Supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which will do unacceptable damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

I have worked for over three years in opposition to the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement because of its disastrous implications for nonproliferation. I've been called the ``Arch-Critic'' of the deal; but really I see myself as the ``Arch-Defender'' of nuclear nonproliferation. Halting the spread of nuclear weapons is not something over which the United States can afford to compromise; this issue is central to both international stability and our own security here at home. I'm not ``attacking'' India, I am defending the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

My goal has been to get meaningful nonproliferation conditions included in the agreement at all levels, including at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). But the Bush administration fought this at every turn.

The legislation I introduced in 2005, H. Con. Res. 318 outlined the serious nonproliferation problems of the proposed India nuclear cooperation agreement.

I testified before the House International Relations Committee on May 11, 2006 and explained the incredible dangers of the President's proposal. I told them that the deal was ``ill-conceived, that it undermines U.S. national security interests, and that it sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by our adversaries and rivals.'' I continue to believe that this is the case.

In response to the issues I and others raised regarding the threat to Congressional prerogatives from the administration's draft bill, the bill that was actually introduced removed many of the worst ``blank check'' provisions of the Administration bill. For instance, the administration bill would not have allowed the Congress to even see India's IAEA Safeguards Agreement or the Nuclear Suppliers' Group rule change before we voted on whether or not to give final approval.

The Motion to Recommit which I offered during floor debate on July 26, 2006 focused on India's dangerous relationship with Iran. My motion would have required India to help us halt Iran's nuclear program. It received 192 votes--the strongest vote that opponents of the deal were able to muster. Sadly, however, it was not included in the final bill.

But after the Congress passed the Henry J. Hyde Act of 2006, to allow in principle nuclear trade with India, the Bush Administration ignored many of the most important nonproliferation-related conditions and requirements which were contained in that legislation. President Bush has negotiated a deal with India which is universally recognized by nonproliferation experts as ripping an enormous hole in the nonproliferation regime by granting unprecedented concessions to India, a country that has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain for the Record, the problems inherent with this bill, and more generally with President Bush's now three-year campaign to carve out a massive loophole to the nonproliferation rules on behalf of India.

Administration Arguments Fail the Reality Test

In selling its proposal for the nuclear cooperation agreement with India, the Bush Administration relied on arguments which simply fail the realty test. Among the most glaringly false arguments on which the administration continues to rely to this day are that the nuclear deal will unlock India for American commerce, and that India will be a natural strategic partner with the United States,

The U.S.-India trade relationship

The Bush Administration has argued that the nuclear cooperation agreement will exponentially boost commerce with India. They also argued repeatedly that if the nuclear deal were not immediately approved by the Congress, the U.S. would lose the benefit of this trade.

But in reality, we already have strong and growing trade ties with India, and there is no reason to believe that this will be substantially altered by the nuclear cooperation agreement. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush Administration has sought to use this false economic argument to rush Congressional approval.

The truth is that since 2000, Indian exports to the United States have doubled, and U.S. exports to India have almost tripled. In the last 30 years, total bilateral trade has grown almost 8-fold, an enormous increase. In 2006, our total bilateral trade topped $31.9 billion, growing at a whopping 18.9% over the previous year. Even during the worst moments of the U.S.-India relationship, for instance after the 1974 and 1998 Indian nuclear tests, trade continued to grow at rapid rates.

The bottom line is that trade between the United States and India will continue to grow, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the nuclear cooperation agreement.

The U.S.-India strategic relationship

The Bush administration has repeatedly called the U.S.-Indian relationship a ``Strategic Partnership.'' I am a strong supporter of India, and I believe that the United States and India must, and will, continue to have a relationship marked by mutual cooperation and shared values. But I do not believe, as the Bush Administration has essentially argued, that India will become a subservient partner to the United States.

The reality is that India has always followed a fiercely independent foreign policy, and will certainly continue to do so. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his Parliament in August of 2006 that, ``Our sole guiding principle in regard to our foreign policy, whether it is on Iran or any other country, will be dictated entirely by our national interest.''

The first major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is the question of how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. If lndia really were a steady strategic partner to the United States, New Delhi would be actively supporting the U.S. in halting the Iranian nuclear program. But instead of assisting the U.S. with Iran, India's longstanding strategic relationship with Iran has only grown stronger.

Let me list some of India's actions vis-a-vis Iran which have led me to conclude that India is not fully and actively supporting United States' efforts to sanction and isolate Iran for its ongoing nuclear program: India has repeatedly defended Iran's nuclear program; India has developed intelligence outposts in Iran near the Pakistani border; India and Iran have held two joint naval exercises, in March 2003 and March 2006; The 2003 Iranian-Indian New Delhi Declaration explicitly raised concerns about U.S. unilateralism in Iraq; Indian scientists have been sanctioned by the U.S. for WMD-related transfers to Iran, most recently in July 2006; India is pursuing an $8 billion gas pipeline from Iran. India has committed to help Iran build a Liquefied Natural Gas terminal; the two countries established the Indian-Iranian Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism in 2003; and India is developing a port in south-east Iran which analysts believe will be a naval base.

The other major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is how to address the rise of China. Some supporters of the nuclear deal will admit, in their more candid moments, that the real driver behind this enormous change is a desire on the part of the Bush Administration that India become the U.S. ``hedge'' to contain China's rise in Asia.

But India has no desire for conflict of any kind with China, and India will not act as an American proxy. To put it simply, it is not in India's interest to risk poor relations with China. China is India's second largest trading partner. India and China signed an energy agreement to prevent them from bidding for the same resources and driving up prices, in January 2006. Total bilateral India-China trade has grown at over 30% every year since 1999, even faster than India- U.S. trade has grown.

