Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration requested an increase in economic support funds for Cuba from $9 million to $45.7 million.

Between 1996 and 2005, USAID and the Department of State signed contracts worth $74 million for Cuba programs, according to the GAO's study. The administration is asking for a 1-year, fiscal year 2008 request that is more than two-thirds the size of what was committed over the 10 years, from 1996 and 2005. This request is 500 percent of what USAID received in the last fiscal year. Given how ill-conceived and ill-managed the program is, there is no justification for an aid increase.

My friend from Florida has raised the GAO report and said that it has not recommended that funding be cut. But the objective of the report was not to recommend that funding should be increased or decreased. It was to examine the roles and objectives of the agencies implementing United States democracy assistance targeted at Cuba, and the characteristics and selection of the grantees receiving Department of State and USAID awards, the types, amounts, beneficiaries and methods used to deliver assistance for selected grantees in 2005, USAID's monitoring and oversight of these grantees, and the availability of data to evaluate whether U.S. assistance has achieved its goals.

Although I believe that this program does little to help dissidents, and very little to expand political space in Cuba, we have continued funding at the same level as provided by our former colleague, Jim Kolbe, when he chaired the subcommittee.

The bill has $9 million, and requires USAID and the Department of State to present a plan for improved coordination and for oversight of the Cuba program.

GAO concluded in a November 2006 report that ``poor monitoring and oversight of the Cuba program did not provide adequate assurance that funds were properly used.''

Administrative costs on the part of grantees were high, oversight of the goods chosen inadequate; specifically, according to the GAO study, there were instances in which cashmere sweaters, Godiva chocolates, Nintendo Gameboys, Sony Playstations were among the items purchased in the United States to be shipped to dissidents in Cuba.

The Cuba program is poorly managed and can be argued to be counterproductive. It is not a productive use of limited U.S. resources, and the result of this program is often to identify Cuban dissidents as U.S. funded opponents of the regime.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

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

Before I yield to my colleague, I would like to respond to my good friend, the ranking member, concerning his concern about the impact on the dissidents. I would daresay as an American who is proud of our values, if we open travel and communication and trade between the United States and Cuba, they would really understand what it's like to be an American. And I feel that's the best way to free the dissidents and to create an open and democratic society.

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield to my good friend, Mr. Delahunt.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

With great respect for my good friend and ranking member, Mr. Wolf, we have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq, diplomatic operations and reconstruction.

In addition, there are $3 billion for unexpended IRF funds. This amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental provided $250 million for democracy activities, $67.6 million for civil society, $57.4 million for targeted development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities.

The amendment is also requesting $16 million in additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining activities. The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq.

Additionally, nowhere in this bill is there language restricting funding for humanitarian activities in Iraq. In my judgment, the administration should substantially expend the funds we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the same purposes.

And lastly, if the situation on the ground changes and our assistance can be used to make substantial achievements, we can address funding for Iraq as the President has requested, $2.893 billion in emergency appropriations for diplomatic operations and reconstruction in Iraq in fiscal year 2008.

So, my colleagues, my good friend is requesting $158 million for purposes that have already been funded in a $2.8 billion supplemental. And there is another $2.893 billion supplemental coming up in September. I know that $158 million can be used for the tremendous needs around the world.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues join me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the vice chair of this committee, my distinguished friend, Mr. Jackson.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I have a question for Mr. Boustany, my good friend, and the ranking member. I believe, Mr. Boustany, that you recommended that we fund this $158 million. Yet this amendment takes the money away from the State Department. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is doing a superb job. We just appropriated $2.8 billion in the supplemental. The American people have requested, and this Congress has requested, that we see some response to the benchmarks, that we see some response on the part of the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks that have been put in place.

So if I understand correctly, even though the supplemental funded, and I am not going to repeat it, every single category that my dear friend, the ranking member and my friend, Mr. Boustany, are advocating for, you want to fund $158 million with funds from the State Department which are supporting Ambassador Ryan Crocker and other ambassadors around the world who are doing such an amazing job representing us.

Mr. Chairman, I really think there is a disconnect here. I want you to know that for those of us who are opposing this amendment, with great respect, again, to my ranking member, we feel that the supplemental that has passed and the $2.8 billion that is coming up in September requested by the administration can address these issues if, in fact, there is an understanding that they are not being funded adequately.

So, again, I strongly object to this amendment. I strongly object to taking funds away from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and our other ambassadors around the world and representatives of the State Department.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, did the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) suggest that we decrease the money for HIV-AIDS around the world?

I thought you were suggesting that you didn't think that was a good idea; that it was more important to add to the $2.8 billion another $158 million and take it from the HIV funds. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the gentleman believes that the $2.8 billion in the supplemental is not adequate and we must add $158 million now, even though there is another $2.8 billion supplement requested by the President for the fall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

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

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, again, for our ranking member and for my friend Mr. Shays, who I know has been to Iraq many times, I do hope that in light of the supplemental, which has been funded at $2.8 billion, and an additional supplemental which will be presented to the Congress in September for another $2.8 billion, we won't cut the rug from under our good friend, the competent Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and take this $158 million from the State Department for several lines that have been funded already in the supplemental. I won't go through that again.

Mr. Ryan Crocker represents us, and I am so proud of his good work. I would like to support him and the other good men and women in the State Department around the world.

