Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 288 which honors the Seeds of Peace Program for its efforts to promote understanding and peace among young people from areas of conflict.

John Wallach, a constituent of mine and a true visionary, founded the program in 1993 to bring youths together from around the world to break down barriers and learn more about each other.

The organization plays a vital role in promoting many of our foreign policy goals and has been recognized by American leaders for its outstanding work.

By instilling understanding and open-mindedness in the world's children, we can help to put an end to long-standing conflicts and bring hope to these regions.

Seeds of Peace is a wonderful program that I hope will continue to produce more thoughtful, understanding leaders of the future.

At a time when there is so much hate in the world, the Seeds of Peace participants are an inspiration, and I admire their courage and determination.

I join my colleagues in paying tribute to this great organization and its founder John Wallach.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and acknowledge the tremendous role that he and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) had in the passage of this resolution.

I rise in strong support of this resolution which commends Afghan women and supports their participation in government and the inclusion of women's rights in the Afghan constitution. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), my good friend, and I co-authored this resolution to acknowledge the struggles that Afghan women have faced and to show the support of this Congress for winning the battles that remain.

Women under the Taliban were denied their basic rights to work, education, and health care; and they suffered greatly over the course of 23 years of war. The end of the Taliban regime, appointment of women to the cabinet, and the establishment of the Ministry of Women's Affairs and the participation of over 200 women delegates in the June, 2002, Loya Jirga gave women hope. Yet many women continue to wear the burka out of fear of attack from fundamentalist extremists, and there are extremely disturbing reports of discrimination and the burning of over 30 girls' schools.

Earlier this Congress showed their support not only in words but with financial support. Our amendment to the fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental appropriations legislation directed $5 million to the Independent Human Rights Commission in Afghanistan and $60 million in direct funding for the Ministry of Women's Affairs and Afghan women-led governmental organizations which is necessary to build permanent institutions to safeguard women's rights in Afghanistan.

For women to advance in Afghanistan, they must have equal rights under the law, they must have the right to vote and the right to run for office and the equality of opportunity and access to health care, education, and employment. These rights will not be possible in Afghanistan without their inclusion in the constitution and without the ability of delegates to the December Loya Jirga to speak out for women's rights and human rights without fear of reprisal.

I deeply thank this Congress and the leadership of this Congress for being committed to helping the women in Afghanistan, for their support of the passage of this important resolution, and their earlier support for direct appropriations to help the women in Afghanistan. I particularly thank the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation I am pleased to rise in support of it, but I regret that it did not include the SEC recommendations that the Democrats supported.

Since the demise of Enron 2 years ago, the Committee on Financial Services has undertaken a comprehensive reform agenda. We have rewritten the rules applying to the accounting industry and completely changed the relationship between boards of directors and corporate managers.

The legislation we are considering today represents the beginning of similar reforms for the mutual funds industry. This legislation attacks conflicts of interest and increases the independence and accountability of oversight boards. It increases the number of independent board members from 40 percent to two-thirds. With increased independence, also comes increased responsibility as the legislation places fiduciary duties on boards of directors, requiring them to review revenue sharing and soft dollar arrangements.

It will also require disclosure of fund managers' compensation structure and bar the same individual from managing a mutual fund and hedge fund. On the consumer side, the bill requires the disclosure of total fees an investor will pay per $1,000 they invest.

Finally, I am pleased that this legislation provides the SEC more authority to police the funds industry. I can only hope that they use it. I would also like to commend the leadership of State regulators and State attorneys general, specifically Mr. Elliot Spitzer from New York State. The following is an article he recently authored and published on this subject:

[From the New York Times, Nov. 17, 2003]

Regulation Begins at Home

(By Eliot Spitzer)

Albany--With two decisions in the last two weeks, the Bush

administration has sent its clearest message yet that it

values corporate interests over the interests of the average

Americans. In the Securities and Exchange Commission's

settlement with Putnam Investments, the public comes away

short-changed. In the Environmental Protection Agency's

decision to forgo enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the

public comes away completely empty-handed.

