Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise not to debate the economic crisis. Our national debt recently reached $14 trillion and our deficit continues to rise annually. So we know that we have a crisis, and that is really not the debate here today. However, I want to remind my colleagues that our economic deficit is dependent on our job deficit and our ever-growing education deficit.

While we must work to rein in spending, we must not indiscriminately cut funding in areas like education, health, and employment that will hamper our immediate and future economic growth. As we remain vigilant in cutting the debt and reducing deficits, we must remember that the most powerful driver of both is a growing economy, which includes an increase in revenue.

During this recession, unemployment has impeded economic growth. One of the challenges in addressing unemployment has been the rapid decline in certain occupations and industries and our labor market's inability to meet the demand of new occupations and industries.

More than two-thirds of workers in occupations and industries that are growing have at least some postsecondary education compared to one- third of the workers in occupations and industries that are declining. The demand for a post-secondary education, as well as the increase in baby boomer

retirement, is predicted to result in a shortage of more than 14 million college-educated workers by the year 2020. This is the deficit that should garner our national attention and we should work together on. We can only address this through our continued focus on education, training, employment, and social services, which make up a total of 2 percent of our Federal budget.

To build sustainable economic growth, we must continue our investment in employment and training programs, which have experienced an increase in demand of support for displaced and unemployed workers. We must continue our investment in higher education by maintaining Pell Grant funding, as well as support for programs such as TRIO, which sends the largest amount of low-income students to and through college, which helps the economic prowess of this country. We must continue our investment in title I programs, which are intended to supplement local resources of underserved schools, which bring our economy down.

We must continue our investment in School Improvement Grants, which provide important resources for States to turn around their lowest- performing schools and significantly reduce the high school dropout rate, which causes our country a great deal of deficit.

We must continue our investment in programs that address the 17,000 word gap between low-income 6-year-olds and their more advantaged peers. We must support programs such as Head Start that work to dismantle the cradle-to-prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle- to-career pipeline by providing early childhood education to low-income children. These supports, in tandem, produce a higher number of taxpaying citizens and add growth to our economy. Yet, my colleagues continually try to attack these efforts by cutting these programs.

Further, my colleagues--who made a ``pledge to America'' to develop a plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive--continuously introduce and support measures to undermine this pledge and devastate our economic growth as a Nation.

In March, unemployment fell to 8.8 percent, a 2-year low. Payrolls grew to 216,000 for the month, following 194,000 in February. Private hiring rose by 230,000 people in March, following a 240,000 growth in February. Manufacturing expanded to a 7-year high in March. Incomes and consumer spending increased in February, helping to expand the economy. Yet, ignoring economic facts, the experts, the political reality, and the best interests of the American people, the Republicans continue to embrace an ideological spending plan that would destroy 700,000 jobs and derail the economic recovery just as it is beginning to gain momentum.

The current Republican spending plan would: Give away tax breaks to companies that shift jobs overseas; give away tens of billions of dollars in tax subsidies to Big Oil companies; and make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, which adds $1 trillion to the deficit.

This plan would kick almost 1 million college students out of the Pell Grant program.

218,000 low income children and families would be removed from the Head Start program.

170,000 families trying to find or retain employment would lose childcare.

2,400 schools serving nearly a million low-income students would lose funding.

Job training programs for those out of work or attaining new skills would be dramatically cut.

Guaranteed coverage for seniors under Medicare would be eliminated.

Cuts will be made to Medicaid for seniors in nursing homes, health care for children and Americans with disabilities.

This spending plan that my colleagues have proposed only highlights the misplaced priorities.

The Republican budget is the wrong choice for the American people: it is unfair; it doesn't create jobs; and it doesn't grow the economy.

This proposal attempts to cut the deficit on the backs of working families, seniors, children, and our middle class. But I contend: We cannot build this country's economy on the backs of the vulnerable.

The public wants Democrats and Republicans to negotiate and compromise. My Democratic colleagues and I are willing to make responsible budget cuts that don't cost jobs, don't hurt the economy and that reduce the deficit responsibly.

Yet, our Republican colleagues continue to waste precious time with draconian spending proposals filled with divisive ``policy riders'' that are unacceptable to the American people.

This is irresponsible. Working families deserve more. Our children deserve more. Our future as a Nation deserves more.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues made a ``pledge to America'' to develop a plan to ``create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive.''

Yet, to date, Republicans have not produced a single job-creating measure. In fact, they have done just the opposite. First-time jobless claims increased by 5,000 last week, and the total number of people receiving benefits fell to its lowest level in 3 years. The February job report showed gains of 192,000 jobs and a drop in the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent.

Still ignoring the facts that the experts have said, the needs of their constituents, and basic logic, Republicans continue to embrace a plan that would hamper our economic progress, depress our growth and development. This misguided job-killing spending plan is estimated to eliminate 800,000 jobs and reduce economic growth by 2 percent.

This is irresponsible, unacceptable, and I urge my Republican colleagues to abandon this job-killing spending campaign and adopt a reasonable agenda to support economic development and job growth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great excitement. My Republican colleagues have made a vow to offset new spending, but they found a cause worthy enough to bypass this promise.

My Republican colleagues have rallied behind the SOAR Act, a $300 million bill without an offset. Reportedly, the goal of the bill is to give ``all students a shot to win the future'' by ``restoring hope'' and ``building stronger public schools.'' This is truly encouraging as it matches my goals as well as those of many of my Democratic colleagues. However, I strongly disagree with the proposed solution. The $300 million bill will continue the D.C. Opportunities Scholarship Program, which was ineffective.

Department of Education reports show the voucher program had no statistically significant impact on overall

student achievement, aspirations for the future, the frequency of doing homework, or attendance or tardiness rates. Further, although built on the premise of choice, voucher schools can and do reject students based on prior academic achievement, economic background, English language ability, or disciplinary history, which significantly limits choice.

This $300 million program, which has proven ineffective, is not the solution for the intended goal. To reach this goal, we can begin by repealing the H.R. 1 cuts to programs that remove barriers for low- income students, such as title I programs, Head Start and TRIO.

I urge my colleagues who are truly invested in the goal to reject these cuts to key education programs and to oppose the SOAR Act.

Earlier, I heard one of the persons on the other side talk about persons who support vouchers in D.C. Most of the political persons who support it either were defeated or have left and have no more say.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act to voice my disappointment with my Republican colleagues' continued assault on the historic law that has already begun to provide aid and relief for countless Americans.