So let's defeat this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will move $1 million from the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account to the United States Institute for Peace to reconstitute the Iraq Study Group. Although I feel compelled to point out the likelihood that by the time this bill is signed into law, the study on the effectiveness of the President's surge in Iraq will have passed, but, nevertheless, I support this amendment because I feel there is value added to reconstituting the Iraq Study Group, something that our ranking member continues to deserve kudos for establishing in the first place.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by thanking Mr. Shays again and my distinguished ranking member, who deserves our praise for establishing the Iraq Study Group in the first place. I thank you both.

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

This amendment would cut $20 million from the contributions for international organizations. The question posed by this amendment is straightforward: Do you want to take funds away from an account that is saving lives every day around the world?

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year told Senate appropriators that U.N. peacekeeping was an example of the benefit of empowering partner nations, and it would cost the United States taxpayers almost eight times as much.

Of course.

I apologize, we were responding to another amendment. Would the gentleman please clarify your amendment so we can direct our debate to the appropriate amendment. Is this the one you are going to offer and withdraw?

I would be delighted to respond to you then. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment.

Would the gentleman from New Jersey yield?

I really do apologize to the gentleman because the order of the amendments was changed.

And international peacekeeping is very important to me, but as soon as I understand what your amendment is that you are going to withdraw, I would be delighted to comment on the gentleman's amendment.

Could the gentleman redesignate the amendment? There seems to be a question. My comments were concerning

the amendment to cut CIPA. May I have some clarification on what amendment we are discussing?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I do believe that nuclear nonproliferation must be a key focus of this committee and this Congress. In fact, in this bill because of the recommendations of so many members of our subcommittee and Members of Congress, we have increased money for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. So I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue as we move ahead.

However, I do think that your offset, taking money from U.N. dues, is actually unwise and not a very good policy decision.

Many people have criticized the U.N., want to disband the U.N., want to cut off dues to the U.N., and then when we need the U.N., they wonder: What are we going to do if we didn't have a United Nations?

I look forward to working with the gentleman from New Jersey in strengthening the committees of the U.N. and working together to face the tremendous challenges we have internationally. So I support the gentleman's concerns about nuclear nonproliferation, and I look forward to working with the gentleman; but I strongly oppose taking the money from U.N. dues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

This amendment would cut $203 million from our contribution to international organizations. This amendment fails to realistically address the effect our arrears have on our standing in the world community. At a time when the United States is increasingly relying on international organizations to further our security interests around the world, shortchanging our treaty-obligated contributions to these organizations undercuts our foreign policy goals and undermines our reputation around the world. It also countermands our new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's call to pay our dues in full and on time. As of today, the United States is $291 million in arrears at the U.N. for regular budget contributions alone. The United States has chosen to belong to each of these organizations. They leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars and advance a wide range of U.S. foreign policy objectives, including monitoring nuclear proliferation through the IAEA, creating norms for international telecommunications through the ITU, and fending off global pandemics through the WHO.

The administration and the Congress have underfunded and cut this account in recent years. This amendment would continue this trend. The United States has an $80 million deficit in the CIO account and the State Department is paying U.S. dues late or incurring arrears in virtually every organization in this account. Shortfalls to the CIO account in 2006 caused the State Department to pay all of its regular dues to the IAEA almost a full year late, even as we relied on that organization to track nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea; pay dues to our allies in the OECD almost a year late; pay all of our dues to the WHO about a year late, even as we asked WHO to help contain avian flu; and pay the vast majority of our regular dues to NATO a year or so late, even as we relied on that organization to shore up security in Afghanistan.

This amendment has no appreciation of the influence this increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations has on our ability to sway others and it is difficult to justify why our priorities should be given full consideration when we chronically pay our dues late. Paying these international organizations late is counterproductive to achieving United States international security goals. The increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations confounds U.S. demands for better management in them.

An example of this detrimental effect is seen at the World Health Organization which reports that the arrears owed by the United States are preventing well-managed budgets and resulting in programs not reaching optimal effectiveness for a year or more after they were planned to be fully operational. Further, other dues-paying countries take note when the United States fails to honor its commitments in these international organizations. As a result, our influence on making budgetary and policy decisions in them is lessened. For example, the U.S. consistently wants the Food and Agriculture Organization to increase its capacity to set worldwide food and plant standards, yet it is very difficult to justify why U.S. priorities for the FAO should be given full consideration when the U.S. is chronically paying its dues there about a year late.

Therefore, I strongly object to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I thank the gentleman for your important work with Mr. McCaul on this issue.

I understand the urgency and the impact of methamphetamine in your areas and the tremendous negative impact on the people you represent.

I have a problem with the offset. Therefore, if you will withdraw this amendment, I would be delighted to work with the gentlemen as we approach our conference in increasing money for this very important need.

I would say to the gentleman that in my discussions with Mr. Cuellar he is very clear about the urgency of this issue and the impact of these concerns on the citizens that you both represent.

I would be delighted to work with you. We will certainly search for funding as close to the numbers you mention as we possibly can.

Again, the only issue with this amendment was the offset, not the important need for the funding.

I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with you. I thank you for withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. International broadcasting is an essential component of our Nation's public diplomacy strategy, enjoys broad bipartisan support in our committee.

The bill before the House includes $671.6 million for the international broadcasting operations of the BBG. It restores over $30 million in cuts to BBG language services proposed in the President's budget. It includes program increases requested for high-priority areas such as $2.9 million for broadcasting to North Korea, $.5 million for enhanced broadcasting to Somalia, $1.2 million for Radio Sawa in the Middle East, $5 million to retain BBG's broadcast capability.

The matter of broadcasting to Venezuela is an emerging issue. I commend the gentleman for his amendment and join him in urging its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Skelton, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank Chairman Skelton for his hard work on this project.

