To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit automobile manufacturers receiving assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program from opening a new foreign subsidiary or expanding their current foreign subsidiaries.

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

I'm pleased to join Chairwoman Lowey at the beginning of the consideration of this bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. This bill funds programs that safeguard our national security and promote U.S. interests abroad.

It was first founded under the auspices of the Marshall Plan under the understanding that good diplomacy and development can dramatically reduce national security problems and troop deployments for the United States.

I want to commend Chairwoman Lowey for her bipartisan work on this bill. She's listened to concerns of Members on this side of the aisle and worked to address them.

I also want to thank the staff both on this and the other side of the aisle for so many long hours of work on this. That's Nisha Desai- Biswal, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Cecilia Alvarado, and Courtney Dunn. I also particularly want to thank Ann Marie Chotvacs, Mike Ringler, Alice Hogans, and Jason Small.

I know that Ms. Lowey and Ranking Member Granger, who is out today, appreciate their personal office staffs' work on this bill, especially Ann Vaughan and Rachel Carter. And I particularly want to thank my staff, particularly Rich Goldberg.

Now, on this legislation, we make one big key change, and that is with regard to the International Atomic Energy Agency's new report on the Iran nuclear program and related responses of the United States to their report. They showed that after producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of 40 kilograms per month over a 21-month period, Iran has now increased its stockpile by 60 percent in just 6 months, doubling its rate to over 80 kilograms of enriched uranium per month.

We know that Iran's greatest weakness remains her economic dependence on foreign gasoline. And we can all agree that the United States taxpayers should not be asked to help increase the supply of gasoline to Iran, especially now, especially after what we saw after the Iranian elections. Surprisingly, this is exactly what our taxpayer dollars have been doing.

In 2007 and 2008, the U.S. Export-Import Bank approved two separate loan guarantees totaling $900 million to expand the largest refinery owned by Reliance Industries Limited, an Indian company that provides roughly one-third of Iran's daily import of gasoline. In effect, the U.S. taxpayer is underwriting the increased supplies of gasoline to Iran.

This bill includes the Kirk-Sherman amendment to prohibit further use of taxpayer dollars to guarantee or insure or extend credit to any company that supplies gasoline to Iran. I think that is a very important step that leads off to legislation that Chairman Berman and I have put forward that we hope, later in the year from the authorizing committee, that will begin to truly squeeze Iran and her need for foreign gasoline.

Now with regard to the overall bill, I am disappointed that we have departed from the tradition of considering appropriations under an open rule. I first worked on the Foreign Operations bill of fiscal year 1984. I was taught appropriations at the foot of Appropriations chairmen Jamie Whitten and Bill Natcher. It was under these historic chairmen that we always considered appropriations bills under an open rule, protected under clause 2 of rule XXI that only monetary amendments could be offered.

Now we have departed from the long tradition established by Jamie Whitten and Bill Natcher. The rule that governs this bill makes in order only eight of 89 amendments, a 90 percent death rate for amendments in the Rules Committee on what used to be an open rule.

I would suggest that the partisan pressures under Speaker Wright, under Speaker Foley, were as bad or worse as now, but we are responding with highly restrictive rules that I think hurt our committee in the long run. I hope that we can address this soon and return to what I would call the Whitten-Natcher tradition.

Now let me turn to the substance of this bill, the product of work of especially Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger.

The American people are aware that we face many global challenges that are well addressed in this bill. The funds provide security assistance to our allies in support countries living in some pretty dangerous neighborhoods.

There is another reality of this bill and that is the financial crisis that we see and that we are helping countries through so that they do not collapse, triggering some sort of new global economic downturn.

The allocation given to the subcommittee, $48.8 billion, is an amount, when strictly compared to last year's base, that is very high. But the administration has pledged to eliminate the wartime supplemental spending in favor of a regular appropriations process. If it sticks to that plan, then funding levels in this bill appear to be much more reasonable, and it includes programs for State and USAID operations that I support.

I have to admit, though, I remain in doubt whether the administration really will not request a supplemental next year. In fact, I probably would lay a dollar bet with anyone that we probably will see a supplemental. I hope not. Chairman Murtha has already suggested that supplemental funds may be needed to sustain our troops because of the 302(b) allocation that his Defense Subcommittee received that in his view may not cover all of the FY 2010 needs. In that case, I hope we could restrict funding under this bill.

Now, I know Chairwoman Lowey and Ms. Granger have worked together on a number of very good governance provisions such as language to strengthen oversight of hiring, training and deployment of new staff funded by this bill; and a provision that launches a comprehensive review of roughly $8 billion in global health funding provided by this bill. Too often we forget that the United States has made the largest commitment of health funding ever in the history of mankind. It is something that the United States hasn't yet received enough credit for.

They also agree to language that closely mirrors the fiscal year 2008 bill which prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that support or participate in involuntary or coercive methods of family planning, and that was the bipartisan commitment that Chairwoman Lowey just alluded to.

The bill also includes amendments from several of my colleagues offered in full committee, particularly like a provision requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress on deals brokered with foreign nations that receive detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, like Palau.

The June 10, 2009, New York Times reported that the United States has agreed to provide Palau with $200 million in return for receiving 17 suspected Uyghur terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. Now, according to the CIA Factbook, Palau has a population of only 20,796 people. Its GDP is only $164 million. Under this commitment then, the U.S. would be paying the Republic of Palau nearly $11.7 million per Uyghur terrorist.

With average incomes in the United States of $56,000, $200 million would support incomes of over 3,500 Americans; with tuition at $25,000 a year annually, it could put 7,000 students through college for a year. And $200 million also compares poorly to the cost of Guantanamo Bay itself. Guantanamo Bay, as a total facility, cost just $54 million to build. This would be

four times that amount for just 17 Uyghurs.

