Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008

Mr. Chairman, I ask for such time as I may consume.

I speak in support of the legislation. First of all, let me thank Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairman Waters for the bipartisan cooperation they've shown in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is very good legislation. I would urge all Members to support it. What the legislation does, as Congresswoman Waters said, it allows the administration to negotiate debt relief arrangements with the 25 poorest countries of the world. It does not require them to enter into any specific agreement. It simply gives them that authorization.

Once they have gone to those countries and negotiated debt relief, that

agreement then has to come back to the Senate and the House for our approval. So we're not approving any specific action today. We're simply authorizing them to do what most of us in this body believe is the right thing to do, and that's debt relief for the poorest people of the world.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that a disaster is defined by magnitude and distance. We hear about a million and a half citizens of Darfur starving to death, and it is halfway around the world. It somehow does not grip us like seeing someone in our own community starve to death on the streets. But in reality, 1.5 million people have died in Darfur, and they're dying in Sub-Saharan Africa. They're dying in these 25 countries.

And people say, how do they die? You hear of 25,000, but what we're really talking about is one child at a time, one young person at a time, one older lady or grandmother that simply dies because there is nothing to eat or because there is no clean water or because there is no vaccinations.

Now, let me give you three reasons why we should support it. People say let me answer this first, and I'm going to answer it by submitting for the record, and I would ask the Members, if you're trying to decide whether to support this legislation or not, I'm going to introduce the remarks of Ward Brehm, who is the chairman of the U.S. Africa Development Fund. He spoke at this year's prayer breakfast. I wish every Member could have been there.

Remarks of Ward Brehm, Chairman of U.S. African Development Board,

National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 7, 2008

Thank you, Senator Enzi. I am deeply humbled by your

introduction and proud to be able to call you my friend.

Most of you were probably surprised when you picked up the

program and saw a speaker you've never heard of before. Me

too . . . One month ago, I sent in my registration . . . and

was just hoping for a good seat!

My thanks also to the members of the Senate group for this

opportunity. A good friend emailed me last night and said

that if God was going to speak through me I didn't need to be

nervous. . . .

God is the one who should be nervous!

My wife read to me from Scripture last night that Jesus

said when two or more gather in His name He will be there.

That's good enough for me!

My work has given me the high privilege of serving you, Mr.

President, the American people, and above all, the poor in

Africa.

The best way to help the poor is to help them not be poor

anymore. The only way I know how to do that is through job

creation, and the very best form of sustainable development

is a steady paycheck.

It's been said that if you give a man a fish, you feed him

for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a

lifetime. But that's not the full story. If you want to eat

for a lifetime, you need to own the pond.

So a bit of background . . . Despite that eloquent

introduction, I am a recovering Type-A controlling

businessman. I've been described even by people who like me

as someone who is often wrong but seldom in doubt. I was a

bit of a problem child growing up. In fact, my pastor since

childhood, Arthur Rouner, recently referred to me as a

ministerial long shot!

They say that if God wants to get your attention He will

toss a pebble into your life. If that doesn't work He'll

throw a rock. As a last resort He'll heave a brick!

Africa was my brick.

In 1994, Africa was not on my personal radar screen.

In fact, the only thing on that radar screen was me.

In the Los Angeles Airport I bought a copy of Stephen

Covey's book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

I didn't buy it to learn anything, but just wanted to make

sure he got them all right!

I was intrigued by Covey's notion of paradigms: identical

sets of facts can mean something totally different because of

your world view.

Somalia was in the news at the time, and countless numbers

of Africans were dying from starvation. I felt no real

connection to this humanitarian crisis. My radar screen was

full.

Paradigms usually change because of shock or trauma, but I

wondered if it might be possible for someone to change their

paradigm on purpose. I supposed that if I were to see people

starving, it would change that paradigm and perhaps much

more. The thought left me nearly as quickly as it came.

But God sent me a reminder . . . One week later, I made one

of my occasional stops at church . . . My pastor, out of the

blue, took me aside and said, ``Ward, I'm going to Africa in

two months, and I would like you to go with me.''

I told him I couldn't believe the coincidence of his

invitation given my recent reflections on Somalia. Then I

said . . . ``No!''

He looked at me in a strange way, and he said, ``Would you

at least pray about it?'' I looked at him and said, ``You're

the pastor; you pray about it. I will think about it but

suspect my answer will still be no.''

He must have prayed hard . . . because two months later, I

found myself in the Minneapolis airport with a ticket to

Ethiopia in my hand. I was surrounded (for lack of a better

word) by church ladies. And they were hugging me . . . Then

someone suggested we pray before we departed, so I found

myself outside Gate 8A, holding hands with a group of

strangers. And as I stand here before the National Prayer

Breakfast I can honestly say I uttered my first heartfelt and

sincere prayer . . .

``Lord . . . Don't let any of my clients see me!''

And then we flew. 12,000 miles to Africa, and a million

miles from my comfort zone. I had the high privilege of

having my heart broken. I saw poverty on an obscene level.

Children with flies on their eyes and for the lack of a 50

cent medicine doomed to blindness, the emaciated faces of

famine, families shattered by civil war. And in Masaka,

Uganda, I held the hand of a 22-year-old Mother as she died

of AIDS and then turned and looked directly into the eyes of

four brand new orphans.

I was an eyewitness.

It put a face on the statistics. I always believed that

those statistics were true, but now they were real. It got

personal. . . .

More recently, I took a long walk with a warrior turned

pastor friend deep into an unknown wilderness along the

northern Rift Valley that divides Northwest Kenya with

Uganda. He took me to where they had never seen a person with

white skin. When they first spotted me, they thought I was a

ghost . . . a dead man walking. For a while, I thought they'd

be right.