The 95 million Americans who invest in mutual funds paid

more than $70 billion in fees in 2002. These fees went to an

industry that did not take seriously its responsibility to

safeguard investors' money. Investors are now rightly

concerned about whether those mutual funds that breached

their fiduciary duties will be required to refund the

exorbitant fees they took, and what mechanism will be put in

place to ensure that the fees charged in the future are fair.

Unfortunately, the S.E.C.'s deal with Putnam does not

provide a satisfactory answer to these questions. Instead, it

raises new questions.

The commission's first failure is one of oversight. The

mutual fund investigation began when an informant approached

our office with evidence of illegal trading practices.

Tipsters also approached the commission, which is supposed to

be the nation's primary securities markets regulator, but the

commission simply did not act on the information.

The commission's second failure was acting in haste to

settle with Putnam even though the investigation is barely 10

weeks old and is yielding new and important information each

day. Whether the commission recognizes it or not, the first

settlement in a complex investigation always sets the tone

for what follows. In this case, the bar is set too low.

The Putnam agreement does contain a useful provision

mandating that the funds' board of directors be more

independent of the management companies that run its day-to-

day operations. It also talks of fines and restitution, but

leaves for another day the determination of the amount Putnam

should pay.

Most important, the agreement does not address the manner

in which the fees charged to investors are calculated. Nor

does it require the fund to inform investors exactly how much

they are being charged--or even provide a structure that will

create market pressure to reduce those fees. Finally, there

is no discussion of civil or criminal sanctions for the

managers who acted improperly by engaging in or permitting

market timing and late trading.

S.E.C. officials are now saying that they may be interested

in additional reforms. But by settling so quickly, they have

lost leverage in obtaining further measures to protect

investors. After reviewing this agreement, I can say with

certainty that any resolution with my office will require

concessions from the industry that go far beyond what the

commission obtained from Putnam.

It is not surprising that the commission would sanction a

deal that ignores consumers and is unsatisfactory to state

regulators. Just look at the Bush administration's decision

to abandon pending enforcement actions and investigations of

Clear Air Act violations.

Even supporters of the Bush administration's environmental

policy were stunned when the E.P.A. announced that it was

closing pending investigations into more than 100 power

plants and factories for violating the Clean Air Act--and

dropping 13 cases in which it had already made a

determination that the law had been violated.

Regulators may disagree about what our environmental laws

should look like. But we should all be able to agree that

companies that violated then-existing pollution laws should

be punished.

Those environmental laws were enacted to protect a public

that was concerned about its health and safety. By letting

companies that violated the Clean Air Act off the hook, the

Environmental Protection Agency has effectively issued an

industry-wide pardon. This will only embolden polluters to

continue practices that harm the environment.

My office had worked with the agency to investigate

polluters, and will continue to do so when possible. But

today a bipartisan coalition of 14 state attorneys general

will sue the agency to halt the implementation of weaker

standards. In addition, we will continue to press the

lawsuits that have been filed. We have also requested the

E.P.A. records for the cases that have been dropped, and will

file lawsuits if they are warranted by the facts.

Similarly, my office--while committed to working with the

Security and Exchange Commission in our investigation of the

mutual fund industry--will not be party to settlements that

fail to protect the interests of investors and let the

industry off with little more than a slap on the wrist.

The public expects and deserves the protection that

effective government oversight provides. Until the Bush

administration shows it is willing to do the job, however, it

appears the public will have to rely on state regulators and

lawmakers to protect its interests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gary A. Beller of New York, in recognition of his retirement from an extraordinarily accomplished and distinguished career of over thirty years in the corporate legal profession.

The practice of law is itself a worthy pursuit. It is an accomplishment to do outstanding work for outstanding companies, as Mr. Beller has done for two venerable giants of the financial services industry--American Express early in his career and more recently MetLife. But what I have learned is that the preeminent characteristic of the career of Gary Beller is his devotion to best practices and legal excellence; setting the standard for highly ethical and skilled legal work and consistently exceeding that standard out of sheer energy, talent, and sense of responsibility.

As 2003 draws to a close, Gary Beller retires from his position as senior executive vice president and general counsel for MetLife. Mr. Beller joined MetLife in November 1994 and has since overseen the company's extensive legal affairs group as well as the mergers and acquisitions department. One of the notable accomplishments of his tenure at MetLife was his contribution to bringing the company public in 2003 from its previous status as a mutual company. MetLife became one of the most widely held public stocks as result of the successful completion of the transaction.

