Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 248.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Spina Bifida Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the more than 250,000 Americans in the Spina Bifida Community, including family members and caregivers. There are an estimated 70,000 people in the United States who are currently living with Spina Bifida, the most common permanently disabling birth defect.

I am proud to be the Co-Chairman, along with Representative Bart Stupak, of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus and encourage all of my colleagues to join the caucus. Together we can help to improve the quality of life of those living with Spina Bifida and their families.

The Spina Bifida Association of America (SBAA) is the organization that has helped those living with and affected by this debilitating disease for over 30 years. The SBAA was founded in 1973 and is the nation's only organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the Spina Bifida community. Through their almost 60 chapters in more than 125 communities, the SBAA brings expectant parents together with those who have a child who suffers from this disease. This interaction helps to answer questions and concerns, but most importantly it lends much needed support. The good news is that due to breakthroughs in research and improvements in health care and treatment, children with Spina Bifida are now living to become adults with Spina Bifida.

Together the SBAA and the SBA of the Tri-State Region work tirelessly to help the families of those living with Spina Bifida meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their children to adulthood. I would like to commend the local chapter of SBAA in my State of New Jersey for all they have done and all that they will continue to do. As we recently were reminded, in the wake of a natural disaster, people with disabilities are the most vulnerable. The SBAA chapter in my State of New Jersey is a partner in the SB Hurricane Emergency Lifesupport Program, which was established to help get vitally needed supplies to the estimated 10,000 people with Spina Bifida and their families who were victims of the hurricanes in the Gulf Region.

Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that happens in the first month of pregnancy when the spinal column doesn't close completely. Spina Bifida is a birth defect that can happen to anyone. There are 60 million women at risk of having a baby born with Spina Bifida. Everyday, an average of 8 babies are affected by Spina Bifida or a similar birth defect of the brain and spine. Each year, about 3,000 pregnancies are affected by these birth defects. While we do not know the exact cause of Spina Bifida, research has shown that if a woman takes 400 micrograms of folic acid every day and before she becomes pregnant, she reduces her risk of having a baby with Spina Bifida or another neural tube defect by as much as 70 percent. The cause of the remaining cases is unknown, but it is believed genetics and environment may play a role.

Today, approximately 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with Spina Bifida live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQ's, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical attention and family care these people can live productive full lives with the assistance of braces and/or a wheelchair. There are breakthroughs every year that benefit the quality of life for those living with Spina Bifida. Research is the key to a better life for those who live with Spina Bifida. Our goals are to develop better treatments, better understanding of causes and new ways to prevent Spina Bifida.

The SBAA has many special events throughout the year to engender greater support for the Spina Bifida community. I congratulate them on occasion of their 17th annual Washington event for the media that is taking place this week. I again wish to thank the SBAA and its chapters for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering for those 70,000 individuals living with Spina Bifida throughout the nation. We all owe a great debt to the SBAA for what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help poor farmers in African nations who are being undercut and devastated by the continued subsidies some of the world's wealthiest countries offer to their own farmers.

Developed world subsidies drive down global prices for farm products. For farmers in wealthy nations, this often involves the amount of profit possible; for African farmers, this involves their very survival. Since more than 70 percent of Africans depend on the agricultural sector for their livelihoods, normalizing global agricultural trade is an issue of life or death for many African farmers who have few, if any, alternatives to farm Income.

For every six dollars daily the United States and the nations of the European Union spend on agricultural subsidies in their own nations, we spend one dollar on official aid to developing countries. This means that the positive impact of our aid programs is being undercut by trade-distorting subsidies, which are crushing the very people our aid is intended to help.

Developed countries agreed to negotiate a multilateral end to agricultural subsidies through the World Trade Organization with a target date of January 1st of this year. That deadline was missed, and the current Doha round of WTO trade talks may fail, largely because of the issue of continuing agricultural subsidies. President Bush recently reiterated America's commitment to accelerate the end of all developed world agricultural subsidies.

American cotton subsidies have been said to endanger the welfare of African cotton farmers in several African nations, but European dairy and meat subsidies pose an even broader threat to African farm incomes. When a Japanese cow can produce more daily revenue than even the most industrious African farmer, something is seriously wrong with the economic order. Curtailing developed world agricultural subsidies will allow Africans to be more self-sufficient. It is estimated that such a change would result in as much as a 45 percent increase in the net agricultural trade by sub-Saharan Africa and a 5.1 percent increase in African farm income.

It is the responsibility of our government, as well as other governments, to address the needs of our farmers, but it should not be done at the expense of low-income African farmers. This resolution, cosponsored by Mr. Payne, Mr. Royce, Mr. Flake and Mr. Meeks, calls for a multilateral end to agricultural subsidies as quickly as possible and for developed nations to work with African nations to mutually remove remaining impediments to equitable agricultural trade in the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Chairman Gutknecht), for offering this legislation. It is very timely and extremely important. I also thank him for his sensitivity to our Nation's Gold Star Mothers who have suffered so much.

I am proud to rise today, Mr. Speaker, to strongly support H.J. Res. 61, which recognizes a group of very, very special women, American's Gold Star Mothers. These women are from different parts of our great country and have different backgrounds, are of varying age, hold different beliefs, and practice different religions.

Despite so many differences, they share the same experience. Each of these women raised a young man or

woman who served their country in the Armed Forces. Their children helped to bring freedom and promote peace and justice for those who have never felt its touch. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, each raised a young man or woman who gave their life for their country, the ultimate sacrifice.

These special women, the Gold Star Mothers of America, are members of a congressionally chartered organization. They are part of a group that had its beginning in the first great conflict of the 20th century, World War I. At the time, service flags were displayed on homes that had family members serving the country and blue stars were displayed for each family member in the Armed Forces. Eventually, as casualties grew, the blue stars were turned to gold stars in recognition of each servicemember who died for their country. In 1936, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Chairman Gutknecht), said, Congress designated the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mothers Day.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, their loss is unimaginable, their pain is unspeakable; yet these women find the spirit to walk together simply for the benefit of others and to work very hard for the benefit of others, to make sure that each of us remembers the sacrifice of their son or beloved daughter. They have a unique ability to remind us of our noble cause, ensuring that we will forever remember that America's freedom originated and is maintained through a constant struggle that is still being fought today.

