Providing for consideration of 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 providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2410) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to modernize the Foreign Service, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, the United States now confronts the most complex array of threats in many decades, if not the entire history, of our Nation.

Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking and climate change all pose major challenges to our national security. And we must confront these threats in the midst of a global financial crisis with enormous ramifications both at home and around the world.

Our brave men and women in uniform are making unbelievable sacrifices to

protect our security interests around the globe. They and their families deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. But we should not expect the military to shoulder the entire burden.

The State Department and our other civilian foreign affairs agencies have a critical role to play in protecting U.S. national security. Diplomacy, development, and defense are the three key pillars of our U.S. national security policy. By wisely investing resources to strengthen our diplomatic capabilities, we can help prevent conflicts before they start and head off conditions that lead to failed states.

For years we have failed to provide the State Department with the resources it desperately needs to pursue its core missions. With the expansion of U.S. diplomatic responsibilities in the 1990s, and the more recent demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Foreign Service has been strained to the breaking point. Sixteen percent of all positions are currently unfilled. One in nine positions overseas is vacant.

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated: ``It has become clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long.''

The legislation before us today, Mr. Chairman, takes an important first step in correcting that situation. It supports President Obama's request for funding to hire over 1,000 new staff, including at least 750 Foreign Service officers; 332 of these positions will be used to immediately expand our diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other strategic areas. A further 213 positions will be dedicated to improving and expanding training in critical needs languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu.

The bill also provides resources requested by the administration for significant numbers of new public diplomacy officers, arms control experts, counterterrorism specialists.

And the bill has important provisions to promote more strategic thinking in the State Department and help the Foreign Service transition from traditional diplomatic framework to a more expeditionary one.

To help ensure the Department can continue to attract the best and brightest and retain these professionals over the long term, H.R. 2410 closes the pay gap that currently results in a 21 percent pay cut when junior Foreign Service officers leave Washington on assignment.

The bill also authorizes funds to pay our full dues and all recognized arrearages to the United Nations.

The legislation supports a significant expansion of the Peace Corps, an increase in international broadcasting activities, a vigorous public diplomacy effort, and a strengthened arms control and nonproliferation bureau at the State Department, which will soon be under the head of our dear colleague, Mrs. Tauscher.

In addition, the bill creates a new foundation to significantly increase the number of American students studying abroad, enhances U.S. efforts to help Mexico and other Latin American countries reduce drug violence, and addresses a number of key human rights and democracy issues around the world.

H.R. 2410 also reforms our system of export controls for military technology, improves oversight of U.S. security assistance, and requires a report to Congress on actions taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge.

This legislation is supported by a wide range of organizations, from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, on one hand, to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on the other. From the Aerospace Industries Association, the Satellite Industry Association, on one hand, to CARE, Oxfam, the Peace Corps Association, Refugees International, and the Genocide Intervention Network on the other, the Save Darfur Council, Church World Service, and the American Council on Education, a coalition of all the major public and private universities in this country all strongly support this legislation.

I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, Mr. Ackerman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to one of the new members of the committee who has been of tremendous assistance on a variety of issues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to another new Member of the House and of the committee, a great Member, Mr. McMahon, for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a good friend from California who has been on the committee and has returned, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very active and distinguished member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a great member of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa. He's chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, my friend, Eni Faleomavaega.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to a former member of the committee, a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I want to manifest very clearly my intention to take up a major rewrite of foreign assistance legislation later this year, and we will address the issues raised in the Water For the World Act as part of that effort.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a friend of a very, very long time, a member of the committee as well as the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee--she was, then she wasn't, and now she is--and my friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a great member of our committee, also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield to another excellent member of the committee, former colleague in the legislature in California, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Watson), 1 minute.

I am pleased to yield an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank him for his suggestion. I agree completely that science constitutes an untapped and undertapped resource in America's diplomatic toolbox, and I can assure the gentleman that I am committed to enhancing our capacity in this area, collaborating with him on this effort, including further legislation as well as a role in the foreign assistance reform process that we are working on.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate it.

The answer is, I certainly do agree. In the case of China, under our legislation, all satellites and related components must remain on the United States munitions list.

Will the gentleman yield further?

The gentleman's remarks are worth elaborating on. The whole notion of a domestic commercial satellite industry is very much at stake if we can't, in appropriate situations, export and arrange for those kinds of transfers, and I think it is part of what the gentleman pointed out. That is why both the Satellite Industry Association and the Aerospace Industries Association support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2009.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Berman: I am writing about H.R. 2410, the

``Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010

and 2011.'' The Committee on Foreign Affairs reported this

legislation to the House on June 4, 2009.

I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of

H.R. 2410 that fall within the Oversight Committee's

jurisdiction. These provisions address issues related to the

federal civil service and government contractors.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 2410,

the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential

referral of this bill. I would, however, request your support

for the appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee

should H.R. 2410 or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate. Moreover, this letter should not

be construed as a waiver of the Oversight Committee's

legislative jurisdiction over subjects addressed in H.R. 2410

that fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee.

Please include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during consideration of this

legislation on the House floor. Again, I appreciate your

willingness to consult the Committee on these matters.

Sincerely,

Edolphus Towns,

Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

My amendment makes a number of changes. Many of these are minor or technical amendments. Others address issues raised by other committees that have a jurisdictional interest in the bill. However, there are a number of other changes in my bill that are more substantive. For example, the amendment takes care of requests by Members that are generally unobjectionable even though substantive.

For example, the bill adds a provision that would allow the State Department's growing Civilian Response Corps to enhance its capability by drawing on locally employed staff who have significant expertise in unstable environments.

It includes provisions to assist in the compensation for victims of terrorism from the 1998 Nairobi bombing, drawing from a bill that we passed last year on a bipartisan basis and supported by Mr. Jesse Jackson, Mr. Roy Blunt, and our ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

The amendment also updates language currently in the bill, welcoming the end of Sri Lanka's 26-year civil war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam. These are provisions pushed particularly by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon), a member of the committee. The United States, standing with the international community, eagerly looks forward to the government of Sri Lanka's putting forward a timely and credible proposal to engage its Tamil community and address the legitimate grievances of its Tamil citizens so that peace and reconciliation can be achieved and sustained. It also includes two requests by Republican members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, including an amendment by Mr. Wilson from South Carolina, who I agreed to work with during the markup at the committee. It also increases the amount of funds for the State Department Inspector General and the National Endowment For Democracy, as suggested by the minority in their views on the bill.