I fasted for five days on this walk to experience real

hunger, but had brought along protein bars in the case of (as

Lodinyo put it) an ``emergency''. At the end of the walk, I

collapsed in a borrowed sleeping hut; when I awoke 13 hours

later, I saw a little boy peeking through the door. While he

was initially terrified, curiosity eventually got the best of

him, and I noticed he was concentrating more on my stash of

power bars than he was on me. He succeeded in snatching a

bar, and immediately ran away. ``Kids are the same

everywhere,'' I thought, until I stepped outside the hut, and

found a little boy kneeling over his two-year-old sister with

a terribly distended stomach, feeding her tiny pieces of

protein. . . .

I found out 3 months later that she had died . . . another

paradigm shift.

Now after more than 30 trips to Africa, the question I have

been asked more than any other by my African friends is

``What do you pray for?''

Most of us among the affluent have too many things. Too

much food, multiple cars, great health care, retirement

plans, insurance. . . .

It's only when things fall completely apart, and we're

totally out of control that we feel totally dependent, and

thus closest to God. Death, cancer, business failure,

addiction, divorce, crises; these are the things that drop us

to our knees.

All across the world including America things are

continually falling apart for the truly poor . . . They are

always out of control, constantly living in a crisis mode,

and thus dependent and faithful to God's own commandment that

we love Him with all our hearts. God is often all the poor

have.

The leaders that God anoints are their only hope. And

despite the often-horrific conditions they live in, the poor

are thankful for their very existence.

Scripture asks, ``Hasn't God chosen those who are poor in

the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and inherit the

Kingdom?'' Yes, He has. I've seen it with my own eyes.

The question I'm asked the most by my American friends is,

``Why cross an ocean to help people when you need only cross

the street, to help your own?'' It's a great question, and

the answer is, of course, that we need to do both.

Solzhenitsyn said that disaster is defined by two things:

magnitude and distance. So a small disaster close to home or

a huge disaster faraway, results in what he describes as

``bearable disasters of bearable proportions.'' We've become

too good at ``bearing.'' Our hearts should be broken by the

things that break the heart of God.

Specifically in Africa, there are many faraway disasters of

epic proportions. In 1994 . . . In Rwanda, a country the size

of Maryland, the political genocide claimed over 800,000

lives. Nine thousand lives per day for 90 days. That's two

World Trade Center disasters per day for 3 months.

Today . . . in Darfur, Sudan, 1.5 million homeless.

Thousands terrorized, raped and killed. AIDS is killing 4,400

people per day in Africa, and even more are dying from

curable malaria. Epic disasters of epic proportions, far from

home for most of us. We have hundreds right here in this room

from all around the world, our neighbors this morning . . .

who experience these epic disasters close to home.

I do want to say this while I have the chance with the

President sitting right here. Very few people are aware that

due to President Bush's commitment and the resulting

partnership with Congress there has been an absolutely

historic four-fold increase in American assistance to fight

poverty and AIDS in Africa.

In 2003 there were 50,000 Africans on Anti Viral medication

and today there are over 1.5 million. I have not met a single

person who hasn't agreed with this high calling.

Proverbs, the book of Wisdom says, ``speak up for those who

can't speak for themselves and defend the rights of the poor

and destitute.'' You have been that voice and on behalf of

the ``least of these'' in Africa as well as the collective

American conscience, I want to say . . . ``Thank you Mr.

President.''

Do you remember when Jesus was talking to His disciples,

and asked them when He was hungry, why they didn't give Him

any food, and when He was naked, why they didn't give Him any

clothes? And the disciples said something like, ``Lord, we

never did any of those things to You.'' I always thought

(like most folks) that Jesus replied ``Whenever you did this

to the least of these, you did this unto Me.''

Except He didn't say that. What He said was, ``Whenever you

did this to one of the least of these, you did this unto

Me.''

How often do we forget the word ``one.''

It changes the meaning of what Jesus said completely. In

our quest to be helpful, we can rob the poor of their

dignity. In order to be of any help to the poor, we need to

understand them, we need to know them, and we need to Love

them. They are not a group. The poor is not a species. They

are identical to us in their hopes and dreams. They love

their families and long for a better life. The only

difference is that they are poor.

And people don't stiffer and die in groups. It's one at a

time. And each one of those deaths leaves an identical wake

of agony to what you and I and our families would experience.

So what are we supposed to do with all of this? How does

this fit with our own world, so different and so faraway?

Frankly, I'm not sure, but we do have some clues . . . Jesus

said, ``The poor will always be with you.'' What an odd thing

to say. . . . especially coming from Him!

Jesus also said, ``To whom much has been given, much will

be expected.'' So maybe This is a test of sorts. If so . . .

how are we doing?

I have heard stories similar to mine of peoples' lives

being changed: from orphanages in Russia to inner-city

schools in Minneapolis, from the slums of Calcutta to remote

medical clinics in the mountains of Afghanistan, from the

streets of Washington, DC, to wretched prisons in East Asia.

Indeed, all across the world people are answering Jesus'

question, ``Who is my neighbor?''

And these people are finding themselves changed, engaged,

and discovering meaning and relevance by being involved in

things much bigger than themselves. . . .

I believe that, deep down, most people would love to have

God change their lives. Here's the thing: If asked, He will,

every time, guaranteed. And while these changes may initially

seem scary, they ultimately lay a foundation for a life lived

on purpose rather than by default.

I will be forever indebted to Africa. Africa awakened me

when I didn't even know I was asleep. I pray that everyone

who seeks one will find a similar path.

I pray that each of you will find your own Africa. . . .

A few years ago my good friend, Gary Haugen, asked me the

most important question of all. . . .

For those four orphans I was with in Uganda who watched

their mother die of AIDS and were suddenly completely on

their own . . . For a twelve year old girl kidnapped and sold

into slavery in rural India . . . For a single mom evicted

and homeless on the streets of DC . . . For each one of them:

What is God's strategy for letting them know that He is

good?

The mother in Ethiopia sees her baby die of malnutrition.

Why would she think God is good? And what is God's strategy

For allowing her to know that He loves her?

The answer is astounding. The answer is . . . us.

Even more astonishing . . . He has no plan B. . . .

God bless you One and all.