In addition, they remind us that the decision to send troops into harm's way is made with severe consequence, the loss of the precious life of a young American. The way in which these ladies channel their sorrow, their grief, their anger, to further the ideals to which their sons and daughters gave their lives, is truly remarkable.

The actions of these women are amazing. I have met them for years as a Member of this Congress. Every year we would have them testify before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and then in meetings afterwards, as well as in my own district and State, and I have met with so many Gold Star Mothers who tell their stories of their son or daughter, often accompanied with tears.

But they can also teach us a very important lesson, Mr. Speaker. At a time when overt partisanship seems rampant, while our country yearns so desperately for its people to come together on so many fronts, the Gold Star Mothers represent the very best of American values and ideals. If they, despite their grief, can come together to provide so much to other veterans and the community at large, surely we can all take the time to let them know that their country is proud of them and salutes them on their Mothers Day.

Mr. Speaker, today I chaired a hearing examining the implementation of PL 108-484, the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004.

Earlier this year, I traveled to coastal areas of Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka which had been devastated by the tsunami. The destruction from those 50-foot-high waves was almost total, and the vast majority of individuals affected were fisherman and other working poor whose boats and nets and livelihoods had been completely swept away. While they gratefully received the emergency food, aid and shelter which our military and our USAID disaster relief teams so efficiently provided, in the medium term, what these folks really needed and wanted was a small loan to enable them to rebuild their businesses and become self-sufficient again.

The same could be said of areas in our own country which have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. While I am not aware of any microloan programs operating in New Orleans, having read Dr. Morduch's testimony which he will give later today, I do know that a microcredit group, Accion New York, serves over 6,000 customers in the New York metropolitan area.

Whether here or abroad, I have long been a fan of microcredit programs because I have seen them work. The term ``foreign aid'' often has a bad connotation--and there are some good reasons why, too. Many times in the past, foreign aid was delivered in a topdown manner to corrupt governments and organizations, where it never really reached the intended recipients.

Microenterprise, on the other hand, takes a totally different approach. It's a ``trickle-up'' approach that focuses on helping the poorest people on the planet build themselves up, little by little, into self-sufficiency by giving them access to financing. The success of microenterprise lending programs to empower entrepreneurs and borrowers in the developing world cannot be overstated.

Over two million clients are currently benefiting from USAID-assisted programs that provide the necessary capital through small loans, usually of a few hundred dollars or less, for entrepreneurs to start and expand their own small businesses. It is estimated that 97 percent of microenterprise loans are successfully repaid and 70 percent go to women, who are often very vulnerable, subjected to abuse, and in need of economic opportunities in the developing world. Microenterprise is a key vehicle to assist victims of trafficking and to raise the social and economic status of women around the world.

Microenterprise also complements the principles President Bush has outlined for more effective foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Account, and is a key component for fulfilling the UN's Millennium Development Goals to eradicate world poverty by the year 2015. Business owners assisted by micro-lending are not only able to increase their own incomes, but through their own efforts, they create jobs and help economies grow.

Success stories from the beneficiaries of microenterprise are quite numerous. Take for example, Dorothy Eyiah from Ghana. Dorothy was resourceful, but she had no idea how she was going to support her AIDS- stricken sister and family when she brought them into her home in Ghana. She used to support herself selling ice, but that wasn't going to pay for the food and medicines she now needed. She started praying. All doors seemed shut until Dorothy met some women within her village who were part of an Opportunity International Trust Bank. The Trust Bank could help her grow a small business--providing her with financing, training, support. Five loans later, Dorothy is the secretary of her Trust Bank and runs three businesses, employing nine people from her village. She is content. Her sister is comfortable, all the children are in school, and their needs are being met. ``God has been so good to me,'' she says.

Success stories such as this are what microfinance and the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 are all about. By building the best possible microenterprise program, we will be able to reach the greatest possible number of poor people with services that truly have an impact on their lives. As we compare the effectiveness of various methods of implementing microcredit programs, success will be measured by the ability to reach very poor people and other underserved populations, including women, and by the kind of impact these programs have on poor families. We are concerned not only with the efficient delivery of financial services, but also with the

well-being of those who receive those services. We want to see poor people work their way out of poverty, increase their income, build their assets, and grow their businesses, and we also want to see them educate their children, achieve greater self-esteem, strengthen their families, and improve the quality of their lives.

I introduced the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 at the beginning of the 108th Congress, and the final product represents the culmination of months of hard work and discussion by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, members of the microenterprise community, and USAID, to build upon one of our most progressive and successful foreign aid programs.

This legislation is primarily about ensuring better results, not authorizing additional money. A comprehensive GAO report completed in November 2003 revealed that oversight and accountability of microenterprise programs administered by USAID is weak, and that programs are not having the desired effect of reaching the very poor-- those earning less than the equivalent of $1/day--to the greatest extent possible.

In response to those concerns, PL 108-484 builds-in accountability through a focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The law establishes a dedicated Microenterprise Office within USAID which will approve strategic plans of field missions, establish a monitoring system in order to maximize the impact of programs and measure results, and coordinate preparation of a yearly report to Congress. The legislation also ensures that more funds go to the ``very poor'' through the development and implementation of easy-to-use, cost- effective poverty assessment techniques. Identifying and targeting the poorest potential clients who would stand to benefit most from microenterprise loans has proven to be more difficult than originally anticipated. I am hopeful that once developed, these poverty assessment techniques may prove useful not only for microenterprise but also in other areas of our foreign aid.

PL 108-484 also stipulates that USAID should emphasize the use of global microfinance networks and other non-profit private voluntary organizations in the implementation of microenterprise and microfinance programs. In the last two years, I am concerned that USAID has been shifting its focus away from non-profit organizations and networks to contractors in the implementation of the Agency's microenterprise program.

While for-profit entities such as consulting firms are making excellent contributions in the areas of technical assistance, research and policy reform, global microfinance networks and non-profit private voluntary organizations have the operational experience and track record in microenterprise and microfinance service delivery to poor people. These organizations are able to get resources directly to clients, and are well positioned to reach the very poorest economically active entrepreneurs in the countries where they work. Further, such networks have built self-sustaining microfinance institutions that now cover, on average, almost all of their operating costs. More than $150 million in earned revenue was captured by these institutions in 2002 to cover their operating costs, in addition to private donations that have added significant leverage to USAID's investments. These networks have excelled in rapidly developing microfinance institutions in volatile and risky situations, including during the early stages of a country's transition from war to peace.