We included the SIGIR provision in our appropriations bill to ensure that this subject does not fall out somewhere in the process. You and I agree completely on the importance of the SIGIR office.

I look forward to working with you to make sure that the version ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report achieves the goals our respective bills laid out. It is my intention to drop section 696 of the State, Foreign Operations appropriations act in conference so that we do not end up with competing versions of the same language.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into colloquy with Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield to Mr. Blumenauer.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue and applaud your work over the past few years. As you have stated, the committee bill increased funding for safe water by $100 million and placed priority on long-term and sustainable safe water programs.

The report provides clear direction to the agency that funding must be provided in accordance with the strategy based on the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act.

Finally, we share the gentleman's concern about the reliance on emergency programs to meet this recommendation, and will work with the agency in the coming year to ensure that this does not happen again.

I thank you for raising these issues today. I look forward to working together on this issue in the coming year.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And I know of Mr. Payne's important work on water, in Africa in general, so many other issues. And I thank you.

I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Payne, who is really an expert on Africa and all phases of African development, and has a keen interest in water. And I thank you for coming.

I yield 1 additional minute to Mr. Blumenauer.

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

I am pleased to yield to my good friend, Mr. Cuellar from Texas.

Thank you very much for your kind words and your important interest in this area. And I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

I agree with the intention of the amendment. And I thank my friend for raising this important issue. As we know, tuberculosis is taking a terrible toll on men, women, and children in the developing world, with approximately 3 million people dying every year. The recent highly publicized case of extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis has brought this issue to the forefront, and the additional funding of this amendment will be used to strengthen the global tuberculosis treatment and care network. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue and would be happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I would also like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf for their efforts on this undeniably important piece of legislation.

This bill funds a number of U.S. Government programs and activities, including the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development, foreign, economic and military assistance, contributions to international organizations and international broadcasting programs.

Even though aspects of this bill have clearly bipartisan support, there are significant areas of concern with some of the priorities that the majority has set forth in this legislation.

Just over a year ago, the people of Colombia reelected President Uribe to a second term with over 62 percent of the vote. President Uribe is the first President in over 100 years to be reelected by the Colombian people. His reelection and his extraordinarily high current approval ratings are a testament to his efforts to curb terrorism, corruption and narcotrafficking in Colombia.

For years, designated terrorist organizations in Colombia have hampered efforts by the people of that great country to live in a peaceful democracy. Proactive action must continue to be taken to ensure that armed terrorists are not allowed to create social unrest through violence. With the current landscape in the world today, foreign assistance, Mr. Speaker, is as strategically important to our national interest as it is morally just.

I am concerned that the underlying legislation cuts funding for Plan Colombia $59 million below the President's request and $86.5 million below fiscal year 2007. Plan Colombia has achieved significant results. When it began, that country was facing a civil war that was tearing it apart. Now that the plan has had time to take effect, and with President Uribe's leadership, kidnappings have fallen by 75 percent and the gross domestic product of Colombia has increased to 7 percent annually.

We must not take progress in the Andean region for granted, however. If the United States turns its back on the region, it will falter and create a scenario that will require greater U.S. investment and sacrifice at a time when obviously we have significant responsibilities worldwide, not to mention that we would be spurning a democratically elected ally that has bravely fought corruption and narcotrafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank President Bush for his continued support for a democratic transition in Cuba. Pursuant to the recommendations of his Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, the President requested $45 million in economic support funds for Cuba pro- democracy activities. These funds would support efforts for a transition to democracy in the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian dictatorship through support for dissidents, human rights activists, independent librarians and others who risk their lives each day for freedom in that enslaved island. Unfortunately, the bill brought forth by the majority is cutting the funds needed to support pro-democracy efforts in Cuba and funding less than 20 percent of the President's request.

I would note that under the bill, the other countries in the Western Hemisphere will receive over 95 percent of the funds requested by the President, and I think that is good. Yet funds to support a democratic transition in the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian dictatorship constitute approximately 19 percent of the President's request.

Mr. Speaker, these acts include from staging a hunger strike; to demanded access to e-mail and the Internet and going to prison for it; to having the audacity of possessing books by Gandhi and Orwell and Martin Luther King in their homes and offering those books as an independent library to their neighbors, an act of great courage that is met by the dictatorship's goon squads with violence, confiscation of the books and often prison time; to the independent journalists who risk their lives and their families' safety by writing the truth about life under the totalitarian nightmare, and who need paper and typewriters and faxes and telephones to send their stories out; to the children of political prisoners who have received the only toys they have ever seen because of the solidarity of this United States program of assistance; to those from all walks of life who dare to join a human rights organization in a totalitarian police state; to the physicians who open their homes to their neighbors for the practice of medicine and dispense medicines, risking prison for breaking the rules of the totalitarian state, the only employer in the country, or the physicians who refuse to perform the forced abortions ordered by the state when there is any indication whatsoever of a problematic pregnancy, so the regime can keep its infant mortality statistics low.

Mr. Speaker, that is how one of my heroes, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet began his heroic journey as a pro-democracy activist. He subsequently has become a great pro-democracy leader. I carry a card with his photograph with me at all times. He is currently in a dark and damp dungeon, sentenced to 25 years in the gulag for having the audacity of peacefully advocating for democracy and free elections in Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot send aid to him in prison. The regime will not allow it. But we can help his family and his colleagues in the struggle for freedom.