And what he said is, and I'm going to quote him: ``The question I have been asked by most of my American friends, `Why cross an ocean to help people when you need only cross the street to help your own?' '' He said, ``It's a great question.'' And the answer is, of course, that we need to do both.

He goes on to quote many people that we look to for directions, many spiritual leaders of all different religions, including Christ Jesus. And that is the answer. Yes, we have an obligation to our nextdoor neighbor, but I do believe that we should have at least compassion and the desire to help people in other countries. We can do that easily and almost without effort, and when you say ``almost without effort,'' aren't we talking about money?

The first round of debt relief for seven countries cost every American citizen 50 cents. Fifty cents. But what did that 50 cents do? It reduced infant mortality in those countries by 9 percent. Nine percent. What is 9 percent? Well, in some of those countries, it was literally hundreds of children surviving that wouldn't have survived. It also included many little girls, millions, millions of little girls that were able to go to school who were never afforded that opportunity before, all for a cost of 50 cents.

This next round of debt relief is estimated to cost $2 for every American citizen. Now, how often could you reach in your pocket, could you put $2 down, and could you see hundreds of thousands of children being given an opportunity to read and write? How many times could you reach in your pocket and offer $2 and know that thousands of people would survive the night?

There was a Catholic priest, a nun, Sister Trujillo in Nicaragua, and she was asked sometime, how do these people survive? How do they survive in such conditions? And she said, I came to say often they don't. They don't survive.

And whether we pass this legislation or not, all over the world in these poor countries, tens of thousands of people won't make it through the night tonight. They will die. They won't see another day. But if we pass this legislation, we can be assured, because we have a track record of success, we can be assured that hundreds of thousands will survive.

In some of these countries, and these are stories that are phenomenal to me, in many countries for special-needs children, people with Down Syndrome, people with severe physical limitations, there was absolutely no services, no services. They were basically born into total hopelessness. In those countries where we've afforded debt relief and their debt services have dropped, there are actually, today, services for those children, for handicapped children.

Anyone who has children, little boys or girls or grandchildren, don't you take pride when they start learning how to read, when they start learning how to write? If for almost nothing you could ensure that little children all over the world have that same right, would you do something? I think you would, and you would vote for this legislation.

Let me give you three reasons again why this is the right thing to do not from a moral standpoint but from even from a good government economic standpoint.

First, it's yielded results. Wherever we have done this, we have benefited. The United States of America has benefited, these countries have benefited, the citizens of these countries have benefited. As I said, the poverty rate in the Sub-Saharan African countries which we gave debt relief is down 6 percent. Over 1 million children a day are receiving health care that weren't receiving it, all for almost no cost to us.

Second, and I think this is essentially important and I want to try to find this. This is a quote from the 9/11 Commission. And if you don't hear anything else that I say today, you're concerned about our country, you're concerned about our security, then realize that debt relief is, I believe, dollar for dollar the most effective program in assuring our national security because it helps to combat poverty, and it is poverty that leads to instability and hopelessness. It creates terrorism and terrorist factions to breed and thrive.

The 9/11 Commission, in talking just about programs such as this, said, ``Terrorism is not caused by poverty. Indeed, many terrorists come from relatively well-off backgrounds. Yet when people lose hope, when societies break down, when countries fragment, the breeding ground for terrorism is created.'' They go on to say, ``Where there is not basic education, where the children are not afforded an education, those are the very countries that the next terrorist threat will come from.''

It's no accident that the U.N. listed Afghanistan prior to the Taliban taking over as the country with the fewest number of children attending public education, or any education. Now, we have a choice that we can stand aside and let these children go to madrassas where they're taught to hate America, or we can help these countries help their own future generations by allowing them to go into public education systems which will not brainwash their children.

And the beneficiaries will not only be them, it will be us. It will be those of us who have had children in the military. I can tell you, as the father of a young marine, this bill is very important to me. I believe that this bill, as much as anything else, allows, long

term, in our next generations, us to keep more of our children from having to go over and try to combat these terrorist activities.

Third, it's cost efficient. The U.S. share of the expected first round of debt relief under this act, as I said, will cost no more than 50 cents a piece for every man, woman and child in this country.

During the debate on this bill, we Republicans asked for and were readily joined by the Democrats in asking for some changes in this debt modification from the ones that went on in prior years. One, we asked the President not to grant debt relief to countries that are not moving in the direction of democracy, that are not committed to the rules of law which are committed to improving human rights and the constitutional rights and the fundamental rights of their citizens. Second, there are countries that engage in human trafficking. Under this legislation, they are not eligible for debt relief. They will either have to turn from those practices or they will be denied even an opportunity to negotiate. And third, they cannot harbor or promote terrorism.

Let me simply close by urging the Members; we all want a safer country, we want a freer America. And for America to be secure in the present global economy we really cannot ignore the rest of the world. We cannot just simply watch as these countries slip into chaos and discord.

This legislation, as much as anything we will bring forward this year, for almost no money, will, I believe, fundamentally improve lives all over this world, all over the globe, but will also be a very good investment for the United States of America, both economically, militarily and morally.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a minute, I'm going to yield to the gentleman from California, but at this time I yield myself such additional time as I may use.

In recognizing the bipartisan nature of our efforts here on the floor today and in committee and over the past few years, this has been an issue that I think has brought the Congress together. That's not to say that Members are not concerned about certain parts. Members have expressed, will this work? This may not work, I'm not sure

it will work. Well, it did work, it did work. We now have a proven track record of accomplishment.

Did we have failures? Yes. Did it work better in certain places than others? Yes. Were there places where perhaps it didn't work very well at all? Yes. Were there places that it amazed us as to how well it worked? And the answer again is yes.