China is simply too valuable as a partner, and too potentially threatening as an enemy, for India to seek anything but positive relations. And all the armchair strategists who have been trying to sell the idea of India as an American proxy against China are absolutely foolish. It's not going to happen.

I am not arguing that India cannot or should not have an independent foreign policy. I'm arguing it inevitably will chart its own course, as any powerful nation would be expected to do. My colleagues should be realistic about what we can expect from India in terms of support for U.S. foreign policy priorities. The Bush Administration seems to think that by granting India international nuclear trade we are locking them into a permanent foreign policy alliance with the U.S. That is absolutely naive, and I believe that the Bush Administration's strategic calculation that they are getting a permanent ally in exchange for a wholesale change of international nonproliferation rules is simply wrong.

U.S. Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, states that, ``Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.'' However, the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could put the United States in violation of this central obligation, since India's nuclear weapons program is likely to both indirectly and directly benefit from the terms of civilian nuclear trade, and since the United States could therefore be said to be ``encouraging'' India's manufacture of nuclear weapons.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service analyzed at my request the question of whether the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could violate the United States' obligations under the NPT, and identified three ways in which this could occur. First, it analyzed the ``separation plan'' under which India's civilian and military nuclear facilities will be disentangled. Second, it investigated whether U.S. de-facto recognition of lndia as a nuclear power could encourage India to continue its production of weapons. And third, it examines the most significant issue of U.S. assistance to India's weapons program: how imported nuclear fuel would free up India's domestic uranium for use in its weapons program.

Without a credible separation plan, the United States could wind up transferring technology directly into India's weapons program. The CRS analysis states:

It should be noted that while IAEA safeguards ensure that

nuclear material is not diverted, there are no procedures or

measures in place to ensure that information, technology and

know-how are not transferred from the civil sector to the

military sector. This could become a key loophole,

particularly because the separation plan places 8 indigenous

power reactors under safeguards, while leaving at least 8

indigenous power reactors outside of safeguards. Without

additional measures to prevent the transfer of personnel

or knowledge from the safeguarded program to the

unsafeguarded program, there would be little assurallce

that assistance to the safeguarded program could not

migrate to the military program.

By changing U.S. law to allow for nuclear trade with India, the United States will grant international legitimacy to India's nuclear arsenal. The CRS analysis states:

The United States is not granting de jure recognition to

India as a nuclear weapon state, because doing so would

require amendment of the NPT, a prospect that is

unattainable, according to most experts. Nonetheless, a

successful U.S. effort to gain an exemption in U.S. nuclear

cooperation law would place India in the company of only four

other nations--the United Kingdom, France, China, and

Russia--all de jure nuclear weapon states. While this may not

constitute formal recognition of India as a nuclear weapon

state, many observers believe that it legitimizes India's

nuclear weapons program, thus providing de facto recognition.

Critics of the President Bush's plan for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement long argued that allowing India to import uranium for its civilian reactors would free up its domestic fuel sources to concentrate exclusively on weapons production, giving India a vast new capacity for the manufacture of fissile material for weapons. The CRS analysis agreed with this argument, calling this indirect benefit to India's weapons program ``a clear consequence of such cooperation.'' The analysis continues:

Secretary Rice seemed to be suggesting that having more

uranium would not encourage or assist India's nuclear weapons

program because it already had the fissile material it

needed. If, as Secretary Rice suggests, the military

requirements are dwarfed by civilian requirements, then

finding international sources for civilian requirements could

result in a windfall for the weapons program.

It is my strong belief that the NPT is the single most important international security agreement in existence. Furthermore the United States has a unique responsibility as the sole remaining superpower, as well as the driving force behind the drafting of the NPT in the middle of the last century, to exert constant vigilance on behalf of this extraordinarily significant treaty. If the United States does not strictly adhere to its NPT commitments then we are likely to see a dramatic and dangerous deterioration in the strength and stability ofthe Treaty.

Inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the ``123'' Agreement

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements for the negotiation of the technical bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation, known as the ``123 Agreement'' in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. However, the Bush Administration did not meet these requirements, and the 123 Agreement is therefore inconsistent with the law.

The most important inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement are: nuclear testing and the termination of U.S. nuclear supply; assurances of nuclear supply to India in the case of supply ``disruption;'' and, the reprocessing of U.S.-origin nuclear material.

Nuclear Testing and the Termination of U.S. Nuclear Supply

The Atomic Energy Act requires, and the Hyde Act reinforces, that nuclear trade with any nation will terminate if that nation conducts a nuclear test. In addition, U.S. law provides that the United States may demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology in case of a test.

Almost all other 123 Agreements state these requirements and rights explicitly. But the U.S.-India 123 Agreement doesn't. The India 123 Agreement provides no detail at all on the kinds of actions that will result in termination. Given the difficult disagreements in the past

with India on nuclear rights and responsibilities, this is not wise. In addition, the India 123 Agreement does not state that the United States has the right to demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology if India conducts a test.

Because the 123 Agreement lacks these specific statements of the consequences of an Indian nuclear test, many in India argue that they not only have an unfettered right to test their nuclear weapons, but that no consequences will follow if they do. This is not what Congress intended with the Hyde Act, which specifically requires that cooperation end if India tests a nuclear bomb.

Assurances of Nuclear Supply to India in the Case of Supply

``Disruption''

The 123 Agreement contains two unprecedented clauses with respect to assuring India a supply of nuclear fuel under all scenarios, even if they test a bomb.

First, the 123 Agreement commits the United States to ``support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of the reactor.'' This means that the United States will assist India in stockpiling uranium from international suppliers. If supply was terminated for any reason, even if India failed to uphold its nonproliferation commitments, such as by testing a nuclear bomb, India could use this stockpile of fuel as a cushion against another supply cutoff. This clause flies in the face of the Hyde Act, which states that any fuel reserve should not exceed normal reactor operating requirements.