One year ago, my colleagues and I came together to enact a law because of the call to action from our constituents. We heard from seniors who could not afford their prescriptions and were in the Medicaid doughnut hole, parents whose children were being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions, individuals who were being denied treatment due to lifetime limits, and taxpayers who are bearing the costs of uncompensated health care.

We answered the clarion call from our constituents who asked us to protect them. Yet the Republican colleagues continue to assault the law. Siding the special interests, particularly the health care insurance companies that stand to lose from health care reform, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to assault our program.

With that, I say let's keep the law in force and let's move forward with progress.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution, which severely cuts critical funding for State and USAID and, if enacted would severely undermine U.S. development programs in Africa, U.S. National Security, and our domestic economy. The House bill provides State and USAID $43.2 billion.

Development and diplomacy are the United States' first line of defense. Stable democracies and prosperous communities are less likely to pose a threat to their neighbors or to the United States.

State and USAID work to help countries and communities in Africa and across the world to become more stable, democratic, and prosperous. When conflicts do arise, State and USAID work to transition countries from violence to stability to long-term development and to prevent struggling states from becoming failed states. Doing so reduces the burden on our military and enhances our diplomacy.

The House bill would cut humanitarian assistance accounts by more than 40 percent below 2010 levels, devastating our ability to help victims of natural disasters and undermining U.S. leadership around the world.

The International Disaster Assistance account allows us to respond to international disasters like the earthquake in Haiti and the flood in Pakistan. The House bill provides $429 million, taking this account back to 2008 levels--a 50 percent reduction to the 2010 level. This significant reduction will severely limit our ability to respond to natural disasters; we will simply be unable to respond to earthquakes and other disasters the way we did in Haiti.

In Sudan, more than 1.6 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Darfur would not receive critical health care, access to water, or support with livelihood activities. Instead of reintegrating approximately 300,000 returnees to South Sudan in the wake of the referendum, USAID would be able to assist fewer than 150,000.

In West Africa, proposed budget cuts would significantly hamper efforts to reduce and maintain acute malnutrition rates below emergency levels in drought-affected areas of Burkina Faso and Niger.

The House mark will also end a cost-effective local and regional purchase program which enables the U.S. to feed hungry people by purchasing food locally at a significantly lower cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

U.S. food aid continues to plays a critical role by helping people in need and supporting broader U.S. national security objectives by demonstrating the goodwill of the United States, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. food aid also supports domestic interests by the purchase of agricultural commodities from American farmers and the shipping of commodities abroad on U.S. ships.

Reducing Title II food aid from the FY 2011 request of $1.690 billion to $1.003 billion forces dramatic cuts in food aid programs around the world, as well as decreasing purchases from U.S. farmers and the use of U.S. ships.

This cut would require reductions in the largest emergency food aid programs, to include Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Given the average cost of emergency food aid of $44 per beneficiary, this would mean up to 15 million people might not receive such life-saving assistance due to the proposed reduction.

The bill reduces funding for refugee relief by $670 million or 40 percent below 2010 levels, representing a shift in U.S. policy of historical, unprecedented and devastating proportions. This reduction will drastically reduce the U.S. ability to protect and assist refugees in places of critical national security, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa.

For example, a reduction of this magnitude jeopardizes U.S. support for 1.6 million Afghan refugees living in Pakistan and another 100,000 Afghan refugees returning to Afghanistan this year alone. Also, some 230,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India would be at risk. And, security in the Horn of Africa and supporting peace in Sudan would also be at risk as some 3,000-5,000 Somalis are fleeing into Kenya each month and 270,000 Darfuris in Sudan and Chad will go largely unassisted.

The House proposal also makes deep cuts in Global Health programs and Development Assistance. Disease knows no borders. As such, USAID's programs to prevent and treat infectious diseases not only benefit the most vulnerable overseas, but also protect American citizens at home. Moreover, this Continuing Resolution would disproportionately cut programs that help the neediest people around the world by 25 percent versus an 11 percent reduction overall.

The proposed CR level cuts the Global Health Initiative by $834 million from 2010 levels. While these cuts would have miniscule value in the goal of balancing the budget, they will have real, immediate, and devastating impact on the poorest.

I am deeply disappointed by the Appropriators' choice to step away from America's long-term humanitarian interests in improving and preserving lives around the world by helping people lift themselves out of poverty. There is living proof across the world that less than 1 percent of the total federal budget has helped poor farmers learn to grow more food more efficiently, provided a lifeline to millions with HIV--including pregnant women whose babies can now be born HIV-free-- put millions of children under malaria-fighting bed nets by night and into schools by day, and strengthened America's friendships with millions of people, thus strengthening our own national security.

The cut to the PEPFAR program is $513 million below 2010, a 10 percent reduction. At this level, the U.S. will be unable to provide treatment to more than 700,000 people in desperate need of life-saving HIV/AIDS treatment.

The House bill cuts USAID health programs by $320 million (-13 percent) from 2010 levels and nearly 30 percent below the 2011 request. Reducing the USAID Global Health and Child Survival by this magnitude will have devastating effects on men, women, and children worldwide.

Under the proposed CR levels, 5 million children and family members will be denied treatment or preventative interventions for malaria, leaving millions to die. Moreover, 43,000 children and family members with tuberculosis will be denied treatment, of which 12,000 will likely die.

More than 16 million persons will be denied treatment for such debilitating conditions as blinding trachoma and onchocerciasisis. Efforts would be scaled back in at least 10 countries where we were on track to interrupt transmission within five years of up to four of the NTDs. USAID will be forced to sever agreements with four major pharmaceutical companies that donate hundreds of millions worth of drugs for NTD treatment programs.

The bill would force USAID to scale back efforts in the 24 countries which collectively account for approximately one-half of all maternal and child deaths. 3,500 mothers will die, and more than 40,000 children under five--of which 16,000 are newborns--will perish in the absence of highly effective child survival interventions.

More than 500 thousand undernourished children will be deprived of highly effective nutrition interventions (e.g., community management of acute malnutrition, micronutrient supplementation, and nutrition education leading to dietary diversity).

Placing an all-account ceiling of $440 million on family planning and reproductive health in 2011 amounts to a 32 percent cut from FY 2010 levels. This would result in 1.2 million

more abortions, 28,000 additional newborn deaths, and 4,000 additional maternal deaths--all stemming from denying 8.5 million women access to family planning services and by extension, 2.5 million additional unintended pregnancies.

The House FY 2011 Continuing Resolution would reduce the Development Assistance account by nearly $750 million from 2010 levels, a 30 percent reduction, and $1.2 billion from the 2011 request (-40 percent).