This continues my efforts to include sensible Republican ideas into H.R. 2410, even though I recognize that very few Republicans appear to be prepared to support the legislation at this time.

In addition, my amendment would also begin the process of modernizing our foreign assistance program by establishing a rigorous system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the current U.S. foreign aid program is that it lacks a clear set of goals and objectives, and there's no systematic plan for measuring results. Under my amendment, the Secretary of State would coordinate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the various agencies carrying out foreign aid activities, and would report to the Congress on the findings and lessons learned from such evaluations.

Finally, in recent days--and this is important--there has been significant concern expressed that a provision in the bill authorizing the Office of Global Women's Issues, an existing office at the State Department that focuses on issues like education for women and girls, political empowerment, and violence against women, somehow is a basis for promoting or lobbying for abortion. That is simply not true. The bill as reported out by the committee does not refer to abortion in any way, nor does the office work on abortion issues. That office is focused particularly on women in Iraq and in Afghanistan on the issues of education and political empowerment that I just mentioned.

To reassure my colleagues, however, I have included in my amendment the following new subsection:

``Nothing in this section, and in particular the duties of the office described in subsection (c)''--that is the Office of Global Women's Issues--``shall be construed as affecting in any way existing statutory prohibitions against abortion or existing statutory prohibitions on the use of funds to engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or policies in effect in any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.''

This language makes it very clear that existing prohibitions on lobbying for or using funds to promote abortion--including the Helms amendment, the Leahy amendment and the Siljander amendment--remain in effect and will continue to apply to the actions of the office. I believe this confirms that the bill does not undermine current law in any way and will reassure my colleagues on this issue.

I think this manager's amendment is a good amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

They cannot. If the gentleman is yielding on his time to me, they cannot. You know, Abe Lincoln used to tell this story: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? And the answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

No matter how many times the specter is raised, this office cannot do and has no intention and no plans of doing anything to promote abortions, coerce abortions, fund abortions or lobby for an abortion policy.

It is an office that is focused generally on the issues of women's political empowerment: should women have the right to vote, should they be able to run for office, are they treated as equal citizens under the law. It serves as a promoter of better education for women and girls and a series of causes that you are known for caring about. And it does not. It does not.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, my view is that that office cannot do through indirection, that is by going through some agency, anything that it is not allowed to do on its own. And it is not allowed to do the things that you are concerned about. And the purpose of the manager's amendment----

I will yield more time to discuss this, if you want, but first I am going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), who has been waiting patiently. Then, if you want, we can come back to this.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just lay out this Office of Global Women's Issues. First of all, by law, by virtue of the Helms amendment and the Siljander amendment and the Leahy amendment, it cannot and, by practice, it does not and has no intention of serving as a vehicle for either abortion policy or coercive abortion.

What does it do? It is dedicated to ensuring that women around the world can realize their potential by fully participating in the political, economic and cultural lives of their societies.

Women around the globe, and the gentleman from New Jersey knows this, women are bought and sold like commodities and trafficked across international borders for sexual exploitation. Young children are married off to men old enough to be their grandfathers and have their education and childhood abruptly ended. Girls have their bodies mutilated in the name of culture or tradition, leading to complication in childbearing and lifelong pain and incontinence. Young women are slain by their own families for perceived and sometimes fictitious infractions, simply because they are viewed less as human beings and as symbols of human honor.

Women who become infected with HIV, often because of the infidelity of their spouses, are shunned, lose their livelihoods or do not have access to the medicines that could prolong their lives and prevent transmission of the virus to their children.

I say to the gentleman, these causes and these concerns that I have mentioned have always been at the forefront of the gentleman's own concerns, and to hold this entire bill and this office hostage to a desire to change abortion law I think is unfair.

I scrupulously avoided and the committee Democrats scrupulously avoided any effort to change that law in the other direction, and I think it is wrong to try to hijack this bill to hold it hostage for those purposes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask if the gentlelady is finished.

Our side has the right to close. Then since I'll be the only speaker and I have the right to close--

I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, up to 5 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I share a lot of the ranking member's concerns, fundamentally, about the countries named in her amendment and about the issue of proliferation. But there are sort of three different levels on which I think her amendment raises serious doubts and causes me to want to oppose it.

The first is the assumption that withholding assessed contributions produces the actions we want. We've had test cases of this.

Wouldn't it have been great if the money we withheld from the U.N. population planning account had stopped coercive abortions in China?

Wouldn't it be great if the dues we are assessed to pay to the United Nations had resulted in the kinds of reforms that eliminated the questionable contact that the minority rightfully points to? There is a real challenge to this assumption that the withholding is what achieves the goal. We can wish it a lot, but it didn't always happen.

Secondly, there are some specific categories of programs here that are involved and should be mentioned because, in some cases, they make some sense. The technical assistance provided by IAEA is constructive and supportive of a number of humanitarian needs, such as the eradication of the tsetse fly in numerous African countries, the fruit fly in Panama, improving cancer diagnosis and treatment in Tanzania, Niger, Mali, Zambia and the Central African Republic, improvements in agriculture in groundwater tracing. These are the kinds of programs that are involved.

Once in a while there may be a project such as in Iran or Syria that may provide a small amount of useful experience in general nuclear science and radiology. But the most important part is to the extent that some of these programs are about enhancing safety.

The U.S. is totally free on the board to vote against those projects at the Board of Governors, and does so. The U.S. already denies extra budgetary funding for technical cooperation projects for state sponsors of terrorism, which the countries the gentlelady mentioned are.

However, the proposed amendment mandates the withholding, not of the voluntary contributions, not of the extra budgetary support, but of the U.S. regular dues to the IAEA.

So what does it do?

It hampers the Agency's primary function, which is the inspecting and safeguarding of nuclear material in foreign countries. This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The IAEA's technical assistance program is funded entirely from voluntary contributions. The program that, understandably, concerns the gentlelady is not from the assessed contributions. It's from the voluntary contributions. The amendment is not focused on the voluntary contributions. It's focused on the assessed contributions.

So what will we do? We'll end up cutting the funds that would otherwise be used by the IAEA to ensure that states are not diverting nuclear material from peaceful to military purposes--pretty serious concern--inspections that are in the direct national security interest of the United States. That's what we're cutting.

