Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would increase the funding for the National Labor Relations Board by $500,000 and is offset by a decrease to the Department of Labor departmental management salaries and expenses. It is to allow the NLRB to start to reduce its cases. It's at 2 years now, and we're looking to reduce it. This is an amendment offered by Mark Udall and myself and Frank LoBiondo.

The NLRB takes an extraordinary amount of time to review and render a decision on employment disputes.

According to the NLRB, the median mount of time it takes from the filing of a charge to the issuance of the NLRB'S decision is over 2 years.

The funding in the Shays-Udall-LoBiondo amendment will allow the NLRB to retain some of its full-time staff, which they otherwise would have to let go due to the pay increase for Government employees.

It will also be used to train supervisors and new employees to ensure they are handling the cases efficiently and effectively, without sacrificing quality.

Funding, however, is not the only answer to the NLRB's problems.

We need to create deadlines to ensure the NLRB renders decisions in an expedient manner.

Mark Udall, Frank LoBiondo, and I have been working on legislation to require the NLRB to issue their decisions promptly.

The bill will require the NLRB to issue a decision not later than 9 months after the date on which the initial complaint was served.

Should the Board not reach a decision within 9 months, it must transmit a report to Congress provide the reason or reasons the deadline was not met and what steps it is taking to reach a decision.

One high-profile NLRB decision found the Smithfield Packing Company guilty of illegally assaulting, intimidating, and harassing its workers in Tar Heel, North Carolina, when they attempted to form a union in 1994 and 1997. However, the NLRB's decision that the employer used unfair labor practices did not come down until 2005.

Taking this amount of time is an absurdity.

Absolutely.

I would be happy to. Could I just recognize Mark Udall?

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment transfers $6.8 million from the Department of Labor Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses and $1.5 million from the Department of Education Departmental Management Account to fund a $6.8 million increase in the AmeriCorps State and National program. The additional $1.5 million is needed to fund corresponding increases to the National Service trust fund for reimbursement of student loans.

This amendment will provide adequate funding to ensure that AmeriCorps State and National program will maintain the 34,000 full- time volunteer positions. Based upon the funding level in the legislation, the corporation will have to reduce its full-time enrollment by 600 positions and replace them with reduced, part-time positions.

There is a great deal of support for increasing Pell Grants in this Congress, something with which I agree. It seems to me, however, that with Pell Grants, the government and our society get no direct return, whereas with AmeriCorps, recipients of this aid are required to perform service to their community and Nation. There is a stipend for education, but they have earned it through serving their country.

To me, national service is one of the smartest investments our government can make. Not only is it a smart financial investment, but national service energizes our youth, empowers our volunteers and helps citizens make a very real, tangible impact on our communities.

Madam Chairman, I concur that we are taking from an account that the chairman has some concern about. I would hope that where it is going would outweigh that.

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose this amendment not because of where the money is spent but where it is taken from. That is what I want to address.

I had an amendment to try to restore funds for AmeriCorp programs to bring it back to the level of 34,000 AmeriCorp workers. We can call them volunteers; we can call them workers.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer. Peace Corps volunteers are given whatever the minimum wage is in the countries where we serve. We are given a stipend when we return, a modest stipend. We are called a ``volunteer'' but we don't work for nothing. We have to have shelter provided as a Peace Corps volunteer, and we have to be paid something to buy food.

AmeriCorp workers, ``volunteers,'' are given a minimum wage in order for them to buy food and to pay their minimum expenses like rent. They may have a 1-year assignment or a 2-year assignment. Most of these people are young kids out of high school who may never have even had a job before, and now they have a job as an AmeriCorp volunteer with this wonderful hope that they can use the 2 years, the stipend that they receive of about $4,600 a year, for college expenses, for educational expenses.

Why would we increase a Pell Grant and not require anything of our young people, but we have an opportunity with AmeriCorp to have someone provide a service to their community, learn a skill and put aside money for education? They can't spend the stipend for anything other than educational needs.

So I just really would encourage my colleague to reconsider doing this. It is destructive, I think, to the program. It is, I think, foolish to think that we would not want these young people gainfully employed in society.