Absent deep cuts to other ongoing programs, in areas such as education, microfinance, and water, the House bill would virtually eliminate funding for the Feed the Future Initiative and the Global Climate Change Initiative.

With world food prices at their highest since the 2007/2008 global food riots, and in view of the political volatility that food prices recently helped spark in the Middle East, it is more important than ever that the U.S. engage to improve long-term food security, and assist countries to avert short-term food crises. The recent events in Egypt that continue throughout the Middle East are a stark example of food insecurity's effect on stability.

Decimating the President's Feed the Future (FtF) Initiative will mean that more than 4 million women, children, and family members--most small farmers--will go hungry this year, remaining desperately mired in poverty. More than 18 million will be at risk of chronic hunger over a five-year period. Ending funding for research and development under FtF will expose wheat crops--including here in the United States, and in Afghanistan and Pakistan--to the threats of U.G. 99 wheat stem rust strain.

In just five out of our 20 focus countries, nearly 6.5 million small farmers, mostly poor and mostly women, will remain in the grips of hunger and poverty, unable to grow enough food to feed themselves and their families.

Alternatively, spreading the 30 percent reduction across the Development Assistance Account would have significant negative effects on many congressional priorities including interventions in basic and higher education, microfinance, rule of law and governance, trade, and financial sector reform.

Microfinance institutions in nearly 30 countries around the world will be forced to significantly scale back operations or shut their doors as funding dries up, resulting in 600,000 fewer women accessing financial services to sustain their businesses and contribute to the economic livelihoods of their families and communities.

Over 20,000 Afghans will no longer have the tools they need to begin or sustain a microenterprise in the midst of the conflict, increasing the risk that they will turn to other, illicit economic livelihoods, like poppy production, to feed their families.

As many as 300,000 rural microenterprises and over 600,000 smallholder farmers will no longer be able to access the vital services and growing markets they need to generate cash income, break the cycle of subsistence agriculture, and chart a pathway out of poverty.

A 30 percent cut in Development Assistance for water would mean that than 700,000 persons will be deprived access to clean drinking water and sanitation which, according to WHO, is one of the largest causes of mortality in the world--diarrhea-related disease kills nearly 2 million every year, 90 percent of whom are children under 5.

Out of the approximately 64 million children benefitting from our education assistance worldwide, over 19 million will lose access to schooling opportunities. 10 million girls will be deprived access to basic education, causing further social and financial marginalization.

I urge my colleagues to vote NO on the Continuing Resolution and any amendments that would strip critical and life saving programs in Africa and the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose amendment #380, proposed by our colleagues Mr. Reed and Mr. Graves, which eliminate the State Department Democracy Fund and the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF).

The Human Rights and Democracy Fund funded by the Democracy Fund appropriation, finances innovative projects across the world to support the long-standing bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goals of defending human rights and advancing democratic values. Continued HRDF programming is vital to U.S. national

security because democratic governance fosters more stable countries and regions, and free nations are more peaceful towards other democracies. Democracy promotion funding, started under President Reagan, has grown to its current consistent level of $70 million. Sustained congressional support for HRDF is critical.

Promoting democracy and human rights is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy goals and the advancement of our national interests because it is the most effective long-term way to strengthen international stability. By reducing regional conflicts, countering terrorism and terror-supporting extremism, and extending peace and prosperity, the U.S. protects liberty and justice and the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.

The Human Rights and Democracy Fund is the foundation for U.S. support for democracy and human rights across the globe. With HRDF, the U.S. addresses the most egregious of human rights abuses, open political space in struggling and nascent democracies and authoritarian regimes, promote religious freedom and tolerance, support civil society, protect at risk populations, and further global internet freedom and corporate social responsibility throughout the world. With HRDF, the United States was able to help counter extremism by supporting at risk populations in the Middle East, thereby reducing breeding grounds of future terrorists. DRL was able to provide thousands of Haitians with internet and radio access in the immediate aftermath of the Hurricane there.

The Human Rights and Democracy Fund is enabling the U.S. to implement innovative programs across Africa. In Morocco, the Democracy Fund supports justice sector institutions to develop alternatives to pre- trial detention of youth offenders that enable rehabilitation outside of prison. To stem gender-based violence (GBV) in the war-torn region of eastern Congo, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) initiative provided legal assistance to victims of sexual violence. As a result, 296 GBV survivors received legal counseling and 212 survivors received psychological counseling; 98 criminal complaints were filed against suspected perpetrators; and an unprecedented 25 rape convictions were secured. In Sudan, in response to widespread violence against women in Darfur, DRL used Democracy Fund appropriations to provide critical services and community outreach to survivors of gender-based violence. Through the establishment of women centers, tens of thousands of women received an array of services, including literacy classes, health education, income-generating activities and treatment for sexual violence including medical, psychosocial, and case management services.

Without HRDF, victims will lose valuable avenues for recourse, civil society activists will become increasingly isolated, women will become more vulnerable, and truth-telling journalists will be quieted. DRL would not be able to support efforts to push the Chinese government to more actively disclose food and drug safety information that directly affects the well-being of the American public; foster critical advances in the rule law, including criminal justice reform; support the growth of the NGO sector and its advocacy on behalf of the marginalized in society; or widen space for religious freedom. Without HRDF, DRL would not be able to help male civic and religious leaders be a powerful voice for the rights of women in Afghanistan.

I urge my colleagues to support democracy and human rights in the developing world by voting NO on the Reed/Graves amendment #380.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to amendment #287, introduced by our colleague Rep. McClintock of California. Amendment #287 would eliminate all funding for the Inter American Foundation in the proposed FY2011 Continuing Resolution. This devastating cut would have severe immediate and long term impacts on the most vulnerable communities who share the same hemisphere as the United States.

The United States has a vested interest in assuring that the poorest communities have the resources to organize, develop, and advance. The IAF works to promote economic opportunity, reduce poverty and foster civic and social inclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean, consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

Without such proactive measures in international economic opportunity and development, the United States would cripple its own internal interest in the areas of drug trafficking, immigration, and maintaining its role as a promoter of democracy globally. There are many adverse consequences if programs like IAF ceases to exist. Studies show that farmers and agricultural workers of poverty-stricken communities migrate far from their families to make a living, and in many Latin American countries, like Colombia, this often means driving small farmers into illicit coca cultivation. Cutting IAF funds will aid in forcing men and women into the dangerous, yet lucrative work of narcotics production just to provide basic needs for their families.