So that's why I think the amendment, not by its intention, and not even by its focus on these programs, we could live without those programs, but its focus on cutting the assessed dues to the most important functions for the United States of the IAEA makes no sense, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his excellent amendment. I strongly support it because it basically works to encourage the development of the fundamental skills of the Foreign Service.

It seeks to broaden the skill set of the Foreign Service by requiring this plan to increase career incentives provided to Foreign Service officers to serve in the bureaus and offices of the Department not primarily focused on regional issues, including the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Bureau of Oceans and International Environment, and the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.

It asks the Secretary to consider requiring all Foreign Service officers to serve at least 2 years in a bureau office of the Department not primarily focused on regional issues. And it takes a look at the whole issue of changing the composition of the Selection and Promotion Board to increase the participation of those Foreign Service officers with extensive experience in the nonregional bureaus. Very important. There was a tendency in the past that gets entrenched that the way you get ahead in the Foreign Service is you work in the regional bureaus, you work in the political or the economic aspect of that. And the result is that critical issues involving functional programs and these other bureaus are neglected. We want the best and the brightest in all these different areas, and we should look to remove any internal biases that disincentivize that activity.

I thank the gentleman.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While the gentleman may have broken the podium, his amendment does not break the task force; it improves it. The Secretary of Defense should be a member of that task force, and this amendment simply establishes that rather than leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion. That's fine with me.

I support the amendment and urge its adoption. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his amendment. I strongly support it.

A number of immigrants to the United States from the former Soviet Union worked for decades in the Soviet-run industries, contributed to the state's social security system, and expected to receive their rightful pensions when they reached the requisite age. For a variety of reasons beyond their control, they haven't received their pensions. And some of these workers were forced to renounce their citizenship when they moved to the United States.

As many of the former Soviet states refuse to pay pensions to those who are no longer citizens, these elderly individuals face a bureaucratic nightmare in seeking to reclaim their rights. This amendment expresses our sense of Congress that we should work with the former Soviet states to establish a workable system that enables the

workers to claim pensions that are rightfully theirs. It is appropriate. It's right. And I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition even though I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment encourages the administration to create a Comprehensive Interagency Strategy and Implementation Plan for Sudan. I have spoken with Mr. McCaul about his proposal and agree that developing a coherent approach to the situation in Sudan is critical. The United States must make every effort to address the ongoing and interrelated crises in Sudan. The U.S. should work towards a stable and lasting peace in a region that has seen so many tragedies in recent years.

I have no objection to this amendment, and I look forward to working with Mr. McCaul on this provision as the bill moves through the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of the amendment for yielding.

It's really an excellent amendment. If we want to encourage the international cooperation that's needed in this area, I'm telling you you've got to ensure that the entrepreneurs and the innovators know that their cutting-edge breakthroughs and innovations are protected. This isn't even as much about fair return for the inventors as it is ensuring that people will keep innovating and researching and advancing the technologies because they know that ultimately they will be compensated. So it's a symbiotic relationship. The more we ensure and protect intellectual property, the more we will be able to do in achieving our very important goals with respect to the development and deployment of new energy and environmental technologies.

Last year, the United Nations reported that the global market for environmental technologies could double to $2.74 trillion by 2020 from the $1.37 trillion today because of growth in areas

like energy-efficient technologies, sustainable transport systems, and water supply and efficiencies markets.

This is a very important amendment. Again, I think it is essential to the development and deployment of these new technologies, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take our time in opposition to this bill.

And, Mr. Chairman, some Dear Colleague letters sent out by a few Members earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, in order to express their support for this bill, tended to focus on the few attractive features of the bill, such as the improvements that it would make on the Merida Initiative, our vital effort to assist Mexico and other Central American countries to fight the dangerous drug cartels.

Unfortunately, supporters of this bill have remained silent or ignored its fundamental problems. And the fundamental problems on this bill are that the bill calls for exorbitant spending in the absence of true reform, and that the bill does not take the difficult but necessary step of setting priorities, either with out-of-control spending or with important international issues that are facing our country.

By our best estimate, the bill before us represents an estimated 12 percent increase in planned expenditures above the levels of fiscal year 2009. It creates 20 new government entities, offices, foundations, programs and the like. These new programs, and these new initiatives that are funded in this bill constitute expenditures that go beyond even this 12 percent increase to accounts previously funded in fiscal year 2009.

The bill also represents a 35 percent increase in State Department main salary and operating accounts. We have to ask ourselves, where is the money coming from to support the additional funding?

In the coming fiscal year alone, Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2010, we are expected to have to pay almost $285 billion, that's billion with a B, in interest costs, just interest, not payment on the debt itself. By fiscal year 2014, our cost for interest on the debt will likely have risen to about $560 billion, again, that's with a B, in that year alone, again, for interest payments alone, not for the debt payments that will have to be made.

Our deficit in the coming fiscal year, 2010, is now projected to total an estimated $1.3 trillion. Yet the funding levels proposed by this bill seem oddly detached from the reality that our families are facing today and that our Nation is facing.

Both in committee markup and at the Rules Committee, I offered amendments that would have capped increases for next year at 3.7 percent, a 2008 annual rate of inflation. This amendment would have saved taxpayer dollars, more than $2.8 billion in authorized funds. That amendment, again, would have saved American taxpayers more than $2.8 billion, with a B, in authorized funds.

Unfortunately, this measured, calibrated approach was rejected twice in favor of the largesse in this spending bill.

In trying to justify the enormous spending increases in this bill, supporters paint a picture of a hollowed-out shell of a State Department suffering from years of neglect. Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service and the State Department's own data, funding for the State Department and related agencies doubled from fiscal year 2000 through 2008. This clearly shows that growing the bureaucracy and throwing money at the Department of State are not the answer.

Supporters of this bill further argue that the major funding increases for the hiring of new staff are necessary, even in the absence of reforms. I note that there was an effort last Congress by colleagues in the other Chamber to ascertain the levels of absenteeism at various U.S. Government agencies. The results for the State Department were impressive--in an ironic way. The Department explained that it did not specifically track absences without official leave. It was the only executive branch agency that could not provide such information. Instead, the State Department only tracks those incidents in which such absenteeism reaches such an egregious level that discipline is required.