There is also an amendment in this bill for new oversight and sunset restrictions on funding provided to the International Monetary Fund in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, and language affirming intellectual property rights protections for U.S. energy and environmental technologies, critical in the G-8 discussions right now and the coming Copenhagen discussions in which China and India have pledged to require compulsory licensing over all climate change and energy technology. Compulsory licensing is a code word for stealing U.S. patents. There will be no green jobs if that provision goes through in the Copenhagen treaty. I am very happy that the House voted nearly unanimously on the Larson-Kirk amendment to prevent that.

Now, Chairwoman Lowey has also described highlights of the bill. I will simply reiterate three very important items related to our national security. This bill includes $1.4 billion for the expanded work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a $525 million increase to support prosperity and security of our partners around the developing world, a very important program that underlies the key point you cannot have long-term development without policy reform. You can build a dam, but if the government steals everything, all you will have is an empty structure a few years later. The MCC works to address that very problem in an effective way.

When taken together with supplemental funds, this bill fully funds our security assistance request for our strategic allies in the Middle East like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, and continues the fight against illegal drug trafficking in this hemisphere. I think especially with Ranking Member Granger's full backing, we have full funding for the pending request for Mexico and Central America by providing $7 million above the request, also for continued gains made in Colombia.

In summary, this bill is focused on furthering foreign policy and national security interests. It monitors the wise use of our tax dollars and achieves some fairly balanced solutions to some complex problems leading to what I hope will be a fairly bipartisan debate today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for his leadership on this.

UNRWA is an organization that is utterly irresponsibly run. Any corporation in America of UNRWA's size--which is $400 million a year-- would have an outside independent audit, and yet UNRWA has never had that--and in fact doesn't want it. UNRWA's staff has met with Republicans and Democrats up here and admitted that they, indeed, do make martyr payments to people that have carried out attacks against the people of Israel. And then we've seen all the video of mortar rocket attacks being used from UNRWA schools where UNRWA security personnel clearly could have prevented that.

This bill helps increase the heat on UNRWA, one of the least accountable U.N. agencies. And I really want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I want to thank the gentleman because I have worked very closely with him to support I think one of the key combat-support elements of this bill, which is the National Solidarity Program of the Government of Afghanistan.

We won the war in El Salvador largely through the help of a program called Mayors in Action, in which we funded programs totaling between $5,000 and then $10,000, as long as the community could come together and decide on what project. Having government services and activities in support of the El Salvadoran Government quickly undercut the insurgency and helped win a counterinsurgency campaign there.

Based on the success of that program and others, the National Solidarity Program is now operating in Afghanistan. This bill provides $175 million, largely through the leadership of the gentleman from New York.

When I deployed to Afghanistan in December, I spent quite a lot of time working with Monty Greer and Minister Zia, who described how this program is now in hundreds of villages throughout Afghanistan, but they had a funding shortfall. And working with General Nicholson of ISAF Region South, we put together a plan so that this bill would fund community development programs right behind the advance of U.S. troops.

It has been little noticed so far in this body that 2 weeks ago the United States Marine Corps launched an offensive in the key poppy- growing region of Afghanistan called Helmand Province, and it was that funding shortfall which would have not enabled U.S. troops to have the money to do community development projects right in the wake of their advance, along with the Afghan troops. This legislation allows them to have those tools right away so that the Afghan people will see progress in community development right behind the battlefield. It makes our chances of success much greater. It makes the sustainment and expansion of the Afghan Government much more likely. And bottom line, I think it will save a number of lives, especially for those of our constituents right now working for what sometimes has been called ``Uncle Sam's misguided children,'' otherwise known as the United States Marine Corps.

I yield to the gentleman who has worked with me so much with Minister Zia on this.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's also important to note that this bill carries forward the Kirk amendment that now prohibits any U.S. assistance to a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas--a terrorist organization, as designated by the United States, President Clinton, President Bush and I believe now President

Obama--unless every member of the new Palestinian Government has publicly, in writing, recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. Over 20 United States citizens have been murdered directly by Hamas, and having this provision included in this legislation I think is very important.

Also, this legislation reverses the administration's proposed cut for U.S. assistance to Armenia. We provide $48 million in economic aid and $3 million in military aid for Armenia while maintaining military funding parity with Azerbaijan and providing $10 million in assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh. The bill also includes a new requirement for the administration to consult with Congress before exercising its waiver authority for assistance to Azerbaijan granted under section 907 of the Foreign Assistance Act.

Now, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 100,000 and 500,000 Korean Americans still have family living in North Korea. Almost all of them have not seen their loved ones since the end of the Korean War, while many have not seen family members even since World War II. In the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries, elderly Korean Americans are forced to contact their relatives without the protection of the U.S. Embassy or help from the State Department. Families are at the mercy of a black market group of smuggling rings that control access to North Korea.

This legislation urges the State Department Policy Coordinator for North Korea to make the issue of divided American citizen families who have their relatives in North Korea a priority and to establish a coordinator for this issue.

One last thing I want to highlight. As the United States draws down our troop commitment to Iraq, and we have tremendous concerns about safe and secure and sustainable homes and businesses for Iraq's embattled Christian minority, this bill provides a historic $20 million dedicated to religious minorities in Iraq, a big step forward for building an autonomous administrative region for Chaldo Assyrians in the Nineveh Plain. It's an important group that we should be concerned about, especially as the United States leaves Iraq.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We rarely do this under this legislation, but we also have an important tradition of highlighting human rights cases, especially if they set a particularly dangerous precedent. And one of the most concerning precedents is the one set by the Government of Egypt when they imprisoned Kareem Amer, who is the first blogger ever to be arrested for what he wrote on his Internet blog, calling for reconciliation between Muslims and Jews on his personal blog. He was convicted. He's currently serving in prison, and it is a particularly dangerous precedent to have set that merely what you may write in your Internet blog will land you in jail.

