong and passionate commitment to ending the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that the

underlying debate is not about the space program, it's about whether we're going to end the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis that has cost the lives of countless individuals across this planet. This is a moral imperative. And I am proud of the bipartisan work done by Democrats and Republicans working together to accomplish this bill.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

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

To be honest, Mr. Speaker, I find it stunning that a Member from the Republican Party would come up here and talk about the debt that our children have been forced to inherit. I will remind my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we had a surplus. After the leadership of George Bush and the Republican Congresses, we are now in historic record debt. I now have inherited a debt tax.

I am all for investing more in medical research. I would much rather do that, quite frankly, than invest in tax cuts for Donald Trump or more subsidies to Big Oil companies or more tax giveaways to big corporations that are gouging the American taxpayer.

But what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a bill to save lives. This is a moral imperative. It is a product of bipartisan collaboration. This is something that we can be proud of. This is something the American people, I think, support overwhelmingly.

And so, we don't need any lectures about the mess this economy is in. This President and the Republican Congresses have driven this economy into a ditch, and we're trying to get us out of that ditch.

So, I would urge my colleagues to focus on what is being debated here today, which is a bill to save lives, to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. This is a worthy goal. This is something that we should be committed to. And I think that the bipartisan collaboration that has produced this deserves to be praised and not ridiculed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just yield myself 20 seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's response. I would just remind the gentleman again, and everybody, that this is a bill about saving lives. And this is a bill that is supported by the head of the Republican Party, the President of the United States. And so, I am proud to join in support of this bipartisan collaboration.

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

I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Again, I find it somewhat ironic to listen to the gentleman's comments who has no problem supporting a $3 trillion war in Iraq that has resulted in 4,000 American soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded; and on top of all that, not even paying for the war, just putting it on the credit card so our kids and our grandkids have to pay for it. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who have supported tax cuts for the richest of the rich and decided that it wasn't important to pay for it; instead, put it on the credit card and on the backs of our kids; who have voted for budgets to cut veterans health and to cut money for health care in general. And what we have been trying to do is to make up for the indifference of so many years.

You know, the gentleman presents a false choice. What we're trying to do here is actually respond to a humanitarian crisis in a bipartisan way. I mean, I don't often stand with the President of the United States, but I do on this. He's right. We can't ignore the HIV/AIDS crisis or the crisis with regard to malaria and tuberculosis around the world.

This is a moral imperative. And I will tell you, in addition to being a moral imperative, it makes sense for the United States to take a leadership role and encourage the rest of the world to step up and to provide the resources to combat these scourges.

This is the right thing to do. I'm proud of this bipartisan collaboration of this bill. And I hope all my colleagues will support it.

I want to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings.

I am the final speaker on our side.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5501 is one of the most important foreign policy global health bills this Congress will pass this year. We have literally gone from, 5 years ago from standing helplessly by and watching people die of HIV/AIDS, to watching people live and take up productive lives in their communities. The impact is far-reaching.

For example, Mr. Speaker, let me highlight just one sector of development that has broad bipartisan support in this Congress, basic education. We all know that education is key to lifting countries out of poverty. And HIV/AIDS creates barriers to education.

Teacher deaths and absenteeism due to HIV/AIDS compound problems of quality and access in education systems that already face teacher shortages.

Children are often pulled out of school to care for a family member with HIV/AIDS or, when a parent dies, they're forced to take care of younger siblings rather than attend school.

HIV/AIDS affected children who are able to attend school often face discrimination and are sometimes segregated from other children or denied admission entirely by teachers or school administrators.

Young people with little or no education are more than twice as likely to contract HIV as those who have completed primary education.

But under this bill, and as we continue to better integrate our HIV/ AIDS programs with our other development priorities, schools can become hubs of care and support for orphans and vulnerable children by providing psychological support, nutrition and basic health care and support to OVC caregivers.

In a 32-country demographic and health survey, women with post primary education were four times more likely than illiterate women to know the basic facts about HIV/AIDS, and three times more likely to know that HIV can be transmitted from mother to child.

Oxfam estimates that if all children completed primary education, 700,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS in young people could be prevented each year, totaling 7 million cases in one decade.

Mr. Speaker, for these and so many other reasons, this bipartisan bill deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill, H.R. 5501.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1065 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H.

Con. Res. 263) to establish the Joint Select Committee on

Earmark Reform, and for other purposes. The concurrent

resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution

to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for

division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion

to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 956 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 956.