When we provide microloans for the developing world, we export values upon which our nation is based upon, including the ideal that if you work hard and dream big, you can succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 360) commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good friend and colleague, for authoring this resolution. The gentleman is a Member who is considerably schooled in the Far East and knows well the effects which the war in the Pacific had, not only on Japan, but on other nations in the region.

The gentleman from Florida is also a senior member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I know that he has been a leader in ensuring that no veteran is ever left behind. He is also the author of the Millennium Health Care Act, which puts a special emphasis on providing long-term health care, especially to our World War II veterans. So it is very fitting, I think, that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is the author of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 360 is a resolution that recognizes the 60th anniversary of victory in the Pacific during World War II, V-J Day.

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago the guns fell silent and the world was able to begin the process of, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg when he said, we will bind up our Nation's wounds when we begin the very difficult and arduous process of binding up the world's wounds. The loss of life was indeed staggering; the process of rebuilding seemingly insurmountable. But just as Americans had rallied in war, Americans rallied in peace as well.

This resolution reiterates the simple, but very powerful, message that our Nation honors and deeply appreciates

the men and women who served in the Pacific Theatre during World War II, and we especially remember and pay tribute to those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Mr. Speaker, we take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives in the Pacific Theatre and thank all veterans of World War II. During the war, several million members of the United States Armed Forces fought in the Pacific, including the chairman of the International Relations Committee, our distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This was one of the largest military forces ever committed by the U.S. in any theatre of operation.

I would also briefly pay tribute to my own late father, who saw horrific combat starting in New Guinea and ending in the Philippines. My dad was tough as nails but had a very gentle heart, and he was like so many of those combat veterans that I have met over the many years who absolutely hated war, but felt it was his duty to defend freedom and to defend America.

This resolution recognizes the staggering deaths and casualties and the struggle by military forces and civilians of the allied powers during the epic struggle for the control of the Pacific. It also recognizes that since the war Japan has become a free and prosperous democracy and has become a valued partner in the process of standing tall against despotism and oppression.

This is an occasion, Mr. Speaker, to remember and to commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and the heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much. I join millions of Americans participating in thousands of events all across the United States, many of which have already been held, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American servicemembers, allied soldiers, and home front workers. This truly was the greatest generation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, my distinguished friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 19) calling upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 19, as amended, calling on the President to issue a proclamation in recognition of the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act.

The resolution urges the 55 states of North America, Europe and Eurasia which comprise the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe to abide by their obligations under the Helsinki Final Act. The Congress further calls on the President to reiterate the United States' agreement that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and economic liberty are vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy, peace and unity in this region of the world.

For all of the history that we make here, Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that we in this body have the opportunity to celebrate and honor an event that has so conspicuously marked such a turning point in human affairs. Too often the history of international relations is one of false starts and missed opportunities. The victories, when they do happen, are more often ones of prevention, disasters averted or crises ended. Or if not that, then the results are realized too far into the future to be judged with any clarity. This is not the case with the Helsinki Final Act signed on August 1, 1975.

With that historic event, what we saw was a recognition not just by the United States or even the West, but

even in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, that human rights are the pivot, the linchpin of true security and peace in the world. What the Helsinki Final Act asserted and what subsequent history has taught beyond any reasonable doubt is this: The way governments treat their people is the concern not just of those governments but of all the nations and peoples of the world. In essence, security and human dignity and human rights are one and indivisible.

Indeed, it is in the fall of the Communist regimes in Europe that we have seen the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and the process that the act inaugurated, unleashed forces of good and of hope. The document spoke truth to power and empowered millions to rise up and demand democracy and fundamental freedoms, especially religious freedom. Many became Helsinki monitors in dictatorships, in places like Czechoslovakia where members of Charter 77 risked their lives and often went to prison in demanding that their dictatorship allow them fundamental freedoms.

We saw it in places like Perm 35, a horrible gulag that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited back in the 1980s, where men were actively clamoring for their rights. For instance Mikhail Kazachkov, a physcist by training imprisoned for his dissident activites, took the Helsinki Final Act and, even at risk of cruel retribution, would speak up and demand his freedoms and those of his fellow inmates.

Recently, the United States Helsinki Commission of which I am the Co- chair hosted an event commemorating the 30th anniversary. We had Dr. Henry Kissinger as our principal speaker. Dr. Kissinger, as many will know and recall, was Secretary of State in that period, and he pointed out how rough the world was at the time, how close we were to superpower conflict between ourselves and the Soviet Union. The arsenals were brimming over with nuclear weapons that unfortunately seemed to be at the ready.

Dr. Kissinger pointed out that the Helsinki Final Act was not popular at the time. Many thought it was a concession to the Soviet Union, that somehow they would make propaganda, and they would reap tremendous benefits from it. People had serious misgivings about what the Helsinki Final Act would actually do. The United States signed onto the Final Act and, of the three baskets, we emphasized the human rights dimension and promoted it and promoted it and promoted it, much to the chagrin of leaders in the Kremlin, as well as those who were part of the Warsaw Pact.

In reality, Dr. Kissinger noted the Helsinki process served as a catalyst to ``promote change in the political situation and also to change the human rights situation.'' He said, ``I can think of nothing that the Soviet Union got out of this, except that their position in Eastern Europe and their position along the dividing line in Germany was undermined.''

Whenever we met with Soviet authorities or Polish leaders or any leaders of those occupied countries, we always had lists of political prisoners and of religious prisoners. We always based our inquiries on the fact that all of these nations were voluntary signatories to the Helsinki Final Act. This was a matter of international concern. These were not simply American values, these were universally recognized and agreed to values.

Mr. Speaker, let me also say that the Helsinki process continues. We need to continue fighting. We are now fighting to try to stem the rise of anti-Semitism, that ugly specter of hate toward Jews throughout the countries that make up the OSCE, including the United States. We are working to combat racism and xenophobic behavior. We are now working very hard, and have been since the 1990s, to combat this hideous form of slavery known as human trafficking, especially for prostitution where women are turned into chattel and into commodities and their lives destroyed.