Let me tell a story that completely blind-sided me. I was in Namibia with Bob Goodlatte and Steve King, and we were on an agriculture mission. We met with the President. And Namibia, by the way, they were not accorded debt relief. They don't have that much debt, so they were not one of the countries that we extended debt relief to. So I was surprised when the President of that country sat down with us and one of the first things he said is, please express our country's gratitude. And this is one of the largest countries, geographically, and most strategic countries in Africa, right above South Africa. And he said, please express to the Congress and the people of the United States my thanks for debt relief and the blessings it has brought to this country. And I said, well, Mr. President, you didn't receive debt relief. He said no, but Namibia is much better off today because of debt relief because some of our neighbors did, and those neighbors were trying to destabilize our democracy. They were trying to send rebels into our country. And it stabilized our borders. And we've been able to take money from troops that we had positioned on the border, and also money that the United States had supported to help them do that, they no longer spend that money because their neighbors are more stable, and they are not sending rebels across the border.

So here is an ally of ours that we've not had to spend money on to help defend them from anti-democratic movements simply because the countries where those movements came from are more stable. So again, in places where we didn't even extend debt relief, we've seen tremendously beneficial things.

I want to recognize Mrs. Biggert, the gentlewoman from Illinois. Mrs. Biggert, as ranking member of the subcommittee over the past few years, has really taken a leadership role in debt relief. She's knowledgeable on the issues. She has been a real asset, and I thank her.

Recently, she and I asked two members of the Republican Caucus who had been opposed to debt relief issues in the past to travel on a delegation to Africa. They did. They came back, and both of them immediately within a week called our office, and I think they expressed to Chairman Frank, now I've seen with my own eyes many things that Members of this body had talked about. I've seen what a little bit of money can do and how far it can go. I see not only the great need, but I see the ability to address that need for what we in America call an almost inconsequential amount.

And I wish every Member, before they took this vote, could travel to Latin America, could travel to Africa, could travel to these countries in the Middle East or Asia, and they could witness for themselves many of the amazing success stories, countries whose people are better off today than they were yesterday. Not because we gave them money because this is not what debt relief is about. Debt relief is not about giving them foreign aid; it's about allowing them to help themselves, taking their money and spending it on their own people so that they won't be coming to us for a handout. This is about a hand up, a totally different approach, an approach that's working.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

We don't actually have any additional time to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I have been called away to an agricultural conference. I would ask unanimous consent to yield all time remaining to be managed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds by way of introducing our next speaker.

Last Tuesday, I was very pleased to go to a dinner of an organization called the Bank Information Center. And it was a gathering of representatives all of the groups fighting hard to relieve poverty in much of the rest of the world, especially Africa. And they particularly wanted to celebrate the anniversary of an amendment that was successfully authored by a then very junior Member of the House of Representatives that mandated that in international financial institutions due attention be paid to matters of the environment and human rights and decent standards for individuals. And we have come a long way there. That was then known as the Pelosi amendment, because the author of it is now the Speaker, she has continued that leadership, and I yield her 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to a former member of our committee whose actions we only mildly begrudge, who has been a leader on the issue of trying to provide effective poverty relief throughout the world, particularly in Africa, who has been a cosponsor of this, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I now yield 3 minutes to another member of the Committee on Financial Services who has been a leader in our relationships with the multinational institutions, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I believe the gentleman wants me to finish up, so I will yield to one of the congressional leaders on affairs on Africa from the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for 3 minutes.

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

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.

Yes.

I yield myself the remaining time.

I join in thanking all those who participated. It may seem that this is an orgy of self-congratulations but it really is a celebration of an important point, namely that we are capable of disagreeing with each other strongly on very important public policy issues without that injuring our ability to cooperate in other areas where we can agree.

The Committee on Financial Services has some very sharp divisions, for example, in the role of the Federal Government in helping to build affordable housing and the rules that should apply there on the restrictions that should apply. I am very proud that has not in any way hindered us from working together on these things which are both in the national interest and in the interests of humanity.

Talking about the committee, I do want to mention one other person who has played a very important role here, no longer a Member, but the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.

The initial effort to put through debt relief was over the objection of the leadership of the House and the administration, the Republican House leadership and the Clinton administration. They weren't opposed to it in principle, they were hesitant. A group of Members pushed it through, and among those was the then chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Leach, and we are following in the footsteps of those actions.

There are just a couple of points about this that I want to stress. We have some amendments. I will be agreeing to all the amendments. One or two may need some little work later on. But there is an important principle here.

During the nineties in particular, we had a great deal of turmoil in the world because as the international institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the others, provided some financial assistance to low-income countries, they also provided some very intrusive prescriptions about public policy and decisions. If you are going to talk about democracy, Mr. Chairman, you have to honor it. You can't be for democracy only when you know you are going to agree with the outcome.

For the international institutions, with the backing of the American government all too often, and other governments, to have used the need of these countries for assistance, financial assistance, as a lever to dictate what should have been left to the democratic process, was harmful theoretically and practically. It led to decisions being imposed which undermined popular support for the governments and even for the concept of democracy.

So what we say in this legislation, and I know the President raised some concerns about it, there is a constitutional issue here, we think we are very clear, when the Congress of the United States authorizes activity that will reduce revenue to the government, not by an enormous amount, as the gentleman from Connecticut mentioned, but we are talking here about revenues, when we say we are willing to forgo some of these revenues because we think much more good will come from forgoing them than we could do with collecting them in this situation because of the need for stability and peace in the world, we have a right to set the terms under which it happens, and we say in here that there shall be no intrusion into the democratic processes.

We also say, and it is perfectly consistent, we do insist that there be democratic processes. This is not a bill that says no conditions. It sets conditions. The conditions are democracy. The conditions are no corruption, transparency and democracy in the sense of votes and democracy in the sense of free speech and democracy in the sense of people knowing what is happening.

We do say we want a framework of honesty and openness, which hasn't always been there. We will talk a little bit later about some of the differences about interpretation of that. Essentially it goes in the right direction.

I do want to note, this is a decision that it is not appropriate in the guise of providing financial assistance for international institutions or other governments to dictate to the recipient government issues that ought in a normal society be the subject of a democracy.