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

House Resolution 956 provides for consideration of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor.

The rule makes in order the Education and Labor Committee reported substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule makes in order the 27 amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes, except the Miller manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last year Congress passed the College Cost Reduction Act to increase college financial aid by $18 billion, the single largest increase in aid in over 60 years. That legislation significantly increased the maximum amount that Pell Grant recipients can receive at no new cost to taxpayers and was a strong start to this Congress' efforts to make higher education a reality for America's students. But that, Mr. Speaker, was just the beginning.

I'm proud to rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. This will continue our efforts to make college more affordable and more accessible for America's students, while making investments in critical areas to strengthen our workforce.

Our Nation is blessed to have the finest system of higher education in the world. There is a breadth of opportunities available to our graduating high school seniors: vocational and technical school, 2- and 4-year colleges, and graduate and professional schools.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we face today is to ensure that our institutions of higher education are accessible to all, and the legislation we are passing today will make it easier for low-income and middle-class families to achieve the benefits of higher education as they climb up the ladder of success.

Investing in our students not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and strengthens our competitive edge in the global marketplace. This bill continues this Congress' efforts to strengthen America's workforce by creating programs to improve teacher training and bolster student interests in science, math, and technology.

We must also recognize and applaud our nontraditional students, those members of our workforce who are seizing the opportunity to continue their education while holding down full-time jobs and sometimes raising families. These students are often attending school less than half time, and thus, they sometimes benefit very little from traditional student aid. That's why I support my colleague Congressman Baird's amendment, which I hope will be incorporated into this bill, to require the Secretary of Education to study and recommend how best to design a loan program targeted at less than half-time students.

One of the keys to expanding access to our institutions of higher learning is to bring down the exorbitant cost of attending college. Tuition hikes in recent years have been stunning, amounting to a 31 percent increase at a 4-year public college in the last 5 years alone.

This bill enhances transparency in college tuition by requiring colleges to report their reasons for tuition hikes and the plans they have for lowering costs. It also requires the Secretary of Education to publish a higher education price index, providing students with the opportunity to compare institutions by State, sector, and change in tuition and fees from one year to the next. This will allow students to make wiser decisions in choosing institutions that are a good fit for them and the dreams to which they aspire.

A more immediate way to make the possibility of attaining a college degree a reality is to increase the aid available to our students, and I'm proud that this bill does that, doubling the maximum Pell Grant amount to $9,000.

Beyond the sticker price of tuition, any student will tell you that the cost of textbooks is also a challenging cost they incur. The average student spends about $1,000 per year on textbooks, which is nearly 20 percent of tuition and fees at a 4-year public institution. Such high costs for textbooks can be the deciding factor which dashes or delays the dream of obtaining a college degree and a better life for many.

This legislation requires publishers to provide specific information about pricing so that faculty has full information when making purchasing decisions so students can help plan for expenses.

And in addition, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support an amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan, along with Representative Jason Altmire, which will create a pilot grant program to assist colleges in setting up textbook rental programs. These programs already exist in 25 schools, and a pilot test at Bowling Green State University in Ohio last spring saved 151 students $11,000.

We must also continue to strive to reduce the achievement gap in higher education between low-income and minority students and their peers. We can do this by ensuring that all students are prepared for the rigorous demands of higher learning. This bill strengthens the proven TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support programs for low- income and first generation students. I have seen firsthand, Mr. Speaker, the great things that these programs can do in Elyria in my district, which is a GEAR UP site, and the University of Akron, which has received TRIO funding. I look forward to the expansion of these proven programs so that more students in Ohio and around the country may benefit.

This legislation also addresses the disappointment we saw last year as the student loan scandal unfolded. Those financial aid directors that received kickbacks and payoffs and luxury gifts from private lenders exhibited a spectacular abuse of power and betrayal of the students they serve. This legislation cracks down on that abuse and restores accountability by requiring institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct and protect students from aggressive marketing by lenders. Institutions will also be required to provide students with information about Federal and private borrowing options.

This bill will also encourage and make it financially feasible for students to become public servants by authorizing up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for military servicemembers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, first responders, nurses, educators, prosecutors, and public defenders.

This bill also continues the work this Congress has undertaken to support our troops by creating new scholarship and support programs for active duty military personnel, their family members, and veterans. It also establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans to make it easier for them to go to college while also fulfilling their military service duties.

