Congratulating Jim Boeheim, head coach of the Syracuse University Orange men's basketball team and a native of Lyons, New York, for receiving many coaching awards for the impressive achievements of the Syracuse University Orange 2009-2010 men's basketball team.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 522, I call up the bill (H.R. 1886) to authorize democratic, economic, and social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize security assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1886.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like, for purposes of opening general debate, to yield to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, whom we have worked very closely with in putting together a bill that we can now bring to the floor, a very good bill. His help and the help of his staff, working with our staff, has really been just indispensable to the progress of this effort.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the committee, for his kind comments, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has an enormous stake in the security and stability of Pakistan. We can't allow al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that threatens our national security to operate with impunity in the tribal regions or any other part of Pakistan.

Nor can we permit the Pakistani state and its nuclear arsenal to be taken over by the Taliban.

To help prevent this nightmare scenario, we need to forge a true strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, strengthen Pakistan's democrat government, and work to make Pakistan a source of stability in a volatile region. H.R. 1886 is designed to help achieve these critical goals.

This legislation would significantly expand democratic, economic, and social development assistance to help lay the foundation for a stronger, more stable Pakistan. The bill provides funding to strengthen the capacity of Pakistan's democratic institutions including its Parliament, judicial system, and law enforcement agencies. It calls for increased assistance for Pakistan's public education system, emphasis on access for women and girls. To help ensure that U.S. assistance actually reaches the Pakistani people, it requires increased auditing, greater monitoring, and better evaluation.

H.R. 1886 also provides critical security assistance to help the government of Pakistan in its fight against the extremists that threaten the national security of both Pakistan and the United States. To strengthen civilian control of the military, H.R. 1886 requires that all assistance flow through the Pakistan's elected civilian government. And to support the administration's request for additional flexibility to address Pakistan's urgent security needs, the bill authorizes funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, or PCCF. The legislation includes some important accountability provisions to ensure that Pakistan is using our security assistance in a manner consistent with U.S. national security interests. An annual Presidential determination is required that determines whether or not Pakistan is cooperating with the United States on nonproliferation, is meeting its commitment to combat terrorist groups, and has made progress towards that end.

Contrary to what some have suggested, these are not rigid or inflexible conditions that severely constrain the military. We appreciate the urgency of the situation in Pakistan and the need for appropriate flexibility. We are simply asking Pakistan to follow through with the commitments it has already made. If their President is unable to make these determinations, then we should be asking ourselves much deeper questions about what we really hope to achieve in Pakistan.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

If their President is unable to make these determinations, as I mentioned, we should be asking the deeper question of why are we doing this. By including these accountability provisions in this bill, we lay down an important marker that Congress will no longer provide a blank check. We've had extensive conversation with the administration, with the Armed Services Committee, as I mentioned earlier, and have made a number of changes to make this legislation and this effort work better.

I want to re-enforce the notion this is not a partisan product. This is a bipartisan bill. We are honored to have two of the most thoughtful and experienced Members from the minority side, Mr. Royce and Mr. Kirk, as original cosponsors of this legislation, and we hope that their actions and this debate will persuade a majority of both parties that this is an effort worth supporting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, the gentleman with whom I just traveled to Pakistan, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Will the gentleman yield? After yesterday, why wouldn't you?

This isn't for a polemic. It's really just to take what you said.

Number one, I agree completely with the urgency of it. If I didn't-- we don't have a lot of money--we would not be authorizing these sums. We share your sense of the urgency of the situation.

Secondly, the letter you cite is correct. The letter is not correct, but the existence of the letter is correct. But it was addressed to a bill that had been introduced. Since the introduction of the bill, we have gone through elaborate negotiations with the House Armed Services Committee. To deal with some of the issues that letter was concerned about, we have worked through, both in the supplemental and in the authorizing committee----

Good things.

Ensuring that the mission that we are equipping and training for is committed to a counterinsurgency, not an arms race in South Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to someone who, like the previous speaker, the gentleman from Indiana, has spent a great deal of time in Pakistan looking at the situation. She chairs the Pakistan Caucus. She joined our congressional delegation in Pakistan in the month of April and speaks with great knowledge and experience on this subject, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a cosponsor of the legislation and another member of the congressional delegation that went to Pakistan last month. In fact, everybody who went to Pakistan with me is supporting this bill. I should have taken more people. But I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the principal cosponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nuclear Nonproliferation, and International Trade of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, my friend from California, the gentlewoman Barbara Lee.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Just remember, a decision at this point to give up on Pakistan, it is Pakistan that is providing sanctuary for the people who are fighting us in Afghanistan. It is Pakistan who has nuclear weapons.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman who has made a significant contribution to this legislative effort, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few points. There was reference here to the F- 16s. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits the Pakistanis from deciding to buy more F-16s. Two years ago they signed a contract indicating that that is what they were going to do. What this legislation does is say other than some specific adjustments particularly to deal with utilizing the F-16s they already have, in the counterinsurgency, we are not going to give our taxpayer dollars for a weapons system, an airplane, whose counterinsurgency interests are far less important than other equipment or training we could be providing.

Secondly, Admiral Mullen came to see me about the problems of utilizing the traditional security assistance program for providing the kind of equipment that is needed for the counterinsurgency in Pakistan. As a result of the case he made, we have created and worked with the Armed Services Committee to create an entire fund that waives every provision of law in the foreign military financing program so that we can get this equipment and training to the Pakistanis.