We are also working on a number of other human rights issues within the Helsinki process, trying to get the Central Asian countries to realize that they have commitments that need to be abided by. Mr. Speaker, this is not a document that we only look back on. This is a living document that we work to implement as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the Helsinki Final Act is our ability to use it to promote democracy and elections. No organization does a better job than the OSCE monitors when it comes to elections. When the commitments have been implemented, political parties have had the opportunity for free and fair elections. When emphasis is given to the conduct of free elections, we have witnessed some amazing changes, including Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution and Serbia's Democratic Revolution. These events in the last 5 years alone testify to the power of the principles inscribed in the Helsinki Final Act and the other OSCE documents that followed on.

Some participating States, however, most notably Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, seem determined to not live up to their commitments. These remain some of the areas of concern that our Helsinki Commission works on on a daily basis.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, having served as a member of the Helsinki Commission since my second term in 1983, I believe the U.S. must hold vigorously to the values that have inspired fundamental and democratic change in much of the OSCE region. As I said a moment ago, our work is not done. Much needs to be done going forward. I know we will do it. We will use this now famous document, the Helsinki Final Act, as our inspiration going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests

for time, and I yield back the balance of our time as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, in January I traveled to Aceh, Puquet and Colombo and saw American foreign aid save the lives of tens of thousands of people ravaged by the tsunami. Two weeks ago, I was in Darfur, Sudan and visited refugee and IDP camps in that war-ravaged area and saw firsthand U.S. taxpayer funds and U.S. leadership saving and rebuilding the lives of hundreds of thousands of Africans. But charity begins at home, Mr. Speaker, and we must leave no stone unturned in our effort to save the lives of Americans, our neighbors, devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

Today's appropriation is a downpayment. It is a beginning of an aggressive humanitarian effort that will take months, even years, to rebuild the lives of those shattered people. Today we say to the suffering, we will do whatever it takes to save lives, to mitigate disease, and rebuild.

Mr. Speaker, the FDA issued a stern warning on Tuesday about the dangers to women from RU-486, the abortion drug the Clinton administration aggressively pushed through approval without proving its safety. Not only is RU-486 baby pesticide, killing unborn children up to 7 weeks, it is poison to the women themselves. Licensed by the Population Council, manufactured in the PRC, and widely disbursed by Planned Parenthood, at least five women have died in the U.S. after taking this dangerous drug. As a result of these women's deaths and serious concerns that many more women have died as well-- underreporting is a serious problem--new drug labeling will warn women that serious danger of sepsis and blood infection can occur.

Because RU-486 was rushed to approval by the Clinton administration using the expedited FDA subpart H process, which is supposed to be used for HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening diseases, numerous safety concerns were suppressed, trivialized and overlooked. The Clinton FDA approval process was a gross sham. The approval of RU-486 is a scandal that is today killing women. The FDA must pull this dangerous drug and Congress must pass Holly's Law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2601.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting Chairman. Is the gentleman from New Jersey acting as the designee of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)?

Mr. Chairman, I am.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires that the State Department submit a report to Congress that one, identifies by name all NGOs receiving funding under the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the date that the funding was provided, and the date on which the NGO filed the statement certifying its policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

Number two, it describes the Department of State's plans to audit the compliance by nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. funding under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief to have and adhere to an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking and a description of the plan of the Department of State to transmit the results to the appropriate congressional committees.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note for my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment. When the Hyde historic legislation on HIV/AIDS was considered by the committee, I offered the amendment that was included in that bill to ensure that the NGOs, to which we provide considerable amounts of money and, in many cases, we are talking tens of millions of dollars, are not in any way complicit in sex trafficking nor in the promotion of prostitution and its legality.

I would point out to my colleagues that by way of historical background, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Reauthorization and Expansion Act of 2003. We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that we as a government, we as a provider of significant Federal funding, in no way are enabling this modern-day slavery called sex trafficking or prostitution, which is its very close cousin.

I would hope that Members would realize that this is a very simple amendment. It just requires that we get basic information, which I think in our oversight capacity we have an obligation to do as a Congress and as certain committees of the Congress.

So I hope that Members will support this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is actually the prime sponsor of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Kucinich amendment. A key element in a robust defense against ballistic missiles is the deployment of space-based weapons to intercept them in flight. We are talking about in all cases nonnuclear interceptors to stop an incoming nuclear device.

I think the amendment, while well intentioned, and I respect the gentleman from Ohio, is very counterproductive and puts our cities and our population at risk. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). This is a very creative amendment; 9/11 should not mean that the welcome mat has been pulled. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) points out in the amendment's findings, $13 billion every year is earned from foreign students coming in. But it is not the money, per se, although that helps our colleges and universities. It is the fact that these students have the opportunity to learn what democracy is all about, to learn what a capitalist system can produce for their people when they return. They can also learn skills that will save lives in the area of medicine as well as in law and so many other areas.

It is a very, very creative amendment, I think, and will lead to best practices that will result in more students taking the good infection back to their respective countries. I again want to congratulate the gentleman on this excellent amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his outstanding work on this issue, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Watson) very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in August of 2003, the Government of Nigeria, at the urging of the governments of the United States and Great Britain, gave asylum to then-Liberian President Charles Taylor. The purpose was to prevent further bloodshed and to allow for a transition back to a democratically elected government in Liberia. The deal was struck in spite of the indictment of Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in June of that year on 17 counts of war crimes, including mass murder, sexual slavery, rape, hostage-taking, amputations, forced conscriptions of children and adults, arson, looting, and many other abuses of human rights.

Nevertheless, the action by the Nigerian Government likely saved thousands of lives and is providing at least a chance for free elections in Liberia in October. However, the deal was not without conditions, and there is ample evidence that Charles Taylor has violated this asylum agreement.

For example, Taylor is alleged to be cooperating with international terrorist organizations. He is engaged in illicit trade in blood diamonds in violation of U.N. sanctions and is linked to the proliferation of small arms throughout the region. He has also destabilized the entire subregion of West Africa, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced in its wake.

Nigerian President Obasanjo refuses to end the asylum agreement, however, unless there is irrefutable evidence of violations by Taylor. I would point out to my colleagues that on March 17, Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that Taylor's former military commanders, party leaders, and business associates maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine Liberia's return to democracy.

I urge strong support for this amendment. It is an outstanding one.

A few days later, Jacques Klein, the UN Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Liberia confirmed that Taylor is ``still very, much involved'' in Liberian politics.

Outgoing Chief Prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane continues to accuse Taylor of ``ruling the country from his house arrest in Calabar'' In southern Nigeria.