Second, if India should ever have a fuel supply disruption, the U.S. is to convene ``a group of friendly supplier countries . . . to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.'' Again, this would take place in the event of any disruption of supply, including due to India exploding a nuclear bomb.

This renders toothless the requirement in the Atomic Energy Act to stop nuclear exports to a country that tests a nuclear weapon. Will India care that U.S. cooperation is cut off if the U.S. itself is turning around and asking other countries to step in and provide the nuclear fuel to India? Would you think twice about illegally parking if you know your ticket will be paid for?

The Hyde Act specifically states that the United States is to seek to prevent other countries from providing India with nuclear material or technology if our own cooperation is cut off. The 123 Agreement should say the same thing, but it doesn't.

Reprocessing U.S.-origin nuclear material

As a matter of policy, the United States doesn't transfer enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production equipment to any state because of the dangerous utility of those technologies for nuclear weapons programs. In fact, in February 2004, President Bush said that ``enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'' And he had it right!

And reinforcing the point, the Hyde Act states that, ``Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water,'' the United States will work to further restrict the transfers of such technologies to India.

Yet, the U.S. has given India the right to reprocess our nuclear material, and promised cooperation in reprocessing technologies! How will the U.S. be able to stop other countries from transferring reprocessing technologies and other sensitive technologies if we are making such transfers ourselves?

The fact of the matter is that President Bush negotiated an agreement with India that does not meet the requirements of U.S. law, on testing, on assurances of supply, and on reprocessing.

Problems relating to International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements relating to India's negotiations and declarations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). While a number of these key requirements have not met, President Bush made a formal declaration that all of the Hyde Act requirements were fulfilled.

Separation plan

Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that India must provide to the United States and the IAEA ``a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.'' However, the separation plan that India has provided is not credible from a nonproliferation perspective, since it will not prevent all materials from moving between the civilian and military spheres.

Under the separation plan, India will be allowed to use domestically produced heavy water to moderate its safeguarded civilian reactors. However, the domestically produced heavy water itself will not be safeguarded, and safeguards will be removed from old heavy water as it is removed from the reactor in exchange for new heavy water. This creates a serious problem within the separation plan, as the old heavy water will contain tritium, a nuclear byproduct material which is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons.

India will be able to use tritium generated in its ``safeguarded'' reactors to boost the yield of its nuclear weapons, making the civilian-military separation plan utterly meaningless from a nonproliferation perspective. Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that ``India has provided the United States and the IAEA with a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.''

India's declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency

Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that:

India has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.''

However, India has not filed such a declaration with the lAEA, and has stated that it will not do so until after the 123 Agreement has been approved.

Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, India . . . has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.''

India's progress towards concluding an Additional Protocol

Section 104(b)(3) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that:

India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward

concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA

principles, practices, and policies that would apply to

India's civil nuclear program.

The ``substantial progress'' required by the Hyde Act has simply not occurred. India and the lAEA have met just one time to discuss negotiations of an Additional Protocol, and one concept paper has been exchanged. No one knows what the final Additional Protocol will look like, if indeed one is ever successfully negotiated.

Yet, September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, ``India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear program.''

Problems relating to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group Waiver

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous statements of United States policy relating to the negotiation of a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) guidelines for international nuclear trade with India. However, the Bush Administration ignored many of these statements of policy, and in at least one instance aggressively pursued a policy which was directly contradicted by the Hyde Act.

Termination of NSG supply in response to violations

Section 103(a)(4) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Strengthen the NSG guidelines and decisions concerning

consultation by members regarding violations of supplier and

recipient understandings by instituting the practice of a

timely and coordinated response by NSG members to all such

violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an

involved recipient, that discourages individual NSG members

from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such

time as a consensus regarding a coordinated response has been

achieved.

However, the United States did not seek to establish strengthen the NSG guidelines to require a termination of NSG supply to a recipient states in the event of a violation of supplier and recipient understandings. In fact, many NSG member states sought to strengthen the NSG guidelines in this manner but could not because opposition by the Bush Administration. In this case the Bush Administration actively worked to thwart the policy of the United States as set by Congress in the Hyde Act.

Enrichment and reprocessing restriction

Section 103(a)(5) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies

related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of

spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water, work

with members of the NSG, individually and collectively, to

further restrict the transfers of such equipment and

technologies, including to India.

However, the United States did not seek to strengthen NSG guidelines to restrict the transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, despite having sought such a restriction for four years. In 2004, President Bush declared in a major speech on nonproliferation that achieving a historic international restriction on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing was one of his administration's highest priorities. For the next four years, the Bush Administration sought to achieve such a restriction at the NSG, yet abandoned this issue during the negotiations regarding India.

Universalizing U.S. termination triggers

Section 103(a)(6) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear

equipment, materials, or technology from other participating

governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear

transfers to that country are suspended or terminated

pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law.

However, the United States did not seek to amend NSG guidelines to ensure that all international nuclear supply to India would be terminated if U.S. law required U.S. nuclear trade to be terminated. Such a rule would not only have significantly strengthened international nonproliferation policy, but it would have protected American firms from the possibility of being the only firms in the world barred from trade with India.

Madam Speaker, this bill, and the nuclear cooperation agreement with India which it approves, will do great damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. Can we afford to undermine the nonproliferation rules at the very moment when Iran is speeding toward a viable nuclear capability, when North Korea is redoubling its intransigence and throwing out IAEA observers, and when Venezuela is requesting nuclear cooperation from Russia? No, we cannot. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the implications of this bill for international stability and U.S. security, and vote against H.R. 7081.