As a result, we--and the management of the Department--have little idea if the Department's own personnel are at their posts at the times we would expect them to be. And although we realize the overwhelming majority of State

Department employees are hardworking patriots, they are the ones who should be upset about absenteeism in others. The bill before us today does not address such questions, nor does it build on earlier inquiries such as the ones I have cited. Instead, supporters of this bill focus their arguments on unfilled State Department vacancies. And these arguments, too, Mr. Chairman, do not bare careful scrutiny. Most of the so-called ``vacancies'' are the result of shifting personnel to high- priority posts rather than cuts in funding.

Furthermore, the State Department always shows unfilled positions on their books because those numbers are the result of our overseas posts' self-identified needs rather than being a budget-driven number. It is a way of saying that they would like more employees and more funding. What agency wouldn't? I expect that all Americans would identify very significant unfunded needs in our own homes and our families and our budgets.

Moreover, at a time when we need to cut the deficit, in just one little-noticed instance, this bill bypasses an opportunity to transfer several hundred million dollars to our Treasury to help us pay down our national debt. In fact, an amendment offered by my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was not made in order by the rule.

Mr. Burton's amendment would have required that just half of the funds of U.S.-funded enterprise funds abroad be turned over to our U.S. Treasury when they close down their operations. By remaining silent on the disposition of such funds, Mr. Chairman, this bill would instead allow loosely overseen so-called ``legacy institutions'' to take possession of all of those funds. This bill prefers to focus on creating new U.S.-funded foundations and offices that will add hundreds of millions of dollars in new costs to the taxpayers over the coming years.

And when it comes to policy issues, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not set the priorities that we believe would best serve our Nation. Not only does this bill provide close to $2 billion in funding for the United Nations--not including peacekeeping--without requiring any reform, but it also authorizes the payment of all claimed U.N. arrears or back payments. Why should American taxpayers be asked to write a blank check to the U.N.? Why not demand specific returns on our investments? Instead, efforts to leverage our contributions to secure concrete, systematic and comprehensive reforms through the U.N. system were rejected by both the Foreign Affairs Committee and in Rules.

This bill provides an inexplicable authorization to pay a higher rate for U.N. peacekeeping than even the U.N. is charging us. The bill's assessment rate could result in the U.S. paying, in 1 year alone, more than $100 million for U.N. peacekeeping above that which the U.N. requires us to pay.

The bill also fails to take any action to address endemic corruption at the United Nations. In fact, not only does the underlying bill and the manager's amendment remain silent on the U.N.'s misuse of American taxpayer funds for activities that undermine U.S. interests, but an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana--again, Mr. Burton-- which sought to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from paying for the legal fees of corrupt U.N. officials was rejected at Rules and will not be considered today because, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. has decided to pay the legal fees, possibly almost $900,000, of Benon Sevan, who ran the U.N.'s corrupt and disastrous Oil-for-Food program which was supposed to help innocent Iraqis but instead was exploited by Saddam's regime. U.S. Federal and state prosecutors have charged Sevan with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. But this bill before us does nothing to protect taxpayer dollars from bankrolling and rewarding corruption at the U.N.

The underlying bill also helps foster the culture of corruption at the United Nations by failing to leverage U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program, UNDP, until it accepts the jurisdiction of the U.N. Ethics Office.

The UNDP, to which the U.S. contributes $100 million or more per year, continues to be the poster child for mismanagement, corruption, and waste, from Zimbabwe to Uganda to Burma to North Korea. In fact, the United Nations Development Program had to pull out of North Korea after reports emerged that development aid was being diverted to the North Korean dictatorship. Now, unbelievably, UNDP is returning to North Korea with essentially no meaningful protections to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from again benefiting Kim Jong Il and his corrupt cronies. Our Treasury Department has even engaged a collection agency to retrieve over $7 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars mismanaged by UNDP in Afghanistan.

We might never know about UNDP's corruption and mismanagement without the help of brave whistleblowers. Unfortunately, whistleblowers have few protections at the U.N., and the UNDP has reportedly retaliated against a number of them, including the one who exposed their operations in North Korea.

Mr. Chairman, this bill should do more in safeguarding our constituents' hard-earned dollars. Nowhere are U.N. failures which undermine U.S. interests clearer than with respect to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. UNRWA has a strictly humanitarian mandate to provide aid to Palestinian refugees, but it continues to compromise its mandate and our U.S. taxpayer dollars. It does so by emitting propaganda against Israel in favor of Hamas, doing business with banks targeted by our government for terror financing and money laundering, and by refusing to vet its employees and aid recipients for ties to Palestinian militant groups like Hamas.

UNRWA's Commissioner-General says she doesn't even consider Hamas to be a foreign terrorist organization. And her predecessor admitted that members of Hamas were on UNRWA's payroll, saying, I don't see that as a crime. No one can guarantee that over hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funds sent to UNRWA will not end up in the hands of Hamas. Yet, this bill takes a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach, refusing to demand accountability and transparency for our investments.

Supporters of this bill will claim that it strengthens nonproliferation activities at the Department of State. However, the pertinent section of the bill contains contradictory statements regarding the Department's nonproliferation and arms control infrastructure.

On the one hand, the bill asks the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive plan to determine what the Department actually needs in terms of personnel, additional authorities and new appropriations in order to carry out its arms control and nonproliferation policies. Yet, before that plan has even been drafted, this bill removes the statutory requirement for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, authorizes $3 million for 25 new positions focused on arms control, and mandates other programs and activities. These provisions actually appear to be laying the foundation to reverse the reforms that were enacted by this House in 1998 under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Further, by removing the requirements for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, it is diminishing its importance, and targets for possible dissolution the bureau at State that was instrumental in the dismantlement of Libya's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program. This is also the one bureau that has consistently pressed for greater disclosure by the North Korean regime on the totality of its nuclear activities.

And on the issue of North Korea, Mr. Chairman, this bill and our Congress have remained largely silent on this, one of the most grave foreign policy crises currently confronting our Nation. North Korea's leader is preparing to test yet another long-range missile which could reach Alaska, Hawaii, and the west coast possibly as early as next week. Yet, an amendment I offered in Rules to address the escalating crisis in North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship was rejected.

This amendment would have re-listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, as suggested by Secretary of State Clinton this past weekend. It called for full implementation of sanctions, including those imposed by the U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted after previous North Korean missile and nuclear tests, but never fully enforced. It contains consequences as called for by the administration's North Korean Special Envoy

after Pyongyang's April 5 missile test. This amendment raised great concern about Pyongyang's defiant, continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran, to Syria, and other rogue regimes. It also pointed to the North Korean regime's horrific record on human rights abuses.