It's interesting to me, too, that of all the Muslim countries around the world, Egypt set the precedent, and of all the countries around the world that could have set this precedent against the freedom of speech on the Internet, it was one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance under this act. We have not gone to the step yet of dramatically affecting the U.S. assistance provided by this, but we do have to highlight Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman, his full legal name, and his time in jail, a very dangerous precedent under Egyptian law and one that should be highlighted here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to highlight a key provision of this bill, section 7006, which withholds 10 percent of the funding under this legislation for the Board of International Broadcasting, Radio Deewa. This is a service actually that the chairwoman and I helped sponsor and get rolling because of our perception that there was very little international broadcasting service and outside information in the main language of northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan of Pashtun. But we found that they were putting Batula Massoud on the U.S. taxpayer-funded radio, giving him a platform just 6 days after the Secretary of State put him on the Rewards for Justice terrorism list for his crimes against a number of terrorist targets, including the Prime Minister of Pakistan. So I really want to thank the chairwoman for including this because we sent a very clear signal that we want open and free communication with accurate news, but we do not give platforms to terrorists on the Rewards for Justice list of the State Department.

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

Let me just say this bill also contains one last program-- and then I will close--and that is called the Near East Regional Democracy program. It used to be called the Iran democracy program, and I hope that's still exactly what it does. We're providing $40 million for this, and it's very important. Following the suppression of democracy in Iran, we're particularly concerned about key minority groups there. The Azeris, representing 40 percent of the country, including the leading candidate for president whose vote was suppressed; the Kurds that we worked with so well in northern Iraq; and the Baluch, in which a significant Iranian military presence is there. And I want to pay particular attention to the plight of the Baha'i. The National Assembly of the Baha'i Faith is located in my district; but this is the faith that

was founded in Persia, now Iran. There are 330,000 Baha'is in Iran right now. Under this regime, we have now seen that they have been told to register their businesses and place of address, that this is the bureaucratic machinery that we have seen in other countries in other uniforms before. It is the machinery of oppression and potentially worse. We have seen now that just following the time President Ahmadinejad claimed that he had won the election--remembering, of course, that in 150 Iranian cities, the votes totaled more than the number of people living in those cities--that just following their claim to have won the election after only 2 hours of counting the ballots, that he moved against the Baha'i leaders, putting them on trial for their lives in that country. The Near East Regional Democracy program can help us build alternative voices in that country, all the more important.

Let me close on this bill by saying that this bill has one key and major component, which is assistance to the State of Israel for us. In my view, land for peace generally means no land and even more war, as we saw with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza where an area that used to be used for agricultural produce is now used for mortars and rockets against southern Israel, especially Sderot and Ashkelon. My worry is that we might have more of that kind of adventurism by the other side further if we see instability in southern Lebanon and especially on the West Bank. This legislation helps us underscore our commitment to the Israeli Air Force, their missile defense system and, especially, to their army to at least encourage the states in that region to make sure that no adventurism like we saw, especially in 1973, can move forward against our best allies in the Middle East. My hope is that we have very strong commitment for this on the floor today and in the United States Senate because I think this bill, more than any other, makes any potential conflict in the Middle East less likely; and that is good for us all.

With that, I recommend passage of the bill. I want to commend our chairwoman and our greatly missed Ranking Minority Member Kay Granger, who's out today, for bringing us a bill that adheres to the key principle that I try to follow at every possible turn, and that is the aphorism that we say, that partisanship should end at the water's edge. In my service in the United States military, I generally found that when we were being shot at, they weren't shooting at Democrats or Republicans. They were shooting at American citizens. The United States has bipartisan interests overseas, and this bill fulfills this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.

I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. There are many parts of the amendment that I support, like moving funds away from accounts that received a significant increase in the stimulus bill in order to increase funds for safe drinking water and sanitation programs.

Unfortunately, I oppose this amendment for what it represents. We are continuing the movement away from bipartisan consideration of amendments because it appears that the new practice under the Rules Committee is to take a number of Democratic amendments and put them in one group under the chairman's aegis so that it looks like we have a balanced list of amendments offered but really a much larger number of Democratic amendments are being considered. This is a very troubling practice that has now entered into the appropriations bills.

Once again, I would point out, under clause 2 of rule XXI, the only amendments that are allowed under our rules on the floor are money amendments that cut or rearrange funds, not policy amendments. That gives awesome power to the committee on both sides to limit debate on this bill. It's very odd that in all the consideration of appropriations bills before, we haven't really made this a standard practice like is happening now.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I stand corrected. Under the rule it's allowed, but we didn't need rules for appropriations bills. I would reiterate my admiration for Bill Natcher who insisted that his legislation always come to the floor without a rule because it was protected under clause 2 of rule XXI.

I'm also worried about this amendment because it cuts off FMF, Foreign Military Financing, for Sri Lanka. Now the Sri Lankan-elected democratic government was fighting the Tamil Tigers, registered as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Their victory over the Tamil Tigers will bring human rights and democracy to the whole country and remove the need for any kind of military operations which could tempt either side to hurt civilians.

The victory of the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil Tigers is exactly what will bring order, rule of law and democracy to that country. So we're now sending a signal that a democracy who is fighting a terrorist organization and wins will be cut off in its financing by the United States. I would put it to you that if we ever had a rebel terrorist organization operating in our country, maybe like the Confederate States after our victory, it would be odd, indeed, to see some country cutting off funding for us. Yet that's exactly what we did in our civil war. And I would say that a cutoff now is an odd signal when I would expect that the record of human rights, respect for the individual rule of law and especially in democracy will definitely go up now that the Sri Lankan Government controls all of their territory.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

I would say that I think with this amendment it would have been better to have handled it under a different procedure. But the key point that I would make here is there are many good parts of this amendment. I particularly love the part about no first class travel and hope that that goes into the final bill.

I would urge us in conference to reconsider sending the signal that we are sending to Sri Lanka. The general signal should be that when a democratic government engages a terrorist organization, we support the democratic government. When that democratic government wins against that terrorist organization, we should support them. That means that we should support all the aspects of that government that can effect good order and a return to normalcy, which means helping refugees and which means helping the government, but it means helping also to maintain a good relationship with that democracy that just did a good thing in making sure that the world has one less terrorist organization.

So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment for Ms. Granger under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which refers to the following situation:

Last month through the 2009 supplemental bill, Congress provided an expansion of resources and powers to the International Monetary Fund as requested by President Obama. This included $108 billion in new funding and approval for the IMF to sell 13 million ounces of gold to fund their internal operating expenses. As part of that bill, and consistent with its oversight role, Congress gave the administration clear guidelines on how an expanded IMF should function.