And I make this point particularly to my Republican colleagues. We helped write this bill. The Clinton administration was going to have a one-size-fits-all, and they said we will have a competitive model. We will run these programs State by State by State. We will have them be local programs so you have not the one-size-fits-all. The States then decide what programs competing on the State and local level should be funded. And the program really works well.

I think, if anything, we should be adding more money to AmeriCorp, not less.

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

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 27: Page 25, line 22, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Page 107, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as I walked into this Chamber, Congressman McGovern said we need to work together to bring our troops home. He is right. But the resolution we will be debating today does not allow us to consider bipartisan proposals. There were a number of amendments presented to the Rules Committee, and they rejected all of them.

The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, can say, when Republicans were in control, they didn't do that, they didn't allow bipartisan amendments. That is about the most insignificant and meaningless statement she could make, because Democrats are now in charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus.

There are two things I agree on: we need to bring our troops home, and we need a deadline to do that. But this deadline begins in 120 days and concludes by April of next year, guaranteeing absolute failure, laying waste to all the investment we have talked about.

We need to bring our troops home, but not by the deadline that has been offered. It is the only deadline. So when I vote against what I think is a foolish deadline, the media is going to say exactly what my Democratic colleagues want them to say, that we voted against a deadline and that we are not sincere about bringing our troops home.

Give me a deadline I can support, and I will vote for it. Give me an opportunity to at least debate a deadline that I could support.

We are going to bring our troops home because we can't maintain this level of engagement in Iraq without extending troops from 15 months to 18 months. We are not going to allow that to happen. Our troops will be coming home, but not by April. They will be coming home in a more thoughtful way.

I urge defeat of this resolution. In particular, it did not allow for the Wolf amendment, which was the Iraq Study Group proposal. This is what we need to be voting on. We all say that we agree with it and support it. Well, why not bring it to the floor? What are we afraid of?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I deeply admire Tom Lantos, my friend, whom I have known for so many years, and Ike Skelton, the authors of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about an issue we all have strong feelings about. I regret to say it's a debate that's under a closed rule that doesn't allow all aspects of this issue to come to the forefront, and I deeply regret that.

We asked for a new Secretary of Defense. We wanted Rumsfeld replaced, and he was replaced by Secretary Gates. We asked for a new general on the ground and a new strategy, and General Petraeus was chosen.

After all that he had already done, he was willing to step in. He received unanimous support in the Senate, unanimous support. He has asked one thing from us with this new strategy. He said, give me until September 15 to show what we can do with this surge.

What this resolution does is it bypasses that. It basically, in my judgment, pulls the rug out from under General Petraeus. I think we owe it to him, unless he were to come back and say, we need to change our strategy right now, but he hasn't done that.

In my 17 visits to Iraq, I have seen good months and bad months. Since December, I think it's pretty extraordinary that we have won back Anbar province, an all-Sunni province. The irony is, we had given it up, and it had become a mini Afghanistan with al Qaeda acting like the Taliban. The tribal leaders came to us and said, help us get rid of them.

If we were not there to do that, they would be stuck with an Afghanistan with a Taliban type leadership in all of the Sunni area in Anbar province. But, fortunately, we didn't pull the rug out from under them. We are there to help them.

I think there are at least two inconvenient truths that we are dealing with. One inconvenient truth is the one that Al Gore talks about, which I wish more of us paid attention to, and that's global warming. The other inconvenient truth is what the 9/11 Commission report says, we are confronting Islamist terrorists.

Islamist terrorists have made it very clear that this is ground zero. If we were to leave Iraq, Iraq, in my judgment, would be like Afghanistan, with no troops to prevent the insurgents to do just what the Taliban did. I just hope and pray that we find a way to work together, that we look at bringing the Iraq Study Group presentation before us, because we all say we can support it. Let's build on what we can agree.

I conclude by making this point. We ask the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds to work together and reach out to each other, but Democrats and Republicans are having a hard time reaching out and working together. Bring forward a bipartisan proposal and see how well it could do on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 556, I am pleased we are considering the Senate amendment to this legislation, which passed the House earlier this Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This legislation will require congressional notification for cases sent to second-stage reviews and automatically subjects all transactions involving foreign state-owned companies to a second-stage 45-day investigation.