I repeat my gratitude that we have got broad support for this. I think there is an overwhelming consensus that reducing the debt of those countries which are trying to do the right thing for their people is, of course, primarily in the interest of the poor children and the other poor people in those countries, but also in our interest in trying to promote a stable and peaceful world.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, In consultation with the minority, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be amended.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) alluded earlier to this amendment. We reject the kind of conditions that try to set tax policy or education policy or resource policy within a country, because if you go with democracy, you allow the countries to make them. But we did have a right, we thought, to set some conditions that affect us. We set forth some conditions involving democracy and openness, in consultation with the minority. We were reminded of some other conditions. So this adds to the conditionality.

If this amendment is adopted, there will be conditions requiring that people assuage terrorism, that they work with us on immigration, and that they avoid any participation in human smuggling.

I believe that these are agreed on, and in fact in some cases were put forward at the request of the minority. In some cases we thought they were clear. But one of the things I learned when you are legislating is never object to redundancy. It is better to say it twice than to have some ambiguity about whether you offered it at all.

So I offer this amendment I believe on behalf of the leadership and the membership of both sides of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will finish by saying the gentleman from California was gracious and said I had been fair and he talked about my not being partisan. I want to congratulate him for his lack of partisanship, because having served the majority of his time here under Republican administrations, he retains a deep distrust of the State Department, including the current State Department, and apparently his point is he cannot trust the current State Department to enforce democracy.

I am inclined to appreciate his point. And while we have some differences, I did want to give him credit for his very bipartisan skepticism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I know I am taking the time in opposition. I am not so much in opposition, but I am about as close to it as anybody we are going to find here, so I think I qualify.

I agree very much. On a case-by-case basis, I believe the gentleman from California and I would agree at each instance. And so I hope the amendment is adopted.

I would make one point, as I thought about it. It does reinforce the point that we should not be imposing on the recipient government's policy choices that a democratic government ought to make. The flip side of a commitment to democracy is recognizing the validity of those decisions.

I also agree with the gentleman. His wording is better than the wording I put in here for the future, permits free and fair elections, although there is always, when you are talking about the future, some weasel word.

I will work with the gentleman going forward. I am going to suggest to him maybe later that we might empower them to do a moratorium for a short period of time on payments in the following situation. We have had cases where bad governments were overthrown by people who are democratic. East Timor is an example. There is Ghana, where Jerry Rawlings overthrew a government and then had an election. His party is now in the opposition. Uganda. The gentleman is right. Ordinarily it may not take that much time, but things could be so chaotic, like in Liberia, when the new government came in there with some bad people. Maybe a year would be too little.

I will be talking to him later. I hope this amendment is adopted. Perhaps we could provide a temporary moratorium for a government that took over in those circumstances for perhaps 6 months or a year. But that's something we might work out.

The gentleman seems to agree that that is something that, while no commitment is obviously made, that we could work on.

I hope the amendment is adopted.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I know the gentleman joins me in looking forward to continued years of such treatment.

Mr. Chairman, it's my information that the author did not intend to offer it.

Announcement by the Chairman

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the 5 minutes in opposition; although I'm open to persuasion.

First of all, let me ask, if I could, the gentleman says, the government of which does not have business interest with Iran. Would this wording cover the Government of Iraq?

I would yield if someone would tell me that, that they may not be eligible for debt relief. Although we give them a lot of money, I don't think we lent it to them. But would someone tell me if this would include the Government of Iraq as currently constituted?

I would yield for a response. I yield to anyone who would respond.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I understand that. Iraq is not currently there, but here's the deal. This is not just for now. It is conceivable to me that Iraq will end up owing us money. I hope it will, because we've sure given them a lot, and if they don't owe us any money, it's a big gift.

So the question is going forward, if in the future, because there is no current list of countries, we're talking about an eligibility criteria. Would this prevent debt relief from the United States or the International Monetary Fund, to the World Bank, to Iraq going forward?

I would yield to anyone who would answer.

I will take back my time because I'm trying to get an honest answer.

We are setting policy here, not just for this week. We are saying here that if you do business with the government, if your government has business interests with Iraq, you're ineligible. I think it is fair to ask whether Iraq, if it were to become eligible in other ways, would be covered. That's not a trick question. Would this have the effect of excluding Iraq from such a program in the future?

I yield for an answer.

Reclaiming my time, we only get 5 minutes. You know, if the minority had wanted to put this forward as an amendment, we could have debated it. They did it this way. So we can debate all of the other things. It's a very straightforward question.

You limit eligibility under this program. Iraq might very well owe us money. The question isn't nuclear weapons. It is, would this prevent Iraq from being eligible, these criteria. And I would hope someone would answer that.

I will yield again for an answer.

No. The answer is, of course, one that leads me to suggest that the answer really is ``yes.'' When people dance around and won't give you the answer, Madam Speaker, the answer is ``yes.''

Apparently, under the criteria set forward here, while Iraq is not now on the list for relief, it could not get it in the future. We will be setting policy that would have screwed you up because apparently, as this is defined, I infer that the Government of Iraq is covered because if the Government of Iraq wasn't covered by this, the answer would be ``no.'' When I don't get ``no,'' but when I get a discussion of nuclear weapons and what's currently in the bill and I don't get an answer to the question, then it is clear to me.

So Members, I guess, are free to vote on this.

No, I'm sorry.

Here's the response. The minority had the right to offer this in a way in which we could debate it. They didn't choose to do that. They chose to do it in this limited fashion.

So it does look to me like you are having problems here that does the Government of Iraq have business interests with Iran. I know there are close ties between the Governments of Iraq and Iran. There's interchangeability.

I think this is a pretty sketchy way to go forward. I'm not sure that there are any other countries. I think Iraq may be one of the few that doesn't. It's fairly narrowly drawn, but that's of great concern. And I couldn't get a direct answer, and I don't know if anybody really knows it.

So the gentleman is telling me that the Government of Iraq has no business interests in Iraq?

No. I'm asking the question, does the government--

No, I'm sorry. The gentleman does not seem to understand the rules. I'm giving you a lot more of my time. Well, I guess free speech that we put in is for other countries.