These are the acts of civic resistance that have grown exponentially in recent years, despite a tremendous increase in the dictatorship's brutal repression, and those are the people, the heroes that I have mentioned, that we help with this program, that we will seek to increase funding for through the President's requested level by an amendment that I will introduce with my friend and colleague Representative Albio Sires of New Jersey, and that I will ask all freedom-loving Members of this House to support.

Last February, Mr. Speaker, the six Cuban American Members of this Congress, Bob Menendez, Mel Martinez, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Albio Sires, Mario Diaz-Balart and myself, received a letter from nine pro-democracy leaders in Cuba. They know the risks that they were and are taking by sending us that letter. They knew that it would be utilized publicly in forums such as today's.

In that letter, that group of dissidents and pro-democracy leaders, representing an extraordinarily wide spectrum of ideology and opinion, some with whom I have had disagreements in the past, came together and told us of the importance of this aid that we will be debating in this bill. They stated in their letter, ``We can affirm that the aid that for years has flowed to the pro-democracy movement takes into account the vast range of needs, from medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from dying, to food, water filters, medical equipment, clothing, shoes, coats, toys for the children of political prisoners, who suffer doubly the loss of a loved one and social repression on the streets and in school, essential vitamins, office supplies, and the tools of democracy, computers, printers, phones, fax machines, among others, that account for a long list of articles and materials that have been made possible in Cuba.''

Today, with the amendment that I have filed along with Representative Sires, we reply to the letter sent in February by those pro-democracy leaders, and, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, we will ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the aid requested by those pro-democracy leaders in that letter, the assistance for the pro- democracy movement.

Mr. Speaker, on other subjects in this important legislation, the bill cuts by approximately 40 percent the President's request for the Millennium Challenge account. The Millennium Challenge, which President Bush called a new compact for global development, provides assistance through a competitive selection process to developing nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms in three areas: ruling justly, investing in people, and fostering economic freedom. Contributions from that account are linked to greater responsibility from developing nations. The new responsibilities these nations accept in exchange for the funds ensure that the funds we provide do not go to waste and have the greatest possible impact on those who need the help the most.

That account encourages transparency, and it is a good aspect of our foreign policy, and it is very important that it be increased as this legislation moves forward.

Lastly, I would mention that this bill faces a veto threat by the President because of language which may undermine what is known as the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy currently in effect requires that foreign NGOs agree as a condition of receipt of Federal funds for family-planning activities that the organization will neither perform nor promote abortion as a method of family planning. The Mexico City policy applies only to family-planning programs and is designed to protect the integrity of U.S.-funded international family-planning programs by creating a bright line of separation between abortion and family planning.

There is concern by the President and many Members in this Congress that U.S. taxpayer family-planning funds could possibly go to NGOs that promote or provide abortions under the language in the underlying legislation.

I understand the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) will introduce an amendment to address this issue, and I urge Members to consider that very important amendment.

The majority correctly currently brings this important legislation to the floor under an open rule. The House has traditionally considered appropriations bills under open rules in order to allow each Member an opportunity to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or receive approval from the Rules Committee. I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of running a transparent House and will continue our tradition of open rules with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my dear friend for yielding me the time initially.

I would like to, with regard to the issue of the amendment that I made reference to previously, note that I will be bringing to the floor along with my friend and colleague, Representative Sires, to restore to the President's request by offsetting funds from the administration account billions of dollars of the State Department, approximately $30 million, to bring to the President's request level the assistance for Cuban democracy programs.

Not today on the floor in the context of the rule but last night in the Rules Committee, a colleague who previously spoke made reference to a GAO report to impugn and to impeach the program of assistance to the Cuban pro-democracy movement and oppose efforts to restore the level to the President's request.

I have in my office and I highly recommend to all colleagues precisely that GAO report. We would inform colleagues where to download it. It is a very important report, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out from the report that is used to impeach or attempt to impeach the program and impugn the program, criticize the program, of assistance to the dissidents in Cuba.

The GAO report found that from 1996 to 2006, the Cuba program provided the following assistance:

385,000 pounds of medicine, food, and clothing to the pro-democracy movement.

More than 23,000 shortwave radios.

Millions of books, newsletters and other informational materials.

U.S. assistance, the GAO found, supported journalism correspondence courses for more than 200 Cuban journalists.

The publication of approximately 23,000 reports by independent journalists in Cuba.

And with regard to the recommendations of the GAO report, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the GAO often when it reviews in-depth, as it does, a government program or agency, it often recommends cuts in that program, and the GAO makes no recommendation of a cut. It makes recommendations for the more efficient running of the Cuban democracy programs.

And in response to the GAO report, and I have this letter in my office and it's available to any Member who would like to read it and I highly recommend it, the agency that administers these programs, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, in a letter dated January 16 of this

year, responding to the GAO report, informs specifically, with specificity, how all of the recommendations of the GAO report have been implemented.

And so I highly recommend the reading of the GAO report and also the response by the administrating agency with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the GAO report, Mr. Speaker.

It's important that we help those who risk their lives and the safety of their families day in and day out to achieve freedom, a democratic transition in our closest neighbor, 90 miles away, that at this time is a state sponsor of terrorism and an anti-American totalitarian regime. And what those heroes of the pro-democracy movement are risking their lives and their families' freedom for is a democratic transition to a reality with the rule of law, obviously a democratically elected government that will no longer be allied with state sponsors of terrorism, anti-American state sponsors of terrorism but that will, rather, be worried and working for the needs to better the lives of the long oppressed people within Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my good friend Mr. Hastings for yielding the time. I thank any of my colleagues who may have been listening to this debate for their attention. Once again I would plead that they join from both sides of the aisle to bring up to the President's request the assistance for the Cuba pro-democracy movement.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledging the complexities and yet the importance of the underlying legislation brought to the floor today by this rule, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairwoman Lowey for working diligently on this bill. She has produced a fairly good product here, and I want to commend her more for working with Mr. Wolf and myself to address many of our concerns.

