Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3081) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

four times that amount for just 17 Uyghurs.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

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

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

So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

And I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

I am pleased to yield to Ms. Woolsey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentlewoman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress must strengthen civilian agencies to respond to foreign policy

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 617 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. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 617.

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

House Resolution 617 provides for consideration of H.R. 3081, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

The bill makes in order the amendment printed in part A of the committee report and the amendments printed in part B of the committee report accompanying this resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes. Finally, the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R. 3081, funds the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and related programs for fiscal year 2010.

This bipartisan bill reflects four key priorities: it protects our national security and combats terrorism; provides critical resources to meet global health and development challenges; ensures adequate oversight and accountability of our foreign assistance; and most importantly reforms and rebuilds America's diplomatic and development capacity.

In total, the bill provides $48.8 billion for fiscal year 2010. This is $3.2 billion less than the President's request, and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level including supplemental funding, a reasonable level of funding during these unprecedented fiscal times.

To protect national security and combat terrorism, the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill provides $2.2 billion to Israel, provides $2.7 billion in assistance for Afghanistan and $1.5 billion for Pakistan, and it provides $1.8 billion total in economic and security assistance for Egypt and Jordan, two of our key allies in the Middle East.

It also requires a report on the status and progress of diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it continues a reporting requirement on bilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran. Further, it prevents the Export-Import Bank from providing financing to any energy producers or refiners that contribute to Iran's refined petroleum resources.

The bill also continues to take aim at the war on drugs by setting aside $319 million for Mexico and Central America for counternarcotics and law enforcement programs. It also includes $520 million for Colombia to fight narcotics and criminal gangs and to promote alternatives to drug production.

The State-Foreign Operations bill makes great strides in increasing global health by providing funding increases for international HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, tuberculosis and malaria prevention, safe water and hygiene, and child and maternal health programs. These global health investments are critical, not just in saving lives overseas, but in protecting the health of countless Americans from disease.

The State-Foreign Operations bill also ensures that the United States continues to meet our moral and humanitarian obligations abroad. The bill provides funding for countries facing long-term development challenges, improving foreign agriculture and food security programs and helping countries struggling with food shortages, supporting basic education needs, helping displaced people around the world with food, water, shelter and other basic needs, and providing lifesaving assistance during worldwide natural disasters.

It also provides $450 million for the Peace Corps. This is $77 million above the President's request, which accelerates the President's commitment to expanding the Peace Corps, one of the most valuable programs our government can fund.

The lack of capacity in our civilian agencies has resulted in an increased reliance on American troops to carry out diplomatic missions. Besides placing an additional workload on our already overburdened troops and taking their focus away from their critical core missions, it is not in the best interests of our Nation to place diplomatic missions with our military.

Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all stressed the need to increase the capacity of the State Department and USAID. As such, the bill provides resources to hire 1,000 new State Department personnel and 300 new USAID personnel so our country can take the necessary steps to begin rebuilding and restoring our diplomatic capabilities that we shortchanged and underappreciated for far too long.

Finally, the bill also improves and continues the Democrats' commitment to oversight and accountability. It provides nearly $150 million for activities of the Inspector General of the Department of State and USAID, as well as for the Special Inspectors General for both Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. In addition, this bill reverses years of accounting gimmickry through supplemental appropriations. Instead, it provides upfront, honest and transparent accounting of the true costs of meeting our critical foreign policy and national security initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. In these tough economic times, it is also a fair bill. And, most importantly, this is a bipartisan bill that goes a long way towards restoring the strength and capabilities of the United States both here and abroad.

I commend the chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, for her admirable efforts in ensuring our needs are met, both here and abroad, and to ensure that the national security and foreign policy commitments of the United States remain strong for many days to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the committee, Mrs. Lowey.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

The gentleman is very sincere, and I appreciate his friendship and his words. I would just make one correction, and that is when he speaks of a 40 percent increase in this bill, what we are doing in this bill is increasing the transparency from a situation where all the dollars that we're spending here were in the past few years put into supplemental bills and pretended like they didn't really count. We're taking that supplemental spending and putting it in a transparent process that we can all appreciate.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida for his words.

I concede that it is quite unfortunate that we stand here today, where we stand today, with regard to what has transpired over the past few weeks. It is not the way we want things to operate in the people's house, it's not the way my friends on the other side want to operate either.

A trust and agreement have been breached. Republicans have chosen not to be able to come to an agreement from our very first appropriation bill. There was a marker laid down with dilatory tactics which could have prevented us from tending to the people's business. While Democrats have continued choosing to try and legislate

and move forward and do what the voters and those who elected us to do, we have seen that there has been continuing obstructionist tactics.

The State-Foreign Ops appropriations bill gets to the heart of our national security interests, and it is one of the most important appropriations bills we consider each year. This bill has no place for obstructionism and partisan politics. That has to stop at the water's edge. We simply cannot risk the people's business coming to a screeching halt on such a critical national security measure.

Mr. Speaker, for the good of this institution, we must put aside our political differences and find the common ground. But until that time, we must also do what's necessary to continue doing the people's business and ensure that nothing stands in the way of providing for the safety and security of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the State-Foreign Ops Appropriations bill funds the United States' diplomatic and development priorities. It is a cornerstone of our national security. It is critical that we send a strong, united message to the world about the United States' foreign policy commitments, about our priorities, about supporting this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 617 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert

the following:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3081) making appropriations for the Department

of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule

XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points

of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply

with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of

the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of

whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be

printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated

for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so

printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises

and reports the bill hack to the House with a recommendation

that the bill do pass, the previous question shall he

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions.

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

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

I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time.

I would like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for their efforts on this important legislation. This bill provides almost $50 billion in funding for a number of U.S. government programs and activities, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, foreign economic and military assistance, contributions to international organizations, and international broadcasting programs.