Look, I understand the thought. The minority thought they came up with a clever idea and they outsmarted themselves. They put language in here that I think would interfere with the ability to have economic relations with Iraq. And apparently what I'm being told is if you believe that the Government of Iraq has no business interests with Iran, then you can vote for this bill and not worry about Iraq.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 2634 back to the House with an amendment.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time that he is yielding me to discuss H.R. 2634, the Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Cancellation Act of 2007. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation passed just 2 weeks ago providing aid to mostly African and Caribbean countries to fight AIDS and promote development programs in underdeveloped countries, including programs to improve food, water, the treatment of other infectious diseases, poverty alleviation programs, microcredit, schools and teachers, legal aid, agricultural assistance and biomedical research.

Today's legislation would follow up on this enormous prior financial commitment by further reducing or eliminating the debt obligations of the world's poorest nations. It attempts to accomplish this goal by creating a framework to having the debts of low-income countries owed to the United States and to international financial institutions eliminated.

To do this, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate the full cancellation of these countries' debts with the Paris Club, the IMF, and the World Bank, and to reach agreements on future creditor transparency and responsible lending.

It improves oversight by ensuring that countries receiving this debt relief have economies that are capable of redirecting their debt services payments, and requires a GAO audit of countries where illegal loans may have been made. Finally, it includes a sense of Congress that the U.S. should pay off $600 million worth of arrears to multilateral development banks.

Madam Speaker, no one in this body disputes the worthiness of this goal that is enshrined within this legislation. The reduction of global poverty and suffering around the world is a laudable goal, and it is certainly in our national interests to combat conditions that may breed the hopelessness and poverty that allows dictators and terrorists to thrive.

So it is doubtlessly important that the most heavily indebted poor countries be relieved of these kinds of crushing debt that prevents their future development, self-sufficiency and the improvement of their citizens' lives.

This policy should be implemented, along with other policies that increase public sector investment and decrease the barriers to trade with these countries, as well as ensuring that the countries eligible for this relief do not encourage terrorist activities or abuse human rights.

I am surprised, however, that Speaker Pelosi didn't see the irony in scheduling this step forward for developing nations on the first legislative week after handing them a serious defeat by turning off the fast track authority for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In other words, here we're trying to help poor countries and now the decision is made that we won't engage in trade with them that would help their countries also grow economically free.

While giving the most heavily indebted countries relief from crushing and unserviceable debt is necessary to increase their future development, it is simply not sufficient. The economies of these countries must be more integrated with the rest of the globe to provide their citizens with real choices and development alternatives for their future, and increased trade with America is a great way of accomplishing this.

So while I appreciate the Financial Services Committee's efforts on the issue of improving conditions for the world's poorest countries, I remind my colleagues that development does not occur in a vacuum, and that by postponing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have effectively told all of these countries, people who should be our friends and we should be concerned about more than just their debt, but about their economic viability, we've said that Congress is less concerned about promoting trade with them and growing their economies than it is with complying with the demands of labor union bosses in an election year.

I encourage the Democrat leadership to take a long-term and more holistic view of global poverty, recognizing that these cycles of abject poverty cannot be broken without creating the conditions that encourage private sector investment, such as respect for contracts and rule of law and that it also encourages international trade.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a broader policy of understanding poverty and the United States' role in helping to make our world better would include trade and would include encouraging the private markets around the world.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend of any remaining speakers that he has.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy from the White House on this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2634--Jubilee Act for

Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008

(Rep. Waters (D) CA and 104 cosponsors.)

The Administration has provided strong international

leadership on debt relief for the world's most heavily-

indebted poor countries. Ongoing debt relief initiatives,

including the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)

Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative

(MDRI), are expected to provide over $100 billion in debt

reduction to 32 countries and another eight countries could

eventually qualify under these initiatives. To ensure that

gains from debt relief are available for the long term, the

Administration led efforts in the multilateral development

banks to use a debt sustainability framework to determine the

appropriate mix of grants and lending. While the

Administration believes the goals of this bill are laudable,

the Administration does not support H.R 2634 for the reasons

stated below.

The countries to be covered by the bill are managing their

debt, and some of the countries that would be covered by this

bill are now actively working towards expanded access to

international capital markets. Providing debt relief to

countries that can service their debt sends the wrong

message, and undermines efforts to assist countries in

developing sound debt management practices that will allow

them to transition gradually toward access to private capital

markets.

Any debt relief should be conditioned on the adoption of

policies that promote sound economic practices. Policy

conditionality is important and often necessary to ensure

that debt relief is used in a manner that will promote

economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor.

The budget impact of such a program would be significant,

and would require trade-offs that could affect key foreign

policy priorities. The Treasury Department estimates that the

budget cost to forgive the $2.5 billion in nominal debt

(including loan guarantees) owed to the United States by

countries that do not currently qualify under the HIPC

Initiative would be approximately $1 billion. This cost

estimate assumes that all potentially eligible International

Development Association countries would qualify for debt

relief in FY 2008 and would change depending on the year that

each country qualifies. These countries also owe the World

Bank and IMF over $32 billion in nominal debt, in addition to

other bilateral and multilateral debts. While the bill calls

for international financial institutions to fund debt relief

from internal resources, the availability of such resources

is very likely to be limited, as recently demonstrated by the

requirements for donor funding of the MDRI. Any additional

debt relief from the international financial institutions is

therefore likely to require substantial additional

contributions from the U.S., in addition to the estimated $1

billion cost of the bilateral debt relief portion of the

proposal. Rather than embarking on expanded debt relief, the

United States must focus on fulfilling its current

commitments.

The Responsible Lending Framework described by the bill

could also hinder access by poor countries to private

capital. The bill calls for the creation of a binding

international legal framework for lending by all

multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. While we

recognize the goals underlying such a framework--to encourage

sustainable lending and borrowing levels--the prospects for

such an agreement are doubtful. Given the wide range of

international creditors, creation of such a framework would

be very difficult and enforcement would be nearly impossible.