Pakistan is an urgent problem, but doing it right, not just doing it carelessly, is the way to go. I urge that this bill be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the author of her own legislation on security assistance and the question of the proliferation network in Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), very knowledgeable on issues affecting Pakistan and U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) just spoke in behalf of the Republican substitute, but he's a major cosponsor of the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones. Unlike the bill in front of us, the Republican substitute does not contain the ROZs, the reconstruction zones. I'm wondering how the gentleman squares that with his position.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who has done remarkable work on the issue of how the $12 billion given to Pakistan over the past 7 years has been spent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman's point is, I know, inadvertently and unintentionally incorrect.

The Republican substitute replaces the entire bill and, therefore, were the Republican substitute to pass, the ROZs the gentleman has fought for would not be part of the bill that was sent to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the delegate from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield on the Republican substitute 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Middle East and South Asia, the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Ackerman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes on the Republican substitute to the Chair of the Pakistan Caucus, the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter from the Premier Pakistani American organization, the Pakistani American Leadership Center, endorsing H.R. 1886.

Pakistani American Leadership

Center,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2009.

Hon. Howard Berman,

Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Berman: On behalf of the Pakistani American

Leadership Center (PAL-C) and other team members listed

below, I am writing to express our strong support for H.R.

1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation

Enhancement Act of 2009. PAL-C was established in 2004 to

mobilize the Pakistani-American community to be more

conversant with the U.S political process and to promote

greater understanding of Pakistan by building lasting ties

with the U.S.

H.R. 1886 reflects our deep commitment to developing a

strong U.S.-Pakistan relationship and will be instrumental in

strengthening Pakistan's democratic government, promoting

economic and social development for Pakistan's citizens, and

creating the foundation for a stronger, more stable Pakistan.

We are particularly pleased that H.R. 1886 accentuates

investments in Pakistan's healthcare, education, and

infrastructure and includes a requirement that all U.S.

security assistance be provided through the elected civilian

government. PAL-C also applauds the requirements for enhanced

monitoring, evaluation and auditing of U.S. economic

assistance. These aspects of the bill will assure the most

impactful application of the funds, create the greatest long

term leverage from the assistance package, and establish the

needed transparency in distribution of money.

We thank you for your hard work and visionary leadership on

this critical legislation and hope that its passage will

initiate the beginning of a new, more positive and enduring

era in U.S.-Pakistan relations. We also stand ready to

continue doing our part as proud Pakistani Americans in

offering U.S. congress special insights into Pakistan, based

on our deep rooted perspective.

Sincerely,

Pervaiz Lodhie.

Pervaiz Lodhie, Founder/President, LEDtronics; Salim Adaya,

Chairperson. IDS Real Estate Group; Muhammad Adaya, IDS Real

Estate Group; Najeeb Ghauri, Chairman/CEO, Netsol; Dr. Satter

Abbasi, Prof. Clinical Medicine, UCLA; Jamal Khawaja,

Director, JFK Import & Export; Dr. Salman Nagvi, COS, Kindred

Hospital OC; Adnan Khan, President, CIDP Inc.; Fiza Shah,

Founder/CEO, DIL; Ghazala Khan, Principal, GK & Associates;

Shezad Rokerya, Chairman, The Interlink Group; Taha Gaya,

Exec. Dir., PAL-C; Jim Moody, Chairman AFHD/NCHD; Salman

Ahmed, UN Goodwill Ambassador, Artist.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the Republican substitute. I'm pleased to see that the substitute does support the President's request for $1.5 billion a year in nonmilitary assistance for Pakistan, the same amount as the underlying bill. But that's where the similarity ends.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this substitute amounts to nothing more than a blank check. It requires no real oversight, no serious accountability, no congressional role beyond getting briefings on what we could ask for without any new law.

Since 9/11, I repeat again, we have poured more than $12 billion into Pakistan, with very little to show for it. This substitute is simply a continuation of the same failed policy.

H.R. 1886, on the other hand, expresses our sense of priorities for democratic, economic, and social development assistance without tying the President's hands. Unlike the substitute, our bill provides robust monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the assistance is reaching the Pakistani people. Why would you support another $1.5 billion in economic assistance unless you knew it wasn't just going for ghost schools and to disappear into unspecified budget support? You need the monitoring and evaluation kinds of provisions that we haven't had in the past and that our bill provides and the Republican substitute doesn't.

The Republican substitute treats Pakistan in virtual isolation with a brief mention of the Afghan-Pakistan cooperation. H.R. 1886 requires a comprehensive regional strategy, including the role of countries outside the region in supporting Pakistan's efforts to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban. A global effort is required to make Pakistan a success, and the substitute's failure to recognize this salient fact is another serious flaw.

Read the bill. Please read the bill. Our accountability provisions are not rigid. They're not inflexible. We state very clearly simply that we expect Pakistan to make progress in their fight against the extremists and to sustain their commitment. If the President can't tell us that Pakistan is meeting with that very minimal standard, we should be asking ourselves much deeper questions about what we're really trying to achieve here. The onus is on our minority colleagues to explain why, given Pakistan's recent history, we should provide more weapons without making sure the equipment is being used properly.