She has produced a bill that is good in many respects. I appreciate the efforts as well of the staff that have worked very hard on this bill. A great example of working together is what my colleague from New York, Mr. Israel, was talking about in dealing with Darfur. I want to commend Mr. Wolf for his passion on that issue and his passion for the issue of human rights throughout the globe. I also want to commend Ranking Member Wolf and Chairwoman Lowey for their work on Colombia, and I am very pleased with the final product that they have there.

I am also very pleased that we have included language dealing with better accountability for the Global Fund to provide greater transparency. I commend Chairwoman Lowey for including the language that I introduced, the amendment, to get a better understanding of why the participation of faith-based organizations in the Global Fund appears to be significantly underrepresented. Numerous faith-based groups have been on the ground providing health care in many of those these countries for decades. In recent decades they have been on the frontlines in fighting against the spread of AIDS.

I saw the critical role that many of those faith-based groups provided firsthand when I visited Africa twice in recent years. I can tell you what part of the problem is, and it is really spelled out very nicely, and I will include for the Record this brief 3-page article from Catholic News Services, ``African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible.''

Basically, what I feel is going on here with those faith-based groups is relatively simple. They are small. They are out there. They are going into these villages on foot and on mopeds. They don't have the ability to apply for grants with multi-billion dollar organizations in Geneva. It is going to require the Global Fund to reach into these countries, identify the groups, the church groups, the faith-based groups, that are doing the work. Frequently, they are on the pointy end of the spear. So I commend the gentlewoman for that language.

I know there are a few issues that we disagree on. The Mexico City policy language, we will have amendments to address that. Certainly, I understand that the gentlewoman has tried to reach out on this issue.

For me personally, the issue is an organization that is not only maybe providing abortion but as well is actually actively lobbying to overturn pro-life laws in many of those countries. We should not be supporting them even indirectly.

Finally, let me just close on the PEPFAR language. I played a role in getting the President's plan through the Congress, the authorizing language and the appropriations language. To me one of the most important things was the requirement that a portion, actually a small portion, I think it is 20, 25 percent of the preventive dollars go to abstinence education and abstinence training.

I want to make it very clear to my colleagues the reason why I felt so strongly about that and why I feel that we should continue the requirement that abstinence education be included in the preventive dollars is my experience in going into Uganda. Uganda lowered its AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 percent, a two-thirds reduction in AIDS.

The Global Fund didn't exist. PEPFAR did not exist when they did this. They did not do this through distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education. They did it through what they called ABC, abstinence before marriage, be faithful in marriage. We all know, you can't expect everybody to comply. But what is amazing to me is when you educate people on this thousands of people comply.

I just want to share with my colleagues that I had a meeting just 2 weeks ago with a Parliamentarian from Uganda who was an epidemiologist and a physician who was there from the ground up, and he verified just what I said, that people responded to the message.

Let me just finish up on that. Last July, southern African AIDS experts met and they officially listed ``reducing multiple and concurrent partnerships'' as their number one priority for the prevention of spreading HIV. It was not distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education, it was reducing concurrent and multiple partnerships. That is what this is really all about.

Let me just close and again commend the gentlewoman for a bill that has a lot of good in it. I am focusing on some of the things I disagree with. But for everything I disagree with, there are 10 to 20 different things that are good in it.

The spending level, I am very concerned that the President may veto this bill. I know there are a lot of worthwhile programs covered in the spending. I certainly would like to see us get a bill enacted into law. I think that would be to the credit of the chairwoman and the ranking member, the good gentleman from Virginia.

[From the Catholic News Service]

African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible

(By Michael Swan)

Nairobi, Kenya (CNS)--In Kenya churches provide about 40

percent of all health care in remote and impoverished areas

with no government services, but for their AIDS programs,

churches receive no money from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria.

``Since the inception of the Global Fund, the Kenyan

bishops' conference has not accessed any direct funding from

the Global Fund, even after applying to all the rounds,''

said Titus Munene, an HIV/AIDS program coordinator for the

Kenyan bishops' conference.

``It isn't rocket science to say if 40 percent of the

health care is in the church system in Kenya, you would think

a good portion of (Global Fund money) is going to go to our

operational system. But unfortunately, it isn't that way,''

said Maryknoll Father Ed Phillips, who runs seven community-

based health care clinics.

The Geneva-based Global Fund, established in 2002, is a

partnership among governments, civil society, the private

sector and affected communities.

The Catholic Church alone provides more than 25 percent of

all AIDS care in the world, according to Caritas

Internationalis, the Catholic aid network. All faith-based

organizations combined have received just 6 percent of the

Global Fund's money since the first disbursements in 2002.

The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference, which

represents South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, has almost

stopped applying for Global Fund money.

More than 18 percent of adult South Africans are HIV-

positive, and the church is the largest health care provider

after the government. But church bodies have been unable to

access Global Fund money either directly or through the South

African National AIDS Council, which coordinates South

African applications to the Global Fund.

``I have sat on SANAC, the South African National AIDS

Council, which is also the CCM (country coordinating

mechanism) for the Global Fund. It has not been a helpful

process,'' Dominican Sister Alison Munro said in an e-mail

from Pretoria, South Africa.