Finally, the threat of sanctions

based on such a framework would likely discourage legitimate

creditors from lending to poor countries, further reducing

these countries' access to financial markets.

Finally, H.R. 2634 contains several provisions raising

constitutional concerns by purporting to limit the

President's ability to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.

Madam Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, yesterday was Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties. This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week on April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a comprehensive bill offered by my friend from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. In other words, instead of increasing taxes, we would like to make these tax cuts permanent for economic growth and development in this country, which will encourage investment and thereby grow jobs in this country.

We have heard today several speakers from the Democrat majority question what is wrong with America today, and even blaming President Bush for the economic woes that exist. But today the Republican Party is saying if we want to do the things that President Bush wants, and I think that the American people want, let's make tax cuts permanent to ensure that we have job growth and development of companies and employers in America.

It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains, because that is how you grow jobs. The reverse is happening, which America understands right now, and that is the new Democratic majority wants to increase taxes, which causes the economy not to stimulate, but to contract, which is exactly what is happening now, which is exactly what we understand the new policies of the Democratic majority have been about for 17 months.

At some point, this Democratic majority is going to have to take responsibility for the things that happen under their watch, instead of just blaming President Bush. President Bush says let's make these tax cuts permanent. That is what has worked up to now, and we need to do it today.

We will also amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent a tax deduction for State and local sales tax. That needs to be done. We have done that each of the last 5 years. Also the tax deductions for tuition. Let me repeat that; the tax deduction for tuition. Here we are on the floor trying to do something for students, to get student loans, but yet we will not have a deduction for tuition and related expenses.

The increased expensing allowed for small businesses. Small business is the engine of our economy. That is why Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent, so that we make sure that we allow small businesses to grow, not contract.

And the tax credit for increasing research and development. Research and development is how we are going to cure the ills and the problems of the world that we see today.

Instead, the new Democratic majority, now for 17 months, wants to increase taxes. They want to take away the deductions for tuition; they want to increase taxes on small business; they want to make investment very difficult in this country, doubling, if you listen to some of the candidates that are on the trail, doubling the capital gains rate. And certainly they won't be for increasing research and development. They want to tax that.

Finally, this opportunity today would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress during this week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day than to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. That is what we should be about, is good policy that encourages the opportunity to grow our economy and have new jobs.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief, so that we can grow our economy for Americans at the same time that we provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. What a wonderful opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a moving moment to come to the floor of the House. And I was moved by the words of our Speaker, quoting the Pope and saying that we must have courage. Then, of course, the ranking member from Alabama got up and said, Chairman Frank, that there were those who came back and said, I have seen it with my own eyes.

And this is what this bill is about. It is about people understanding that extending the opportunity to teach individuals the ability to fish, to reduce the debt, gives them a lifelong opportunity of survival.

Let me thank Chairman Frank, Congresswoman Waters and the ranking member of the full committee, my subcommittee chair, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Lee for their stick-to-itiveness on a very important concept, reduce the debt on the continent of Africa, and you give the opportunity to children and others to survive.

This is not a give-away. It is an effective tool to reduce poverty in some of the world's poorest countries. I've had the privilege and honor of representing this nation in my visits to place like Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Ghana in those early days, Nigeria, Angola and places where you might not imagine the poverty, Lesotho. Debt relief initiatives passed in 1999 and 2005 are benefiting more than two dozen countries in Africa and Latin America, just to the south of us.

Uganda is using the $57.9 million it has saved from debt cancellation on primary education to ensure a future for its children as well as much-needed improvements in malaria control, health care and infrastructure.

Many of us take for granted our public school system. But are you aware that children stay out of school because they don't have the fees, they don't have the money for books, and they don't have the money for clothing? In most African countries, and maybe in Latin American countries, school is not free. There is no concept of ``public school.'' Zambia, one of the poorest nations, is using its savings of $23.8 million on agricultural projects and to eliminate fees for health care in rural areas. Debt cancellations enable programs in Uganda and Zambia to directly help the people.

This is the face of America and the face of our faith, and it is saying that we care for the least of those. We are, in fact, a good Samaritan.

And so today, as we stand here, this is a time of jubilee, for this legislation not only reduces or excuses debt, but it also helps to restructure and finance new opportunities. This Act calls for the development of a responsible financing prime rate for the future. Debt forgiveness is a good short-term solution.

I thank the distinguished gentleman. Debt forgiveness is a good short-term solution, but to be truly effective, we must find a way to fix the broken system of international lending.

I am very grateful that our Financial Services Committee has been one of the most proactive in time of need. They are facing the economic crisis of Americans. They have not forgotten you. They are facing the economic crisis around the world. They are restructuring and looking at how we can unify our financial system here. We are, in fact, the keepers of our brothers and sisters as I started out by saying. We must have the courage that has been dictated to us and said to us today by the Pope who is visiting America. And it is good for our colleagues, who may

doubt this legislation, to go and see it with their own eyes. Once they do so, they will understand that this is absolutely the right direction. And might I just thank the AFL-CIO, the American Jewish World Service, the Church World Service, the DATA organization and others for their support.

I ask my colleagues to support this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation. I am proud to join over 100 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this timely legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Waters, for introducing this bill, as well as the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Frank, for his leadership on this important issue.

Countries throughout the world suffer from the heavy burden of debt. The inability of nations to escape from these financial commitments has profound impacts on any attempts they make at poverty reduction, health care, economic development, and sustainable growth. The Highly Indebted Poor Countries, HIPCs, the majority of which are located in Africa, are particularly crippled by debt. Nearly three years ago, we saw an outpouring of support for debt relief as G8 leaders met in Gleneagles, Scotland, to pursue a policy of poverty reduction. While some positive progress has been made since that meeting, it is absolutely undeniable that this is an issue on which a great deal remains to be done.

Today, we have an opportunity to take a positive and concrete step toward ending global poverty by helping needy and deserving low-income countries. The Jubilee Act expands existing debt relief programs for the world's poorest countries, and it includes measures to ensure that the benefits of debt relief are not eroded by future abusive lending.