In this context I find it curious that the substitute is totally inconsistent with the arguments that my friends made just yesterday during debate on the State Department authorization bill. Then all the repeated arguments were more accountability, we need stricter accountability for critical foreign policy priorities. Here we have the most critical foreign policy priority and in the Republican substitute the absence of any provisions regarding accountability, evaluation, auditing, or monitoring.

This substitute begs the question, why does the minority support total flexibility for President Obama in Pakistan but everywhere else in the foreign policy or domestic sphere, they try to constrain him? This is at the top of our list of national security challenges. Our approach is the better approach.

I urge defeat of the substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I made a mistake earlier. I objected to the reading of the motion to recommit. I should have asked for a reading of the bill. As much as I admire the gentleman, the one thing that is clear to me from his comments is he didn't read the bill.

We have absolutely no conditions or restrictions or efforts to earmark or tie up any of the economic assistance in this bill. Why you would say that is only because someone told you that. Because when you look at the bill, we have some principles, we have suggestions, we lay out things that need to be done to build democratic institutions in Pakistan, to build a school system.

We know that we are providing up to $12 billion, much of it in economic assistance for schools that have no teachers. We're providing money for teachers who have no education and don't know how to teach science and math. So we suggest in this bill some guidelines and tie no one's hands. We don't tie the Secretary's hands; we don't tie the Pakistanis' hands.

Now, the state of play is that when we put together our Pakistan bill, we went to the minority and said, let's work on a Pakistan/ Afghanistan bill. They weren't interested. The problem with the minority's way to do a motion to recommit is the leadership meets in some office--they don't bring in the Republicans from the committee-- and they come up with a motion to recommit, let's join Afghanistan with Pakistan. We've been trying to do that for 4 months in our committee, but the minority didn't want to do it that way.

And by the way, we just had a little vote. We had a vote on a Republican substitute that, on security assistance, had no monitoring provisions, no auditing provisions, no evaluation provisions. This is in the context of $12 billion that's been spent, a huge amount on reimbursements for which there are no receipts for money, that we cannot find what it went for. If you like what's been going on there, you're praising the right of Pakistan to do what it wants to do.

When Musharraf kept making appeasement agreements with different elements of the Taliban, was that a wise thing to be encouraging? I don't think so. The only thing we provide any benchmarks on is the security assistance. And what we say there is, Mr. President, look at how that money is being spent and make a determination whether or not Pakistan has a commitment--that they are now, by the way, demonstrating--to combating the insurgency and fighting the terrorists, and whether they're making progress. And are they cooperating in the efforts to dismantle the proliferation regime, and are they doing things to secure it? And, Mr. President, you make the determination and you make the decision.

We have worked with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that the security assistance gets to the Pakistani military as quickly as possible, but not equipment that has nothing to do with the counterinsurgency. We want the equipment, the helicopters, the night-vision goggles, the training, the IMET programs to go as fast as they can. So in our bill, not in yours, but in our bill we waive all the traditions that now exist on traditional security assistance programs.

So this is a motion to recommit that includes an Afghan bill that says, continue as usual, where the lack of end-use monitoring has meant that we have been arming the Taliban because they steal the guns we provide and use them against our forces and the Afghan forces, and repeat in toto the Republican substitute we just rejected.

Let's vote against it. We did it once; let's do it again. Let's try to reestablish some sense of bipartisan collaboration. These differences aren't that great. We can work them out if the majority and the minority cooperate. I say, as the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I would love to put together a bipartisan approach. Maybe we can start working on that for the conference committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, it's important to emphasize that Congress and the administration are united in our goals toward Pakistan. We want a long-term partnership with a modern, a prosperous, a democratic Pakistan that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors. And we want a Pakistan that does not provide safe haven to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremist groups.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work that has gone into my good friend Chairman Berman's bill. I also recognize that both amendments in committee, as well as the manager's amendment, have made this a somewhat less objectionable instrument than it was at the outset, but it is still worthy of being objected to.

However, concerns remain, and these are not just my concerns, but they are concerns that, I understand, the White House, the Defense Department and our own intelligence agencies continue to have with H.R. 1886. These concerns are particularly acute in light of the current Pakistani military offensive against the Taliban and against other extremists in the North-West Frontier Province as well as the fact that the new policy is still evolving.

Rather than a forward-looking bill that addresses the current leadership and the current dynamics in Pakistan, this bill before us, H.R. 1886, focuses on past actions and failures attributed to the Pakistani Government, punishing the new leadership for the sins of its predecessors. That is why I will be offering a comprehensive substitute which parallels the results of the administration's strategic review and which fully funds its request for critical nonmilitary and certain military assistance to Pakistan.

Unlike the underlying bill, our measure provides the necessary flexibility for all U.S. agencies to respond quickly and to respond effectively to rapidly unfolding developments on the ground while still retaining robust accountability and congressional oversight of these programs.

As Members will recall, on March 27, the President announced a new strategy to guide U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This strategy focused our efforts, the U.S. efforts, toward meeting a core goal: to disrupt, to dismantle and to defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Afghanistan or Pakistan.

As our intelligence agencies have made clear, the threats emanating from al Qaeda and from their allies in Pakistan directly endanger our homeland security, the survival of Pakistan as a modern nation-state and the security of our friends and allies around the world.