There is a myth that foreign assistance using public funds is ineffective and inefficient. That is farther from the truth. IAF is a conduit to creating future allies; future business partners, and future collaborators. Investing in self-help solutions which enable the poor to help themselves ultimately creates an intimate bond between nations. As our world becomes more competitive in everything from education to science to defense, we must not cut ourselves off from future relationships by cutting developing countries off from aid today.

One of the many countries that would be affected by this cut is Haiti. Haiti is a nation that suffered one of the greatest devastations in history, with a 7.4 magnitude earthquake that killed over 200,000 people, affected over 2 million Haitians, and destroyed their capitol, Port au Prince. While much aid has gone towards immediate disaster relief, the United States seeks to gain enormously by supporting sustainable solutions that IAF currently helps fund.

IAF provides grants for the Haitian Partners for Christian Development--an organization that continues its services as a business incubator, which includes reaching women entrepreneurs and supporting them with business endeavors. Such seed money literally produces economic leaders which are necessary to shape the Haiti of tomorrow.

Through a single grant, IAF also has a project which provides farmers displaced by the 2010 earthquake with agricultural training and technical assistance, as well as give education scholarships to 100 displaced children, and distributes food to another 150 quake victims.

With all the tremors the people of Haiti still are enduring, IAF is essential to ensuring these survivors do not experience a social aftershock due to cutting funding that ultimately has long-term benefits for both Haiti and the United States.

Being the leaders in international economic empowerment today is a wise investment for tomorrow.

I urge you to join me in opposing this amendment.

I rise today to oppose the Barletta amendments and the Weiner-Chaffetz-Cravaack amendment to eliminate funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), should they be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 1.

The elimination of USIP would have strong, adverse impact on America's security interests. USIP is an important national security actor. The U.S. Government must have options for resolving international conflict other than military action. USIP--created by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan--is the only independent U.S. Government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict prevention and resolution.

USIP is the critical bridge between governmental and non-governmental actors to promote peace in volatile conflicts. Their Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution conducts work in a number of critical conflict zones in Africa, Middle East, and across the globe:

USIP is addressing a series of challenges and opportunities facing the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a focus on institutional capacity to make compromises, the capacity of the Israeli and Palestinian publics to build consensus and support for a negotiated agreement, and the role of U.S. policymakers in encouraging and supporting these efforts toward a peaceful resolution.

USIP is addressing several issues in Nigeria, a country rife with conflicts over petroleum resources and religion. Amidst this situation, the Center is working on peace efforts for the Niger Delta region, including working collaboratively with local governments, oil companies, and Nigerian NGOs.

For nearly two decades, the United States Institute of Peace has been working in Sudan on peace processes. Its knowledge and expertise has helped shape the environment that has contributed, so far, to a relatively peaceful outcome of the referendum. USIP's work on prevention, power-sharing, constitutional reform and natural resources has made a critical difference in the country's local capacity.

USIP produces timely expert analysis on issues critical to policymakers and conflict prevention practitioners. Just last week USIP published the attached PEACE Brief report on the political stalemate in Cote d'Ivoire following the November 28, 2010 election and the broader issue of preventing electoral violence in Africa.

USIP is a small, agile center of innovation in support of America's national security interests in supporting peace and democracy in Africa and across the globe. USIP has been a very useful resource to policymakers for decades, we can not eliminate this critical institution.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on these amendments.

[From the PeaceBrief--United States Institute of Peace, Feb. 7, 2011]

Cote d'Ivoire's Political Stalemate: A Symptom of Africa's Weak

Electoral Institutions

(By Dorina Bekoe)

Summary

The political stalemate in Cote d'Ivoire following the

November 28, 2010, presidential election continues. The

majority of the international community recognizes Alassane

Ouattara as the winner, but Laurent Gbagbo, the sitting

president, insists he won. Financial and diplomatic sanctions

imposed on the Gbagbo administration have thus far not forced

Gbagbo from power.

Maintaining international pressure and focus is critical to

resolving the Ivorian crisis, but African states are

increasingly divided on how to proceed.

The power-sharing arrangement settled on by five African

nations in recent elections sets a dangerous precedent.

Losers with a strong militia may find it easier to use

threats of violence or actual violence to retain a critical

power role, thus subverting the intent of the election.

African states will continue to experience violence during

elections until the security sector is reformed, states

refrain from holding elections while militias remain

mobilized and armed, elections can be clearly and

independently verified, institutions are politically

independent, and policies exist to discourage the violent

acquisition of power.

Following the November 28, 2010, presidential runoff

election, the United Nations, charged with validating the

electoral process, along with the Independent Electoral

Commission, proclaimed Alassane Ouattara the winner, with

54.1 percent of the vote, over Laurent Gbagbo, the sitting

president, who had received 45.9 percent of the vote.

However, the Constitutional Council, headed by a Gbagbo

supporter, annulled results in 13 departments, alleging

fraud, and proclaimed Gbagbo the winner, with 51.4 percent of

the vote; Ouattara was given 48.5 percent.\1\ Both Ouattara

and Gbagbo were sworn in as president by their supporters.

Most in the international and regional communities

recognized Ouattara as the winner, and the Economic Community

of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU)

suspended Cote d'Ivoire from membership. Gbagbo's calls to

investigate election fraud, recount the ballots, and craft a

power-sharing arrangement have been rejected by the

international and regional institutions. Instead, ECOWAS and

AU envoys have urged Gbagbo to step down, financial and

travel sanctions have been placed on him and his associates,

and ECOWAS threatened military intervention.\2\ With the

military and the Young Patriots militia supporting Gbagbo and

the Forces Nouvelles rebels supporting Ouattara, many fear

that the failure of diplomacy and sanctions will reignite the

2002 civil war. While the central conundrum is how to

convince Gbagbo to leave office, larger questions loom about

the role of elections, the state of democratization, and the

strength of institutions in Africa.

Power sharing in response to electoral violence

In 2010, opposition candidates claimed electoral fraud and

irregularities in every presidential election in Africa--in

Guinea, Togo, Sudan, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Comoros,

Tanzania, and Rwanda. Historically, in many cases of

electoral fraud, the challenger urges demonstrations or

refuses to recognize the results. In prolonged and violent

standoffs mediators have been dispatched, as occurred in

Guinea 2010, or a power-sharing agreement has been

negotiated, as occurred in Kenya and Zimbabwe in 2008, in

Togo in 2005, in Madagascar in 2002, and in Zanzibar in 2001.