Last year, the attempt by Dubai Ports World, a port operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, to purchase operating terminals at 6 U.S. ports was a clear indicator the CFIUS process was in dire need of reform.

Whenever a foreign investment affects our homeland security, it deserves greater scrutiny. It seems to me this legislation strikes the proper balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and move this bill to the President for his signature.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would designate $1 million for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, bringing the total for the office from $1.9 million to $2.9 million, enabling the bureau to hire two additional teams of investigators to speed up the review process for petitions. Presently, there are seven active petitions and nine waiting petitions, but there are 79 uncompleted petitions and there are letters of intent for 147.

The fact is in the last 10 years they have granted to only two tribes through the process, and, as I remember, seven tribes were denied, out of a total of nine. This is a long process. It requires individuals with tremendous expertise to evaluate these petitions.

I would note that when we create an Indian tribe, we create a sovereign nation. We create an independent nation within these United States. So this is very serious business.

I would just point out that already this year we have bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs in one legislation that created acknowledgment for six tribes, and in a second legislation acknowledging another tribe. The argument was that the Bureau of Indian Affairs simply couldn't act as quickly as it needs to.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to acknowledge the good work of both the chairman and ranking member, not just on accepting this amendment, obviously, but the tremendous work in terms of the arts, in terms of our natural resources.

I wonder if the gentlelady would yield?

Not to take another 5 minutes, the statistics that you present are what I would want to share. As cochair of the NEA, I want to say how proud I am to be able to vote for a budget that finally is beginning to pay attention to the arts.

Mr. Chairman, I love the introducer of this amendment, but I don't love her amendment. It would reduce a much-needed funding increase for the National Endowment for the Arts from $160 million in the bill to the President's requested level of $128 million.

I first want to compliment the chairman and ranking member again for putting together a good bill that adequately funds our key priorities. Our national parks, the environment, and the arts receive strong support, and the bill takes a critical step to addressing climate change and global warming.

We owe both of you a debt of gratitude for your good work here.

The NEA has been shortchanged for too long, and it is time to ensure that it has the resources necessary to carry out its mission of supporting excellence in the arts, bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education. With much-needed incremental increases since 2001, the NEA has developed widely popular programs, including the Big Read and Shakespeare in American communities, to encourage Americans to participate in cultural experiences. What is impressive is that it is in every community practically in the country: large communities, small communities, urban communities, rural communities.

The arts improve the lives of so many people including children, the elderly, and those on limited budgets who might otherwise not have the opportunity to see some very beautiful, spiritual, and enriching performances. Federal funding helps enable talented

individuals to pursue careers in the arts.

Besides the obvious cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts is real and impressive. As of January, 2007, there were 2.7 million people employed by over 546,000 arts-centric businesses, which represent 2 percent of our Nation's total employment.

In Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, there are 2,841 arts businesses that employ 14,711 individuals. Last year all 435 congressional districts received at least one grant. For every dollar of Federal investment, each grant typically leveraged $7 of State and private investment.

I grew up in an arts family. My parents, both performing actors, met in the theater. Listening to my father play the piano each night and hearing stories from their days on the stage gave me a profound appreciation for creative expression, an appreciation that I know so many of my constituents and I share and love.

With that I would urge defeat of this amendment. We are spending a meager amount, candidly, on the arts on the Federal level. This is a noble attempt by the chairman of the committee to do what needs to be done, and I hope that we maintain what is in the budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from D.C. and look forward to the time that she will be a full Member of this Chamber, with all the rights and privileges.

Much as been said about the life of Jack Valenti, and rightfully so. It is impossible to sum up his great life and achievements in the short time we have today.

He held powerful influence on both coasts in the United States, in Washington, D.C., where he served as a political adviser to President Johnson, and in Hollywood, where he served as chief lobbyist of the Motion Picture Association of America. Valenti negotiated both power centers with dignity, determination and deference.

He was born to Houston, Texas, as was pointed out, the grandson of Sicilian immigrants. He excelled in school and finished high school at an early age. Unable to afford college, he worked for a short time in a movie theater, then at an oil company, until he could afford night classes at the University of Houston. His leadership skills, solidified at college, and he was elected student body president. From there, he went on to earn his MBA from Harvard University.