On June 24, President Obama decided to disregard those congressionally mandated guidelines. Upon signing the 2009 supplemental into law, the President issued a signing statement that said he would ignore sections 1110, 1112, 1403 and 1404 of the supplemental.

These provisions provide some of the only oversight that the United States exercises over the IMF, an organization that will triple in size this year.

The Granger amendment, which I offer here, would prohibit funds in this bill from being used by the Secretary of Treasury to negotiate any agreement in contravention of these statutorily enacted provisions in the supplemental.

One provision requires the U.S. to oppose IMF loans to countries that are supporters of terrorism, countries like Iran. The Congress consulted the Department of Treasury while drafting this provision.

Additionally, the provisions give the administration guidance from the Congress as to how the United States should vote at the IMF on health care, education, labor rights, and transparency issues.

This Congress, Democrats and Republicans, should not allow any administration to disregard a statutory mandate, especially on issues of transparency and accountability. The Congress voted to provide oversight for the IMF, and we should stand by those provisions.

Giving $108 billion to the IMF without a clear path for the future is not a policy we would support. And so, therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this Granger amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, when we consider legislation in this body, we have several different ways to put forward an idea or policy of the Congress--a Dear Colleague letter, filing a bill or a resolution. When we speak with more authority, we use report language to accompany a bill, which says a general direction that can be ignored, but at the peril of the administration. But when it is in a statute, that is, under the law of the land, the supreme authority, absent being overridden by a provision of the Constitution.

I really want to thank the clear, bipartisan message that we are sending here by virtue of the chairwoman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and the chairman of the authorizing committee here, because I think this is a rare example of showing bipartisan concern on behalf of this institution against the executive branch.

Now, I would shudder to think that if ever we concede somehow the abuse of signing statements--which I am not really that in favor of, and I don't think have received any long-term sanction by the Supreme Court to try to override a statute--basic law 101 would provide that.

I yield briefly to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

And I thank the gentleman because he was critical of signing statements under the previous administration and is now being critical of signing statements under this administration.

But there is a much more important legal point here, which is that a signing statement which attempts to override a statute enacted by the Congress of the United States should not require litigation before the Supreme Court. And that's why the statement of the full committee chairman, Mr. Obey, is so critical here. Because in the end, the way that we enforce this absent court litigation is simply to deny funding. I learned that under Chairman Whitten, when I think I remember he defunded the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Agriculture when he had a problem.

So the signal that we've sent to the Treasury is very clear: Ignore statute at your extreme peril. And this is on behalf of a bipartisan, overwhelming majority. We will be asking for a recorded vote on this and send a very clear signal to the Secretary of the Treasury.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to present H.R. 3081, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. I am deeply appreciative to my ranking member, Kay Granger, for her key role in drafting this bill. This reflects our bipartisan priorities and is a better product as a result of our collaboration.

After all the hard work that Ms. Granger put into this bill, I am deeply saddened that she's unable to be on the House floor with us today to see the passage of our bipartisan product. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my friend, Ms. Granger, and I know all of us wish for her a speedy recovery. Her presence is missed today on the floor, but I know her thoughts are with us, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with her as we move forward with the bill.

The bill has also benefited from the input of our very informed and engaged subcommittee members. The bill totals $48.843 billion, $3.2 billion below the request and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, including supplemental appropriations.

The bill provides an upfront and transparent accounting of the resources needed to fund our foreign policy and national security interests to end the reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund anticipated needs.

Let there be no doubt, this bill, which funds the U.S.'s diplomatic and development priorities, is a cornerstone of U.S. national security. It includes $4.7 billion for assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to help stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild these critical countries.

In conjunction with funding in the 2009 supplemental, the bill fully funds the U.S. commitments to our allies and partners in the Middle East, including a total of $2.775 billion in FMF pursuant to the MOU between the United States and our ally Israel and our commitments to Egypt and Jordan.

The bill provides $987 million to continue support for counternarcotics and alternate development programs in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean Basin, and Colombia and Peru.

The bill continues the congressional commitment to increasing the capacity of our civilian agencies to carry out diplomatic and development missions and provides resources to hire, train, support, and provide security for 1,000 new Department of State personnel and 300 new USAID personnel.

H.R. 3081 provides $7.6 billion for global activities, including $5.7 billion for global HIV/AIDS, which is $150 million above the President's request. Not less than $750 million will support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the bill includes $648 million for voluntary family planning services in the developing world, of which $60 million is for the United Nations Population Fund.

Addressing pandemics and other health concerns overseas before they reach our shores is one of the best investments the United States can make to protect American citizens while saving lives overseas. To this end, the bill provides $75 million to address pandemic preparedness and response, in addition to $50 million in the supplemental appropriations act of 2009.

Now, while I continue to be personally committed to permanently repealing the global gag rule, in the interest of bipartisan cooperation, the bill does not change any provisions of law that restrict funding for abortion or otherwise condition family planning assistance.

The bill increases funding for key long-term development priorities, including $1.2 billion to improve access to quality basic and higher education and provide alternatives to madrassas where youth are often exposed to extremism; $1 billion for food security and agricultural development to respond to the global food crisis; over $1.2 billion in bilateral and multilateral assistance for clean energy, biodiversity and climate change initiatives; and $310 million to expand access to safe water and sanitation.

It includes $2.4 billion in refugee and disaster assistance to meet growing humanitarian needs, including in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The bill also provides $450 million for the Peace Corps to jump-start the President's pledge to increase the number of volunteers.

Finally, oversight is a bipartisan priority, and in order to improve accountability, the bill provides a total of $146.5 million for the activities of the Inspectors General of the Department of State and USAID, as well as for the

Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction.

I want to take a moment to thank all of the staff that have worked so hard on this bill, especially Nisha Desai, our clerk, and her team: Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Celia Alvarado, Courtney Dunn. I also want to thank Ann Vaughan, Jennie Munoz, and Elizabeth Stanley on my staff for their work.