The President as well as all of his top advisers, including Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates, insist that this new strategy is intended to be a framework, not a straitjacket, for U.S. policy. That is why Secretary Clinton has emphasized that the democratically-elected government in Pakistan shares our goals with respect to tackling militancy, and that is why she urged that Congress not legislate onerous conditionality that might undercut our efforts to work with Pakistanis who share the interests of the United States. That is also why Ambassador Holbrooke noted before our committee this May that certain legislative conditionality could prove seriously counterproductive.

While the authors of H.R. 1886 may have sought to empower our Pakistani partners to undertake the formidable task of fighting and winning against violent extremists, it does the opposite. Further, accountability measures for Afghanistan and Pakistan must be tightly linked to the new U.S. strategy for the region rather than outdated assessments of the situation in Pakistan and preconceived notions about the response from our Pakistani partners.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone down this road before. I recall during the Iraq debate in the last Congress Members expressed great distrust for the judgment of General Petraeus, and they sought to prejudge the surge strategy before it could even be implemented. Let us hope that this will not be repeated with respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan, as General Petraeus is now the chief of Central Command, leading the efforts of the Department of Defense in these countries and, in fact, in the broader theater.

Why does the executive branch need great flexibility in trying to execute a strategy in Pakistan? Look what is happening on the ground right now. Six weeks of fighting between the Pakistani troops and the Taliban insurgencies have forced 2 million people from their homes in the Swat Valley and in other northwestern areas.

According to Islamabad, since the operation began on April 26, 1,305 militants have been killed; 120 have been arrested; 105 soldiers have died; and 306 have been injured. In response, the extremists have launched a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks in Lahore and elsewhere across the country.

As one Pakistani writer noted, ``The terrorist backlash is principally aimed at draining public support from the army's offensive in Swat and to rattle the political and military establishments, weaken national resolve and erode public support for the anti-militancy campaign.''

Fortunately, Pakistan's democratic government has responded with firmness and with new resolve to persevere and to succeed in our mission. Perhaps even more importantly, anti-Taliban sentiment among the Pakistani people appears to be increasing in response to the mayhem that has been unleashed by the militants. But these gains are fragile, Mr. Speaker. Winning the peace could yet prove elusive. There could be little doubt that the political and military challenges ahead for the government and for the people of Pakistan are, indeed, profound.

That is why it is so important to provide this administration with flexible authorities to carry out its new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, focusing on the strategic importance of Pakistan to the United States and to the world and focusing on the need for increased security, for increased governance and for development assistance to help us meet these vitally important goals.

Finally, the rule for this bill made in order a self-executing mechanism whereby House Resolution 1318, a bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain goods from designated Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, ROZs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be incorporated into the text of H.R. 1886 even though that legislation has never even been marked up in committee.

While I support the concept of ROZs, this highly irregular maneuver is not the appropriate approach to take on this serious matter. Although we share the majority's goal, we believe that the Republican substitute that I will offer later in this debate affords the best means for the United States Congress and for the U.S. administration to work together to develop an integrated and effective assistance plan to advance our mutual interests in a democratic, stable and prosperous Pakistan that is a strong partner in the struggle against extremism and that maintains responsible controls over its nuclear weapons technology.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I will give the gentleman an additional 1 minute because we do want to clarify Senator Kerry's statements.

Before yielding time to my distinguished friend from Florida, I would like to clarify that Senator Kerry was indeed referring to the bill as amended to the text we're considering today. And further, much reference has been made to the Armed Services Committee, as the gentleman knows from Florida, but the Armed Services minority did not sign off on the bill before us due to pending concerns.

And with that, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Texas, I would like to point out, as the previous speaker noted, this is supposed to be a national security bill, yet the majority tagged on a trade bill to it, and then, under the rule, attaches it to the State bill.

I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we have noted here on the floor, too often the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been characterized by mutual frustration engendered by a growing trust gap. And while the leaderships of the two countries place a high value on our relationship, their publics and their legislatures have viewed each other with suspicion and depicted each other as unreliable allies. But with the advent of a new administration, both in Pakistan and in the United States, we're offered a window of opportunity to redefine, to recalibrate relations.

Both sides need to guard against unrealistic expectations but be prepared to engage in an honest dialogue; and therein lies the rub, Mr. Speaker. As a Pakistani civil society leader and a close confidant of the late Benazir Bhutto has said, ``Conditioning aid turns on its head the very rationale for assistance to stabilize Pakistan and empower it to deal more effectively with security challenges. An approach that treats Pakistan from the paradigm of `hired help' rather than `valued ally' is deeply counterproductive. It only reinforces the transactional nature of ties that are so resented by Pakistanis.''

Mr. Speaker, our overarching goal should and, indeed, must be--do no harm. Unfortunately, the bill before us could hamper, rather than help, vital U.S. security and strategic objectives regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.

At this point I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Hunter of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am experiencing deja vu. The seemingly same arguments that opponents of General Petraeus and his Iraq surge strategy used just under 2 years ago about Iraqis and the Iraqi government and their commitment to fighting extremist groups, they are making an appearance today in this Chamber with respect to Pakistan.

U.S. commanders have just begun to assess the situation on the ground to determine the need to implement that new strategy, and some of the speakers today are already tying the U.S.' hands while prejudging the response of Pakistan. We should be focusing on success, on prevailing against al Qaeda, prevailing against the Taliban, not anticipating failure.