His interest in politics began during a chance meeting with President Johnson, who was looking to reach out to fellow Texans while serving in the Senate. At the meeting, Jack Valenti was fascinated by Johnson and chose to work on his next campaign in Texas. They kept in touch, and he was soon employed by Johnson when he became Vice President.

Jack Valenti was inspired by the Vice President and viewed him as a mentor. Valenti was in the presidential motorcade as it traveled through downtown Dallas, Texas on that fateful tragic day of November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated. He said later that that day changed his life forever. Indeed, he became President Johnson's special assistant, and even lived in the White House during the early months of the new President's term.

He left the White House when he was approached by two Hollywood studio executives to take over their fledgling trade group. With a pay raise almost impossible to turn down, he accepted the position and became the chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America in 1966.

He revitalized the film rating system, bringing it into line with current culture. It is a system which has remained intact, other than modifications Valenti also helped put in place for decades.

Through the years, movies and technologies changed and progressed, as did his work. He helped the industry thrive even as television and home videos chipped away its dominance. He fought digital piracy and other threats to the film industry.

Valenti left MPAA in 2004, but he remained active in the public stage. He concentrated on the world health issues such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. He helped devise the technology by which parents control what programs their children watch.

He continued this work almost until the day in April when he died. He leaves behind his wife of 45 years, three children and two grandchildren. He also leaves behind a legacy of service of principled advocacy and of human warmth appreciated by all who had the privilege of knowing him. His character, his warm personality and his deep southern accent all will be missed as much his has legacy in the worlds of film and public policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in urging passage of this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1973, American combat troops serving in Vietnam completed their service and returned home to the U.S. After 8 years of hard-fought battle and the loss of over 58,000 soldiers, we welcomed our servicemen and women home and wished them a safe return. Over 300,000 troops returned wounded during the war. House Res. 189 seeks to establish March 30 as Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day. It is an opportunity to recognize the heroic service of these many veterans.

For fear that Southeast Asia would fall into communism, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, thereby giving powers to President Johnson to conduct military command in South Vietnam until peace and security had returned to the war-torn nation. One year later, U.S. combat troops were sent to the embattled country. By 1969, approximately 543,000 American troops were in Vietnam.

Thousands of Vietnam veterans participated in various festivities, parades and reunions every year.

We see them proudly wear their unit numbers, banners, T-shirts and hats covered with pins, sharing stories and updating each other on their lives. It is only fitting that we show our support for these brave men and women by expressing our gratitude for their courageous service.

Around 3 million people visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial each year. The wall and two accompanying sculptures offer an opportunity to learn about and appreciate the history of the war and its numerous casualties. It is appropriate to commemorate this significant piece of history by recognizing the day combat troops returned home from war as welcome home Vietnam Veterans' Day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I just would again urge passage. I think this is a very thoughtful thing of our colleague from California to have initiated. Frankly, I wonder why we didn't think of it sooner.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we stand with 69 million households in celebrating the joy of pet ownership and recognizing the obligations of responsible animal care as we call on this Congress to establish a National Pet Week.

Some 63 percent of Americans have accepted the calling of pet ownership and have opened their homes to millions of cats, dogs, birds, fish, and other animals. For this generous action, they are rewarded with love, companionship and support. Studies have shown an additional benefit of pet ownership include a healthier life.

A National Pet Week would also honor those who provide medical treatment as well as responsible care for animals, who are certainly deserving of

such treatment. There are approximately 75,000 practicing veterinarians in the United States who perform a great service for this country by giving preventative and emergency care for animals. These veterinarians are also credited with educating pet owners about the benefits of spaying or neutering their animals, thus curbing pet overpopulation problems in the country.

Establishing a week recognizing pet ownership helps highlight many of the issues affecting pets and owners in America, as well as the issue of responsible treatment for animals in general. Sadly, problems such as animal abuse, neglect, overpopulation, hoarding, and organized fighting persist in this country. The people of the United States are indebted to the animal protection and humane organizations who promote respect for animals and provide care for lost, unwanted, abused, and abandoned animals.