And I would also like to thank our hardworking minority staff, including Ann Marie Chotvacs, the minority clerk, and Alice Hogans, Mike Ringler, Jason Small, and Rachel Carter for all their work.

Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan foreign assistance package before you preserves our Nation's interests. I urge my colleagues to give this bill our bipartisan support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for a unanimous consent request.

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

I would like to yield for a unanimous consent to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) who has been an outstanding member of the committee and has made it a great bill because of her important work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee who has made major contributions and has helped make this bill the good bill that it is, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, first, I thank my friend for raising this important issue.

Yes, it is the committee's intent to fully fund Afghanistan's nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and related programs at the President's requested level. We agree these programs are vital to our success in Afghanistan. And as we developed the bill, our funding assumption was, unless otherwise noted, that the President's full request for Afghanistan was met.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, yes, it is the committee's intent to support these activities.

And I yield to the gentleman.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, an outstanding member of the committee, Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I am pleased to yield to Ms. Woolsey.

I thank the gentlewoman for her kind words and for her support for women's health at home and abroad. Healthier mothers will enjoy safer pregnancies and childbirths, enabling them to better care for their children. Bolstering maternal health initiatives can help reduce the 4 million newborn deaths each year in the developing world. The committee has directed USAID to undertake a detailed review of its maternal health portfolio, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California for the purpose of a colloquy.

Yes. The committee is aware that this region is home to most of the displaced ethnoreligious minorities in Iraq.

Yes. It is the committee's intent to support these types of activities.

Yes. There are a number of organizations that have provided health, education, and other assistance in the region and should be considered as potential alternatives to governmental entities. I expect the State Department to continue to use a competitive bidding process to ensure that the most appropriate and effective organizations receive U.S. Government assistance.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a leader in this Congress who understands the importance of water, in addition to bicycles, and has been a tireless advocate for a whole range of important causes, my good friend Mr. Blumenauer.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

If the gentleman has no more speakers, I am prepared to close if he wishes to yield back the balance of his time.

As we close this debate, I want to thank Kay Granger again, the ranking member of this committee, who has been an invaluable partner in creating what we think is a very, very good bill. I also want to thank Mr. Kirk for his leadership not only in the committee but certainly in his role in presenting this bill today. We really have an outstanding subcommittee. Again, it's because the subcommittee members and the staff on both sides, who I acknowledged in my opening statement, and the ranking member; as well as the Chair of the overall Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. Everyone contributed to making this a really important bill.

I just must say in closing that, for me, it's a real privilege to be a Chair of this committee, to wake up every day and know that you can contribute to the great challenges we have internationally; and every day we are presented with an additional challenge that we have to face. As the leader of the free world, the United States of America has a key role to play, and I know that all the members of this committee understand our responsibility.

So this is a good bill. I appreciate your support. I hope we can get support from the majority of Members on your side of the aisle and our side of the aisle because this is an important bill; and as we move forward, it's extremely important that all of us support these efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment makes several modifications to the bill. Specifically, it would increase funding for safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million and democracy programs by $10 million. It would provide $300,000 for the implementation of the U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality; increase funding for maternal health programs by $10 million; and ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars by increasing funding for oversight of Department of State and USAID programs by $8 million. These additions would be offset by reductions to the Department of State Capital Investment Fund and USAID's Capital Investment Fund. The amendment would also restrict foreign military financing to Sri Lanka, but I would note that the base bill includes up to $1 million for demining activities under the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs' account to continue the work with the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their homes. Lastly, this amendment includes a restriction on first- class travel by employees of agencies funded by this act.

I am pleased to have worked with Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Henry Cuellar, Alcee Hastings, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Marshall and Gwen Moore to address these concerns. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to note that Kay Granger, the ranking member's amendment, is not a money amendment. It's a policy amendment as well.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks but I just want to emphasize, again, that we are providing up to $1 million for demining activities under NADR for the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their home. And in addition to the terrorism that occurred on the part of the Tamil Tigers,

we do have many civilians that have been displaced. And I think it is essential that the Government of Sri Lanka respond to that challenge and help those people return to their homes. So I know that we will continue to follow this issue to be sure that the policy that is in place adjusts to the actions that the government takes.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. Granger and I have worked hard to craft a bill that strengthens the civilian diplomatic and development capacity of the U.S. Government.

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates and many of us in this Chamber have said time and time again that the State Department and USAID have to start leading U.S. Government efforts to address the global threats of the 21st century, including preventing and responding to conflict. As our new administration sets priorities, develops strategies and creates greater efficiencies and harmony in our foreign policy, this requires an expansion of people and resources.

The proposed cuts in this amendment, to USAID's operating expenses and the Department of State's operating account, strike at the very heart of the bill's efforts to strengthen our civilian capacity. This amendment would have a devastating impact on USAID and the Department of State's ability to carry out their diplomatic, development, and reconstruction mission.

For USAID operating expenses, the amendment would halt support for over 200 existing personnel, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, putting the U.S. Government missions in those countries in jeopardy.

The amendment would stop the construction of secure and safe facilities for USAID employees in nearly 30 countries overseas and halt the hiring of 350 new Foreign Service officers as planned in the development leadership initiative which is intended to rebuild the civilian development workforce.

Within the Department of State's operating account, the amendment would eliminate $328 million to add 1,000 foreign and civil service officers to fill the 12 percent vacancy rate at the 260 diplomatic posts worldwide and to fill urgently needed positions here in D.C., eliminate $213 million to add nearly 300 diplomatic security positions to better protect and secure diplomatic and development personnel, and reduce by nearly $700 million funding to regularize diplomatic operations in Iraq.

USAID is a global leader on health, and the proposed cuts would hamper their ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The proposed cut in this amendment could result in 18.3 million women being without access to voluntary family planning services, which could lead to an estimated 5.5 million additional unintended pregnancies, 300,000 additional under-5 deaths per year and 15,000 additional maternal deaths per year, and approximately 800,000 people in four high-burden countries going without planned multidrug resistance tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment services.