While the authors of this bill seek to empower our Pakistani partners to confront insurgency and militarism, I feel that this bill will actually inadvertently have a counterproductive impact by potentially making the Pakistani government appear subservient to the United States, as Senator Kerry suggested. This bill could weaken Pakistani democracy as well as could potentially fuel paranoia, wild conspiracy theories that help give rise to that country's visceral and deep-seated anti-American feelings.

So I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, examine carefully what we are doing to our military, what we are doing to this new administration, and come to the correct conclusion that they should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, the substitute amendment reflects input from, and was drafted in coordination with, the ranking members of the Committees on Appropriations, on Armed Services, on Homeland Security and Intelligence. In so doing, this approach emulated to some degree the administration's interagency strategic review.

The substitute recognizes that of all the foreign policy challenges facing the United States, stabilizing and reforming Pakistan may be one of the most daunting. Given the enormous complexities and the ever- changing nature of the situation in Pakistan, we believe that it is critical at this stage that the administration retain the necessary flexibility to craft policies that offer the best chance of successfully partnering with the people of Pakistan, with the government of Pakistan, and with the military of Pakistan to defeat violent extremism.

At the same time, the substitute requires an ongoing policy dialogue between the administration and the Congress regarding U.S. policy toward Pakistan, as well as robust legislative oversight of our strategy, of our implementation plan, as well as allocation and expenditure of U.S. assistance.

The Republican substitute requires that not later than 30 days after the enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2009, the President submit to Congress a comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan for U.S. efforts to eliminate safe havens and help toward the long-term security and stability in Pakistan.

Let me repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. Thirty days after enactment of the current supplemental under discussion, the President is required to produce a comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan. This is more timely than what is in the underlying bill, and it seeks to address immediate as well as evolving dynamics.

The Republican substitute relies on the President's leadership and his commitment in providing the strategy and implementation plan to the Congress, but does require that plan to include a description of how the U.S. assistance will be used in order to achieve our U.S. foreign policy objectives.

What does that include? Enhancing stable democratic governments, making sure that we have economic growth, developing Pakistani counterinsurgency capabilities, success in shutting down safe havens for extremists, improving the capacity and capability of Pakistan to hold and build areas cleared of insurgents to prevent their return, and developing and strengthening mechanisms for Pakistan-Afghanistan cooperation, for they cannot be separated.

The substitute also requires that the report include a detailed financial plan of the resources, of the programming and of the management of U.S. assistance to Pakistan and the criteria used to determine their need and value in advancing our U.S. objectives.

This substitute seeks to ensure that congressional oversight and notification keeps pace with changing conditions on the ground, and in turn, changes in strategy and their implementation.

The Republican substitute also fully funds the administration's request for the critically important new Pakistan counterinsurgency capability fund.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican substitute, as I was saying, also fully funds the administration's request for the critically important new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, PCCF. Forging an effective partnership with Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus has not been a straightforward affair. Although the United States has enjoyed some success, our efforts have also been hampered by a series of exceptionally difficult problems.

One is a matter of a threat perception and divergent strategic priorities, with Pakistan almost obsessively focused on their traditional rival in India.

Another problem is the legacy of mistrust on both sides, a trust deficit, as I discussed earlier, that continues to greatly complicate our bilateral relations.

A third problem is a limited Pakistani ability to conduct modern counterinsurgency, and to some degree counterterrorism operations, against al Qaeda and their allies in the tribal areas. There is no question, for example, that Pakistan needs to fully cooperate with New Delhi in holding accountable all of those responsible for the brutal assault in Mumbai as well as work with the U.S. and others on critical nonproliferation concerns.

We do not disagree with the overarching goals and the strategic priorities that we want to achieve in relation to Pakistan. Our disagreement is that at this juncture we believe that the best way to achieve critical interests is to give the administration the scope to develop intensive, multiple approaches to rebuild, to strengthen relationships with Pakistan, and address threats common to both of our nations.

We believe the Republican substitute is a more workable basis than the underlying bill for being a partner with Pakistan at this critical time.

The substitute heeds the concerns raised by Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Admiral Mullen, who wrote about this underlying bill.

The Department is concerned about aspects of this bill, in particular, those provisions that impose conditions on the furnishing of military assistance that may undermine current administration authorities such as the Global Train and Equip authority. And furthermore, this will allow the Department to use the funds expeditiously and effectively without these purse strings, as evolving circumstance may warrant, in an effort to implement the President's strategy for the region most effectively.

And I think that this Republican substitute gets to what the Department of Defense wishes to do, what the Obama administration wants to achieve, what our democratic allies in Pakistan and here, our strong military in the U.S., wants to achieve; a robust, free and democratic Pakistan upon which we can build that level of trust again.

I hope our colleagues support our Republican substitute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hoekstra.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 1 minute.

We fully agree with the chairman that much of the prior investment in Pakistan has failed to yield all of the results that we hoped for and that it is appropriate to require the administration to develop scientific, specific, meaningful performance-based measures.

Where we differ, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not mandate that the executive branch follow a specific new congressionally mandated methodology, which may not even be technically correct, even before the new administration has had time to operationalize their new South Asia strategy.

Our substitute, therefore, requires that as part of the comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan mandated by the legislation that the administration put forth a robust and detailed financial plan, a description of the resources, of the programming, of the management of the United States foreign assistance to Pakistan, including the criteria used to determine this prioritization. We believe that this is the correct approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican substitute will allow for the development of specific, credible measures of effectiveness that are tightly linked to the President's strategy for the region and are therefore preferable to those that stem from the legislation. And I would like to just briefly address, and I don't have much time, some of the issues raised in favor of the underlying bill and against my substitute.