So, yes President Obasanjo, there is plenty of evidence that Charles Taylor has violated the terms of his asylum. Has he continued to destabilize not only Liberia, but also Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea? That has yet to be proven in court, but there is enough evidence for him to be sent to the court in Sierra Leone to find out.

President Bush raised this issue with President Obasanjo at a meeting in May, but U.S. policy must consist of more than a brief discussion. Whatever evidence we have must be shared with the Nigerian government, and then they must make up their mind if they want to continue in the direction of helping West Africa to heal or if they want to close their eyes to continued interference and further upheaval.

Surely, the time has come for Charles Taylor's reign of terror in the region to reach its final, conclusive end.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority of the committee, I want to express our strong support for this amendment.

This amendment, the Watson-Issa amendment, will continue to support programs similar to those that were begun in fiscal year 2004. The State Department has designed programs to target areas of the world that have significant rates of intellectual property rights piracy with unique law enforcement assistance. This assistance has been tailored to particular activities in various regions of the world. It is critical to support the intellectual property rights community, Mr. Chairman, as the United States is the world's single largest creator, producer and exporter of copyrighted materials.

Rampant piracy of creative works poses a significant risk to U.S. creative work products, including music, movies, video games and other software. As the U.S. copyright industry alone accounts for nearly 6 percent of this Nation's GDP, it is an economic security issue as well for the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my two colleagues for offering this very important amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

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

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and for their strong statements here. The problem of the Chaldo- Assyrians has been brought to the attention of the committee. The committee has brought these concerns to the attention of the administration.

I have met with people myself who have expressed concerns about this, and believe that they should not get short shrift when it comes to U.S. foreign aid and efforts being made in Iraq. The administration has prepared materials attempting to show it has been fair and inclusive in its distribution of assistance, but this amendment puts every one of us on guard that we need to watch this very carefully to make sure that they are not shown the door or in any way denied the kind of assistance that we are capable of offering and I think we are obligated to provide to them. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for crafting this very important amendment. It is creative as an amendment, and it also will get the job done.

The U.S. Interests Section, if this amendment were to be enacted, will get the information out that there is a bounty on the heads of these people who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. According to the FBI, 74 U.S. citizens convicted of felonious crimes in the U.S. are currently living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime.

Joanne Chesimard was convicted, and one of those who is living in Cuba. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1977 for the 1973 execution-style slaying of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. Witnesses said she fired two bullets into his head as he lay on the ground. This is a very commonsense approach to try to get the message out, and hopefully it will empower everyday, ordinary Cubans to take action to bring these people to justice.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment. It is merely an amendment authorizing a study to determine whether or not the U.S. Office in Pristina ought to provide consular services. There are about 15,000 people that make that trip to Skopje every year. It is a burdensome situation for them.

But let me also point out there is some value to this debate in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), because it underscores the clear and nonambiguous intent here that we do not want to prejudge or predetermine the final status with regard to Kosovo. That is to be left to the negotiations.

Even if the State Department makes a recommendation that it is going to be left to a status negotiation, I think the gentleman's amendment and the fact we have had this debate helps to bring some light to that. This amendment would merely facilitate and expedite those individuals that would like to get their visas and to come here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, I oppose the amendment, and I respect the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his very compassionate and important amendment. It should be supported, and the majority on this side of the aisle supports it.

Since 1993, almost 400 women and girls have been murdered and more than 70 remain missing in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. This commonsense amendment simply seeks to provide congressional authority and funding to the Secretary of State to make independent technical and forensic expertise available to the families of these young women and girls.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) represents, as we know, the El Paso area across the border from this area. His amendment extends a helping hand to these grieving families. I want to commend the gentleman for his compassion in offering this amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, the July 7 attacks in London, I believe, served as a chilling reminder of what is at stake in the global war against terrorism. We must fight this war, a war that we never sought, but which has been declared against our country and against our citizens; and we must fight in a way so as to win.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) underscores the resolve to do just that. Since the first prisoners were brought to the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January of 2002, this base has provided a secure location for holding terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and from the many other places around the globe where we have obtained custody of suspected terrorists. It has provided a place where these people could be kept from returning to combat.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) a moment ago talked about the 12 detainees who were released and then returned to combat; two, I understand, in Afghanistan; and at least one that was killed in a firefight. We are talking about terrorists who went right back to attempts to kill Americans.

Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy at the Department of Defense, estimated that as many as 25 of the 202 released had taken up arms again.

For example, Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan. Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk security threat because of his artificial leg. After retuning to Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants--part of a campaign against

the Pakistani government--that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently killed in a government raid. Mesud is still at large.

Mr. Chairman, Guantanamo is a place where crucial intelligence could be gathered that could help the United States understand the operating methods, patterns, financing, tactical skills and training of these terrorists. This information is critical to preventing future terrorist attacks and, in the long run, critical to developing a strategic vision for combating this new enemy.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, those who are held in Guantanamo must be treated, without exception, humanely. There must be zero tolerance for torture or degrading or inhumane or cruel treatment, and Congress does have a moral responsibility to ensure that that is the case. And I, like many of my colleagues, have gone down to Guantanamo to see for myself, to provide oversight, to ask the tough questions and to try to get answers to those questions.

I would point out to my colleagues as well that in last year's defense authorization bill, Public Law 108-375, this body unambiguously stated that it is the sense of Congress that, and I quote it, ``no detainee shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.''

Moreover, that law requires the Secretary of Defense to take steps to ensure that policies are adopted to ensure the humane treatment of detainees and that all DOD commanders have adequate training regarding the law of war and Geneva Convention obligations, and that standard operating procedures regarding detainees be established.

Mr. Chairman, finally, just let me say that the U.S. must continue to fight this war on terrorism on every front. We must not let complacency lead us to lower our guard. We must fight this war in a way that is consistent, however, with fundamental principles.

And I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has offered us a resolution that tries to make that clear.

Mr. Chairman, every American wants our soldiers, especially those who have loved ones deployed in Iraq, home as quickly as humanly possible. But I would submit to my colleagues that that must be at a time that ensures that the baton of security is passed to a militarily capable, free, and democratic Iraq.

Let me point out to my colleagues that progress is being made in that regard. There are currently more than 171,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, including 76,000 soldiers, 63,400 police and highway patrolmen, and 33,787 Ministry of Interior forces. So the previous speaker, I do not know where she is getting her numbers, but they certainly are not correct.