I'm also proud to support an amendment being offered by my colleague Congresswoman Susan Davis that is based on legislation of which I'm a cosponsor. Her amendment will prevent interest from accruing for active duty servicemembers and qualifying National Guard members for the duration of their activation up to 60 months when serving in a combat zone.

Mr. Speaker, the dream of a college education is moving further and further out of reach for middle- and low-income families. We need to put this prospect of a college education and a brighter future back in reach. Passing H.R. 4137 and building on the work we started last year is an important and priceless investment in the future of our children, our communities, and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to refresh the memory of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on past rules.

The last time the higher education reauthorization bill was considered in the House was just 2 years ago, in the 109th Congress. It, too, was done under a structured amendment process using two rules. Those two structured rules allowed a total of 22 amendments out of the 113 submitted, fewer than the rule we are offering today.

This is a very fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the bill. The rule makes in order 27 amendments on a wide variety of important issues relating to the higher education of our Nation's youth and others seeking a post-secondary education. Members on both sides of the aisle will be able to offer amendments that they believe will further improve this already very bipartisan bill.

This bill is one of the most bipartisan products of the 110th Congress, reported from the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 45-0. There is no arguing with those facts.

And, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of higher education are undeniable for students, their families, and for our country and society at large. As a nation, we recognize this, having always been a global standard bearer and our high regard for the merits of higher education. Reaching the American Dream of leading a secure and fulfilling life is a goal that we can make achievable when we open the doors of college to all.

The fact that this bill passed 45-0 out of the Education Committee is a testament to the great work that the committee has done on this bill and to the fact that we care tremendously about the future of our children.

Listening to parents from my district, Mr. Speaker, and across the country, I hear about how the ability to send their children to college weighs on their minds. And talking to professors, counselors, and administrators at the University of Akron, Loraine County Community College, and other schools across Ohio, I also know that student debt is a tremendous factor in determining which professions our students are choosing to enter.

Nearly two-thirds of all students at 4-year colleges nationwide graduate with loan debt these days, with the average amount of debt surpassing $15,000. This bill we're passing goes a long way to changing that distressing fact.

By increasing aid and encouraging colleges to rein in tuition, this legislation will enable more students to pursue their passions and give back in service to their communities and our country.

I am proud that this bill continues the work of this New Direction Congress in making necessary improvements for the workforce of tomorrow. We have seen the necessity of investing in stem education, and this legislation continues the effort we began last year in passing the innovation agenda by improving teacher training and development programs and focusing on recruiting teachers into high-demand science and technology fields.

In today's global economy, it's essential that America's workforce remain competitive at an international level.

Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Act has not been reauthorized in a decade. The Senate has already passed a reauthorization, so we must act expediently to pass this vital bill so the President may sign it into law.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this bill and supporting a brighter future for our students, our families, and our communities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker who will close debate for this side. Because we have the right to close, I will reserve the time until the gentleman has closed and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations (Mr. Obey), who will close for our side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the need for earmark reform should be an issue that we can all agree upon, a bipartisan agreement. As reported last week, Congress' approval rating fell to just 22 percent. Will the House sit idly by patting each other on the back as this issue continues to grow and be one that the American people care deeply about?

Quite frankly, the effort in the House to bring a level of transparency in the earmark process, as good as it may appear, has yet to satisfy the American

people. As a first step to restoring confidence in the earmark system, Congressman Jack Kingston, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Zack Wamp, a member of the committee, and myself have introduced H. Con. Res. 263, which calls for a joint select committee to review the earmark process, and it places a moratorium on all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work.

Congress holds the power of the purse, and, quite frankly, I don't believe the American people really want us to cede that authority to the executive branch. Under the Constitution, that is the job of the congressional branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks are for purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they have to be addressed.

There have been positive earmarks to fight gangs, to fight the violent MS 13 gangs. We created an office of gang intelligence in the FBI to track the gang movement across the country, and there is a growing problem with regard to gangs.

The Iraq Study Group was an earmark, and that helped bring about fresh eyes on the target, if you will, bringing former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, along with Ed Meese, former Attorney General of the Reagan administration whose son is on the staff with General Petraeus over in Iraq, and people like Chuck Robb who is a former marine and Governor and Senator who fought in Vietnam. So it brought together a group of people to take a look at that, and 61 of the 70-some recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have been adopted now, and that basically was an earmark.