First, some of the speakers are seeking to fuel distrust between Pakistan and India, and they use the Congress' strong support for the world's largest democracy, India, to create the impression that U.S. assistance has been and would be used against India. That is counterproductive. It is not correct. It is dangerous and disingenuous.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the Republican substitute and reject the underlying bill.

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

I thank very much the distinguished chairman of the full committee for both his insight and his leadership, and my good friend, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Ackerman, and my doubly good friend, Mr. Burton, who was just on the floor of the House who shares with me this commitment to Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we must go forward today is for the very reason that our colleagues have been addressing themselves to our colleagues, if you will. We have a crisis, a dire crisis in Pakistan. There is no time for us to quarrel over what really are minimal differences, if you will. Right now, as we speak, 2\1/2\ million people are homeless. They are fleeing the conflicts in the Swat area that has been initiated by the Pakistani Government that is standing not for America, but is standing for the freedom of her people. And we must applaud these actions.

We must look to the leadership of the President, the leadership of the Secretary of State, who has a strong commitment to Pakistan, the policies of this new government. Our government is to recognize Pakistan as an ally. And so 1886 is a bill that recognizes comprehensively that we have an equal ally that is fighting against terrorism within their borders.

I have been to Peshawar, Islamabad, and any number of the sites visiting with leaders around the Nation. I have been to the schools that are trying to replace the madrasas. And in this legislation, we have, for example, a Pakistan development and prosperity fund.

Just 3 weeks ago, a hundred-plus members of the Pakistani community met in New York to talk about how they can provide social services to that nation. As we speak, there are medical doctors from the Pakistani- American community that are leaving their homes here in the United States to go to Pakistan to help these refugees.

So let us look at the big picture that this legislation provides. The prosperity fund, yes, there are conditionalities, but I would suggest that they are refrained from the issues that the distinguished Member in the other body spoke to, and we're going to work even further.

But if our colleagues appreciate the fact that there are dire conditions that the Pakistan military is fighting the terrorists, they will help us pass 1886. This bill refers, itself, to the nuclear materials and requires the protecting of those materials. Do we want to leave that willy-nilly?

This particular legislation also, in essence, helps to protect women and girls, to provide more resources for women and girls. It helps to deradicalize the youth. This legislation is a stopgap to the crisis and the emergency.

I ask my colleagues to read it. This bill should be passed.

I urge you to support H.R. 1886, The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act. H.R. 1886 establishes a new, more positive framework for U.S.-Pakistan relations. The legislation establishes a set of principles that should govern the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, including the actions that the two countries should take to maintain a robust, relevant and lasting relationship. The bill is comprised of three titles.

The first title provides Economic, Social and Democratic Development Assistance for Pakistan; the second title provides Security Assistance for Pakistan; and the third title requires the President to develop a regional security strategy; provides for enhanced monitoring, evaluation, and auditing of U.S. assistance; requires a Presidential report on Pakistan, including an evaluation on Pakistan's progress in counterterrorism and an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan is in any way facilitating the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; and requires that all assistance to Pakistan be provided through a civilian government in Pakistan established by free and fair elections.

Pakistan is a critical ally of the United States. For too long, however, our relationship with Pakistan has been one of fits and starts, depending on events in the region and who happens to be in power in Pakistan. It is time for us the United States to forge a truly strategic partnership with Pakistan, one that goes beyond our mutual interest today in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism and speaks to the everyday needs of the average Pakistani.

H.R. 1886 accomplishes these objectives. The legislation would significantly expand economic, social and democracy assistance to help lay the foundation for a stronger, more stable Pakistan. In particular, the bill authorizes a Pakistan Democracy and Prosperity Fund, a permanent fund in the U.S. Treasury for which the United States, along with other interested nations, nongovernmental organizations and even private citizens, can contribute

to the prosperous future of Pakistan. The fund also provides additional flexibility to the State Department in order to provide such assistance, thereby responding to the ever dynamic situation Pakistan faces with its on going efforts to counter a domestic insurgency and provide humanitarian care for its displaced people.

As much as we must focus on the internal conflicts in Pakistan, we must not forget the external issues affecting the region as a whole and the need for stabilization.

Over the years, U.S. assistance to Pakistan has fluctuate with political events, sending mixed messages and leading most Pakistanis to question both our intentions and our staying power. Today, many Pakistanis believe the United States will cut and run when it serves our purpose, a belief which undermines our longterm efforts to defeat extremists, foster democratic change, and support transparent and accountable institutions that promote security and stability in Pakistan.

However, the status quo is not working: many in the United States believe we are paying too much and getting too little--and most Pakistanis believe exactly the opposite. Without changing this baseline, there is little likelihood of drying up popular tolerance for anti-U.S. terrorist groups or persuading Pakistani leaders to devote the political capital necessary to deny such groups sanctuary and covert material support.

The bill helps bridge a sustainable U.S.-Pakistan partnership through an increased focus on public diplomacy and engagement. H.R. 1886 authorizes a new exchange program for Pakistani civil servants and military officers in order to foster greater respect for and understanding of the principle of civilian rule in Pakistan's military. By building bridges to Pakistan and its people, the legislation is intended to provide a new, more positive framework for U.S.-Pakistan relations. Finally, the bill authorizes an extensive increase in military assistance to help Pakistan wage an effective counterinsurgency campaign against those forces that threaten Pakistan's national security.