Iraqi security forces are now capable of planning and executing operations at the battalion level and higher, and there are a number of instances where they have performed superbly.

One of the previous speakers, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), mentioned that we need to be providing money for rehab. We have provided $19.1 billion to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. That is a significant commitment. You cannot do reconstruction without security.

Finally, I respectfully submit that any public announcement concerning specific timetables or a date certain for withdrawal of our Armed Forces is likely to result in significantly advantaging the terrorists in a way that will put more lives, more American lives, more Iraqi lives, at risk, and the mission itself will be put at risk.

I would also point out to my colleagues that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) did offer an amendment on the withdrawal issue; it failed 33 to 12 in the committee. So we did have some consideration of that during markup.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, when he met with us just a few weeks ago, was passionate: no timetables; it will lead to the loss of life.

Mr. Chairman, let me finish today's debate on H.R. 2601 with a boatload of thank yous to our staff who have worked long and hard to produce this piece of legislation.

And let me particularly thank Eleanor Nagy, director of policy for my committee for the Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, for her extraordinary skill, wisdom, insight and professionalism in crafting this comprehensive bill.

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

This legislation that we bring to the floor is a comprehensive bill, 332 pages long. It will probably grow significantly during the course of the day because there are a number of amendments that will be offered and I believe accepted.

As chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations Subcommittee and as author of H.R. 2601, I am very proud of the way we worked in a bipartisan way on crafting this legislation. I point out to my colleagues that this legislation has been crafted over the course of several months. I chaired eight hearings at which we looked at various component parts of this bill and policies related to this bill, and the full committee met twice to consider the State Department request and the other associated requests that are contained within this legislation. I would point out to my colleagues that I know I have had amendments in the past that were not made in order over my last 25 years as a Member of Congress. It is always disappointing. But there were 10 amendments considered by our subcommittee. And then when we moved to full committee, there were 52 additional amendments considered. Today we have another 38 that will be considered as well. So this bill will be subjected to an enormous number of amendments, and I think that is good and healthy and very important.

I would point out to my colleagues that the bill passed the committee 42 to zero. People on the left and on the right, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, came together realizing that we had crafted a truly bipartisan piece of legislation for our Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

We often debate money on the floor, and having the monetary resources necessary to carry out our foreign policy tasks are indeed critical. But equally if not more important, it is how we spend the money. This authorization measure contains important new foreign policy directives and reflects a consensus on both sides of the aisle. Together we have produced a very strong piece of legislation that protects our national interests abroad, robustly funds our public diplomacy efforts, and promotes those values that we hold dear such as the protection of human rights, support for democracy, and assistance to those in crisis or in need.

H.R. 2601 fully funds the operations of the Department of State, especially its diplomatic operations abroad, and meets the President's budget request. It authorizes $22.3 billion over 2 years plus for the Department of State, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs, and related agencies.

Again, I hope my colleagues will support the rule and the bill when it comes to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I would echo the statements of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in applauding Chairman Hyde for his extraordinary leadership on the Committee on International Relations. He is the best and the most effective chairman I have ever seen, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2006 and 2007 is a comprehensive 332-page bill. With 11 titles, it authorizes funding for the State Department, international broadcasting, education and exchange programs, peacekeeping, international organizations and much, much more. H.R. 2601 funds the all-important framework by which the United States carries out its foreign aid and foreign policy programs and authorizes U.S. contributions to the United Nations, NATO, the OSCE, and other vital international organizations.

The cost of the bill is $10.8 billion for fiscal year 2006, $10 billion for 2007, with some costs in the outyears totaling $1.9 billion, for a total multiyear price tag of $22.3 billion, and it is within budget.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Relations, I chaired eight hearings on issues related to the bill, and the full committee met twice for consideration of these provisions. There were 10 amendments considered during markup in our subcommittee and another 52 amendments considered during the full committee. This bipartisan bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, passed 42 to 0, and the rule today permits 39 additional amendments for consideration.

The legislation, Mr. Chairman, puts a heavy emphasis on security and authorizes $1.5 billion for security-related construction at U.S. missions, $690 million to increase security for diplomatic personnel and $930 million for border security programs.

This funding continues the work begun after the devastating terrorist bombings in the late 1990s of our two U.S. embassies in Africa. Subsequent to that, Admiral Crowe, who headed up the Accountability Review Board, reported that some 85 percent of our missions at the time were vulnerable. Since then, Congress has stepped up and provided funding to try to close that gap.

This bill continues that work and includes funding for 55 additional diplomatic security personnel positions and 55 new consular positions. Under the capital security construction program, eight new embassy compounds in Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Ukraine, Rwanda, Zambia, Mozambique, Bosnia, and for St. Petersburg in Russia, and four USAID annexes in Nigeria, Ghana, Nicaragua, and Georgia would be funded.

The bill also increases funding for minority recruitment, and continues the annual report on minority recruiting efforts at the Department of State. It increases the ceiling on differential pay for hardship and danger at a time when we are operating new posts in extremely dangerous locations. It supports human rights efforts at the Department through targeted funding for the Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; promotes programs to fight anti-Semitism, protects religious freedom in OSCE countries; provides a permanent authorization for Radio Free Asia; and funds scholarships for outstanding individuals from the Southern Sudan region to study in the United States.

Given the unparalleled threat to the United States and to the world from the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, strengthening our nuclear nonproliferation effort is an important and vital piece of this legislation. Title VII of the bill revises and strengthens strategic export controls and mandates

a comprehensive review of U.S. strategic exports, including arms and dual-use items. Its aim is to ensure that U.S. military superiority remains, and that terrorist states and organizations are denied the means to advance their nefarious goals.

The bill also states that U.S. national interests would be advanced by a stronger International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, including ensuring that a recurring delay in the U.S. annual payment is corrected.

Title VIII upgrades policies related to the elimination of the U.N. nuclear black market and establishes that nonproliferation is a condition of U.S. foreign aid. The bill mandates that countries must be fully cooperative with U.S. efforts to eliminate the nuclear black- market network, again as a precondition to receiving U.S. foreign aid.