In today's world, foreign assistance is as important to our national interest as it is ethical. I am pleased that the legislation recognizes our shared democratic values and our special friendship with Israel, and includes $2.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing programs, FMF assistance, for that great friend and ally.

Our aid to Israel is especially important as the ruthless tyranny in Iran threatens to wipe it off the face of the map and rockets continue to rain down on Israel from terrorist groups, whether they be Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel is a true friend and partner of the United States, and we must now, more than ever, show unwavering support for our friends, not only through this legislation, but through every other available means.

I am deeply concerned about the funding provided in this legislation to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Without determining that the agency does not have members of Hamas on its payroll, U.N. agencies such as that, for example, such as the so-called Human Rights Council, a club of tyrannies, do not deserve American taxpayer support, just like the useless embarrassment that is the Organization of American States.

Now, there are some good things, very good things in this legislation.

The legislation provides $165 million in Economic Support Funds, for example, for Haiti, to help the authorities consolidate democratic gains and promote development.

Since the recent devastating storms hit Haiti, I have called, first on the Bush administration and then on the Obama administration, to grant temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in the United States.

I visited Haiti last month, and my visit reinforced my belief that TPS for Haiti is well overdue. Again, I call on the Obama administration to finally grant TPS for Haitians. The Obama administration needs to stop dragging its feet on this important issue.

I wish to thank the Appropriations Committee for the $20 million in Economic Support Funds for pro-democracy activities in Cuba in this bill. Those funds will support efforts for a transition to democracy and freedom in the only totalitarian dictatorship in

the Western Hemisphere, through support for dissidents, human rights activists, independent librarians and others who risk their lives each day struggling for freedom in that enslaved island, the only country in the Western Hemisphere where free elections have been denied to its people for over 50 years.

The legislation includes $1.4 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC. Assistance to foreign nations from the MCC is linked to greater responsibilities from those nations. The new responsibilities those developing nations accept in exchange for the funds ensure that the assistance we provide does not go to waste and has the greatest possible impact on those who need the help the most.

I have been a longtime supporter of the MCC. But last year I learned that one recipient country may not be keeping up their end of the bargain. APR Energy, a Florida company, has an ongoing contract dispute with Tanzania, which I understand Tanzania has failed to resolve. I urge the Tanzanian government to comply with both the contract with APR Energy and their MCC compact and expeditiously resolve the dispute with APR Energy pursuant to the law and the utmost transparency.

I have concerns with the increased funding levels in two areas of the bill, the United Nations Population Fund and international family planning. In the past, this United Nations fund has been found to support and participate in programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. While the international family planning money doesn't go directly to fund abortions, it will go to organizations that promote and provide advocacy for abortion.

I do not think this is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Even though the majority on the Rules Committee last night rejected the Smith-Stupak amendment on this issue, I continue to hope that the issue will be addressed in conference.

I commend the committee, the Appropriations Committee, for recognizing many other important foreign policy priorities in the bill, $21 million for the American Institute in Taiwan, for example, and over $740 million for broadcasting through such important media outlets as the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and for Radio and TV Marti. I also commend the committee for maintaining the Greek language broadcasts in the Voice of America and also for wisely providing assistance to promote as much as possible the reconciliation to end the violence in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month, the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills, debate that historically was almost always considered under open rules, open debate process. Today we are set to consider the sixth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of all Members of this House to introduce amendments and have them debated.

During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, Appropriations Ranking Member Lewis testified that there is still time to undo the majority's new precedent restricting the ability of Members to offer amendments on appropriations bills. He asked the majority to reconsider the use of structured rules on appropriations bills, to return to regular order, to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He even offered his services to persuade Members to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its appropriations work on time.

Rules Ranking Member Dreier and I also offered to help Ranking Member Lewis rein in any errant Members, any Members who wished to prolong unnecessarily the appropriations process. I really hoped the majority on the Rules Committee would heed Mr. Lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the process along if an open debate process was returned to. However, the majority once again blocked Members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has simply not understood the damage, unnecessarily, that it is causing this House by closing debate on appropriations bills, by breaking two centuries of precedence. How myopic. How sad.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate again my gratitude both to Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger of this appropriations subcommittee, and all of the members of the subcommittee. They have done great work.

When Chairwoman Lowey appeared yesterday in the Rules Committee, it was really remarkable how on a bipartisan basis she received the commendation and admiration of all of us, and, quite frankly, I think in representation of the entire House. So I thank her.

And she has a wonderful ranking member, Kay Granger, who also works extremely diligently in a way that has made the House also admire her deeply.

I think we have had a good debate on the underlying legislation. I think it is most unfortunate that the tradition of two centuries of open debate on appropriations bills has been broken by the majority. And so, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this rule so that we can amend the rule and allow an open rule.

The rule that the majority has brought forth today will only cement the dangerous and unnecessary precedent that it has already set. So let's have an open rule. Let's revert to tradition. Let's return to an open process.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the previous question.

I urge all of my colleagues, and I am sure many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with us, that this unnecessary lessening of the House, this diminishing of each of the Members' rights is most unfortunate. And so we should return, as Ranking Member Lewis said before the Rules Committee last evening, let's return. There is still time, let's return to the tradition of two centuries and have an open rule.

And we pledge, as Ranking Member Lewis did last night before the Rules Committee, full cooperation, consistent with that tradition, after debate has begun on these appropriations bills that still remain to be considered, to work out unanimous consent agreements to limit time and allow the process to be finished in a timely way. So let's return to that tradition of two centuries and preserve the rights of each of the Members of this House.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question in order to return to those two centuries of tradition, to return to open rules on appropriations bills.

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

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

I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

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

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

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

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

Actually, that's not true.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you no sense of dignity around here?

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.