Congress must strengthen civilian agencies to respond to foreign policy

crises and not cut core programs in our diplomacy and development initiatives, as this amendment seeks to do.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my friend, the gentleman, Mr. Buyer. I agree. And I think most of us in this Congress would agree that we have to get our fiscal house in order. However, we put this bill together in a bipartisan way. And I again regret that Ms. Granger who worked so hard on this bill couldn't be here with us today. And I want to make it very clear that cutting funding for our diplomats who are serving our great Nation in very difficult parts of the world, whether it is Pakistan, Afghanistan, whether it is in Iraq, and I could go on and on, is irresponsible.

So I think it is fine to say that we have to put our house in order. However, I would like to remind you that in the past administration, diplomacy, development and defense were considered the three pillars of our national security. So just to say we can cut $1 billion here and $1 billion there and not to have the consequences, have great impact on the security of our people who are fighting for our Nation, I think is irresponsible.

Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 4 be considered as read.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

I would like to remind my good friend, Mr. Stearns, that the Peace Corps is also a job-creating program. These are our young people here who are going abroad to serve our country. So it is also a job-creation program for our young people. The Peace Corps, which is funded at $450 million in this bill, has long been one

of America's most effective tools in directly reaching citizens of other countries, demonstrating firsthand the best of American values and generating goodwill for our Nation around the world.

Just last year, Peace Corps volunteers helped train 148,000 teachers, health care workers and other professionals overseas. Their efforts improved the lives of over 2 million people in developing countries, including countries that are vital to our national security interests.

In recent years, the Peace Corps has been chronically underfunded. Last year the agency was forced to cut 500 new positions. Funding the Peace Corps at the authorized $450 million level lays the groundwork to fulfill the President's pledge to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers at a responsible pace. In addition, the bill calls for the GAO to conduct a management review to ensure that every dollar is well spent and every volunteer's effort is well placed.

In recent weeks I and other Members have heard from thousands of Peace Corps' 200,000 alumni. I am sure there are some in Florida, Mr. Stearns, and other constituents calling for this increase. In fact, the gentleman from Florida may have heard from some of the nearly 7,000 Peace Corps current and former volunteers from the State of Florida.

I hope my colleagues will support me in opposing this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to Sam Farr, a former Peace Corps worker, from California.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a great advocate of the Peace Corps and a distinguished member of the committee, Betty McCollum.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), who is a former Peace Corps volunteer.

I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences to U.S. interests.

It would cut funding for the Asian Development Fund which provides basic loans and grants to support health care, education, infrastructure and economic development resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The World Bank, which provides debt relief to developing countries, is supporting an integrated agricultural initiative to address the global food crisis. The Global Environmental Facility and the International Fund for Agricultural Development provide loans and grants. This amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to meet its commitments to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on our assistance.

Remember, this is in the interest of our national security. These institutions fund valuable initiatives that provide opportunities to millions of people.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, though I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I want to again thank the gentlewoman who couldn't be with us today for her work on oversight and our assistance to the International Monetary Fund.

I recognize her concerns about the use of the signing statement by the President to interpret congressionally imposed mandates that apply to the World Bank and IMF in the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that this issue was included in the signing statement because of concerns regarding constitutional authority and not because of underlying policy differences with the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my chairman, Mr. Obey.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona.

The bill before the House contains an increase of 11 percent for education and cultural exchanges and is $33 million below the amount requested in the budget.

The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $8 million funding for international exchange programs, bringing the amount in the bill to over $40 million below the request. It also would prohibit funding for the one-time special grants program begun in fiscal year 2008.

Grants under this program are required to be competitively awarded and support exchanges for people who do not benefit through existing programs. None of the entities and organizations listed in the report are earmarks. All entities highlighted in the report under the Special Grants Program must compete with all other applicants, whether listed in the report or not. And for example, of the 39 entities listed in the explanatory statement accompanying the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, only 12, or less than one- third, received funding.

So, I say to my friend, respectfully, these are not earmarks. This program fills a void in our international exchange portfolio. It is a targeted, one-time, competitive opportunity for an organization to address either a regional or population gap in international exchanges and should be continued.

So I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

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

I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but I would like to reiterate again, there were 39 entities listed, 24 applied; and of that 24, only 12 received the grants. So I think it's very different from an earmark where, if you list an earmark on many of the subcommittees, it is expected that those items listed will get the grants. So, if there were 12 of the 24, it's clear to me that this is a competitive grant. And so I certainly rest my case that this is not an earmark.

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

I would like to just say to the gentleman that in the bill that you referenced, there were a hundred applications, and 51 received funding of the hundred. And of the 24 that applied that were listed in the bill, 12 received funding. So that sounds like a competitive grant to me. It looks like a competitive grant. In my judgment, it is a competitive grant.

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

I would like to say to the gentleman, Members understand their districts. They have respect for some organizations and not for others. They have a right, certainly, to recommend to include, to reference specific groups. That doesn't mean they are directing the agency to give them the earmarks. So, again, a hundred applied, 51 received them, and of the 24 that were referenced as suggested by Members, 12 of those received funding. So, again, they had to compete. But if the Members may believe that a particular group has done laudable work in their district, I think they have every right. As long as there is no guarantee, it is not an earmark.

I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

I thank the Chair and I thank the body for its patience, allowing me to breathlessly run over and offer my amendment.

Let me begin with a noncontroversial statement. The American people and this body of their representatives believes that there should be no money, no taxpayer dollars, going from the people of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I can say that with some confidence because in fiscal year 2007, 312 Members said so. In fiscal year 2006, 293 Members said so. I can say that with some certitude because the bill we have before us says that no money in this bill will go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Yet, despite the fact that we in this House keep expressing that sentiment loudly and clearly, for reasons that would be mysterious anyplace else but Washington, money continues to flow. That has to stop.

The reason it happens, by the way, is because we always feel this sense that we have to include language in the bill offering an exemption, a loophole you can drive a truck through, that says: Unless the President says so.