One title, title VI, the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005, authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), creates a new office at State to work with democratic movements, establishes an annual report and a list of countries, countries that are either undemocratic or democratic transition countries, and launches a more robust coordinated effort to systematically promote democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful the committee has included a number of provisions that I proposed, including services for overseas children suffering from autism; a global prevalence study on autism; steps to promote human rights and democracy in Vietnam, Belarus, and Zimbabwe; support for a strengthened rule of law in Northern Ireland, as well as assistance to maternal and child victims of Chernobyl; and the creation of a program to repair and prevent the tragic condition of obstetric fistula.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for this bill.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Madam Chairman, despite almost universal acknowledgment of the problems that exist within the U.N. human rights system and in its peacekeeping operations, there has been little reform, a lot of talk, but very little actual reform. This amendment is needed to help end this deplorable state of affairs.

Even U.N. officials like Kofi Annan have said, ``Unless we remake our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the U.N. itself.'' No truer words have ever been spoken. It is a mess and it must be rectified.

But it is not just the Commission on Human Rights that is broken. Other U.N. bodies, especially the treaty bodies, have strayed from core mandates and failed to act against severe violations of human rights. Groups like CEDAW and others, without absolutely any mandate, promote a right to abortion, nothing mentioned about the unborn child. They promote violence against children and they call it a human right. Nowhere in their documents, including the CEDAW Convention, can that be found.

Let me also point out that the Hyde amendment mandates that countries that fail to uphold the Human Declaration of Human Rights should be ineligible for membership on the Human Rights Commission or any followup, like the Human Rights Council that is being proposed.

We will get rid of those items where Israel is singled out by itself at these Human Rights Commission meetings for all kinds of false charges and slander, and other countries like Sudan or the People's Republic of China get away unscathed.

The Hyde amendment also mandates that the Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC, abolish secret voting, which has led to all kinds of abuse. Like I said, we would no longer allow members, rogue nations with despicable human rights records, to be a part of it.

The Hyde U.N. Reform Act also focuses on the area of peacekeeping. I would ask Members, look at this legislation that is pending before you, H.R. 2601. It doubles the amount of money available for U.N. peacekeeping, doubles it. I will give you the numbers if you would like to hear them. We go from $483 million to $1.035 billion. We are for peacekeeping. We want to assure that the kind of abuses that we have seen in Congo, in other countries are stopped, and hopefully this legislation will help to do that.

Every single reform that has been proposed is eminently doable, if and only if the political will is there to effectuate it.

We need to ensure accountability and transparency in the $1.2 billion in taxpayer money we spend on peacekeeping every year.

The Hyde amendment does it. We need a U.N. that speaks strongly and clearly for the universal respect and observance of fundamental human rights and the dignity and the worth of every human person, the equal rights of men and women, as the foundation for freedom, justice, and peace. The Hyde amendment promotes that.

More high-sounding words will not help the U.N. reform itself. As the chairman said a moment ago, we have seen resolution upon resolution here, as well as in New York at the U.N., and what happens? It dies a slow and ceremonial death because it never gets acted upon. We are giving it a push, a real prod. This will not end peacekeeping as we know it. I think it will make it transparent and, hopefully, make it much more effective and stop the horrific abuses that have been committed by U.N. peacekeepers in places like Congo.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend my friend from Texas for a very constructive amendment which the committee supports. This provision seeks to alleviate the plight of hundreds of thousands of Burmese who have been forced to flee from their native villages by the repressive policies of the military dictatorship in Rangoon, the same dictatorship that represses Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. This amendment would facilitate the provision of much needed food, medical and other humanitarian relief, and I thank the gentleman for offering it on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority, we welcome and support the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). The links between drugs and terrorism and the overall future of a democratic Afghanistan are self-evident and important. It is critical that we take down and extradite to the United States those kingpins and warlords in the drug trade who are affecting our Nation here at home and poisoning the new democracy in Afghanistan and fueling terrorism at the same time.

The Souder amendment will let us know whether we are getting cooperation and support from the government of Afghanistan on this critical part in the fight against illicit drugs: extraditions.

According to DEA, there are four pending U.S. requests for extradition from the government of Afghanistan, including one major kingpin. We need to know if we are getting cooperation on these requests, and if not, why not. I support and strongly urge adoption of the Souder amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that the committee stands ready to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) to ensure that he gets the cables he has requested. It is an important part of the gentleman's work and our Congressional oversight function. We will work very closely with the gentleman on this.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, for several years now I have pushed USAID and the Congress to establish a program to assist women who suffer from obstetric fistula. According to the USAID, an estimated 2 million women suffer needlessly from fistula and from 50,000 to 100,000 new cases are added every year, mostly in Africa.

Fistula occurs during obstetric labor, which sometime damages soft tissues. The destroyed tissues leave a hole or fistula in the pelvic floor area which causes incontinence. Tragically, the constant leaking of urine and feces leads to sickness, desertion by husbands and family, extreme social isolation, and poverty. Who are vulnerable, according to the USAID, very young mothers, women experiencing their first birth, women whose growth has been stunted due to malnutrition or illness, and poor women who lack access to the most basic of obstetric services.

My amendment and the underlying language in H.R. 2601, section 901, that I put into the bill, establishes 12 centers for the treatment and prevention of obstetric fistula. Funding is authorized at $5 million in 2006, and the amendment increases the authorization by $2.5 million to $7.5 million in fiscal year 2007.

Amazingly, for $150 to a couple hundred dollars, a woman victimized by fistula can obtain a surgical repair that gives her back her life. No woman should be denied this minimal, life-saving surgical repair. My amendment requires that the centers include increased access for women to emergency obstetrical care, including increased access to skilled birth attendants and care facilities.

My amendment states that the centers may include activities to expand abstinence education, postponement of marriage and child bearing until after the teenage years, and access to family-planning services.

During markup, an amendment was offered to exclude, and this would be the result of that language, certain faith-based health care providers who, while deeply committed to mitigating the pain of fistula, would be barred from receiving funds. I have been in contact with Dr. Kent Hill, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Global Health at USAID, and he concurs that my amendment is preferable and balanced because it permits inclusion of family planning programs, gives USAID the flexibility to get the job done, and is consistent with the conscience clause we secured through an amendment I inserted in Mr. Hyde's $15 billion HIV/ AIDS law.

Section 901 is a modest $5 million in 2006, $7.5 million in 2007, and we need to begin in earnest to give women who suffer the tragedy of fistula the basic care that they need.