``The Global Fund process is too large and too cumbersome

for the churches,'' said Sister Alison. ``If they (the

churches) could apply directly to the Global Fund, some

would. They can't because of the procedures. . . . The work

involved is too much for any church group other than a

national structure or a group with lots of capacity.''

While many nongovernmental organizations employ grant

application experts, church-based agencies have tended to

regard such functions as wasteful of donor money.

Munene said when the churches do not get Global Fund money

it weakens the fight against AIDS among some of the poorest

Africans. A lack of international and Kenyan-government

funding has forced mission hospitals, clinics and

dispensaries to charge some of the poorest people in Kenya

for AIDS treatment and services, while relatively well-off

people in the cities are accessing free services.

Munene said when church agencies charge for health care it

``means some of the poor cannot access services, since there

are no government facilities in those rural areas.''

The 6 percent of Global Fund money going to faith-based

organizations translates into $325 million spread over five

years in dozens of countries. The Global Fund recognizes the

number is too low, said spokesman Oliver Sabot.

``Given the essential role that they play in health care in

many countries, particularly in Africa, we would like to see

the amount of funding to FBOs (faith-based organizations)

increase,'' Sabot said.

Part of the problem has been that churches have not done

enough to fulfill conditions that might be expected from

major international funders, such as making detailed

applications for funding and monitoring expenditures to the

satisfaction of donors, said Father Robert Vitillo of Caritas

Internationalis, the Vatican's most prominent adviser on HIV/

AIDS policy.

``Each of these funding mechanisms comes with its own set

of challenges for (faith-based organizations), which are more

expert in providing support, care, treatment and prevention

education than in completing such complicated funding

applications and then in monitoring and reporting on the

funds received,'' said Father Vitillo.

Even if it is a lot of red tape, church organizations have

to be willing to fight through it in order to continue

delivering effective AIDS prevention and care, said Father

Phillips. But the Global Fund also has a responsibility to

help churches through the red tape, he said.

``The churches have to get more proactive,'' said Father

Phillips. Sabot said the Global Fund has taken steps to

ensure that faith-based organizations are able to apply for

money. But by relying on countries' coordinating agencies or

mechanisms, the Global Fund has become subject to the

politics of Africa.

``This hands-off approach does mean that bias at the

country level is sometimes reflected,'' said Sabot. He said

sometimes faith-based groups are excluded from country

proposals ``either because of deliberate efforts by the

government or other groups, or simply because they are less

experienced with applying for international aid funding, and

not enough outreach and support was provided to them'' by

country coordinating agencies.

``We have taken steps to help correct both these problems,

but there is still more to be done,'' Sabot said.

Father Phillips said more than bureaucratic bias is

involved in shutting churches out of national applications to

the Global Fund.

``The church was considered in some of these countries to

be the opposition to the government,'' he said. ``Naturally,

if they are considered to be opposition, well, they're

(government mechanisms) going to make sure they're not going

to target a lot of money'' for the church.

Father Phillips said African bishops must get tough and

vocal about demanding that they be represented fairly in

national applications to the Global Fund, but Munene said the

churches may be talking to a brick wall when they demand fair

representation.

``The Kenyan bishops have made frantic efforts to meet the

minister of health on several occasions, and even his

excellency, the president. And promises were given, but to

date the pledges have not been fulfilled,'' Munene said.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to present to the House H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of State, foreign operations and related programs.

I'm particularly pleased that the appropriations bill that I bring to the floor as chairwoman of the State Foreign Operations Subcommittee reflects a bipartisan process, and that the ranking member, Frank Wolf, was instrumental in pulling this bill together, as well as a very talented and engaged subcommittee.

I'm very proud of our product. The bill before you totals $34.243 billion in new discretionary budget authority, $2.9 billion above fiscal year 2007, not counting supplemental appropriations, and $700 million below the President's request. This is the largest increase over the prior year enacted level that this subcommittee has received in over a decade. I appreciate Chairman Obey's recognition of the importance of this bill and the programs it funds.

The bill includes over $7 billion to address our strategic priorities and national security interests, as well as increases for programs that promote development and reduce low global poverty, meet humanitarian needs, and respond to urgent health crises, priorities at the core of our interests abroad.

For the war on terror, this bill includes $2.656 billion in economic assistance for our strategic partners and $4.509 billion in military assistance. While the bill includes $1.057 billion for Afghanistan, there are no additional funds for Iraq. In light of the $2.86 billion provided for Iraq reconstruction in the recently passed supplemental appropriations bill, and the $2.89 billion requested by the administration in the 2008 supplemental, I feel extremely strongly that there is no need at this time for additional funds for the same purposes in this bill, given the extraordinary needs to be met around the world.

The bill includes over $4.7 billion to support State Department operations, both in the United States and abroad. The recommendation fully funds the President's request for worldwide security upgrades, and provides $364 million for public diplomacy efforts at the State Department, as well as $501 million for educational and cultural exchanges.

The bill also provides $6.517 billion for global health. Addressing tuberculosis, avian flu, HIV/AIDS and other health threats is one of the best preventive measures to protect the health of the United States. We provide $5.082 billion for international HIV/AIDS efforts, which, in addition to appropriations in other bills, brings the total for international HIV/AIDS to $5.876 billion. This is $550 million above the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request, and includes $850 million for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

The bill also includes $1.73 billion for development programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, an increase of $225 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The increased resources will fund an initiative on basic education for developing countries, as well as an expansion of safe water and environment programs.