While the power-sharing arrangements in those five cases

aimed to stop the violence and address some of its underlying

causes, such arrangements could have longlasting

implications, and shorter, transitional measures might be

considered instead. Granted, an electorate can vote for a

power-sharing or proportionally representative government.

The problems arise when power sharing is imposed as a

solution when there is a clear winner (it weakens the purpose

of an election), when the winner cannot be determined (it can

encourage fraud and other obfuscation), or when there is

postelection violence (it may demonstrate that violence

pays). In this sense, Gbagbo's power-sharing proposal is

troubling and presents a critical philosophical decision for

Africa's institutions: how to react to candidates who respond

violently to election results. More broadly, how can leaders

be encouraged to accept defeat? How should the international

community respond to leaders who use violence to hold on to

power? For the remainder of 2011, Africa faces nearly 40

elections and referenda in 23 countries, including some that

have a history of violence and weak democratic institutions,

such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of

Congo. A power-sharing norm, in the event of violently

contested election results, will be a dangerous precedent.

lessons from madagascar and togo

In 2003, a disputed first-run election left Madagascar

divided between the supporters of incumbent president Didier

Ratsiraka and challenger Marc Ravalomanana. The Organization

of African Unity brokered the Dakar Agreement to pave the way

for a resolution .\3\ But when Ratsiraka refused to concede,

confrontations between the two escalated, and Ratsiraka fled

to France. \4\ Six years later the mayor of Antananarivo,

Andry Rajoelina, accused Ravalomanana's administration of

corruption and mismanagement and, with the military's

backing, assumed the presidency. Ravalomanana fled to South

Africa. Despite the absence of both Ratsiraka and

Ravalomanana, the political situation in Madagascar remains

unresolved. Efforts at resolution have floundered as the

international community, once united in bringing Rajoelina

and the former presidents together, has splintered, with

different countries considering their own national and

regional interests. Resolving the crisis is made more

difficult as the efforts of mediators are uncoordinated and

therefore weakened.\5\

The response in Togo differed markedly. After long-serving

Gnassingbe Eyadema died in 2005, the parliament swore in his

son, Faure Gnassingbe, contravening the constitution. ECOWAS

and the International Organization of the Francophonie

suspended Togo. After an enormous amount of international

pressure and mediation, Gnassingbe stepped aside to allow

elections, as required by the constitution. In this case, the

concerted pressure of the international and regional

communities provided space for the resolution of the crisis.

The Ivorian situation must not slip from international

attention. The financial and travel sanctions have begun to

constrain Gbagbo and his administration, but he remains in

place. Only resolute diplomatic pressure and adherence to

sanctions will eventually dislodge Gbagbo and avert conflict.

Yet the AU's reversal on military intervention, the refusal

by Ghana and South Africa to take a stance for one candidate

or the other, and Uganda's Yoweri Museveni's statement that

the votes should be investigated show a divided region.

Furthermore, other African countries are receiving Gbagbo's

representatives, in a break with the initial practice of

recognizing only Ouat-tara's representatives; they were

recently in Kenya to explain their reasons for rejecting

Ouattara's victory claims. These developments threaten a

swift resolution to this stalemate and portend a long period

of instability.

the role of ivorian civil society in reducing tension

Political and geographic divisions make it difficult for

Ivoirian civil society to act as a joint force for peace.

Moderate voices, willing to bridge regional and political

divides, are not being heard.\6\ It is important to note that

Ouattara did not obtain a landslide victory. A substantial

number of voters, nearly 46 percent, supported Gbagbo. Their

reasons for supporting Gbagbo reflect the existing regional,

ethnic, and religious divisions in Cote d'Ivoire. Whether

Gbagbo or Ouattara emerges as winner from the current

stalemate, the next president will face a sharply divided

electorate that challenges his rule. Thus, this election,

which was meant to repair the divisions between the north and

the south, will have failed to do so. At the very least, a

key ingredient for avoiding war in Cote d'Ivoire is to

reconcile these divided communities. Civil society's moderate

voices can play a critical role in starting the

reconciliation process.\7\ Moderates can also make joint

statements and appearances and participate in the current

mediation process between Gbagbo and Ouattara. The

international community should help by emphasizing the

importance of moderates and building their capacity and

infrastructure to succeed.

preventing violence in electoral disputes

Cote d'Ivoire's crisis, as well as others, could have been

avoided if the militias had demobilized and if clear rules

for the security services had existed, methods for verifying

elections were clear and disputes could have been credibly

resolved, and Africa's institutions had implementable tools

for discouraging electoral violence.

the role of the security forces

In many countries, security services remain politicized and

are used to crush demonstrations and intimidate the

opposition. This was clearly seen in the postelection

demonstrations in Ethiopia in 2005, where approximately

30,000 opposition members were arrested.\8\ In Cote d'Ivoire

as many as 30 demonstrators died at the hands of state

security services during a public demonstration.\9\ Reform

and depoliticization of the security forces would reduce the

chances of violence.

disarmament and demobilization of militias

Repeated attempts to disarm the militia ahead of the

elections in Cote d'Ivoire failed. The program was poorly

funded, and there were identifiable security, financial, and

political benefits for the militia to remain intact. Removing

those incentives would have spurred demobilization. Now, with

Ouattara and Gbagbo in control of arms, the prospect of

violence increases dramatically should diplomacy fail. A

similar outcome occurred in the Republic of Congo after the

1993 parliamentary elections when the three political party

leaders each claimed victory while still in charge of their

respective militias. The clashes in the ensuing several

months left 2,000 dead.\10\ Elections should not proceed

while candidates remain in control of militias.

clear, independent verification of results

The UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ONUCI) was charged with

certifying the electoral process. It was to ``ensure that all

stages of the electoral process are carried out in accordance

with recognized standards . . . [and] not allow the results

to be contested in a non-democratic way or to be

compromised.''\11\ This language left room for contestation,

which is exactly what happened, when the electoral

commission, which is charged with announcing the provisional

results, and the Constitutional Council, which is charged

with verifying the electoral commission's results, disagreed.

ONUCI's role as certifier does not explicitly state that its

judgment is final. This ambiguity has been exploited in the

Ivorian crisis. Similarly, in Kenya the procedures in place

could not determine which candidate had won or whether the

electoral process had been fair, fueling the tension.