Mr. President, I hope I am not wearing out my welcome. I know that I have spoken more today than the other Members. I was proud this morning to have achieved a small--but I think significant-- victory, as I pressed for a rollcall vote which would have required the Senate to come back tomorrow, but in acquiescing on that, I was able to introduce a bipartisan piece of legislation with key Members, including Senator Cochran, Senator Hutchison, Senator Conrad, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Pryor on a piece of very important legislation for farmers and for the agricultural community and rural communities throughout the Nation.

Hopefully, by this piece of legislation being filed today and the work that can go on over the next few days before the lights go out in this Chamber and we all leave to go home for the election, something could be done to help rural America because the big bailout package, no matter how it is structured, will not really reach to the problem quickly enough and the regulations have not been written for the bill that is in place to help them. So between the bill that doesn't have regulations written and the bailout package, which has nothing at this moment for them, we are trying to stand in the gap and provide some sort of bridge assistance for the farmland of America and the rural areas and to give our farmers some hope until we can come back and address their needs. I am pleased to have at least accomplished that today. While I am speaking, Members of the House--both Republicans and Democrats--are putting a bill together and circulating letters so that, hopefully, we can accomplish something before we leave.

I did have an option to hold up the Defense authorization bill, as the Presiding Officer knows. It was a bill that the Presiding Officer and Senator Warner spoke about. It passed in record time--in less than a minute, as I recall--because I was standing right here when it did. I could have exerted my ability as a Senator to object but, not only out of respect for the Presiding Officer as well as the Senator from Virginia but also out of respect for the men and women who wear a uniform, I did not think that it was an appropriate vehicle to use to make my point. I am certain the people of my State would agree with that, and so I did not. That does not mean I won't continue over the course of the next several days to use other vehicles, other opportunities to press this case.

Leaving that subject for a moment, I wish to spend a moment to again talk about the need for coastal protection and restoration in Louisiana. I have spoken about this topic hundreds of times and will for the next 15 minutes do it once again.

Louisiana's coast is literally washing away. Even if we didn't have Katrina or Rita--the major storms that affected us in 2005--and even if Gustav

and Ike had never happened, the devastation along Louisiana's coast is substantial. It affects a little bit of the Mississippi coast as well and a small portion of east Texas. I am sorry I do not have Texas on this map. Southeast Texas is very much like southwest Louisiana in topography. So what I am saying affects them as well. Of course, southwest Mississippi, our neighbor to the east, the southwestern part of Mississippi is protected by this great wetlands, but it is basically the Mississippi delta area.

One hundred years ago, the Mississippi River delta consisted of 7,000 square miles of coastal marshes and swamps, making it one of the sixth or seventh largest delta complexes in the world. The delta's growth depended on periodic flooding of the Mississippi River that drains 41 percent of the continental United States, with the river sediments gradually settling in the surrounding wetlands. So as the sediment came down the Mississippi River, this is how this area was built. Of course, it took thousands and thousands of years, but that process still exists to this day. The Mississippi River and the sediment come down and overflow this great delta.

Portions of the State I represent have grown up on this delta. This is New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Lake Charles right here, the four major cities in Louisiana. I don't have to explain to people-- even people who have never been to New Orleans or to the cities I mentioned--how important and rich this land is, not just for agriculture and forestry but also for fisheries, both commercial and sports fishermen, as well as the great cities that call this area home.

We have been trying to stay high and dry and out of the water for over 300 years. If we don't act more urgently in this Congress, it will be a losing battle.

Since the early 1900s, this national ecological jewel has lost 2,000 square miles of coastal wetlands, with the expectation of another 500 square miles by 2050. Again, these hurricanes seem to be happening more frequently and with more ferocity in the way they rush to our shore. Their increased velocity and frequency are wreaking havoc on many parts of the coast from Florida to the east coast, but particularly the State I represent.

The construction of flood control and navigation levees along the Mississippi River, which we had to do for the commercial activities of our Nation, had the side effect--the unfortunate side effect--of blocking deposits of the Mississippi River sediment into the surrounding wetlands. Without these sediments, the coastal system has slowly subsided, turning these wetlands into open waters.

I read a letter an hour ago about a farmer, Wallace Ellender, whose father was a Senator. As a young girl, I remember Senator Ellender. He testified in committee that his farm that used to sit close to the shore, they now had to swim 30 miles in open water to the island on which he used to picnic as a child. This is the largest loss of lands. If the enemy was taking this much land, we would literally declare war and attack them. That is how great is the land loss. The enemy is water, rising tides, more frequent storms, and climate change.

I am not here only to complain. I am here to offer a solution, the solution we have passed by this Congress--which I commended Senator Domenici for this morning because without him, it never, ever would have happened--that we have decided as a State to take President Truman up on his offer that he made to us in 1949 to use a portion of our offshore oil and gas revenues that come to the Treasury, $10 billion a year. The people of Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, from the offshore oil and gas off our coasts, contribute to the Federal Treasury billions and billions of dollars. Since the year I was born, 50-plus years ago, we have sent over $117 billion to the Federal Treasury to fund all sorts of programs--domestic and international, including supporting the wars that have been waged on behalf of this country. We have contributed the second largest portion outside individual income tax.

With Senator Domenici's help and with my leadership, we led an effort to take President Truman up on an offer that we were too foolish to accept at the time and passed the Domenici-Landrieu Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I am proud to add my name on that bill which will redirect 37.5 percent of these revenues to the coast to secure these wetlands, to build these levees, to protect not just New Orleans but Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Lake Charles, to protect the Ellender farm, to restore the culture and protect the great Cajun culture of south Louisiana--many of the people still speak French, as the original settlers to this area--and to preserve the culture of our fishermen and oystermen.

Mr. President, you can appreciate that because being from Michigan, you have quite a diversity of constituents you represent. I don't know Michigan, of course, as well as I know Louisiana. I am certain you have pockets of immigrants who have come to Michigan who have proven themselves to be outstanding citizens.