As many of you know, basic education has been one of my top priorities for years and, I'm pleased to say, a top priority of the members of this committee. I'm convinced that access to quality primary education not only improves an individual's chances for a better, more productive life, it creates a more tolerant and informed citizenry. I've provided a total of $750 million for basic education in the bill, an increase of $200 million from the fiscal year 2007 House-passed bill.

This bill also provides $501 million for the environment and clean energy programs, including $106 million for the global environmental facility, and $175 million for biodiversity programs at USAID. We've also included a provision that encourages the Export-Import Bank to support projects in renewable energy and other environmentally beneficial products. This initiative could result in an estimated $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008.

There is $1.8 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account. This is a $1.2 billion reduction from the request, but $48 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. I'm supportive of the MCA. I want to make this very clear. And while I believe the MCA is under the strong and capable management of Ambassador Danilovich, I would like to see more results on the ground from the $6 billion that has already been appropriated, $2.1 billion of which is not yet even obligated, before we significantly scale-up the MCA. The reduction to MCA helps us address the shortfalls for development assistance and health accounts. We have also funded a basic education initiative as well as expansion of safe water and environmental programs.

With an investment of over $5 billion in the 6 years that Plan Colombia has been in effect, the numbers of hectares involved in coca production has increased by 42 percent. Because our efforts to combat narcotics in Colombia have been ineffective for some time, this bill restructures assistance for Colombia. We cut overall funding by 10 percent, or $59 million, and shift greater resources to the development, interdiction, rule of law and justice programs. It is time for the Colombians to take ownership over their eradication and military assistance programs, and this cut reflects that position.

The bill provides over $5.4 billion for Africa, including a total of $949.3 million for Sudan, $210.5 million of which is for Darfur, $104 million above the request. We have provided $100 million in increased funding for the African Union Force in Darfur.

This bill allows us to fully meet the President's request for Israel and Egypt. And I want to make it clear that Egypt is a friend, an important ally in the war on terror and a partner for peace in the Middle East. However, there are growing concerns about the independence of its judiciary, police abuses, and the smuggling operation from Egypt into Gaza. As a result, this bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that steps are being taken to address these issues before a portion of the military aid to Egypt can be released.

Lastly, as you know, U.S. Government assistance for family planning is prohibited for groups that provide, promote, refer or counsel on abortions. Groups that merely exercise their legal rights to advocate for policies such as the legalization of abortion are denied U.S. assistance. This bill provides an exemption to those restrictions simply for the provision of contraceptive commodities. Foreign family planning organizations, which have been denied USAID family planning funds, could receive contraceptives from USAID to help reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV, as well as save the lives of mothers and infants.

This provision does not amend any of the provisions in existing law that prohibit assistance for abortions or otherwise restrict family planning funds.

They're all there; 10 of them are all there; and 5 for restricting family planning; 10 to be sure that there's no money for abortion, and 5 to restrict family planning. All there.

Mr. Chairman, this package of foreign assistance before you preserves our Nation's interests, reflects the values and priorities of the American people, and most importantly, helps to protect the security of Americans at home and abroad. It was developed in a bipartisan manner, and I expect it to have wide support as it passes the House.

In closing, let me say again that it has been a pleasure working with Ranking Member Wolf and the minority staff, Christine Kojac, Rob Blair, Mike Ringler, Alice Hogans and Molly Miller. I would like to thank my vice chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. for his hard work on this bill. I greatly appreciate the outstanding work and support of Nisha Desai, Lucy Heenan, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Mark Lopes and Celia Alvarado. They're all competent, professional and really a joy to work with. The work we have accomplished together in this bill will help make America more secure and will improve the lives of millions throughout the world.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.007

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished vice chairman, a very hardworking member of our subcommittee, my partner in this effort, Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a valuable member of our subcommittee, who has focused his intellect on nuclear nonproliferation, on counterterrorism and on demining and I look forward to working together for many years on this committee (Mr. Schiff).

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new member of the committee, a valuable addition, an expert on Africa and HIV/AIDS, Ms. Lee of California.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from New York, another new member of the subcommittee, who has had a particular interest and has great knowledge in the environment and made a major contribution to this bill in encouraging Ex-Im to focus on supporting projects that will contribute to the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a valuable member of the full committee, an alumnus of the Peace Corps and an advocate for so many parts of this bill. He was a real partner in helping us craft this great bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Wolf, my ranking member, again. I do believe that we have created a good, strong bipartisan bill. I appreciated the comments on both sides of the aisle. Although there may be some differences, I know that when the amendments are presented, these differences will be apparent.

I do hope in the final analysis, as a result again of both Republican and Democratic members of the committee, this bill passes. This is a good, strong bill, and it is so needed by the people of this world. I know that both my ranking member and all the members of the committee and myself understand the important responsibility we have in this committee, and I look forward to passing this bill tomorrow with a good, strong vote.

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

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

We have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq's diplomatic operations and reconstruction. As the gentleman has accurately noted in committee, the funding in this supplemental is tied up due to benchmarks; benchmarks that reflect the will of the American people and the Congress; benchmarks that presumably reflect the President's concurrence, as he signed them into law; benchmarks that can be argued are in the best interest of Iraq in becoming a stable democracy.

Furthermore, I believe the gentleman's argument is not valid, as the $2.863 billion we just provided will be available long before this bill comes back from the President's desk signed. Additionally, while I believe we provided sufficient funds for Iraq, I want to point out that the administration should substantially expend the funds that we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the exact same purposes. Besides, Congress provided an extension of the authority to deobligate and then to reobligate prior-year appropriations to the Iraq Relief Construction Fund, which, as of May 1, 2007, had $3.119 billion in unexpended balances.