This is the kind of high quality work that has made Gary Beller well known and respected professionally. To those who know him and work with him, Mr. Beller personifies the best of the corporate legal profession. The perfect example is his chairmanship of the Insurance Marketplace Standards Association, an organization devoted to establishing the best in ethical market conduct for the insurance industry.

In addition to his professional success, Mr. Beller has also been a leader in his community. He served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York for 10 years and remains a Vice Chairman today. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Lenox Hill Neighborhood House, one of New York City's renowned social service agencies.

In recognition of his outstanding accomplishments, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedication and service of Gary Beller as he retires from MetLife. He is a role model of civic involvement, corporate loyalty and professionalism, and service to the legal profession. He deserves our congratulations and well wishes as he begins his retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support for the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of which I am a lead sponsor with my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan

(Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

We are living in difficult times, in a tough job market. The Federal Government should not be taking actions that put American working men and women out of work. But that is exactly what the Federal Prison Industries does.

Federal Prison Industries has established eight business groups including the garment industry that use Federal prisoners to manufacture goods at cut rate prices. With its predatory practices, FPI has contributed to the closure of private companies and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs throughout the Nation.

One of my constituents, Glamour Glove Company confronted FPI directly in 1997. FPI sought to simply take Glamour Glove's competitively won Defense Department contracts to make gloves for the military. If FPI had succeeded, Glamour Glove would have been out of business. And its workers, members of UNITE would have been out of work.

I led a fight to save those jobs in my district and had strong support of my colleagues in this Congress. In the forefront was my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). We won that battle, but I recognize that FPI had to be fundamentally changed. It is examples like Glamour Glove that have brought us to where we are today.

This bill will require FPI to compete for contracts while continuing to offer rehabilitative work opportunities to Federal prisoners. Federal prisoners will be allowed to compete, but it will not allow FPI to come in, arbitrarily, and close plants down across this country. This legislation will ensure that contracts are awarded to the company that will provide the best products, delivered on time, and at the best prices.

Virtually all segments of business community led by the United States Chamber of Commerce, organized labor led by the AFL/CIO, and Federal managers represented by the Federal Managers Association enthusiastically support this bill. Passage of this legislation will not mean that inmates will sit idle in prison.

This bill provides alternative rehabilitative opportunities including work in support of nonprofit public service organizations to better prepare inmates for a successful return to society. This bill authorizes $75 million dollars a year for vocational, education and work programs for Federal inmates. I urge my colleagues to put an end to this unfair government-sponsored monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment extends to the new contracting officer of the various civilian agencies, including the new Department of Homeland Security, the same powers available to contracting officers of the Department of Defense in their dealings with the Federal Prison Industries. It will better enable them to get the best value for the taxpaying dollars being expended with FPI.

Under FPI's 1934 authorizing statute, FPI is a mandatory source to all Federal agencies. Federal contracting officers must purchase products offered by FPI unless FPI authorizes, through the granting of a so-called waiver, the solicitation of competitive offers for the private sector.

In making the unilateral determination to grant a waiver, FPI, rather than the buying agency, determines whether FPI's offered product and delivery schedule meet the mission's needs of the buying agency. FPI, rather than the buying agency, determines the reasonableness of FPI's offered price.

While comprehensive FPI reform was being advanced in both Chambers, several Members of the other body devised a means to provide some modest interim relief to DOD's procurement professionals by including interim relief in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. That provision added a new section 2410(n) to title 10 of the U.S. Code which governs DOD.

My amendment adds a new section to title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which governs procurement by the civilian agencies. This new provision mirrors exactly the test of section 2410(n) in title 10.

Specifically, my amendment will make explicit that a contracting officer is fully empowered to determine if a product offered by FPI is comparable to products available from the private sector that best meet the Department's needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery; provide a contracting officer access to the full range of market research tools to make the required determination and full discretion on how to use such tools; empower contracting officers to ensure that FPI performs its contractual obligations to the same extent as any other contractor; and prohibit inmate workers from having access to classified data, critical infrastructure data, and personal or financial data under any service contract.