I met with a very strong, strapping man who came to Louisiana probably when he was a child, I imagine as a young teenager. He is now pushing 50 to 60. He met with me not too long ago over a small table in Plaquemine, LA. He had his sleeves rolled up. His arms were quite large. He is an oyster fisherman. He came from Croatia. He had no money in his pocket when he arrived, but he and his sons have been oyster fishermen down in this area for decades.

He looked at me and he said: Senator, I could not love a country more than I love America. I came here as a penniless child, he said, and I have been trying to make a living fishing in the oyster beds in Louisiana. His son was sitting right next to him. He said: But Senator, if we don't do something, all that we have done for these decades will be lost.

I share that story. I am sure Senator Mikulski could tell a story about her fishermen from Maryland, and I am certain Senator Carper could relay a similar story from Delaware, and I am certain, Mr. President, that you have similar stories from people who came here, not born in America, but came here looking for a chance and in their quest to find that chance have provided so much wealth, more than you can imagine, for themselves and their families and for all of us, as well as people who were born in south Louisiana, who were born here, or working side by side with those who came, looking for a new life decades ago to preserve this great place. If we do not step it up, if we do not expedite this effort, their work will have been for nought.

A couple of years ago, we passed a bill that will give us revenue sharing to try to build the levees. We went actually after the storm--I was so devastated after Katrina thinking where could we find help, where could we find a plan. I traveled to the Netherlands, to Europe, to look at the systems they have. I brought 40 elected officials, both Republicans and Democrats, with me, laymen and engineers, to say: If the Netherlands, which is a small country that can fit inside the State of Louisiana--this is our State. The Netherlands is so small it could fit inside Louisiana. It is a powerful nation but a small one. It has the same problems as we do. If their levees break, they will lose their entire country. So they don't fool around with it as we do in America. They actually build levees that hold. They have great engineering. We have great engineers here, but we are not giving the support or tools they need to do this job. So our land continues to wash away while the Netherlands has managed to save itself.

I learned a very interesting thing over in the Netherlands when I went, and it was shocking to me. Netherlands has no system of insurance such as we do. We have flood insurance here. It is a bill we actually could not pass in the last few years, but we technically have flood insurance. We have commercial insurance. In the Netherlands, they don't have insurance because their levees are built to withstand a storm once every 10,000 years.

I hate to be the one to be the bearer of bad news, but our levees are not even built to withstand storms once in 100 years. The levees the Netherlands build protect their people once every 10,000 years, so they virtually never break. That little picture everybody might remember, at least those of my age and older, of that little boy with the finger in the dike, that is not how it is. They have the most extraordinary investments and infrastructure you can imagine. They have gates that

open and close. They have diversion systems. I literally have people in their living rooms with buckets trying to keep the water out.

I had elected officials come to my office this week with pictures of everything that their town owned dumped out on the street because the water comes in. And somehow in America we have lost either the interest, the will, or the ability to use the resources we have and the brains that God gave us to figure this out.

Although countries have done it--and I am sure the Netherlands is not the only country that has done it--I am here to tell you America is a long way from getting this right.

I came to the floor to introduce a bill--it is not going to completely solve this problem, but I will send it to the desk because it is going to take more than one bill to do it. In the supplemental bill we passed, the emergency disaster bill, there is a portion in that bill--it is a $1.5 billion portion--that is directed to only one project in south Louisiana. This bill I am going to lay down will suggest that the $1.5 billion that is directed to one project be given to the State in a way that our Governor, who is not a Democrat but a Republican--so I am not doing this with party. He is Republican and I am working with him--to give him and his team an opportunity to use those funds to cover the billions of dollars of projects we have underway.

We have billions of dollars of projects underway. We have $1.5 billion in the bill. So instead of directing it to one particular project, I thought it might be worth discussing the wisdom and the benefit of trying to give it to our State, allowing them to use it in a way that will most quickly benefit the most people.

I want to show the levee structure. We have passed since 1986 eight WRDA bills, water resources development bills. This is the way Congress builds levees all over the country. The red represents Federal levees in Louisiana, the green represents local levees, and then the yellow is boundaries separating our parishes. We don't have counties, we have parishes. Here is St. Bernard Parish. This parish, by the way, with 67,000 people, was completely obliterated in Katrina--completely. Out of 67,000 people, there were 5--5--homes that were not completely inundated up to the roof with water. That is St. Bernard Parish.

Then we have Orleans, and we saw what happened when the levees broke: 70 percent of the city went underwater. What you didn't see was Plaquemine Parish went underwater. This levee helped. This is the only levee in our entire State, Golden Meadow, even though it held in Katrina--you are going to have a hard time believing this, but this little levee held down here in Golden Meadow. But since Katrina, I can't seem to get a dollar to lift it a little higher because the Corps of Engineers, for some reason, doesn't think this is a big priority. It held again in Ike, and it held again in Gustav. They keep telling me there is something wrong, we can't build a levee this way. I said: Since this levee held and yours broke, maybe Golden Meadow knows something about building levees. Nevertheless, we don't have money to help them strengthen that levee, although it has been through four hurricanes now.

In the last WRDA bill, we authorized $6.9 billion of projects, which is the good news, and some of that money will be spent here. By the way, there will be billions of dollars spent around the country on levees such as this. We are only one of 50 States. I most certainly don't think we should get all the money in Louisiana, although we have a lot of the water. The Mississippi River probably deserves a little extra because of that, and we do because it is a water bill, it is not a desert bill. If it were a desert bill, New Mexico would get a good portion of that money. It is a water bill. We have a lot of water, so we get a lot of money.