Strengthening and clarifying the processes and institutions

that verify an election will greatly reduce the chances and

claims of fraud.

fair hearings for grievances

Credible means of assessing an election should be

buttressed by independent institutions for addressing

grievances. Cote d'Ivoire's politically biased institutions

do not foster this confidence. In Kenya's 2007 elections and

Togo's 2010 elections, opposition leaders refused to use

existing institutions, which they deemed biased, to resolve

their grievances, opting instead for street protests. Without

independent institutions, public protests will increase the

chances of violence, especially when security forces are

politicized.

sanctions for violence in electoral disputes

There is currently no continental stance or policy on

discouraging electoral violence. Politicians in Kenya,

Zimbabwe, Togo, and Zanzibar were all rewarded with power-

sharing agreements when they contested elections violently.

Elsewhere, violent perpetrators were not prosecuted when the

country returned to political normalcy. This sends a message

that violence is costless and sometimes pays. Africa's

institutions must develop clear and implementable sanctions

against politicians who use violence to secure elections.

conclusion

Other, country-specific ways to increase an election's

credibility and transparency certainly exist. However, basic

measures such as depoliticizing the security services,

disarming militias, clearly and independently verifying

elections, establishing independent institutions for

redressing grievances, and discouraging the use of violence

in elections can help prevent violent responses to electoral

results. Cote d'Ivoire had none of these measures in place.

Now, with the threat of violence looming, the international

and regional communities must remain unified in their

approach and push for the inclusion of moderate civil society

voices to ensure the resolution of the crisis.

endnotes

\1\ West Africa Network for Peacebuilding--Cote d'Ivoire,

``Troisieme Rapport de l'Observatoire de la Vie Politique et

des Medias en Periode Electorale'' (Abidjan: WANEP--Cote

d'Ivoire, January 8, 2011).

\2\ This threat was reversed at the African Union's summit

on January 28-31, 2011.

\3\ Dakar Agreement, http://www.afrol.com/Countries/ Madagascar/documents/accord_

dakar.htm.

\4\ Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, ``Africa: OAU Stands Aloof on

Madagascar, Despite Departure of Ratsiraka,'' Allafrica.com,

July 5, 2002, http://allafrica.com/stories/200207050825.html.

\5\ International Crisis Group, ``Madagascar: Le Crise a un

Tournant Critique?,'' Africa Report 166, November 18, 2010,

4-6.

\6\ ``Cote d'Ivoire: Voices of Reason Sidelined in the

Crisis,'' IRINNews.org, January 26, 2011, http:// www.irinnews.org/report.spx?ReportID=91733.

\7\ Ibid.

\8\ Lahra Smith, ``Political Violence and Uncertainty In

Ethiopia,'' U.S. Institute of Peace Special Report no. 192

(Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, August 2007), 7.

\9\ Amnesty International, ``Cote d'Ivoire: Injured

Protestors Denied Medical Care,'' Allafrica.com, December 20,

2010, http://allafrica.com/stories/201012200899.html.

\10\ U.S. Department of State, ``Congo Human Rights

Practices, 1994'' (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State,

February 1995), sect. 1(a), http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/erc/ democracy/1994_hrp_report/94hrp_report_africa/Congo.html.

\11\ UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ONUCI), ``The

Certification of Elections in Cote d'Ivoire,'' Resolution

1765, adopted by the UN Security Council on July 16, 2007,

http://www.onuci.org/pdf/faqcertificationen.pdf.

I rise today in opposition to Amendment No. 262, introduced by our colleague Representative Latta of Ohio, should it be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 1. Amendment No. 262 would eliminate all funding for international family planning programs in the proposed FY 2011 Continuing Resolution. This devastating cut would have severe immediate and long term impacts on women and their families in the world's poorest countries.

Contrary to the rhetoric we are hearing from some of our colleagues, U.S. international family planning assistance in fact helps to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions in the developing world. According to Population Action International, cutting this funding would result in: 7.8 million more unintended pregnancies; 3.7 million more abortions; 87,000 additional newborn deaths; and 12,000 additional maternal deaths.

Moreover, this amendment would turn back the clock on U.S. investments in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The integration of family planning and HIV/AIDS services is a vital and cost-effective way to prevent HIV infection, including through mother-to-child transmission. At the same cost, family planning services can avert nearly 30 percent more HIV-positive births than use of the nevirapine prophylaxis by HIV-positive pregnant women. A recent study found that, although PEPFAR has been associated with a reduction in HIV-related deaths, trends of increasing adult prevalence rates continue unabated. However, preventing unintended pregnancies, which is an international pillar of preventing mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programming, continues to receive insufficient attention in AIDS programs. The Guttmacher Institute noted in their report Hiding in Plain Sight: The Role of Contraception in Preventing HIV that helping HIV-positive women avoid unwanted pregnancies not only lowers the rate of new infections, but does so at a relatively low cost.

I hope that you will join me in opposing this amendment, should it be offered.

[From the Guttmacher Policy Review, Winter 2008]

Hiding in Plain Sight: The Role of Contraception in Preventing HIV

(By Susan A. Cohen)

As Congress embarks on the process of reauthorizing the

U.S. program to fight HIV and AIDS, and as other global

donors recalibrate levels and allocations of funding for HIV/

AIDS programs, prevention seems to be making a comeback. At

the inception of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS

Relief (PEPFAR) five years ago, both the funding and the

programmatic emphasis tilted heavily toward treatment. Yet,

the rate of new HIV infection continues to outpace the

world's ability to deliver antiretroviral therapy, despite

recent advances in access to such medications. A public

health consensus is emerging, therefore, in favor of

realigning the balance between treatment and prevention

efforts.

Refocusing the priority on prevention is long overdue, as

is an acknowledgment, especially within Congress, that HIV

prevention cannot be accomplished with a disproportionate

emphasis on abstinence. Indeed, preventing the sexual

transmission of HIV requires going beyond the necessary but

hardly sufficient strategy of ABC: abstain, be faithful, use

condoms. It also requires increasing AIDS awareness through

counseling and testing programs, investing in programs

promoting the empowerment of women and girls, and increasing

access to male circumcision. Other critical prevention

interventions include ensuring a clean blood supply and clean

medical injections, needle exchange programs for intravenous

drug users and preventing the ``vertical'' transmission of

HIV from a pregnant woman to her newborn infant.

Largely overlooked as an HIV prevention strategy, however,

is the simple and low-cost act of helping HIV-positive women

who do not want to have a child to avoid an unintended

pregnancy through increased access to contraceptive services.

Ward Cates, president for research of Family Health

International (FHI), has dubbed contraception the ``best-kept

secret in HIV prevention,'' and certainly, the significant

contribution of unintended pregnancy prevention toward

reducing the perinatal transmission of HIV has gone virtually

unrecognized. Yet, a revitalized and more robust effort

focused on HIV prevention cannot afford not to fully

capitalize on the critical role of contraceptive services in

fighting AIDS.