Pyongyang made a provocative and reprehensible decision just a few days ago in a secretive kangaroo court to sentence U.S. citizen journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. This amendment demanded the immediate and unconditional release of our two U.S. citizens before the lifting of any U.S. sanctions or granting of diplomatic recognition.

Much of the language of my amendment had been accepted by the chairman last year and incorporated into the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008. The Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the agreed-upon North Korea language during a markup held last May. Yet the amendment I offered to address this threat to U.S. national security interests and to our allies in the region was rejected yesterday by the Rules Committee.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, at a time when our country faces a range of threats in our own hemisphere, this bill does not set out a comprehensive approach to those threats. The bill also displays a willingness to put our national security interests in the hands of the vaguely defined ``international community.''

Mr. Chairman, because of the fundamental weaknesses and the core problems with this bill that have not been addressed, I will not be able to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to also oppose H.R. 2410 and vote ``no'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, who had very good amendments to offer yesterday.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, we seek to reserve at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve our time.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our Republican Conference Chair and a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the remainder of my time and any time that the chairman of the committee has to the wonderful gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is going to be in a colloquy with our esteemed chairman.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The prospect of an Iranian regime brandishing nuclear weapons is a nightmare scenario that we must stop if we are to avoid being forever threatened with destruction. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is not confined to Iran. Following in its footsteps are countries such as Syria, whose clandestine nuclear weapons program is only now coming to light.

We and our allies must use the means at our disposal to prevent these and other rogue regimes from realizing their deadly ambitions. We have an opportunity today to cut off an important source of assistance to the nuclear programs of Iran, Syria and other regimes, the help provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the very organization charged with preventing nuclear proliferation.

The Government Accountability Office recently released a scathing report on the State Department's near total lack of oversight regarding the nuclear assistance that the IAEA provides to member states, especially to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan.

The GAO report noted that from 1997 to the year 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Technical Cooperation Program provided over $55 million to these state sponsors of terrorism, supposedly for ``peaceful purposes.'' But as the GAO report notes, nuclear equipment, technology and expertise can be dual use, which means capable of serving a peaceful purpose, but also useful in contributing to nuclear weapons development.

The GAO report criticizes offices at the State Department for having little or no idea what these programs actually consist of, much less working to stop the most harmful among them.

Unfortunately, the bill before us contains no language that addresses this serious problem, despite its authorization of the administration's full request for over $100 million to be given to the IAEA.

The bill before us does not mandate that the State Department take immediate action to implement the recommendations of the GAO. It does not require our representatives at this Agency to do anything to prevent additional nuclear assistance from going to Iran, from going to Syria, other enemies of the United States. It does not even mention the problem, Mr. Chairman.

By contrast, an extensive section of H.R. 2475, an alternative Foreign Relations Authorization Act that I introduced earlier this year, was devoted to reform the United Nations, including addressing the specific problems of preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear assistance going to state sponsors of terrorism and countries in violation of their IAEA obligations. But none of that language was included in the bill that we are considering today. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment.

What would this amendment do?

It would apply direct and unambiguous pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency to halt its assistance to those countries of proliferation concern by withholding from the U.S. contribution almost $4.5 million.

Why that amount?

That is equal to the amount that the Agency spent on nuclear assistance to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan in the year 2007, the most recent fiscal year for which figures are available.

Opponents of my amendment may counter that denying funds to the IAEA for any purpose will weaken its nonproliferation efforts. But let me be clear, Mr. Chairman: this amendment does not affect safeguards or inspections.

It is stunning to stand here and be forced to say that the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical nuclear assistance is adding to this threat; but it is, and we cannot let it continue.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the cooperation of this Agency, the IAEA, in fixing this problem because the Agency's attitude was summed up by a senior official who, when pressed to explain the continuing assistance to Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism, even as they defy the Agency and the U.N. Security Council, stated that ``there are no good countries and there are no bad countries.''

Faced with this extraordinary situation, Mr. Chairman, our only option is to use our financial leverage to force the International Atomic Energy Agency to stop helping our enemies' nuclear weapons programs. The threat that we face from Iran and the multiplying nuclear powers around the world grow every day.

If we are to defend ourselves, we must use every leverage that we possess to stop this menace before it becomes a reality. My amendment is an opportunity to do just that.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask the chairman how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado has three main components, none of which I find inherently objectionable.

Most significantly, it would require the State Department to report to Congress with a plan on providing appropriate career incentives for Foreign Service officers to serve in nonregional bureaus of the Department, such as the human rights and refugee-focused bureaus.

And, secondly, it would clarify that some of the new public diplomacy efforts required by the underlying bill also should make use of the Internet for online research. And even while some question the fiscal wisdom of the underlying provisions, these changes do not exacerbate those flaws. I do not intend to oppose this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Nadler's amendment, which, as he explained, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should continue working with all former states of the Soviet Union to come to an agreement whereby each former state of the Soviet Union would pay the tens of thousands of beneficiaries who have emigrated to the United States the pensions for which they are eligible and entitled.

Over the past several decades, many of the tens of thousands of immigrants who had come to the U.S. from these former Soviet Union states had earlier earned pensions working in their former home countries; however, most often they have been unable to collect what is owed to them.

I support Congressman Nadler's amendment to work with the government of the former Soviet states to come to agreements whereby these states would pay the pensions to those entitled beneficiaries who have emigrated to the United States. It's the right thing to do. Further, Mr. Chairman, it would likely result in a lighter burden for U.S. taxpayers and the programs that their taxes fund to aid the elderly.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 522 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 522.

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

H. Res. 522 provides for consideration of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, and H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. Both bills are debatable for 1 hour each, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The rule on H.R. 1886 self-executes as a manager's amendment to resolve jurisdictional concerns in the bill and legislation providing for Afghanistan-Pakistan security and prosperity enhancement. It also makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute authored by Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, which is debatable for 30 minutes.

The rule for H.R. 2410 makes in order 27 amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes. The rule includes a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is faced with many challenges on the world stage. It is critical that Congress put forth the necessary funding to help rebuild our diplomatic capabilities abroad and mitigate the damage that was done under the previous administration's leadership.

H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, is the first foreign relations-related authorization bill to reflect essential democratic priorities since 1993. As such, it provides a new direction forward and vital resources to boost our diplomatic capacity, improve our relations around the world, protect our national security, and make use of America's smart power, rather than rely on the military only solutions of past Congresses and the previous administration.