The text of the amendment being offered today was offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and accepted by the Committee on Government Reform during its consideration of H.R. 1837, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, earlier this year.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL/CIO join my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill marks the end of a very long journey to pass legislation that will put criminals behind bars and protect the innocent. I thank the extraordinary work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) who brought all the pieces together and the long, long leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and so many others that have brought this successfully to the floor.

In the 107th Congress, I authored a bill to provide funding to process the backlog of DNA evidence after holding a hearing with Congressman Horn where a courageous rape survivor, Debbie Smith, testified. After her testimony, there was not a dry eye in the room, where she told how she was dragged from her home and brutally raped while her husband slept upstairs. After medical attention and after many years of living in fear, Debbie finally learned that DNA processing techniques had produced a cold hit identifying her assailant.

But her story in many ways is a story of many women. There is great violence against women in America. Every 2 seconds, there is a sexual assault against a woman. And we know that DNA techniques can convict and prevent rapists from attacking in the future. We know that each rapist will attack at least seven or eight times, according to law authorities, and each unprocessed DNA kit represents an innocent person, like Debbie Smith, or a rapist who could attack again if he is not put behind bars.

This bill will literally protect many women from sexual assault. It is an extremely important bill, and it will help with this backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits that are sitting on shelves across America gathering dust, when, if it was processed, could convict and place a rapist behind bars.

Mr. Speaker, there are many various important aspects of this bill. I am delighted that it includes the Debbie Smith act. I thank her for her courageous work, and many, many others.

Earlier this year, I reintroduced similar legislation, along with Representative Mark Green. The bill would accomplish several critical objections including providing funding to process the backlog of DNA evidence, setting national standards for DNA evidence collection, providing grant money for Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner programs, and providing funding to train law enforcement authorities on the collection and handling of DNA evidence.

I am delighted that the legislation that we are about to pass today includes ``The Debbie Smith Act.'' H.R. 3214 represents a bipartisan and bicameral effort to pass legislation that will put rapists in prison.

Many domestic violence groups and activists, including former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, have helped us to get to this point. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of Lifetime Television in fighting against domestic violence and sexual assault. And of course, this bill has had no greater champion than Debbie Smith herself.

Tragically, the dismal reality is that only 6 percent of women who have been raped will ever see their attacker spend a day in jail.

Once again, I sincerely thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation so that we can put an end to this travesty of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership.

I rise in support of this rule and in support of the bill that will protect the jobs of American taxpayers. In a time when 3 million workers have lost their jobs, we should be doing everything possible to keep workers employed. FPI is not competing on a level playing field. It pays its workers pennies and is not required to pay taxes. With its predatory practices, FPI has contributed to the closure of private companies and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs throughout our Nation.

With its predatory practices, I confronted them in 1997 when they tried to close one of my constituent's company, Glamour Glove. FPI sought to simply come in and take away all the competitively won contracts with the Department of Defense to make military gloves. If they had succeeded, Glamour Glove would be out of business and the workers of UNITE! would have been out of work. Outraged, I appeared before the FPI board with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who was facing similar challenges in his own district, and we were successful in negotiating and saving these jobs; but this effort led to the bill that we have before us today.

It has been a 7-year effort. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for helping me save the jobs in Glamor Glove and for his work on this legislation.

By passing this bill, we will save thousands of jobs across this country, and we will protect competition. We will allow the prison industries to compete with hardworking, tax-paying workers in America. This legislation will ensure that contracts are awarded to the company that will provide the best products, delivered on time and at the best prices, thereby saving not only jobs, but taxpayer dollars; in short, the way the free market is supposed to operate.

The bill has large bipartisan support, over 140 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and it has support both from the business community, led by the Chamber of Commerce, and organized labor, led by the AFL-CIO.

Passage of this legislation will not mean that inmates will sit idly in prison. It also requires and provides for alternative rehabilitative opportunities, including work in support of nonprofit public service organizations, to better prepare inmates for a successful return to society.

I urge my colleagues to put an end to this unfair, government- sponsored monopoly, which really would be more at home in communist Russia, under Fidel Castro or in mainland China, where people are paid pennies for their work, where there is no competition and workers are stripped of their jobs and thrown out on the street and not even given an opportunity to compete.