Well, I have news for you, my colleagues. Democrat and Republican alike, Presidents seem to develop a love affair with the notion of Saudi Arabia based on what they say. They say they want to be friends to the United States. They say they want to be a fulcrum against terrorism. They say they want to be a moderate force in the Middle East. And yet, year after year, we see evidence that they do the opposite.

We know this, for example, by reading the human rights reports over the last several years that see more and more stories like the one of a 75-year-old woman being sentenced to be lashed nearly to death for having the audacity of being in a home of two unrelated men.

We know, based on research that was done this year by my office, that they continue to teach hate in their textbooks now; things that teach ninth-graders, for example, to say things like, The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. If there is a Jew behind me, come kill him. This is what ninth-graders are being taught.

We know, for example, that 15 of the 19 homicide bombers that attacked my city on September 11th were Saudis, and we also know, based on evidence that came out in the lawsuit against the Saudi Government, that these were agents that were not acting apart from the Saudi Government but, in many cases, were intertwined.

So my amendment does something simple. It takes the very good work of the Chair of the subcommittee that says, No money, and takes out the loophole. Because, to be honest with you, even if the administration certifies something, I can tell you already that the United States Department of International Narcotics Control Strategy said in February of this year that the Saudis were responsible for laundering money that ``continues,'' in their words, ``to be a significant jurisdictional source for terrorism financing worldwide.''

If you believe that there should not be money going to the Saudis, like I guarantee your constituents do, you have to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment. If you want to kind of have it both ways, that you get to vote and then but you really want the money to go, then vote ``no.'' But I believe overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way in this House we have made it clear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

I guess the question is what are we doing here. I think what we're doing here with this entire bill is saying what we, the Representatives of

this country, who have the power of the purse, think should and should not be in the bill.

What's the purpose of doing that, I ask the gentleman, if year after year after year, despite the preferences of this Congress, Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, say, We don't really care what Members of Congress say.

What is this exercise for? Why not have one giant waiver authority on everything and say we don't want to tie his hands. We do want to tie his hands; 319 of us say we do want to tie his hands. And if it wasn't abused year after year, I wouldn't be standing here.

Actually, that's not true.

If the gentleman would yield, first of all, the last time when it passed the House and died in the Senate, I had the waiver struck in that amendment as well, in fairness.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, I would ask the gentleman to observe decorum on the floor, referring to the gentleman in the first person, but I will respond.

Do you know whose words these are? This is the Saudi Arabian Department of Education teaching to its ninth-graders. I did not write this. Now, I did translate it, but I did not write it. If the translation is incorrect, the gentleman will be the first to ever point that out.

But I will say this. The simple question is this for my colleagues: If you want aid to go to Saudi Arabia, if, as the gentleman says, you somehow believe they need our foreign assistance, one of the richest kingdoms, on our blood money, that there is on Earth--

I would ask the gentlemen to let me continue my point, because it's a good one.

If he believes that our paying $80 a barrel for oil when the Saudis would do nothing to help us with it is a good idea, vote ``no'' on this, but don't say it's because you don't want to tie hands.

What we want to do here is tie the President's hands to finally live up to what this Congress has said, which is not a dollar, not a shekel, not a pound, not a dime going to the Saudi Arabians of our tax dollars.

Enough is enough. And I think that the gentlelady has it exactly right. No money. And you can't have it both ways. You can't say, Yes, I want no money, but I want there to be some wiggle room.

We want no wiggle room in this case, I say to my colleagues. We want there to be no money going to this nation. They have blood on their hands. They say one thing and do something else. We all know it. 319 of us--and maybe with some help around here we'll get closer to 419 of us--have said, Enough is enough.

Year in and year out. 2004, 217 said no more money; $960,000 went. In 2005, 293; $1.5 million went. 2006, 312 Members said no money, and $319,000.

Have you no sense of dignity around here?

Let me just finish. I'm reaching a crescendo.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman.

As I listened to the gentleman from Texas, I recall these ferocious debates we have had, led by a true fiscal conservative, the gentleman from Arizona, as he assailed earmarks. And I heard the gentleman from Texas's voice in the earmarks debate. But then I realized I was a little confused: he was defending his earmark.

So the gentleman's ferocity on behalf of fiscal conservatism does not extend, apparently, to every earmark, including his own. Now I understand that. But it did seem to me a little inconsistent with the uncompromising ferocity of his rhetoric. The gentleman does not come here with quite the credentials as, for instance, the gentleman from Arizona.

As to the money here being spent, I would say this: the gentleman said, Where will we cut? I would like to cut the F-22 spending which we no longer need. I supported the President's proposals for cuts in agriculture spending. This notion that it is always the liberals who want to spend and the conservatives who don't want to spend is fallacious. When it comes to unnecessary Cold War weapons and when it comes to American troops being stationed overseas in countries where they should be able to defend themselves, you know, we could save a lot more money overseas by telling our wealthy allies that it is time for them to defend themselves. That is a lot better, in my mind, than cutting a much smaller amount of money that goes to feed poor children and that goes to prevent preventable deaths in the health care areas. And it would also save us because there has been the correct perception by a whole range of people, including Secretary Gates, including Colin Powell, a number of distinguished Republicans who have served in national security positions, that it is far better to spend money sensibly to avoid the kind of social conditions that don't cause terrorism, the terrorists are sick people with no justification, but it makes support for them. It recruits for them, and we should be undercutting their recruiting by these kinds of things.

The gentleman almost sneeringly said, well, it is global environmental, let's be national. Well, it may pain the gentleman, but it is kind of hard to confine the environment to the borders of the United States. The environment does not respect borders. So if you want to deal with the environment, it has to be done globally. Many of us feel, in fact, that it would be a grave error for us to go ahead with tough climate issues here unless we also did them internationally.

I was very proud, along with Spencer Bachus and Jim Leach and Maxine Waters, at the urging of the late Pope John Paul the Second and others to do debt relief for the poorest countries in the world, to take money that would otherwise go to pay off debts and give it to the poor children and to health care, and this would threaten that kind of problem.