Debt relief has, in the past, proved an effective tool to reduce poverty in some of the world's poorest countries. Debt relief initiatives passed in 1999 and 2005 are benefiting more than two dozen countries in Africa and Latin America. Uganda is using the $57.9 million it has saved from debt cancellation on primary education, to ensure a future for its children, as well as much needed improvements in malaria control, healthcare, and infrastructure. Zambia is using its savings of $23.8 million on agricultural projects, and to eliminate fees for healthcare in rural areas.

Debt cancellation has enabled programs in Uganda and Zambia to directly help the people of these nations. However, there are many impoverished and deserving countries that do not currently benefit from debt relief. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the World Bank continue to place restrictive conditions on debt cancellation, calling for policies requiring the privatization of essential services and the liberalization of trade in sensitive sectors in exchange for debt cancellation. These conditions are currently holding up desperately needed debt relief in several eligible countries, including Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Liberia.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today will not only bring the benefits of debt cancellation to more countries than ever before, it will also ensure that these benefits are felt by all strata of society. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate an agreement with the IMF and World Bank, as well as other bilateral and multilateral creditors, to make up to 25 additional low- income countries eligible for complete debt cancellation. Governments of these countries will be required to allocate the money saved through debt cancellation to poverty reduction programs, such as initiatives to improve economic infrastructure, basic education, nutrition, health services, and programs to redress environmental degradation.

This legislation does not remove all conditions from debt relief programs. Countries still must demonstrate transparent and effective budget and financial management systems, and they can be excluded from debt relief if they do not. In addition, countries committing massive violations of human rights are not eligible, nor are countries that support international terrorism, have excessive levels of military expenditures, or fail to cooperate on international narcotics control. The Jubilee Act encourages the developing of responsible financing standards, and assures financial transparency and accountability.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the Jubilee Act calls for the development of a responsible financing framework for the future. Debt forgiveness is a good short-term solution, but to be truly effective we must find a way to fix the broken system of international lending. Of particular concern to me has been the proliferation of vulture funds, which, like their avian namesake, seek to make a profit off of already weakened prey.

Mr. Chairman, vulture funds purchase the debt of countries (or companies) in financial distress. They then hold out for the full value of the debt, plus any interest, which they pursue through litigation, much of which takes place in U.S. courts. The inability of nations to escape from these financial commitments has profound impacts on any attempts they make at poverty reduction, health care, economic development, and sustainable growth. The Highly Indebted Poor Countries, HIPCs, the majority of which are located in Africa, are particularly crippled by debt. Though these countries may not appear to be the most profitable prey for vulture funds, which in theory prefer to purchase debt that a country has, or may in the future develop, the ability to pay, according to reports there are numerous lawsuits currently pending against HIPC countries.

Vulture funds, together with other forms of irresponsible lending, undermine international efforts to provide much needed debt relief to the world's most indebted poor countries. The Jubilee Act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and promote policies to prevent bilateral, multilateral, and private creditors from eroding the gains of debt relief through irresponsible or exploitive lending. I am particularly pleased that this legislation takes this important step toward fixing broken systems of international lending.

I am proud to support the Manager's Amendment to this legislation, introduced by Congressman Frank, which adds additional conditions to the eligibility criteria for debt relief, including complying with minimum standards for eliminating human trafficking, cooperating with American efforts to stop illegal immigration, and being committed to free and fair elections.

I also support the amendment offered by my colleague Congressman Hastings of Florida. This amendment adds a Sense of Congress stating that, due to the current humanitarian and political instability in Haiti, including food shortages and political turmoil, the Secretary of the Treasury should use his influence to expedite the complete and immediate cancellation of Haiti's debts to all international financial institutions, or if such debt cancellation cannot be provided, to urge the institutions to immediately suspend the requirement that Haiti make further debt service payments on debts owed to the institutions. After deadly food riots last week in Port-au-Prince, which resulted in the death of a Nigerian UN peacekeeper, I believe that this amendment is both crucial and timely.

I also support the amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Weiner. This amendment modifies the qualification for ``eligible low-income country'' to include those countries that are eligible for both International Development Association loans and World Bank loans.

Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about meeting the Millennium Development Goals, we must take concrete steps toward reducing poverty. Debt cancellation is a proven way to do this. This legislation has the support of numerous organizations doing excellent work around the world, including the AFL-CIO, American Jewish World Service, Church World Service, DATA, Debt AIDS Trade Africa, Jubilee USA Network, the ONE Campaign, Oxfam America, and RESULTS.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I thank the distinguished gentleman and member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings. I acknowledge, again, the members of the Financial Services Committee and Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

I salute the gentleman for this forthright and vital acknowledgment and sense of Congress in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, people are starving in Haiti. Haitians are starving, they are in the streets. They are crying out for relief. As was said earlier, this is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. President Preval has made a commitment to this Nation, and he has worked hard on political stability.

We have seen incarcerated persons who are held as political prisoners be released. But I think it is crucial that we join in a unified voice today to acknowledge that we stand against the starvation and the financial crisis that is in Haiti.

This is an important statement to cancel the debt to all international financial institutions and also such debt cancellation cannot be provided, to urge the institutions to immediately suspend the requirement.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me, and I join them also on the request for TPS. I support the Hastings amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1103 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 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 to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1103.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In 1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28 countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the countries' debt by an average of two-thirds.

The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent of their

gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in 2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent, and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people in Niger to 69 percent.

The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program.

These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam.

But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts; and, four, uphold human rights standards.

In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were spent.

These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day, become eligible for debt forgiveness.

Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required reforms.

This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts, incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a boost.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective. However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to the taxpayers.

Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant reductions in global poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am the last speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition on that committee between the members on the majority and the members on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries in this world.

This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is bipartisan. It should be done.

I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can do immediately in the legislation that is before us.

The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7 trillion.

The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman.

So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on poverty.

Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the world safer and more stable.

This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes''

vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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