This allows our workers to compete. It will save jobs. It is good for America, it is good for workers, and it is good for business. I urge a yes vote on the underlying bill and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation that will ensure that local law enforcement is represented on Joint Terrorism Task Forces. It would codify the number of JTTFs for full nationwide coverage. This legislation allows for increased representation of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and provides for a sharing of federal and local law enforcement between agencies. No portion of our country is immune and no portion should be unprotected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for a provision included in this legislation that was offered by myself, Congresswoman Biggert, Congressman Hyde, and Congressman Lantos, which devotes $60,000,000 to programs that will help Afghan women and girls, and $5,000,000 to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

This funding will go a long way toward making the lives of Afghan women better by providing critical services and by ensuring that they are not relegated to second-class status.

I would like to thank my colleagues Congressman Young, Congressman Kolbe, Congresswoman Biggert, Congressman Hyde, and Congressman Lantos for their help in securing this funding as well as our counterparts in the other body who care so deeply about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, today I join people of Greek descent in Astoria, New York, the country, and the world in saluting the courageous acts of the Greeks against Mussolini and Hitler.

October 28, 2003, marks the 63rd anniversary of a very historic day in Greek history. On October 28, 1940, the Italian Minister in Athens gave an ultimatum to the Prime Minister of Greece, demanding the unconditional surrender of Greece. His answer was ``Oxi,'' which means ``no'' in Greek.

Military success for the Italians would have sealed off the Balkans from the south and helped Hitler's plan to invade Russia. In fact, the Italian army was fully equipped, well supplied, and backed by superior air and naval power. They were expected to overrun Greece within a short time. Fortunately, the Greek Army proved to be well trained and resourceful despite their lack of military equipment.

In less than a week after the Italians first attacked, it was clear that their forces had suffered a serious setback in spite of having control of the air and fielding armored vehicles. On November 14th, the Greek Army launched a counteroffensive and quickly drove Italian forces far back into Albania. On December 6th, the Greeks captured Porto Edda and continued their advance along the seacoast toward Valona. By February 1, 1941, the Italians had launched strong counterattacks, but the determination of the Greek Army coupled with the severity of the winter weather, nullified the Italians' efforts.

The Italians launched another offensive on March 12, 1941, but after six days of fighting, the Italians made only small gains, and it became clear that German intervention was necessary if the Italians were going to win.

On March 26th, Hitler declared that he would make a clean sweep of the Balkans. It took him five weeks, until the end of April, to subdue Greece. It turned out to be an important five weeks. These five weeks delayed Hitler's invasion of Russia and contributed to the Germans' failure in Russia.

The victory of the Greek Army against the Italians astonished the world. The heroic stance by the Greeks against insurmountable odds, was the first glimmer of hope for the Allies, and today we can take great pride in those who risked their lives to defend their country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this proposed $87 billion appropriation for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have been gravely concerned over the problems surrounding the reconstruction, over the poor planning for the postwar period and our inability to work productively with the international community to rebuild Iraq. The supplemental appropriation before us raises many difficult questions.

With great reluctance, I will support this funding. I believe it will both support our soldiers and help increase their safety. Sixty-five billion dollars will directly aid our troops; I feel that the additional $18.6 billion in reconstruction aid will make them safer and get them home sooner.

While I am going to support this funding request it should not be interpreted that I am supporting all of the policies and actions to date in the war effort.

We need to do more.

We need to get more countries involved to help with the security.

We need to make the reconstruction effort more cost-effective. We need to follow the model set by Major General David Petraeus, whom I met with in Iraq. Advised by American engineers that rebuilding a cement factory to American standards would cost $15 million, General Petraeus took the initiative to identify Iraqi contractors, who were able to bring the factory back on line for a mere $80,000.

That example and others like it inspired me to introduce an amendment to increase competitive bidding in Iraq and to encourage the use of Iraqi contractors and subcontractors. I regret that this amendment was not accepted and urge the administration to embrace a more open bidding process in the reconstruction of Iraq and to avoid the use of sole- source contracts.