In the committee, the gentleman raised the issue of visible support, as my last colleague raised in his remarks. I take a little bit of offense to that, because I think that every day our troops, our diplomats and aid workers are in harm's way, we show the greatest levels of support. What's more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go towards providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq. We just provided $2.863 billion.

So let's take the gentleman's amendment apart for a moment and be clear on what we are considering. This amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental provides $250 million for democracy activities; $67.6 million for civil society, and $57.4 million targeted for development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities.

On page 58, line 18, the amendment is requesting $16 million in additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining activities. I want to make a couple of points about that.

The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq. We do not appropriate nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining- related program accounts by country. We appropriate this account by program to allow the administration the flexibility to adjust to emerging priorities and opportunities. This amendment would seek to change that and radically affects how the President performs his duties.

Additionally, this bill, and I want to emphasize this, this bill for the first time fully funds the President's request for NADR, something I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not claim when they were in the majority. The humanitarian demining account is funded at the President's requested level of $56.5 million. It does not need further funding.

On page 63, line 23, of the gentleman's amendment, where he requests an additional $2 million, the amendment is requesting this $2 million for foreign language training of Iraqi Security Forces. To date, we have provided $18 billion in training for the Iraqi Security Forces. $2 million. Where does this figure come from? We have provided $18 billion, and, now the distinguished ranking member seeks an additional $2 million.

We have provided sufficient funding. Most of these accounts and numbers are unexpended. The administration should substantially expend those funds we have provided before Congress

provides additional funding for the exact same purposes, Mr. Chairman.

Lastly, what is more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go toward providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding me the time.

The question here is one of unexpended balances. The amendment is requesting an additional $140 million for rule of law democracy-related programs, but the supplemental that is still warm on the President's desk provided $250 million for those democracy activities, and they have not been expended; $67.6 million for civil society and $57.4 million targeted for development for $125 million in governance programs, and they still haven't been expended; $150 million in rule of law activities that have not been expended as we move forward with the surge.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is premature to request $140 million additional dollars, page 40, line 26 of the gentleman's amendment, for moneys that have not been expended that the Congress just voted on in this particular bill. The same can be said of the gentleman's request on page 58, line 18, and page 63, line 23, $2 million. We have $18 billion to date appropriated for Iraqi Security

Forces. Where does the figure $2 million come from? It comes from nowhere, Mr. Chairman.

Support the chairwoman's request to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess I am asking him to yield really to a question so I can have a better understanding of the gentleman's amendment.

Is it the intent of the gentleman's amendment that these funds would somehow not be subject to the benchmarks established in the supplemental bill for funding and future funding in Iraq? Is this around the benchmarks?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if in fact, I certainly hope the Iraqi Government is able to achieve the benchmarks, but if in fact, for whatever reason, they are unsuccessful in achieving the benchmarks and the Congress of the United States is to recontemplate elements of the supplemental and additional funding for the efforts in Iraq, does this gentleman's amendment appropriate dollars that are not subject to the specific requirements of the benchmarks established in the supplemental? Is this a funding in addition to that funding?

Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we are in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but let me be clear, the various international organizations for which this account is designated and the dues that we pay not only to the U.N. but to other member organizations that our country is a part of, believe me when I tell you, the State Department has made it very clear in each of those organizations that we are in a global war on terror and our contributions to those organizations, part of our mandatory obligations to those organizations for which the gentleman seeks to cut funding, would quite frankly undermine our ability to maintain our own status within those international organizations as we try to direct the global war on terror.

The spirit of the gentleman's amendment, some aspects of it are actually covered in the supplemental bill and some aspects of it are obviously covered in our bill, is something that is very difficult to argue against, an additional $20 million for demining activities. Part of this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in his amendment, and it is something in principle that we can support.

Sufficient in this bill are the resources to advance democracy activities and demining activities, but by cutting aid to international organizations and contributions, cutting our contribution, our mandatory contribution to those organizations, is something that I believe the chairman and the majority would reject.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Is my understanding correct that the gentleman was going to withdraw his amendment, and now he is not going to withdraw his amendment?

Then let me make it clear on behalf of the distinguished chairman and the committee that we rise in opposition to this amendment.

I thank the chairwoman.

Well, here we go again, cutting a multilateral account that allows us to

hold our head up high in the international community as we organize the international community in the global war on terror in favor of unilateralism.

To fight the war on terror, we must be multilateral and not unilateral. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Khalilzad said pay our dues on time and pay it in full. Every time there's a crisis that confronts our country, we run to the U.N., we run to the international community demanding their involvement to help provide security for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's generosity in supporting the Payne amendment.

I want to just share with the full committee some of the views of the members of the subcommittee, because I think their views need to be taken into account.

While we overwhelmingly support the gentleman's amendment for an increase in $50 million, the offset does

have the effect, Mr. Payne, of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The committee worked very hard to increase the child survival account, which is another health care account that includes maternal health, that includes malaria accounts, and we worked very hard to increase the ESF account, which does impact profoundly sub-Saharan Africa, Afro- Colombian programs, and Israel and Egypt. And while these funds are extremely important, the subcommittee did the best that it could in the original mark to increase funding for tuberculosis, particularly the extremely drug-resistant strands of tuberculosis.

So I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I also rise in strong support of the committee's initial mark, which did everything it could within its power to increase child survival and ESF funds.