It is the essential duty of a civilized society to teach its children the value of kindness and respect toward all living creatures, and this is the perfect opportunity to do so.

Therefore, I call on my colleagues to support the establishment of National Pet Week, to celebrate pet ownership, recognize those who provide responsible animal care, and educate our children about a standard of respect towards all living creatures.

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

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 30: Page 31, line 11, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)(increased by

$1,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First I want to salute Mrs. Lowey. I think you have done a very fine job on this legislation. I know you are focused on a lot of issues, and I congratulate you for that.

We have disagreement on a few items in a very significant bill. I have strong concern about the lack of any dollars for economic development in the fiscal year 2008 budget, and that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about an emergency supplemental, which, by the way, has lots of strings attached, which may mean, ironically, money may not be spent ever.

We Republicans and Democrats, want to succeed in Iraq, economically, politically, socially and militarily. We want to succeed. The challenge is I feel like we are pulling the rug out from under the chance to succeed economically and politically.

The reason why I say ``politically'' is I have been there before, during and after the elections. This money helped educate the Iraqis on how to have elections. They did their elections better than we do our elections in the United States.

When I was outside the umbrella of the military, people would say, why have you put my father, my uncle, my brother, my cousin, my son out of work, when we abolished all of their military. So when I hear we spent $18 billion to reconstitute their military, that is not a large number. It is money that had to be used because of what we did. We attacked them. They did not attack us.

We have a moral obligation, I believe, to put Iraq in a better place. If we don't do it economically and politically, any effort militarily fails.

I mean no disrespect, but it is almost like there is an interest in having Iraq fail, so all the predictions that it will fail will be proven right. We need to prove ourselves wrong. We need to succeed.

These dollars should be, in my judgment, in the 2008 account, not in an emergency supplemental, whether now or in the future. The administration asked for $458 million. We asked the NGO's to say, what are your absolute needs for economic support, the rule of law, governance and democracy? And they have come back to us and said, we need $158 million.

I just hope that the gentlewoman in her wisdom will reconsider her decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide $1 million to the U.S. Institute of Peace, referred to as USIP, for the purposes of reestablishing the Iraq Study Group (ISG). We want the ISG to revisit Iraq to evaluate the condition in Iraq 1 year later, to look at their findings and compare them to a year ago, and to look at their recommendations to see where they might alter them. That is what the amendment does.

I have spoken to Richard Solomon at the U.S. Institute of Peace, who said the Institute is prepared to do this, to reconstitute its expert working groups.

This would be done at the same time that we are going to hear from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus, who will be giving us their findings. But the Institute wanted to make clear they would not be there to look at and evaluate the Crocker-Petraeus findings and recommendations, but it would simply be a report that would be provided at the same time to which people then could compare.

I spoke to one of the principals of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton. He said he is willing to take this effort on, provided it is to review what they did, to look at what has taken place in Iraq, to review their observations, their findings and their recommendations, but they would not be eager to take the Petraeus-Crocker report and analyze it. It would be done so there would be two instruments that Congress could look at.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentlewoman, thank you very much. I would point out that the Iraq Study Group was an instrument created by both sides of the aisle, but particularly by Mr. Wolf. It is a bipartisan effort, and it would be good to continue this bipartisan effort.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Lowey and Representative Wolf, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, Mrs. Lowey, thank you for a well-drafted bill, but this is an area in which I have some concern.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would designate $50 million in Economic Support Funds for the Community Action Programs, also known as CAP in Iraq. The CAP program directly engages Iraqis in reconstructing their own communities while building a nationwide grassroots constituency for democracy. Typical CAP projects use both U.S. and Iraqi funds and resources to rebuild schools, repair water and sewage lines, build health clinics, as well as a host of other infrastructure and development projects.

The CAP agencies are Mercy Corps; IRD, International Relief and Development; CHF International; ACDI/VOCA Counterpart; and in the past, Save the Children. Since 2003, six of USAID's NGO partners have implemented this program in all 18 governorates of Iraq. In order to maintain the security of staff and win the trust of Iraqi communities, the implementers and USAID have largely run the program under the radar. As a result, not enough people are aware of the remarkable success story that CAP represents.