So the half a billion dollars here, it pales in comparison, not in general because it is a lot of money, but to money spent on unnecessary Cold War weapons, on money that goes for agricultural subsidies to farmers who do not need it, on sending human beings to Mars.

I don't know how the gentleman plans to vote on that. I plan to vote, if that comes up, against that.

I would yield.

I appreciate that. I take back my time to explain to the gentleman, I wasn't questioning his credentials except on his earmark. Everybody is entitled to a little earmark.

I'm sorry, I did not yield again. I said the gentleman made cuts elsewhere. I wasn't saying that the gentleman didn't vote for cuts; I was refuting his notion that liberals don't vote for cuts.

I have voted for many cuts, including to bring down the overall budget.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman need an instruction on the rules of the House?

The point is that the gentleman used up his time unwisely. He should have reserved a little time; he didn't do it. That is the way it goes.

The fact is that alleviating poverty overseas, going to the aid of children who will die of measles, who will die of diarrhea and who will die of these other illnesses, it is a far better use of our money morally and also in terms of national security because I repeat again what Secretary Gates and what

Colin Powell have said, what sensible military leaders have said, a much smaller amount of money spent in these ways on sensible efforts to alleviate the miserable conditions that lead to support for terrorism, not the terrorists themselves, is a very good way to preserve the national security much more cheaply in terms of human lives and in terms of money than a purely military solution.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

I welcome this amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois.

The Chair of the subcommittee, who does a great job, said that the administration says this is constitutional and not substantive, and I've been told by Treasury they intend to abide by them. That's not good enough. Let me give my constitutional friends over there another constitutional lesson: They won't have anything to put a signing statement to if we don't pass it.

I was asked by the administration and worked hard to get that money for the IMF with some reasonable conditions. There are some things in there that make sure that it ends the previous IMF practice of being unfair to low-income people.

The notion that the administration can take the money and pick and choose what it wants to do with the conditions is unacceptable. So let me say, as chairman of the committee that authorizes these and as someone who works closely with the appropriators in doing it, if the administration does not withdraw this claim that they can ignore conditions we put on it, then they will have nothing to ignore because there won't be any conditions and there won't be any money. And that's right there in the Constitution.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I would only make one correction. We do this--I'm sure he agrees with me, it's a wording change--we do this not on behalf of this institution, but literally on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. And there is a kind of a unilateralism, in an undemocratic, unreachable way, to these signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here. So I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 3 in part B.

Mr. Chairman, on page 128 of the report accompanying this legislation it states, Neither the bill nor this report contain any congressional earmarks. I would have to disagree. The legislation will provide $8 million for the ``one-time special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grant program'' begun in fiscal year 2008. These one-time grants can go for up to a half-million dollars, and the Department of State is to award these proposals on a competitive basis.

Now, I have been a long supporter of cultural exchange programs, both having Americans go overseas and foreigners to come here. I am also supportive of these grants being awarded on a competitive basis. The problem here is the fact that the report also says, The Secretary is encouraged to consider the following proposals for this competitive program, and then it lists several specific exchange programs.

The recommendations of funding for these 12 specific programs certainly look like earmarks to me and certainly look like earmarks to a handful of Members who requested them, so much so that they actually listed the earmark requests on their Web sites--a number of them did. So to them it looked like an earmark; they're putting it in the report.

This year, the Appropriations Committee is telling us that earmarks aren't really earmarks; they're just suggestions to the agencies who are under no obligation to fund them. So my question would be, what is the difference here? And why, if in other bills there are disclosure requirements--certification letters, put your name next to the earmark, other things that we have to do, if those are mere suggestions to the agencies--a ``look see'' we are told by the Appropriations Committee-- what is the difference here where we list several programs that the Secretary should consider?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and hope to be illuminated on this question.

The gentlelady mentioned FY 2008, mentioned there were some 36 listed. Only 24 of those 36 were actually eligible for funding. Half of

those that were eligible for funding did receive the funding, which took over half of the funding that was eligible to be dispersed. And so there is quite an uncanny alignment between what is put out there and what is actually then awarded.

And my question is, with the rest of our appropriations this year, if, as we are told, simply giving the agencies a list of recommendations or a ``look see,'' why is it that the so-called ``hard earmarks'' in other bills require a certification letter, require transparency, and other things, and these soft earmarks here, which act pretty much the same way, require no such disclosure or no such transparency? That's my concern here. And it's long been the concern of many with these soft earmarks.

The agencies have told us that their hands are sometimes too much tied by the soft earmarks. They have programs, and then Members of Congress will say, Oh, yes, we're appropriating money, but it needs to be spent here, here and here. And we all know that the agency knows who butters their bread, who appropriates their money. And they're inclined, particularly when it's the case of a powerful Member, to go along with the recommendations made.

So that's the question I have. It is more of transparency here; why are these earmarks treated differently than earmarks in other legislation?

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

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the gentlelady.

I have to say, when we debated the Homeland Security bill just a few days ago, I challenged an earmark for a for-profit company, Global Solar.

I was told, no. Even though in the report language it says that the money is to go to Global Solar and there was a certification letter filled out by the Member saying the money is to go to Global Solar at this address, we were told there, well, no, it's going to be competitively bid, so don't worry about that language. It really doesn't mean anything.

So I just don't know what to believe here, if we are told that, well, this isn't like a hard earmark in other bills, and that's what I am being told now, but then I was told on the other bills, well, this isn't really a hard earmark either, but we did have the disclosure requirements there and we don't have them here. So I think it behooves us, until we can figure that out, until we can figure out are these hard earmarks or are they soft earmarks? Are they to be treated differently? Certainly the Members who requested them who actually listed them on their Web site as appropriation requests, they see them as earmarks. So I would think that we need to be careful here.

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

I would ask the gentlewoman, if that's the case, why list them? If they have to compete competitively, why do we list them? Why do we say to the agencies, well, you have a competitive program but we want you to look at these programs, we want you to look at this exchange program, this sister city program, and we're going to list it here in the report? If it's not an earmark, then don't list it and simply have those organizations compete like everyone else does.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.