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

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

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

Just to make the very clear point to my colleagues, this section 901 creates a brand new program that, until this legislation is enacted, has not existed. I authored section 901, and the emphasis is on surgical repair. We have 2 million women who are in dire need of repair--the walking wounded--and it takes a very modest amount of money to effectuate the repair of their damaged bodies so, again, they can get their lives back.

Secondly, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Crowley) amendment, wittingly or unwittingly, will preclude a number of faith-based hospitals--language that he added that at first blush looked okay but upon further scrutiny and study, we found that it was a major problem. There are at least four hospitals, one in Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, and in Bangladesh, that would be denied fistula funding, because under Crawley, inclusion of contraception is absolutely mandatory. It should be discretionary. These are proposed fistula centers pursuant to AID's plan to role out and to implement. So we are talking about those who could provide fistula services being told they cannot have the money.

Let me also point out to my friends and colleagues that the U.S. spends about $450 million in overseas family planning per year in the budget. Nobody is touching that. That will go forward in FY '06. Some of that money can be used to try to prevent and repair fistula and to incorporate the two. But let me point out to my colleagues, that my language says the centers may include: ``Activities to expand abstinence education, postponement of marriage'' and ``expand access to family planning services.'' That is my amendment. Expand access to family planning services. It is discretionary however. I would suspect that some--maybe most--of the fistula centers will do just that. But there are faith-based health centers for which that is a problem, and we want to get this fistula repair program out to as many women as humanly possible.

Let me just tell my colleagues as well if they vote against this amendment, they are also voting against $2.5 million in addition to what is in the bill to expand surgical repairs for these women.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is very obvious that family planning includes contraception, and our language makes that very clear.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 2601 funds the protection of foreign missions operations' account at the administration's request of $9.39 million, there are ongoing recurrent high expenses for the protection of foreign missions and officials, especially in New York, that make this amendment necessary. In addition, the Department of State agrees that the City of New York is owed $19.58 million in back payments for security work the city has done in relation to the United Nations.

This amendment authorizes the necessary funds to pay what we owe to New York for protection services already provided and covers projected costs in the next two fiscal years. The majority accepts and supports the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), my good friend and colleague, who was unavoidably detained on official business. As a supporter of the Fossella amendment, I offer it on his behalf.

This amendment very simply seeks to withhold U.S. funding from any U.N. commission, organization or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism until such time that the President determines that they are no longer doing so.

If Members of the U.N. elect known state sponsors of terrorism to lead U.N. organizations, we believe U.S. tax dollars should not support those entities.

In a post-9/11 world we are seeking to build multilateral strategies to address threats of global terror. We must use all available diplomatic tools and leverage such as U.S. contributions, to halt the influence of countries that sponsor and export terror.

This amendment seeks to prevent identified state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Libya from being able to attain leadership positions at U.N. commissions, organizations or affiliated agencies such as the Conference on Disarmament and U.N. human rights bodies.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

With all due respect to my friend and colleague from California, I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), who is really the prime sponsor of this amendment, had prior knowledge of that potential language that you just offered and he did not want to accept it. So on his behalf and my own I would have to reject it regrettably.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my best and warmest wishes to a good friend and constituent, Mr. Benjamin H. Danskin, who today celebrates his 80th birthday.

Ben Danskin has been a key figure in government service, public advocacy and business development in Monmouth County, New Jersey for more than 50 years. He is respected, admired and well-liked by colleagues, associates and former political rivals. His family and close friends are inspired by his wit, good nature, character, charisma and kindness.

Born and raised in Spring Lake, New Jersey, Ben and his older brother, Clyde, learned the importance of public service through their father's example. Their father, Benjamin S. Danskin, was a realtor with Horatio Clayton Real Estate and Insurance, which he later bought and named the Danskin Agency. Successful in business, Benjamin S. Danskin also succeeded in the public arena. He served as the Secretary of the State Division of Tax Appeals, President of the New Jersey Association of Tax Commissioners, and Deputy Director of Taxation, assisting in the creation of the state tax equalization program. Government service would become a family trait.

In September 1943, young Ben Danskin joined the Army as a Lieutenant and began training to become a B-25 bomber pilot. When World War II ended, Ben enrolled in the Dickinson College to pursue a degree in political

science. He graduated in 1949 and moved back to Wall Township with his wife, Betty Joan Slockbower, who had been his high school sweetheart. In April of this year, Ben and Joan celebrated their 58th wedding anniversary--and they are the proud parents of three loving daughters: Cathy, Nancy, and Barbara.

Upon his return from the war, Ben immediately invested himself in his community and embarked upon a life-long commitment to distinguished public service. He joined his father at the Danskin Agency and was elected to the Wall Township Committee. At the age of 27, Ben was appointed as the Mayor of Wall Township, the youngest mayor in township history. In 1963, Ben Danskin was elected as a Monmouth County Freeholder and he served as such until 1969 when he was elected to a five-year term as the Monmouth County Clerk. He was appointed to his first three-year term as Monmouth County Treasurer in 1974. He was reappointed in 1977, replaced by a Democratic freeholder majority in 1980, but reappointed to the treasurer's post in 1983, once the GOP regained the majority on the board. Just last December, 2004, Ben Danskin stepped down from the position of Monmouth County Treasurer after 21 years of consecutive service.

From 1969 to 1982, Ben Danskin led the Monmouth County Republican Committee as its Chairman. He has remained influential in the party throughout his illustrious career. A genuine leader, Ben Danskin has helped launch critical county initiatives and shape public policy through thoughtful, substantive persuasion. He continues to be sought out for his wise counsel and advice.

Though he would not like it discussed, there are lasting tributes to Ben Danskin's hard work and public service. He is credited with a leading role in the establishment of Brookdale Community College, the creation of the Monmouth County Correctional Institution, and the expansion of the Monmouth County park system, just to name a few. Ten of thousands of Monmouth residents continue to benefit from the programs Ben Danskin helped conceive and nurture during his years of public service.

On the business side, Ben counts his co-founding of Allaire Community Bank in 1996 as one of his most successful endeavors. The bank thrived and was recently bought out by Central Jersey Bank.

Ben Danskin's public career is admirable not only for its demonstration of commitment and longevity but more so for the impact he has had on so many positive initiatives for the people of Monmouth County. Happy 80th Birthday, Ben Danskin. On behalf of our mutual friends and constituents, I offer our deepest gratitude for your years of dedicated service and commitment to the public good.