We have $6 billion. However, in the actual appropriations bill, we only have $1.5 billion. So the best way I can think to take that $1.5 billion, instead of dedicating it to one project, is give it to the Governor and let him, with his team and the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, figure out how to lay that money down on south Louisiana to save as much as we can while we wait and work for the revenue- sharing piece I talked about earlier, the portion of the offshore oil and gas revenues. We are now going to get 37 percent of those revenues, which are moneys that come to the Federal Treasury that if Louisiana weren't willing to produce oil and gas, the country would not have. They might own the resources off our coast, off our 9-mile boundary, but they couldn't access those revenues without the people of Louisiana agreeing.

Remember, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama are the only States that allow drilling off their coasts, and Alaska, which is not in the lower 48, of course. So because we allow drilling, because we generate $10 billion, we thought instead of coming here hat in hand every year, let us direct some of that money to help us build these levees and then in the meantime, we can get occasionally some money in the water resources bill or in an appropriations bill to add to that so we can start protecting our people. We may not get to 1 in every 10,000 years' storm, but we most certainly need to get past 1 out of every 100 years. We have to move not from a category 3 protection but to a category 5 protection, and we have to do it quickly. So I send this bill to the desk and hope we can consider it at the earliest convenience.

I wish to also send to the desk some more detailed information about what I have spoken about, and I will conclude this portion by saying that this is an urgent matter. I don't know how many storms we have to endure on the gulf coast, America's energy coast, before this Congress realizes this is an economic disaster, it is an emotional drain on people who continue to watch everything they own flood time and time again.

If I thought I could relocate 2 million people to another part--even if I could get them to go, which I couldn't because this is their home--it would be too expensive. Who would stay and run the river? Who would keep these channels open? Who would drill for the oil and gas? We haven't figured out how to do this from unmanned aerial platforms yet. People actually have to go out into this coastline and work hard every day in agriculture, in oil and gas and in fisheries. This operation cannot be run from Kansas City or from Little Rock, AR. It has to be run on the coast. And everybody who lives on a coast, whether you live in Florida or Texas or South Carolina or North Carolina or Georgia understands what I am talking about. We can't relocate everyone to Denver. We have to protect our coasts, and we are doing a terrible job of it in this country. I am one of the Senators who represents the most challenged area in the Nation. Louisiana is not the only . . . .

My predecessor and friend, the late Senator Paul Simon, championed the cause of water for the poor. Ten years ago he wrote an important and foretelling book, Tapped Out, in which he described the world's looming clean water crisis.

Senator Simon was ahead of the curve. He identified this challenge long before many others, and urged the U.S. to lead on it. It is my privilege to carry forward his vision in the United States Senate today.

I take this responsibility seriously--not only to honor my friend and mentor from Illinois--but more importantly to further this country's leadership in making access to clean water and sanitation possible for people in every part of the world.

In 2005, Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act to elevate the position of safe water and sanitation efforts in U.S. foreign assistance.

We have made progress since then. Last year alone, the U.S. helped provide nearly 2 million people with access to a better source of drinking water for the first time. And we helped more than 1.5 million people access better sanitation.

These are encouraging results, but our impact could be much greater. Our current efforts are hindered by limited resources and lack of overall strategy and coordination.

To strengthen U.S. leadership in this area, I am pleased to join with Senators Corker, Kerry and Murray, and Representatives Blumenauer and Payne to introduce new legislation that builds and improves upon the 2005 act.

The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Enhancement Act of 2008 will increase capacity at USAID and the State Department to implement clean water and sanitation efforts.

It will strengthen local capacity by adding a corps of water experts to USAID missions and by training local water and sanitation managers.

It will foster development of low-cost and sustainable clean water and sanitation technologies for use in priority countries.

In short, it will put the U.S. again at the forefront of assuring access to these most basic needs for millions around the world.

We will not be able to make a sustained difference on the ground with good intentions alone. We need to back up the lofty goals in this bill with resources--money and personnel.

We need to give our development experts the tools and support they need to get the job done well. That is why I've also led an effort in the Senate to increase the number of Foreign Service Officers and to urge the placement of water experts in USAID missions around the world.

This kind of development assistance, helping to build infrastructure and alleviate poverty, is a crucial to our ability to lead and influence other countries.

America's strength resonates not only from its military power but from the power of American ideas and values, from our generosity and diplomacy.

I fear we have lost a measure of that influence in recent years. Our smart power has waned as we've focused our resources and attention elsewhere.

Real leadership from the United States on water and sanitation will help stave off one of the world's looming crises. It will reassert our standing as a leader in the fight against global poverty.

And, once again, Paul Simon was ahead of his time. What element of international development assistance could be more fundamental than ensuring access to clean water and basic sanitation?

We often take water for granted in this country. Turn on the tap, and out it comes--clean, inexpensive and plentiful. Occasionally we hear of water shortages in a handful of states during times of drought. But for the most part, we think little about this crucial resource.

Yet for many people in the world, access to clean water and sanitation are out of reach--and the problem may only get worse.

In the past 20 years, 2 billion people have gained access to safe drinking water and 600 million have gained access to basic sanitation services. This is encouraging progress.

Yet nearly 900 million people still live without clean water, and nearly 2 in 5 do not have access to proper sanitation.

In the past century, global demand for water has tripled, and is now doubling every two decades. Rapid population growth, urbanization, pollution and climate change will add even greater pressures to an already strained system.

This scenario is troubling for a lot of reasons.

First, unsafe water is a serious threat to global health. The World Health Organization estimates that water-related diseases account for about one-tenth of the global disease burden. We lose nearly 5,000 children each day to these diseases, and over 2 million people each year.

We recently expanded our efforts to fight global AIDS--an effort I support--but antiretroviral therapy taken with unsafe water may do more harm than good.

Lack of safe water threatens economic development and political stability. A developing economy cannot grow if its population is too sick to work or if its members are engaged in conflict over water resources, as in Darfur, for example, or in parts of the Middle East.