The Need for Progress on Prevention

Women of reproductive age comprise more than half of the 33

million people currently living with HIV around the world.

The vast

majority of these women live in Sub-Saharan Africa, and thus,

it is not surprising that 90% of the 2.5 million children

younger than 15 living with HIV live there as well. Almost

all of these children became infected through their mothers

during pregnancy, birth or breastfeeding.

An HIV-positive woman about to give birth can dramatically

reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to her

newborn by delivering in a hospital or a primary care setting

where she and her infant can receive even a single dose of

the anti-retroviral drug nevirapine. However, the challenges

to delivering even this seemingly simple prevention of

mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) service are substantial,

especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pregnancy itself does not

usually drive women, especially those in rural areas, to

facilities where they could receive pre-natal care and,

potentially, an HIV test. In addition, many pregnant women

may not want to know their HIV status for fear of public

disclosure and the stigma that often results. Considering the

difficulties of delivering services to HIV-positive pregnant

women, and the simple fact that most women who are HIV-

positive do not know it, it is not entirely surprising that

only 11% of all theoretically eligible women in poor

countries are benefiting from any PMTCT intervention. And

without intervention, about one-third of babies born to HIV-

positive women likely will become infected.

A long-standing goal of global prevention efforts,

therefore, is to ramp up PMTCT efforts so that more pregnant

women are tested and that those who are positive receive the

treatment that they and their infant will need. PMTCT

programs justifiably enjoy broad political support and are

certain to continue to be a funding priority within the U.S.

global AIDS effort.

The United States does recognize the importance of at least

establishing linkages between PMTCT and family planning

programs, since PEPFAR requires family planning counseling

and referral as one of four elements comprising the minimum

package of services for preventing mother-to-child

transmission. However, a high-level consultation sponsored by

the World Health Organization (WHO} and the United Nations

Population Fund in 2004 went considerably further, concluding

that investing solely in narrowly defined PMTCT programs will

not succeed in dramatically reducing the incidence of

perinatal transmission. Rather, the Glion [Switzerland] Call

to Action on Family Planning and HIV/AIDS in Women and

Children emphasized that all four elements of the WHO

approach to preventing HIV infection in infants are

essential. PMTCT programs are key, but so are primary

prevention of HIV infection in women; the provision of care,

treatment and support for women living with HIV and their

families; and prevention of unintended pregnancies among

women living with HIV. Of these, the significant role that

unintended pregnancy prevention already plays--and the much

greater role it potentially could play--in averting new cases

of HIV has been least recognized and supported.

According to a 2007 Guttmacher Institute study, one in four

married women in Sub-Saharan Africa is sexually active and

does not want to have a child or another child in the next

two years, but is not using any method of contraception. As a

result, unintended births are common, and occur in the very

countries that are a focus of PEPFAR--countries in which HIV

prevalence is high and 60% of all adults living with HIV are

women (see table).

Indeed, research into the HIV/AIDS health care system

reveals that the unmet need for contraception among HIV-

positive women and women at high risk of HIV is even greater

than among women in the general population. According to a

study published in JAMA in 2006, 84% of the pregnancies among

women in three PMTCT programs in South Africa were

unintended. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reported earlier this year that 93% of the

pregnancies among pregnant women receiving antiretroviral

therapy in Uganda were unintended. And according to FHI

research from 2006 of women in HIV counseling and testing

clinics (where most women are HIV-negative but are at high

risk for HIV), substantial majorities in Kenya (59%),

Tanzania (66%), Zimbabwe (77%) and Haiti

Mr. Chair, under the Higher Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate in the federal student aid programs. In July 2010, the Department of Education published a proposed rule to enforce this statutory requirement. While I share the Department's desire to ensure that federal financial aid dollars are spent wisely and that students are not taken advantage of, my concern is that the proposed rule does not accurately address this purpose and the consequences have not been fully considered.

Rather than using actual measures of educational quality such as job placement and graduation rates, the Department is promulgating a regulation that defines ``gainful employment'' through a complex matrix that examines the student loan debt-to-income ratio of graduates to the student loan repayment rate of graduates in the programs. The proposed rule would also require the US Department of Education to approve every new program created at a proprietary institution prior to the start of the program. This proposed rule needs to be further developed and possible unintended consequences considered.

In the midst of our economic crisis and high national unemployment rate, there remains a group of employers who struggle to find workers with skill sets required for today's changing job market. These employers have, in some cases, partnered with community and career colleges to build a 21st century workforce. Today, more than 6 million non-traditional students--including single parents, displaced workers, and low income individuals--are enrolled in community colleges and another 2.8 million in career colleges to develop the skills necessary to advance in the 21st century workplace.

Yes, there are ``bad apples'' among career preparation programs, who are taking advantage of vulnerable populations. In fact, before coming to Congress, I was at the forefront of an effort to close a beauty school in New Jersey which had done a disservice to students in the area. For this reason, again, I share the concern of many regarding the abuse of Title IV funds as well as any institutional action which would cause a student academic failure or financial harm. However, I also know that many good career colleges and community college programs exist that remain strong partners in the effort to meet the President's goal of leading the world in the percentage of college graduates by 2020.

My concern is that the Department's rule, while addressing poor quality programs, will have a negative impact on high quality programs as well. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to provide for the reevaluation of the proposed metric system and full consideration of its impact.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would prohibit any United States assistance to a country that opposed the position of the United States in the United Nations. If passed tomorrow, this amendment would prohibit assistance to over 130 countries including Cote D'Ivoire, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Jordan. (It prohibits assistance to countries whose recorded votes at the UN were the same as the United States less than 50 percent of the time.

This amendment does not take into account the voting realities of the UN. It only focuses on recorded votes or non-consensus issues. But the fact is, similar to the workings our own Senate, a significant amount of votes--or consensus resolutions--are adopted by the UN. According to the State Department's Voting Practices in the United Nations, when consensus resolutions are factored in as votes identical to those of the United States, average overall General Assembly voting coincidence of all UN members with the United States in 2009 was 84.3%. So, in reality, most member states are agreeing with the position of the United States.

Finally, if the logic of this bill was utilized in our own Congress, how could we ever reach bipartisan agreement? Because a Member does not support your bill, would that mean you would never work with them on anything again? Or, if the Texas delegation to the House voted against a transportation appropriation, should they receive no money to build roads?