I also was told that the work that Dr. Francis Collins has done, and I may be wrong on this, but Dr. Collins has received the gold medal. He is the one who has mapped the human genome system. And there are people alive today because of the work that Dr. Collins has done. Dr. Collins will map those genes whereby we know that some individual with a certain gene may get a certain condition and now they can deal with that to save their life. So there have been some very positive ones.

But I think it is important to acknowledge that the Members who have opposed earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they deserve that we look at those claims and address those claims.

The joint select committee on earmark reform, which is called for in the bill, would be comprised of 16 members, Mr. Speaker, evenly split between the House and the Senate, because whatever we do, the House and the Senate have to be together, also, between Republicans and Democrats. And I think the American people are thirsty. They are thirsty for some bipartisan activity out of this Congress. So we will come together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to form this committee.

The panel would examine the way the earmarks are included in authorizing bills, which has not been done, appropriation bills. And to the credit of the committee, there has been some work done on the appropriations. Also, tax and tariff measures. Also, what has not been done very well, executive branch earmarks would also be studied. I want to stress that again, because I think the Congress has ignored some of this and I think the general public doesn't understand, but this panel would also, Mr. Speaker, look at executive branch earmarks, reviewing earmarks in all bills considered by Congress. All bills is really the key.

The House, during this period of time, should place a moratorium on all earmarks until the joint select committee has finished its work and we are able to put into place a rule system that restores the confidence of Americans that legislation is not loaded up with hidden special interests or wasteful spending. It would restore honesty, integrity, and openness to the process that everyone would feel very confident because the ground rules would have been agreed to by everyone. The American public would see how this was done.

I strongly support the earmark reform, including listing names of sponsors on earmarks or specific line item spending. But the rules, Mr. Speaker, must apply an equal standard to all legislation, appropriations, as well as authorizing and tax bills and disclosing earmark sponsors. It must be across the board in every bill, but it also must be a process of indisputable integrity and probity that is honest and authentic, and one in which the American people have absolute trust. That is the key. It has to be a process, Mr. Speaker, in which the American people have absolute trust.

Earmark reform must be bipartisan. It must be an issue on which both political parties can come together so that every Member of Congress can know what is in there, the American people can know it. And I am hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort and support the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf earmark reform bill.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity after we do that, because I know most Americans are concerned about the spending with regard to the Federal debt and the deficit. I have a bill with Congressman Cooper, again, a bipartisan bill, and again, it is good to see, we have to work across the aisle. It is called the Cooper-Wolf bill, Mr. Speaker, and what it does, it sets up a national commission of eight Republicans and eight Democrats, and I would tell Members that there are 70 Members plus on the bill, roughly 30 Democratic Members and 40 Republican Members. I must say, Congressman Hoyer gave a very powerful speech at the Press Club several months ago endorsing this concept. On the bill, we have Congressman Boehner, the minority leader. We have Congressman Blunt, the minority whip. We have people on both sides of the aisle of all political viewpoints from every part of the country. And what it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts everything on the table.

It puts Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax policy on the table. It has the support of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings. Alice Rivlin, head of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, supports it. We have the support of some of the more thoughtful think-tanks, such as Brookings. A lot of different groups. We have had favorable editorials and comments from David Broder from The Washington Post, David Brooks from The New York Times, and Robert Samuelson, who writes a column for The Washington Post. Also we have had editorials in papers like the Tennesseean and the Richmond Times Dispatch and papers like that.

What it would basically do, it would have this national commission of eight Republicans and eight Democrats to go around the country having a conversation with the American people. They would listen to the American people. Then they would hold public hearings in every Federal Reserve district in the Nation. So they are required to go everywhere.

Interestingly enough, the Brookings Foundation and Heritage, along with David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, are now doing this in what they call ``wake-up tours,'' where they are going out around the Nation to tell the American people of the danger, the fiscal danger, the financial danger, that awaits this Nation if we do nothing about this spending and the debt and the deficit.

Congressman Cooper knows so much about this. I wish he was with me here today. But I respect his knowledge and understanding and his work on the Budget Committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, David Walker said, and I will insert it in the Congressional Record, I have sent it out to some Members of the House, David Walker said there was a tsunami, a financial tsunami off the coast waiting to come in and overcome and overtake this country.

As the father of five children, if our children were on the beach and someone said there was a tsunami off the coast of New Jersey or the North Carolina coast or the Maryland coast, we would as parents want to do everything we can to help our kids. So for our children and for our grandchildren, we have an obligation to deal with this problem.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also a moral issue. In the Ten Commandments it says: ``Thou shall not steal,''

and for one generation to be living off the next generation is in essence stealing.