We need to be doing more to bring human rights to Iraq and Afghanistan. One measure of the success of our efforts will be the degree to which women are integrated into the political, economic, and educational life of these nations. I will offer amendments to ensure that women are fully included in the process of drafting Iraq's new constitution and to devote $65 million from a previous authorization to programs for Afghan women, amendments which I hope this body will support.

Hundreds of my neighbors and constituents lost their lives at the hands of terrorists, some of whom were trained in Afghanistan. Twenty- five firehouses in my district lost men trying to save others whose lives were imperiled by those terrorists. I remember all too vividly the awful consequences of our failure in Afghanistan.

History teaches us that, when America turned its industrial and economic might toward the cause of helping others around the world who sought to rebuild after bitter conflicts--for the reconstruction of a Europe ravaged by World War I; for the creation of democracies in Germany, Japan and Italy after the devastation of World War II; and for the political and economic rebirth of Central Europe after the Cold War--we truly succeeded in making our mark as the greatest nation on earth.

Before us stands that opportunity once again. But we need to do a better job of winning the peace then we have been doing. We must work more productively with the international community to secure Iraq's transition to a stable democracy.

I will support this budget request but with the understanding that we need to do better.

Let us remember the past. Let us not repeat its failures.

We do not have a choice to leave or to fail in Iraq. We must succeed.

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2003, I missed rollcall vote number 543.

Rollcall vote 543 was on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to as amended H.R. 1848, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

As I am a cosponsor of this important legislation and had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 543.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the resolution and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his work.

This resolution is a good start but I believe the House must do more to promote debt relief for Iraq. The sense of Congress states that France, Germany and Russia should recognize the role that Iraq's current debt could play in hindering its reconstruction. I strongly agree with this language but we should move beyond France, Germany and Russia on this issue.

While total debt figures are difficult to gather, Representative Coalition Director Paul Bremer has put the number at roughly $200 billion, and actually, the debt of France, Germany and Russia is just a fraction of the total debt. Russia's estimated to be owed between $9 and $12 billion. The amount of Iraq's debt to France ranges from $1.7 to $4 billion and Germany is owed $4 billion. Iraq owes its neighboring countries far, far more money than it does Germany and Russia and over $4 billion is owed to the United States.

Together with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) I have introduced a bill, the Iraq Freedom from Debt Act, and this legislation would require the U.S. representatives at the IMF and World Bank to vote within these highly influential international financial institutions to reduce the debt owed to Iraq.

The IMF and World Bank are owed roughly $150 million, and together with the U.S., these institutions are working with the international community on the donor conference to reduce Iraq's debt.

As my colleague pointed out, the neighboring countries of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait owe much much more. Just this past weekend in Qatar, the foreign minister indicated the $1.5 billion owed to Qatar, they would negotiate relief in that debt. Much of this debt was odious debt to build palaces for Saddam Hussein, and certainly the people of Iraq should not be saddled with having to repay it.

I will put the balance of my remarks in the record in the interest of time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding time to me and for his continued leadership on so many important issues.

Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment later along with my colleague and very good friend the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). It will discourage the ongoing violence against women in Afghanistan and the deplorable attacks on girls schools in that country.

The legislation before us appropriates more than $230 million over the administration's request for Afghanistan, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for making this increase possible.

While the country has made progress in the last 2 years since the fall of the Taliban, warlords and reactionary Islamic forces continue to wage a campaign of hatred against their own women. According to recent press reports, more than 30 schools for Afghan girls were burned to the ground, depriving hundreds of girls of a chance to receive a basic education. This amendment designates $60 million of the $672 million in the supplemental bill to help women and girls.

It also provides $5 million in support to the National Human Rights Commission in Afghanistan, which is doing critical work in bringing to light human rights abuses against women and men throughout the country. Without human rights, the Afghan Project and the efforts to create a constitution are seriously threatened. If we are to succeed in Afghanistan, these issues must be addressed and addressed now.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I am offering with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) designates $60 million of the $672 million in the supplemental bill before us for accelerated assistance to Afghanistan to help women and girls.

The amendment also directs $5 million to the National Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan, established by the Bond Agreement, which is doing critical work to monitor, remedy

and create public awareness about rights abuses against women and others.

Without human rights, the Afghan project and the efforts to create a constitution are seriously threatened.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for their support.

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