Nor can an economy grow if its women and girls have to spend many hours each day gathering water rather than engaging in more productive pursuits. The UN estimates that women lose 40 billion working hours each year to carrying water. The economic repercussions are clear.

Water scarcity has a serious impact on the environment, as well. The strain on natural resources will continue as global warming causes glaciers to melt and climate patterns to shift. We can expect key sources of clean water to be altered or eliminated in the process.

So, this is a big problem. But the U.S. is in a position to make a big difference in the lives of the world's poor with strong leadership and investment in global safe water.

U.S. leadership can and will make a difference in this most fundamental development challenge. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this effort to refocus our global clean water activities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Events of the last decade are stark reminders that security in the U.S. is closely linked to the stability of far-flung places beyond our borders. From food riots to failed states, we have become more aware of how important it is to help the poorest around the world live healthier, more productive, and stable lives.

Foreign assistance for development is not only the right thing to do; it's in our national interest. In the U.S., the responsibility for such development falls largely to the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

USAID was founded by the Kennedy administration in 1961. It became the first U.S. foreign assistance organization whose primary emphasis was on long term economic and social development efforts overseas.

During its first decade, it had more than 5,000 dedicated Foreign Service Officers serving all over the world, often in the most difficult of conditions. They helped build clinics in Nepal, provide clean water in Honduras, and boost the agricultural and industrial sectors of Pakistan.

Today, when the U.S. needs to show its leadership overseas more than ever, USAID operates with just 1,000 Foreign Service Officers.

Many people on both sides of the aisle agree that USAID is no longer equipped to do its job effectively. We simply are not meeting the international development goals of the United States.

USAID has not received adequate funding, staffing, or political support--and America's efforts abroad have suffered as a result.

It is time to make a change.

We should be sending bright, talented public servants to help improve child and maternal health, treat those with AIDS, TB and malaria, provide clean water and sanitation for the world's poor, help farmers and women start or improve their business, and assist reformers and civic leaders to build stronger democratic institutions.

Today, along with Senator Kerry and Senator Murray, I am introducing the Increasing America's Global Development Capacity Act of 2008 to take the first step toward putting the Agency for International Development on firmer footing.

The bill would authorize USAID to hire an additional 700 Foreign Service Officers. This would basically double the current number of development officers available to work in targeted countries. This is fundamental to rebuilding the agency's capacity.

Senator Leahy, Chair of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, shares a commitment to rebuilding USAID. I am heartened by the Subcommittee's recommended increase in funding for USAID's operating expenses for fiscal year 2009. This was a priority for me in the bill, and Chairman Leahy has been very supportive.

My bill also would establish a goal of hiring an additional 1,300 Foreign Service Officers by 2011.

After three years, USAID would have more than 3,000 of talented, committed Americans serving in the world's most difficult locations helping to improve the lives of others. It won't be the 5,000 experts of the 1960s, but it will be a big improvement from today.

Foreign development assistance is as important a foreign policy tool as diplomacy and defense. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is perhaps the most persuasive advocate for rebuilding our civilian development capacity. He argues that we need to engage in nonmilitary ways to pursue global development goals.

The civilian instruments of national security--diplomacy, development assistance, sharing expertise on civil society--are becoming more and more important. Secretary Gates argues

that these tools are good for the world's poor, our national security, and our country.

I agree.

Let us take one concrete step to rebuild that important civilian capacity, which would help improve our ability to help the world's poorest countries and people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. I would like to thank Chairman Payne in particular for introducing this important resolution. And I am very proud to cosponsor it because it is clearly a life-and- death matter. When you talk about sanitation and the removal of waste and the removal of sewage, you are talking about the lives of children. And as the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, let me acknowledge that the most vulnerable to unsanitary conditions are children. In the disease that spreads, they are, in fact, the victims.

Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 to 59 percent between 1990 and 2004. And that is, in essence, allowing over 1 billion people throughout the world to gain improved sanitation in the past 14 years. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and, of course, young children are, in fact, the bigger victims.

I am particularly troubled that 90 percent of these deaths that I have mentioned of those who died because of lack of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation are children under 5, mostly in developing countries. As I mentioned, children are particularly hard hit by poor sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling, disease, malnutrition and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene and unsafe water. UNICEF reports that girls are particularly vulnerable, missing out on schooling once they hit puberty, due to the lack of clean and safe latrines.

As the world's only remaining superpower, I think it is important to avert this humanitarian crisis. Chairman Payne, I believe that this is an important, constructive way of avoiding this massive death. Simply put, the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert 470,000 deaths. And it would continue to do so. According to economic analysis, depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in it.

Let me just indicate that this is common sense. It is, again, human dignity. And as I close, let me also add my support for H. Con. Res. 337 honoring the Seeds of Peace. It is a program that I am very much aware of, having participated with the young people who have come from Israel and Palestine who have sat down together as teenagers and said we want peace. It was founded by John Wallach. Seeds of Peace initially brought 46 Israeli and Arab youths together. It has spread now to Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These summer camps are enormously important. Again, the Congressional Children's Caucus believes that children are not only our tomorrows, they are our yesterdays and todays.

And I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership in these areas. And with that I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 318 and as well the following bill H. Con. Res. 337. And again, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership.

I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 318, ``supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Payne for introducing this important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Berman, for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, In 2007, the United Nations declared 2008 to be the International Year of Sanitation, to raise awareness of the importance of sanitation and its impact on reaching other Millennium Development Goals and to recognize progress made in achieving the global sanitation target detailed in the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, the International Year of Sanitation is intended to call upon all Member States, United Nations agencies, regional and international organizations, civil society organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to renew their commitment to attaining the target.