With all the support that we have, the bipartisan support, again, a lot of good Members on both sides of the aisle, I am hopeful that there can be a way that we can bring this bill up and vote on it in this session.

So with the earmark bill that I spoke about earlier which deals with a fundamental problem that the Congress has to deal with, and with this bill, we can have a renaissance in this Nation, create jobs and make a tremendous difference. So I just hope that we can pass both of these bills in this Congress.

I see my friend from Tennessee, and I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

I thank the gentleman. His comments are very good. I think it really needs to be bipartisan and it needs to be institutionalized, and it needs to be done in such a way that the American people have confidence.

I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), also a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I thank the gentleman. And in closing, unless the gentleman has any other comments, I would say this needs to be bipartisan. It is H. Con. Res. 263. I believe it will pass the House. I think it is inevitable that it will pass the House. We have to come together. I acknowledge there have been some sincere efforts made, and I think we come together and institutionalize this with regard to this select committee.

So I want to thank both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kingston who could not be here, and the other Members who have put this together and say it needs to be done bipartisan. We have to do it so the American people can say, ``Well done. It really makes sense.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the rule and of H.R. 5501, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and expand the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

I want to particularly applaud the increase in funding from $15 to $50 billion over 5 years, and the inclusion of the Caribbean countries in this reauthorization.

In this regard, I want to especially thank and applaud my colleagues, Mr. Fortuno, who introduced the Caribbean amendment, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who cosponsored it, as did I, Chairman Donald Payne, who included the increased funding and whose work with Congresswoman Barbara Lee ensured that these provisions were included, as well as Chairman Rangel, who began the Caribbean effort 4 years ago.

The expansion to include all Caribbean nations as focus countries was greatly aided by the hard work of Caribbean Health Ministers whose collective and tireless efforts raised awareness about the impact of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. I also want to thank the Pan Caribbean Partnership Against HIV/AIDS (PANCAP) not only for their support of this bill, but for the important leadership role that they have and continue to take to address HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean region.

Over the past 5 years, PEPFAR has literally saved the lives of more than one million people and has had a significant positive impact on those most affected by and most at risk for HIV infection, women and girls.

Congresswoman Lee and I had the opportunity to visit several PEPFAR sites and partners in South Africa late last year and saw the great work that they are doing. It was also clearly evident, though, that more was needed.

The additional funding will help to expand the number of focused countries under PEPFAR. It will help to ensure that the innovative and effective efforts that have been launched not only continue, but help other hard-hit nations get access to the resources they desperately need to address HIV/AIDS within their borders.

While two Caribbean nations, Haiti and Guyana, are, as they should be, currently prioritized as focus countries under PEPFAR, there are 14 other nations in this region, which is second only to sub-Saharan Africa in terms of HIV/AIDS prevalence, in need of help. In the Caribbean today, AIDS is one of the leading causes of death in the 15- 44 age group.

Many Caribbean nations not currently receiving PEPFAR assistance absorb millions of dollars in debt every year. Leaders in the Caribbean maintain that high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates can overwhelm the region's health care capacity, destabilize economies, and compromise Caribbean nations' sociopolitical infrastructure. In fact, Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States, the Honorable Albert Ramdin, stated in January of last year that ``HIV/AIDS, if not effectively and urgently tackled, poses a clear threat to the sustainable development, social stability and human security of the Caribbean.''

Making all Caribbean countries eligible is clearly the right thing to do. H.R. 5501, while it includes the region, lays the foundation to have the 14 Caribbean nations specifically listed in the bill that will be sent to the President for his signature.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.R. 5501, rightly named to honor the service of Chairman Hyde and Chairman Lantos.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 5501--a bill which will reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. I want to thank and applaud my colleagues, Congressman Fortuno who introduced the Caribbean amendment, Congresswoman Clarke who cosponsored it as did I, Chairman Payne and Congresswoman Lee who ushered it and many other parts of the bill through the committee.

Congresswoman Lee and I had the opportunity to travel to South Africa around World AIDS Day last year to visit PEPFAR sites and participate in and see the work they were doing first hand. There was great work being done, but the need for more was also clearly evident.

The success of PEPFAR is well documented. With the support offered through PEPFAR over the last 5 years, many of the world's hardest hit nations have been able to launch integrated HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care programs that have prevented new HIV infections, brought life-saving medications and other treatments and services to those living with HIV. As a direct result, PEPFAR has literally saved the lives of more than 1 million people and has had a noted and positive impact on those most affected by and most at risk for HIV infection: women and girls.