H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1866, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, together, set forth a progressive foreign affairs agenda that emphasizes diplomatic, economic and social efforts at change, not just the use of military force.

For years the Department of State has been denied critical resources to

fulfill its core diplomatic missions in furthering our global interests and protecting our national security. In neglecting diplomacy, we have missed opportunities to prevent and mitigate conflicts around the world.

Our diplomatic activities are woefully underfunded, undermanned, and underutilized. We must rebuild our diplomatic capacity to meet the needs of our increasingly complex global relations. Diplomatic, economic and social assistance is a much wiser and less expensive investment than war. Rather than relying on either hard power or soft power, we must, instead, emphasize smart power.

Promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the development of civil society is a matter of leadership requiring us to think beyond unilateral military solutions and to, instead, embrace a much more comprehensive approach to our relations with the international community. This rule enables us to consider legislation to do just that.

The first legislation on this rule, the Foreign Relations Act, advances crucial and laudable programs. The Department of State is authorized to hire more than 1,500 Foreign Service officers, ensuring that our overseas posts will be staffed with eager and knowledgeable workers committed to promoting American culture, values, and policies.

Critical multilateral assistance is authorized to fund our obligations to international organizations, including the United Nations and global peacekeeping operations. This effort demonstrates the United States' commitment to working with our friends and allies as a true partner in peace and cooperation.

I'm particularly pleased with the increased funding authorization for the Peace Corps, enabling a dramatic expansion in the number of volunteers and countries served. Peace Corps volunteers exemplify our national commitment to improving the world, devoting their lives to helping the world's poorest people build communities and lift themselves out of poverty. As one of our Nation's most treasured and effective international programs, we must ensure that it attracts top quality volunteers and can reach into the farthest corners of the world.

Improvements in refugee and migration assistance are a critical part of this legislation. The United States has a long history of commitment to humanitarian issues, and this bill authorizes the funds necessary to improve resources and programs to effectively help families reunite and resettle.

I fully support section 235, relating to Iraqi refugees, whom the United States has a special obligation to help. There are more than 4.7 million Iraqis currently displaced within their own country and in neighboring states. Sadly, however, this situation has not improved much. And yet the principal reason, I believe, that this crisis has not received the attention that it should is because Iraqis are not living in refugee camps. Instead, they are a mobile population scattered throughout the region. This fact alone has made this humanitarian crisis virtually invisible to the international community. However, for those Iraqis who remain stranded, jobless, and deprived of essential services, with conditions worsening by the day, this deepening crisis only threatens to further destabilize the entire region. Section 235 of this legislation is an important step towards fulfilling our obligation to assist the Iraqi people recover from years of war and conflict.

If a picture is really worth 1,000 words, then all one must do is look into the face of the Iraqi refugee, as I have, who has had a family member murdered, kidnapped or tortured, and their own life threatened, to know that the United States must respond. I'm, therefore, grateful that my language, introduced in legislation, was included in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this rule also includes H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enforcement Act. This legislation takes our Pakistan policy in a new direction, affirming the United States' commitment to a sustained partnership with Pakistan.

Since 2001, the United States has provided over $12 billion to Pakistan, without specific goals or objectives. Frankly, the situation has only gotten worse since that time.

By providing over $6 billion in 4 years in democratic, economic and social development assistance, this bill demonstrates our determination to help Pakistan build a stable, democratic and prosperous future.

This funding will provide critical resources for Pakistan to address the fundamental needs of its citizens.

Through the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund, the United States is also committed to helping Pakistan combat terrorism and the Taliban insurgency. At the same time, mindful of the past history of neglecting oversight, this legislation provides a range of transparency, evaluation, and accountability standards to ensure that our money and efforts are being applied effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, as I am concerned about the situation of Iraqi refugees, I am also concerned about the situation of Pakistan's refugees. According to news reports, more than 3 million people in Pakistan's northwest region have been uprooted due to ongoing fighting. Like the Iraqi refugee crisis, the Pakistan refugee problem, if not handled properly, could become a ticking timebomb with ramifications far beyond what we can conceive today.

It is imperative that the mistakes of the previous administration with regard to Iraq are not made again. I am pleased that the United States has recently committed $200 million on top of a previous commitment of $110 million, but we must not think that this is the end of our responsibility. The United States must seize this opportunity and implement a comprehensive plan to address this growing humanitarian crisis.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that paves the way to considering essential legislation to put our foreign policy on the right path towards improving our relations around the world. I urge adoption of the rule and passage of the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, my good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my colleague and a good member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), my colleague and fellow Floridian.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do both of us have?

I would inquire of my friend if he has any additional speakers.

Then I would reserve at this time and would allow that you go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I'm prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that paves the way to improving our relations around the world.

As I listened to the ranking member, my good friend on the Rules Committee, I thought that he was going to support the rule because he's so impressed with the work that was put forward in this bill that covers developing democracies, which he has been such a tremendous champion of over a period of time.

I'll yield for 5 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, clearly it covers what you like, and I'm delighted. After years of neglect, now is the time to inject the critical resources that will enable the Department of State and other foreign policy agencies to carry out their important work of rebuilding lasting partnerships with our friends and allies.

The underlying bills include important provisions to fulfill our obligations to the United Nations, to peace-keeping efforts, to humanitarian aid and refugee assistance, and to building effective counterterrorism and arms control policy, and yes, to do everything in our power to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. These bills are a great leap forward.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chair, Chairman Berman and the entire Foreign Affairs committee are to be commended for bringing an excellent bill to the floor.

These much needed reforms reflect Congress' strong support for strengthening U.S. diplomacy and are consistent with the new vision for global engagement championed by President Obama.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I am very pleased that H.R. 2410 authorizes $450 million for Peace Corps.

I'd like to express my appreciation to Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for including Peace Corps in the their bill and for supporting a substantial increase that will help send volunteers to the 20 countries that have already requested Peace Corps volunteers.

Recently, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs called for 300 to 600 new volunteers in Sub-Sahara Africa to work on agriculture as a step toward America reasserting global leadership in the fight against hunger and food insecurity.

The Chicago Council notes that ``The Peace Corps' presence goes a long way toward convincing people that America knows about their circumstances, is committed to partnership to lift them out of poverty and is willing to send hard-working Americans, experienced in agriculture, to live and work with them for an extended period.''

Rwanda's President recently wrote, ``We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women represent what is good about America; I have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and close advisors.''