Here are just a few highlights: CAP has successfully managed more than 6,000 reconstruction and development projects and created more than 2.7 million days of employment and 34,000 long-term jobs with 43 percent of those jobs going to women, Iraqi women.

A January 2005 audit report from the USAID regional inspector general, Baghdad, stated: ``Based on tests performed on 89 statistically selected sample projects, the CAP achieved 98 percent of its intended outputs.''

I am going to read that again: ``Based on tests performed on 89 statistically selected sample projects, the CAP achieved 98 percent of its intended outputs.''

Communities are contributing between 15 and 25 percent of the value of each project. That is Iraqis contributing. This contribution is often in the form of labor, in-kind materials, or other provisions.

In my travels to Iraq, I have seen firsthand how the CAP program improves the lives of Iraqis and most importantly how it helps us accomplish our mission of creating a secure environment for the Iraqi people so democracy can prosper.

It would be a terrible waste to turn our backs on such a great investment. In fact, this is exactly the time to nurture and build on the relationships CAP partners have forged with communities. Furthermore, CAP provides the foundation and the constituency at the community level that will help ensure the success of other State Department civil society programs.

The CAP program has enjoyed strong support from the Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the past. An amendment we offered during last year's supplemental appropriations act to increase CAP funding by $10 million was accepted by the committee.

The committee noted in its report last year that ``CAP provides a vehicle for empowering communities, building community cohesion and providing evidence that the U.S. is committed to improving the lives of Iraqis.''

We are asking for $50 million to be designated within Economic Support Funds to ensure the agencies can expand and improve the valuable projects they've been implementing for the last several years.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to you, there is no money in the 2008 budget, fiscal year 2008 budget. The challenge we have is that this is the one program, more than any others, that works. It shouldn't be tied to any benchmarks because implementing this program, expanding it actually, will make it easier for all those benchmarks to be realized.

I am not trying to bring more attention to this program. I just think it needs to be funded and expanded and this is the vehicle to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Chairman, just so the debate is a little more accurate, and we will see how the vote turns out whether I ask for a roll call vote or not, would it not be fair to say that they can live with the money they have, but they would like to have more and they could use more and do more with it? This is not a trick question, but I want to make sure for the record we don't make it seem like they have all that they need and can use well.

If the answer to that first question is yes, my second question would be, would it be the intent of the gentlewoman from New York to consider funding this program at an amount that will enable them to do at least what they are doing now in fiscal year 2008, and possibly more?

If the gentlewoman will yield further, you are making me more concerned rather than less by your honesty. Could I ask the gentlewoman to respond to her intent on how she will be looking to fund this issue? This is the one program that is in fact working in Iraq. No one disputes it. We can dispute everything else, but not this. My interest is what your intentions are in the future as it relates not to Iraq in general or military forces, but the CAP agency program?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.

I oppose the Pitts amendment. I support strongly the attempt by the subcommittee to give the President flexibility to implement prevention programs that fit the countries' current AIDS epidemic. I salute the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief. I have been to Africa, Uganda, and Tanzania to see how the program works.

Everyone I spoke with pleaded with us to make sure that there was more emphasis on not A, B, but on C, condoms. Young children were asking that this be a factor in their schools. They said sex is going to happen no matter what you say. No matter what you say about abstinence or be faithful, it's going to happen. It is particularly disconcerting to think that someone who has chosen one partner and loves that partner, not knowing that that partner has been unfaithful, and, in fact, has AIDS, transmitting that disease to, in most cases, a young woman.

This makes eminent sense. I would like to think that we could get our religious beliefs out of this issue, not talking practically, but talking realistically. If you want to prevent deaths, you need to allow more condoms.

If you want to save lives, you need to allow more condoms. If you want to prevent pregnancies, you need to allow more condoms. If you don't want so much interest on other things like whether there should be abortion, you need to have condoms.

I weep thinking young kids go to school without teachers and go home without parents. We need to be doing more in Africa to spend our money better.

Thank you, Mrs. Lowey, for what you have done to give the President of these United States the flexibility with his team that puts PEPFAR into operation.

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 58: Page 40, line 26, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000) (reduced by

$50,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Shays

Amendment No. 59: Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 58, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $35,000,000)''.