This legislation establishes a new, more positive framework for U.S.- Pakistan relations. The legislation establishes a set of principles that should govern the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, including the actions that the two countries should take to maintain a robust, relevant and lasting relationship.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for affording me this opportunity to address the Rules Committee and explain my amendment to H.R. 1886, the ``Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Act''.

My amendment is a simple but important addition to this important legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this Committee.

My amendment would foster counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan with the creation of militant rehabilitation programs designed to rehabilitate insurgents and to prevent youth from turning to militancy from the onset. Financial support and job opportunities will be provided to graduates of the rehabilitation programs as incentives for steering insurgents away from militancy.

H.R. 1886 establishes a new, more positive framework for U.S.- Pakistan relations. The legislation establishes a set of principles that should govern the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, including the actions that the two countries should take to maintain a robust, relevant and lasting relationship. The bill is comprised of three titles.

The first Title provides Economic, Social and Democratic Development Assistance for Pakistan; the second Title provides Security Assistance for Pakistan; and the third Title requires the President to develop a regional security strategy; provides for enhanced monitoring, evaluation, and auditing of U.S. assistance; requires a Presidential report on Pakistan, including an evaluation on Pakistan's progress in counterterrorism and an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan is in any way facilitating the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; and requires that all assistance to Pakistan be provided through a civilian government in Pakistan established by free and fair elections.

I urge you to support my amendment.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

We cannot wait, and I just suggest to my colleagues that they would look quickly at these pictures where the Pakistan military is fighting terrorism, and these are the activities that are happening in that area. People are fleeing terrorism and the people that are in these camps are suffering. We cannot wait for this legislation.

I oppose the Republican substitute because I want not an isolation of Pakistan, I want a regional response, a comprehensive regional strategy, including the role of countries outside the region in supporting Pakistan's efforts to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban, a global effort. The Republican substitute has a one-on-one effort. We need a global effort.

Let me also suggest that there is important language in this legislation because if we suggest that the Pentagon is not favorable, the Pentagon has indicated that they are aware of the counterinsurgency efforts that the Pakistan military is engaging in and they're satisfied with the structure of this legislation that would help them continue to fight terrorism. We can work out some of the kinks, but are we going to wait while people are suffering?

This legislation also has a recognition that we are establishing a new relationship with Pakistan and the United States, a friendship relationship. We are acknowledging the recent efforts of the Pakistan military in Swat, and we're also suggesting that if there are changes in Pakistan, we will reconsider some of the requirements or some of the structures that we put in place.

I would also say to my colleagues that I hope the Republicans who are so interested in Pakistan would be interested in making sure the International Monetary Fund is funded like the President would like it to be and that they will join in that support because they're so strongly in support of Pakistan, which got money from it in the last year.

In addition, there are issues dealing with trade, but the AFL-CIO is supporting it because of the way the structure is. We have an effective balance of helping them establish a better economy but at the same time respecting our trade requirements over here in the United States. This is the way to address this issue. But I can't imagine that my colleagues want to leave Pakistan and the people of Pakistan in these dire conditions.

Pakistan Americans recognize we are establishing a new friendship, and on that new friendship we need to oppose the Republican substitute and support H.R. 1886.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act. The legislation, originally introduced as H.R. 1318, was subsequently incorporated into H.R. 1886, to authorize Democratic, Economic and Social Development Assistance for Pakistan, introduced by Congressman Berman, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This legislation is aimed at protecting our homeland and those of our allies in the fight against Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan by providing tools for economic development.

We worked with the Bush Administration to craft the framework of this legislation. This initiative was subsequently embraced by President Obama who specifically incorporated it into his counterinsurgency strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan. This bill authorizes the President of the United States to designate specific trade zones, known as Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs), in Afghanistan and in certain regions of Pakistan to create economic opportunities.

These ROZs will allow qualified businesses duty-free access into U.S. markets for designated products, thereby providing significant employment opportunities where few currently exist. A ROZ program could go a long way to bolster economic development in this critical region of the world where extremists have tried to exploit the lack of economic opportunities to gain recruits for their radical agenda.

Enhanced security efforts by the United States, as well as a strong foreign and military assistance program, are needed to disrupt and weaken Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. These extremist groups exploit the poor socio-economic conditions, such as high unemployment, in the border areas, to gain adherents to their nefarious causes. With no meaningful alternatives, young men in particular are vulnerable to their entreaties.

This legislation was endorsed by the Washington Post in an editorial on March 22, 2009. Moreover, in a letter to the Speaker this week, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the State Department, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, reiterated the Administration's support and noted that ``ROZs are an important component of the President's comprehensive national security strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need enactment of ROZ legislation as quickly as possible to help facilitate success.''

I urge all Members of the House to support this valuable program and vote for this bill today. I ask unanimous consent to insert, into the Record, the speech of President Obama, the letter of Ambassador Holbrooke and the Washington Post editorial with my statement.

Department of State,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Dear Madam Speaker: Thank you for giving me the opportunity

on Monday to discuss legislation creating Reconstruction

Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to

reiterate the Administration's support. As you know, the

House version (H.R. 1318) of this bipartisan legislation is

sponsored by Representative Chris Van Hollen. Allow me to

reaffirm, in writing, the key points, in the hope they will

be useful as you proceed.