Peace Corps volunteers live and work in the poorest communities in countries around the world. The work that they do day in and day out is the finest expression of American generosity and solidarity that our government has to offer.

I enthusiastically support H.R. 2410 and urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Thank you, Chairman Berman, and thank you, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

I rise not on this amendment but just to make a comment on the Peace Corps because I was just thinking, as hearing about the amendment, that had we fulfilled John F. Kennedy's dream in the 1960s to have 100,000 Peace Corps volunteers serving overseas throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and this decade, we might have avoided the disaster in Sudan. And I want to commend the committee because on the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, which is in 2011, we have now only 6,000 volunteers serving in 78 countries, and the price tag of that is less than one weapons system. It's a drop in the bucket; $350 million for that incredible service that we are having from our country.

And what I want to commend the committee on and all of them is the strong support for strengthening U.S. diplomacy with a consistent new vision for a global engagement, and I think that's the global engagement that President Obama has promised this country and is now seeing delivered. And with that, this bill authorizes an increase in Peace Corps funding and will allow the Peace Corps to build to the point where we have 20 countries that are asking for Peace Corps volunteers.

We have about 12,000 people a year that volunteer to go in the Peace Corps, that sign up, and we can only take 4,000. That's all we can afford. So all of these 20 countries have been waiting in line and haven't been able to get attention to adding Peace Corps. And what's interesting is that, as I have sort of dealt with some other issues here, for example, on food hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, I just recently read a report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It called for 300 to 600 new volunteers in sub-Saharan Africa to work on agriculture as a step toward America's reasserting global leadership in the fight against hunger and food insecurity. The point was that the only way you're going to really deliver that effort is by getting people who are going to live in the community, who are going to live on the ground and work with people in the fields, and the only organization we have that does that in the Federal Government is the U.S. Peace Corps.

I don't know if you saw it today, but what the committee did in strengthening this provision of the bill, the new Rwanda President, Paul Kagame, who is the President of the Republic of Rwanda, wrote a letter, and I will just paraphrase parts of his letter:

``We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women represent what is good about America. I have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and close advisors.''

He goes on to say: ``While some consider development mostly in terms of infusion of capital, budgets, and head counts, we in Rwanda place equal importance to relationships between peoples who have a passion to learn from one another, preparing the next generation of teachers, administrators, and CEOs to see the exchange of values and ideas as the way to build the competencies of our people and to create a prosperous nation.

``We will do this because we see that the only investment with the possibility of infinite returns is in our children, and because after a couple of years in Rwanda, working and learning with our people, these Peace Corps volunteers will be our sons and daughters, too.''

There is no more loved organization in the world than the United States Peace Corps. And at this time when American image abroad has been suffering in many ways, it keeps growing in this particular service. So as a return Peace Corps volunteer, I am very thankful and delighted that this committee grew the Peace Corps to the demand out there in the world and among the Americans who want to serve. I want to thank you for that.

I will submit President Kagame's statement in the Record.

A Different Discussion About Aid

The United States of America has just sent a small number

of its sons and daughters as Peace Corps volunteers to serve

as teachers and advisors in Rwanda. They have arrived to

assist, and we appreciate that. We are aware that this comes

against the backdrop of increasingly scarce resources, of

budget discussions and campaign promises, and of tradeoffs

between defense and domestic priorities like health care and

infrastructure investments. All that said, I believe we need

to have a different discussion concerning the potential for

bilateral aid.

The Peace Corps have returned to our country after 15

years. They were evacuated in 1994 just a short time before

Rwanda collapsed into a genocide that killed over one million

people in three months. Things have improved a lot in recent

years. There is peace and stability throughout the nation. We

have a progressive constitution that is consensus-driven,

provides for power sharing, embraces diversity, and promotes

the participation of women, who now represent the majority in

our parliament. Our economy grew by more than 11 percent last

year, even as the world entered a recession. We have chosen

high-end segments of the coffee and tea markets in which to

compete, and attract the most demanding world travelers to

our tourism experiences. This has enabled us to increase

wages by over 20 percent each year over the last eight

years--sustained by, among other things, investment in

education, health and ICT.

We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant

event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women

represent what is good about America; I have met former

volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in

our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and

close advisors.

Peace Corps volunteers are well educated, optimistic, and

keen to assist us as we continue to rebuild, but one must

also recognize that we have much to offer them as well.

We will, for instance, show them our system of community

justice, called Gacaca, where we integrated our need for

nationwide reconciliation with our ancient tradition of

clemency, and where violators are allowed to reassume their

lives by proclaiming their crimes to their neighbors, and

asking for forgiveness. We will present to them Rwanda's

unique form of absolution, where the individuals who once

exacted such harm on their neighbors and ran across national

borders to hide from justice are being invited back to resume

their farms and homes to live peacefully with those same

families.

We will show your sons and daughters our civic tradition of

Umuganda, where one day a month, citizens, including myself,

congregate in the fields to weed, clean our streets, and

build homes for the needy.

We will teach your children to prepare and enjoy our foods

and speak our language. We will invite them to our weddings

and funerals, and out into the communities to observe our

traditions. We will teach them that in Africa, family is a

broad and all-encompassing concept, and that an entire

generation treats the next as its own children.

And we will have discussions in the restaurants, and

debates in our staff rooms and classrooms where we will learn

from one another: What is the nature of prosperity? Is it

subsoil assets, location and sunshine, or is it based on

human initiative, the productivity of our firms, the

foresight of our entrepreneurs? What is a cohesive society,

and how can we strengthen it? How can we improve tolerance

and build a common vision between people who perceive

differences in one another, increase civic engagement,

interpersonal trust, and self-esteem? How does a nation

recognize and develop the leaders of future generations? What

is the relationship between humans and the earth? And how are

we to meet our needs while revering the earth as the womb of

humankind? These are the questions of our time.

While some consider development mostly in terms of infusion

of capital, budgets and head counts, we in Rwanda place equal

importance to relationships between peoples who have a

passion to learn from one another, preparing the next

generation of teachers, administrators and CEOs to see the

exchange of values and ideas as the way to build the

competencies of our people, and to create a prosperous

nation.

We will do this because we see that the only investment

with the possibility of infinite returns is in our children,

and because after a couple of years in Rwanda, working and

learning with our people, these Peace Corps volunteers will

be our sons and daughters, too.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First I would like to say a word about the session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, OAS, held last week. It was an embarrassment. Fidel Castro in Cuba wants the U.S. to apologize to him for having kept the U.S. market and its millions of tourists and billions of dollars in financing from him and for having denied him full diplomatic recognition for decades.