As my colleagues are aware, in September 2000, the United Nations adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that challenged the global community to reduce poverty and increase the health and well-being of all peoples. Two years later, in September 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United States and the rest of the international community reaffirmed these goals and added access to basic sanitation as a centerpiece of the poverty eradication commitments. The target to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015 was defined in the Johannesburg Plan of Action.

We have begun to make important progress. Over one billion people, throughout the world, have gained access to improved sanitation in the past 14 years. Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 percent to 59 percent between 1990 and 2004. These gains represent substantial improvements in the quality of life and basic health for countless people.

Mr. Speaker, despite the establishment of these goals, billions of people still lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and we are not on target to meet the Millennium Development Goal to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015. Today, over 2.4 billion people--half the developing world--lack access to basic sanitation and 1.1 billion people have no access to any type of improved drinking source of water. As a direct consequence, over 1.6 million people die every year from easily preventable diseases attributable to lack

of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am particularly troubled that 90 percent of these deaths are children under 5, mostly in developing countries. Children are particularly hard hit by poor sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling, disease, malnutrition, and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children under five die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene, and unsafe water.

In addition to claiming too many young lives, poor sanitation reduces children's ability to grow and develop, stunting the economic and social development of the entire nation. UNICEF reports that girls are particularly vulnerable, missing out on schooling once they hit puberty due to the lack of clean and safe latrines.

As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has a moral obligation to take the lead in averting humanitarian catastrophe. Increased access to sanitation would have an enormous impact on the lives of people throughout the world. Simply put, meeting the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert 470,000 deaths. In addition, achieving the target would bring enormous economic gains. Meeting the Millennium Development Goal would result in an extra 320 million productive working days every year, and would bring considerable benefits to investment. According to economic analysis, depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in access to basic sanitation and safe water.

Mr. Speaker, even as our attention is consumed by rising food and fuel prices, it is vital that we do not lose focus of the equally vital goal of basic sanitation. The resolution that we are considering today recognizes the importance of sanitation on public health, poverty reduction, economic and social development, and the environment and encourages all Americans to observe the International Year of Sanitation with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of sanitation, hygiene, and access to safe drinking water in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of meeting the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would be dramatic and global. We have the opportunity to drastically improve the international community's ability to reduce global poverty, and to improve the health of people worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 318) supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ranking Member Chris Smith and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson- Lee as well as Representative Chris Shays for being lead sponsors on H.Con.Res 318, which supports the United Nations Declaration of 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation. Their bipartisan support has helped to bring this resolution to the floor for a vote. I also would like to thank Senator Richard Durbin, who introduced the Senate companion to this concurrent resolution.

In September 2000, the United Nations adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals to challenge the global community to reduce poverty and increase the health and well-being of all peoples. Two years later, in September of 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United States and the rest of the international community reaffirmed these goals and added access to basic sanitation as a centerpiece of the poverty eradication commitments. The target to halve the proportion of people without access to the basic sanitation by 2015 was defined in the Johannesburg Plan of Action.

In September of 2005, President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly, at which time, as I was the U.S. delegate from the House to the United Nations, I was very pleased that President Bush recommitted the United States to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Last year, the United Nations declared 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation in order to recognize the great strides that have been made towards increasing access to sanitation for people around the world. However, it is also a time to galvanize member nations, U.N. agencies, regional and international organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to renew their commitment.

Access to basic sanitation is something so simple, yet so fundamental to everyday life. Well, simple, at least, for the majority of people who live in the developed world. An estimated 2.6 billion people live in an environment where they do not have access to proper toilet facilities and human waste cannot be properly disposed. And approximately 1.1 billion people have no access to any type of improved drinking sources of water. As a direct consequence, over 1.6 million people die every year from easily preventable diseases attributable to lack of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Ninety percent of those are children under five, mostly in developing countries.

This lack of access to basic sanitation affects everything from how food is grown and prepared to the ability of girls and young women to attend school. Sanitation is an obvious issue of health, but also one of dignity, physical safety and development.

Halving the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation is a target of the seventh Millennium Development Goal, which is to ensure environmental sustainability. In fact, it is vital to the success of other Millennium Development Goal targets in order for them to reach their goal.

Access to proper sanitation is essential to reducing childhood and maternal mortality. It can help reduce the symptoms associated with HIV and AIDS. It can also improve the living conditions of 100 million-plus people living in slums.

The dividends that increased access to basic sanitation pay are multifold. Depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in access to basic sanitation and safe water. According to the United Nations, meeting this MDG target will yield nearly $200 billion in annual benefits. If we meet this goal, people and governments will save more than $500 million in direct health treatment costs and get back more than 3 billion working days that are now lost to sanitation- related illnesses. Reducing the incidences to sanitation-related diseases will add nearly 200 million days of school attendance.

As we in Congress work to increase access to lifesaving medication and strengthening health care infrastructures, we must remember that the success of such initiatives is, in part, dependent upon individuals having access to basic sanitation. Let us use this time to also refocus our efforts on strengthening one of the basic pillars upon which global health must stand, proper sanitation.

I strongly support this resolution and ask that my colleagues back H. Con. Res. 318, which supports the ideals and goals of the International Year of Sanitation.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, the member of the Budget Committee and one of the leading environmentalists in the House, Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I urge support of this resolution. As the previous speaker indicated, we passed legislation called Water For the Poor, and in our oversight hearing I was looking for places like Burkina Faso in Niger that had no water, but found that the money was allocated to Iraq and Afghanistan. ``Water for the Poor'' was what it was called, not ``Water for the War.''

So we need to be sure that when we pass legislation, that it goes to the intended recipients and not for other purposes. If other purposes must be done, put them in another budget. There is plenty of money in other budgets and no one ever opposes them. So put it over there, and leave our Water for the Poor for the countries that are actually and really poor.

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

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