First, let me emphasize that ROZs are a vital component of

our policy toward Pakistan in a moment of great challenge,

indeed crisis, for that critically important nation.

Pakistan's stability and security are directly related to our

own national security and the ROZ legislation addresses

issues central to the very area in which, at present, there

are well over 2 million internal refugees and in which the

Taliban and al-Qaeda are operating.

Military power alone cannot bring peace to Afghanistan and

Pakistan. ROZs are an important component of the President's

comprehensive national security strategy in Afghanistan and

Pakistan, and we need enactment of ROZ legislation as quickly

as possible to help facilitate success. As the President put

it earlier this year in calling for Congress to enact this

bipartisan bill, ROZs will ``develop the economy [in the

border regions] and bring hope to places plagued by

violence.''

By spurring economic growth and job creation, ROZs will

provide legitimate job opportunities in high-unemployment,

high-poverty areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan where

livelihood choices are extremely limited. We need ROZs now--

economic opportunities must be expanded to quickly follow up

military operations with economic development to prove to

populations in critical targeted areas that there are

benefits to defeating the militants. Simply put, ROZs are

crucial to the ``build'' part of our ``clear-hold-build''

counterinsurgency efforts and will help us to assist the

Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to create conditions

on the ground that will help marginalize the insurgents.

ROZs will enhance our ``whole of government'' strategy and

will be a highly visible example of U.S. commitment to the

long-term prosperity of the Afghan and Pakistani peoples. On

my trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan, I hear a constant

refrain from all quarters in these societies about the

importance of this legislation, including the signal its

passage would send about the strength of the long-term

relationships between our peoples.

Thank you again for your leadership. I am committed to

working with you and other Congressional leaders to quickly

enact Pakistan and Afghanistan ROZs into law.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Holbrooke,

Special Representative for

Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for yielding the time.

You know, Pakistan and Afghanistan are very difficult parts of the world. As we develop the strategies, I think many of us have the same goals and objectives in mind, but we need to take a look at exactly what we're doing today.

I'm proud to support the Republican amendment to the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009. Interestingly, I believe that this substitute supports our current President's direction that he has outlined for Pakistan and Afghanistan. It supports President Obama's strategy to address the situation in Pakistan, to restore peace and stability to that region.

Maybe, once again, this is another foreign policy initiative where President Obama has decided that perhaps following some of the direction outlined under the Bush administration may not be a bad idea.

I'm one of many Republican ranking members to come forward today to express concern about the majority's bill and to urge support for the Republican substitute. The Democratic bill places too many restrictions on the ability of the President's advisors and the U.S. military to conduct diplomacy and military operations in the region.

In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen raised their concern about the majority's bill, noting that ``The degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in H.R. 1886 ``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in Pakistan.''

But obviously, they're saying, our troops in Afghanistan and the military in Pakistan and our support of the military efforts in Pakistan require more flexibility than what this bill will allow.

From intelligence briefings, I understand how volatile the situation is in Pakistan. Just on Tuesday, there was a hotel bombing, 18 people killed. The Pakistan Army has been engaged in a battle in the Swat Valley against Taliban militants. Any legislation on Pakistan must give the administration both flexibility to react to the fast-paced developments and the opportunity to develop a plan on how it will implement its strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Instead of flexibility, this bill is full of restrictive and intrusive provisions that I'm not sure we'd even apply to the United States, where the Democrat majority is trying to dictate and micromanage the President's administration's Pakistan policy. Their bill even includes language to increase Pakistani teacher salaries. It goes into the detail of the level of assistance for student meals.

Wow. That doesn't sound like we're giving the Paks a whole lot of flexibility to even run their own country. This down-in-the-weeds language may represent a new low for congressional micromanagement, not to mention a distraction from the crucial issue of bringing peace and stability to the region.

We need to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan. That is our goal. That is our mission. This Congress shouldn't be dictating to the Pakistanis teacher salaries and the level of assistance that it needs to provide students for meals in Pakistan.

Republicans have been unfairly criticized in the press as being the party of ``no.'' Not only are the Republicans being the party of ``yes'' on this bill, we're also being more supportive of the Obama administration's Pakistan policy than the Democrat majority.

We support President Obama's efforts in the region. We want them to succeed. I believe the Republican amendment presents the best way Congress can ensure and move toward success in Pakistan and, at the same time, make sure that we stay united on foreign policy, because this amendment, this substitute supports the President's Pakistan strategy.

So let's stand with the President. Let's move forward. Let's make sure that we're united, Republicans and Democrats, House, Senate and the administration, in supporting this President's direction for Pakistan.

I ask my colleagues to support the Republican substitute.

I thank my colleague for yielding, but I felt I needed to respond as my name was brought up from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

You know, the ROZs in this rule process, regardless of the underlying bill, will be part of the final package that moves through. What happens with the Democrat base bill here is they undercut many of the things and put in a lot of restrictions that, as Congressman Van Hollen and I tried to craft the bill together, we wanted to make sure that there was enough freedom for these programs to be successful. And the important thing here is you can vote for the substitute. The ROZs become part of the program when the substitute passes on final passage, after it replaces the underlying Democrat amendment.

So I thank you. I think I understand the rule, but to say that I was not supportive of the ROZs because I was supporting the substitute I don't believe is an accurate indication.