He also wants the international community to kneel before him and apologize, which is what the OAS did last week. Fidel Castro has been recruiting advocates, spies, defenders, cronies, and servants for years. The ideological and psychological fascination and dependency that Hugo Chavez has on Fidel Castro has allowed Castro to utilize Chavez's billions of petro dollars to purchase many important defenders. It is part of the public record that a suitcase of Chavez cash heading to Mrs. Kirchner in Argentina was recently intercepted by authorities before reaching its intended destination.

Castro has purchased advocates and spies through the years via the always-present threat of blackmail after trips to totalitarian Cuba, where the regime tapes visitors in compromising situations, as confirmed by Interior Ministry defector Roberto Hernandez del Llano and Cuban counterintelligence defector Major Roberto Ortega.

Castro also serves as a banker for illicit money possessed by those who seek to avoid detection by the anti-laundering mechanisms set up by the international community. It matters not if the money's source is political corruption or narcotrafficking.

Through his mastery of the semantic of anti-American Marxism- Leninism, he has also conned others into being his spies. No other state sponsor of terrorism--no other state, in fact--has had more spies arrested and convicted in the United States in the last decades as Fidel Castro's dictatorship.

Let us remember Ana Montes, one of the top analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency who was arrested in 2001 and subsequently convicted of espionage in Federal court and whose treason led to the deaths of many, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant

Gregory Fronius. And just last week, Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, a long-term State Department official and his wife with access to classified documents, were arrested for spying for their beloved hero, the Cuban tyrant.

Hugo Chavez's absolute dependency on Fidel Castro for every major decision, even for his phrases and gestures in international forums, is unprecedented. While the Soviet Union used to send Castro economic aid and also orders and instructions, Chavez sends Castro billions of dollars and receives orders from him.

What the world witnessed, first at the April Summit of the Americas and then at last week's meeting of the OAS, was a culmination of years of preparation in the purchase and cultivation of advocates and defenders by Fidel Castro. Castro's defenders know full well that chapter II, article 3d of the Charter of the Organization of American States requires the existence of representative democracy in all of the countries of our hemisphere and that the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001 carefully spells out the collective steps to be taken when an American republic's democracy is even threatened. They know that Cuba, under Castro, was the only country in our hemisphere where free elections have not been held in over 50 years and where dungeons are full of nonviolent political prisoners who are subjected to hell on Earth each day of their lives. They know that under Castro Cuba is a personal island-estate, a ranch, a personal landholding or homestead, a totalitarian fiefdom owned by one man with a brother who enjoys the title of head of State and carefully carries out his brother's orders.

At the OAS meeting of last week, we witnessed an example of the Obama administration's diplomatic incompetence and its appeasement of the enemies of the United States. The administration went along and agreed to violate the OAS Charter and the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter in an action that constituted a grotesque and unmerited betrayal of the oppressed people of Cuba.

The Obama administration says that the OAS resolution was a great victory because even though paragraph 1 of the ``resolved'' clause unilaterally lifted the exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship, in paragraph 2, the dictatorship was allowed to initiate a process of dialogue to reenter the OAS in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. In other words, in the first sentence, the OAS ripped up and threw in the garbage can the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS, including its charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And then in the next sentence, it invited the Cuban military dictatorship back in in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. Some victory. I mention this in the context of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act because the American taxpayer should not be paying for almost 60 percent of the putrid embarrassment which is the OAS.

I recognize that on funding international organizations, the administration will get its way, just like the Bush administration would get its way whenever someone in the OAS would propose ending the exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship and the administration would simply say, That's a nonstarter. But here is the heart of the issue with regard to U.S.-Cuba policy: The U.S. Congress must continue to condition access by the Cuban regime to the billions of dollars in U.S. tourism and massive investment in trade financing to the liberation of all political prisoners, without exceptions; the legalization of all political parties, without exceptions, labor unions and the press; and the scheduling of multiparty elections. That is critical leverage for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba when Fidel Castro dies, for he is the ultimate source of absolute personal totalitarian power in that enslaved island, like a modern day Caligula or Nero, and that moment is approaching.

We must keep in mind the effect of unilateral concessions such as last week's shameful OAS action on Fidel Castro. How does he react to such unilateral concessions? The repression is more intense than ever; the brutality, more savage than ever. The alliance with Chavez, the Iranian dictatorship, the Syrian regime, Middle Eastern terrorists, and with the North Korean dictatorship is closer than ever. That is what must be kept in mind about unilateral concessions to the Cuban military dictatorship.

Now, specifically with regard to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, earlier in the year Secretary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee that she had challenged the State Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars. I found the Secretary's statement to be quite appropriate. Unfortunately, the majority has decided to ignore that challenge and instead today has brought forth legislation that authorizes increased spending by 35 percent without increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency.

This legislation will also increase U.S. taxpayer funding authorized for the United Nations by nearly one-third without requiring the United Nations to undertake necessary reforms to improve efficiency and stop blatant corruption.

While failing to place accountability standards in this bill, the majority decided to include provisions in the Pakistan Assistance Act-- which is also being brought to the floor with this one rule--that will micromanage U.S. policy toward Pakistan. In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen wrote that ``the degree of conditionality and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in the legislation ``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic environment that exists in Pakistan.''

This rule bringing forth two pieces of legislation limits the number of amendments that the House will be allowed to debate. Out of the 85 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, the majority decided to make 27 amendments in order. I understand that the majority has a responsibility to move legislation and manage the time on the floor, but if we look at the amendments the majority made in order, they do not fully address the scope and range of issues of concern to House Members. For example, amendments that would prohibit funds from being used by the State Department to encourage U.S. courts to dismiss claims brought against European insurance companies to recover compensation from Holocaust-era insurance policies, or, for example, to re-list the North Korean tyranny as a state sponsor of terrorism were prohibited from being debated.

I don't understand why the majority blocks a debate on such important amendments. I don't know if they're afraid of debate or protecting the Members from tough votes or afraid of the democratic process, or all of the above.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point made by the distinguished chairman as to the strings on the military aid to Pakistan, I hope and expect that that will be engaged in during the debate with the ranking member, who very clearly in the Rules Committee pointed out that the strings are still excessive.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Yes.

Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes again to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

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