In fact, in the 15 focus countries, more than 6 in every 10 of the individuals with HIV currently on antiretroviral treatment as a result of direct PEPFAR support are women and girls.

Given the continued burden of HIV/AIDS in the world's most vulnerable nations, there is no doubt that this critically important bill not only should be reauthorized, but that it should be increased. We were pleased that the President indicated a willingness to increase it in his State of the Union message this year. And I want to especially recognize Chairman Payne for successfully increasing the fund to $50 billion over the next 5 years.

This additional funding will help to expand the number of ``focus countries'' which currently are prioritized under PEPFAR. Additionally, it will help ensure that the forward-thinking and effective HIV/AIDS- related efforts that have been launched not only continue, but that other nations that are hard hit by this pandemic will have access to the resources they desperately need to address HIV/AIDS within their borders.

Mr. Speaker, despite the many successes associated with PEPFAR, we know that there is an entire region--the Caribbean--which has been and remains in desperate need of assistance in battling against HIV/AIDS. While two Caribbean nations--Haiti and Guyana--are, as they should be, currently prioritized as focus countries under PEPFAR, there are 14 other nations in the region that together comprise the second-hardest hit region in the world; second only to sub-Saharan Africa in terms of HIV/AIDS prevalence.

Mr. Speaker, in the Caribbean today, AIDS is one of the leading causes of death among adults aged 15-44 years of age. In some countries in the region, AIDS is the leading cause of death among individuals in this age group; a disturbing reality, because AIDS is taking its ultimate toll on Caribbean residents during their most productive life years, thus compromising many Caribbean nations' economic, social and political growth and stability.

Adding to the region's challenges with HIV/AIDS is the well- documented high population mobility. We know that many Caribbean nations--whose commitment to and effectiveness in addressing HIV/AIDS is stifled not because of the absence of political will, but because of the absence of resources--offer universal access to HIV/AIDS medications, care and other services.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, many Caribbean nations, not currently receiving PEPFAR assistance, absorb millions of dollars in debt every year providing treatment and care not only to their residents with HIV, but to all individuals on their shores seeking HIV/AIDS care and treatment.

These Caribbean nations have been doing what is right not only to address HIV/AIDS head on, but to lay the groundwork to beat this pandemic. And so, I rise today to encourage all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support this legislation, which lists these 14 Caribbean nations as ``focus nations,'' to support these nations' efforts to prevent new HIV infections and to expand access to life- saving AIDS medications to those living with HIV infection.

Mr. Speaker, because of all of the above, I want to especially single out Congressman Fortuno for his leadership on this issue and shepherding this amendment through the committee process and ensuring it became a part of the final bill. I also want to recognize Chairman Rangel who was the first to begin this process 4 years ago.

This amendment might not have been possible without the hard work of nearly a dozen Health Ministers in the Caribbean and their collective and tireless efforts to raise awareness about the impact of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean and to include 14 Caribbean nations as ``focus countries'' in this bill. I also want to thank the Pan Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS, PANCAP, not only for their support of this bill, but for the important leadership role that they have and continue to take to address HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean region.

Mr. Speaker, as the only African-American physician in Congress and as the only representative from the English-speaking Caribbean, I can tell you--firsthand--that based on the surveillance data reported in the latest UNAIDS report, we know that the entire Caribbean region without adequate and targeted support from PEPFAR, is now and will continue to experience the same devastating impact from HIV/AIDS documented throughout nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Ambassador of and Health Ministers in Caribbean countries to the United States maintain that high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates can overwhelm the region's health care capacity, destabilize economies and compromise Caribbean nations' sociopolitical infrastructure.

In fact, Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States Albert Ramdin stated in January 2007 that, ``HIV/AIDS, if not effectively and urgently tackled, poses a clear threat to the sustainable development, social stability, and human security of the Caribbean.''

The time to act is now; now is when we should support a bill that not only will tackle on of our most pressing international public health challenges, but that will do so in a manner that is medically, epidemiologically, regionally and fiscally responsible today. I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 5501 so that it may pass in the House of Representatives and so that we may lay the path necessary to ensure that during conference, the 14 Caribbean nations listed in this bill are included in the bill that is sent to the President for enactment. It not only is the right thing to do, but it is the smart and responsible thing to do.