I urge my colleagues to vote NO on this amendment.

Voting Practices in the United Nations 2009

(Report to Congress submitted pursuant to Public Laws 101-246 and 108-

447, Mar. 31, 2010.)

I: Introduction

This publication is the 27th annual Report to the Congress

on Voting Practices at the United Nations. It is submitted in

accordance with Section 406 of Public Law 101-246. This law

provides, in relevant part:

``The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of

the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a full and

complete annual report which assesses for the preceding

calendar year, with respect to each foreign country member of

the United Nations, the voting practices of the governments

of such countries at the United Nations, and which evaluates

General Assembly and Security Council actions and the

responsiveness of those governments to United States policy

on issues of special importance to the United States.''

This report reviews voting practices in the UN Security

Council and General Assembly (UNGA) in calendar year 2009 and

presents data in a variety of formats. All Security Council

resolutions for the entire year are described, and voting on

them is tabulated (Section II). The report also statistically

measures the overall voting of UN member states at the 64th

General Assembly in the autumn of 2009 in comparison with the

U.S. voting record (Section III). It also lists and describes

UNGA resolutions selected as particularly important to U.S.

interests, again with tables for regional and political

groupings (Section IV). It then presents all data by country

(Section V). Finally, an annex is included to present the

voting patterns on General Assembly resolutions relating to

Israel and opposed by the United States.

The Security Council and the General Assembly deal with a

full spectrum of issues--including threats to peace and

security, disarmament, economic and social development,

humanitarian relief, and human rights--that are considered

critical to U.S. interests. A country's behavior at the

United Nations is always relevant to its bilateral

relationship. Nevertheless, a country's voting record in the

United Nations is only one dimension of its relations with

the United States. Bilateral economic, strategic, and

political issues are at times more directly important to U.S.

interests.

VoTING COINCIDENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES

On non-consensus issues, i.e., those on which a vote was

taken, the average overall General Assembly voting

coincidence of all UN members with the United States in 2009

was 39 percent, up significantly from 2008, when it was 25.6

percent, and more than twice the figure from 2007 (18.3

percent).

When consensus resolutions are factored in as votes

identical to those of the United States, a much higher

measure of agreement with U.S. positions is reached--84.3

percent in 2009. (See Section III--General Assembly--Overall

Votes for additional comparisons.)

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would prevent the U.S. from paying its annual dues to the UN and UN agencies, and put our nation once again into arrears. Passage of it would also end ongoing peacekeeping operations in nations critical to America's national security interests, including Haiti and Sudan.

Today the United States is in good standing at the United Nations after years of failing to meet our treaty obligations, and as a result, the U.S. is better able to advance our interests. Great nations keep their word, and by working with other countries in the UN, we can be sure that our nation does not go it alone.

In making his argument for fiscal responsibility, Congressman Broun has picked the wrong target. In 2006, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study concluded that UN peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force. This point was backed up by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said that ``[UN Peacekeeping] is much more cost effective than using American forces. And of course, America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping missions, but somebody has to do them.''

In the last ten years, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has grown--with each and every one of them enjoying the active support of both Democratic and Republican administrations. There are now over 100,000 peacekeepers--the second largest deployed military in the world--serving in 14 missions in some of the most dangerous corners of the world.

UN peacekeeping missions help end brutal conflicts, support stability, the transition to democratization, and bring relief for hundreds of millions of people. In 2005, The Human Security Report, a major international study on peace and war, judged that the global security climate improved dramatically since the 1980's, with genocides plummeting by 80 percent. The study attributed that decline to the explosion in conflict prevention, peacemaking, and increases in the number and complexity of UN peacekeeping missions.

The UN force in Haiti has provided security and access for humanitarian aid since the devastating earthquake and before that, the UN kept the peace. In the 1990's, Florida faced wave after wave of illegal Haitians trying to escape from the failed state. Why would we abandon this mission?

The UN force in Sudan was critical in supporting last month's referendum calling for independence and it continues to play a vital role in supporting South Sudan transition to a functional democracy. It's in our benefit to help South Sudan grant freedom to its people, and the UN is doing that. Right now the total cost to the international community for our peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Sudan is about $4 billion a year. An article in Foreign Policy just last month noted that a return to war in Sudan could cost the wider international community $30 billion. The UN is our main hope in preventing that from happening, so with passage of the amendment, we'd abandon the mission, possibly threatening stability in Sudan and potentially increasing our future costs.

In both the above cases, it is very likely that if the UN were not there, U.S. troops would have to be and they would be the ones in harm's way. Instead, by supporting UN peacekeeping, we lessen the burden on our own forces and reduce our own expenditures. U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said last week, ``Those of us-- Democrat and Republican alike--who support the UN owe it to American taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are well and cleanly spent. But, equally, those who push to curtail U.S. support to the UN owe it to U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled by UN peacekeepers.''

I urge my colleagues to vote NO against the Broun amendment. It is not fiscally responsible--considering we are here today to vote on a bill to reduce costs, it makes little sense

to vote for an amendment that would likely entail greater U.S. military expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen, our distinguished chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, for anchoring this evening's Special Order on the budget. Her leadership and continued diligence in addressing the issues that confront our Nation in general, but African Americans in particular, are imperative to our progress as a Nation.

Recently, Republican House leadership introduced a continuing resolution containing the largest spending cuts in history. Subsequently, President Obama unveiled his FY 2012 budget to support the Nation's competitive growth while making difficult decisions to address our economic deficit.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to remember that, as we consider these spending proposals, in addition to our economic deficit, we have a job deficit, which continues to worsen, in part, by an ever-growing educational deficit. They work together. While we must work to rein in spending, we must not cut funding to the extent that our development and growth in the areas of education and employment will be hampered if we do that.

One of the challenges in addressing unemployment has been the rapid decline in certain occupations and industries and in our labor market's inability to meet the demands of new occupations and industries. More than two-thirds of workers in occupations and industries that are growing have at least some postsecondary education compared to one- third of workers in occupations and industries that are declining. The demand for postsecondary education, as well as the rapid increase in baby boom retirements, is predicted to result in a shortage of more than 14 million college graduates by the year 2020 in this country.

In addition, military recruiters are likely to experience a shortage in traditional high school recruiting due to the high school dropout crisis and low student proficiency levels. Among high school graduates, about one in five does not meet the minimum standards necessary to enlist in the U.S. Army today.

These facts highlight the reality that our growing education deficit is a greater long-term threat to our Nation's well-being than any other challenge we face today. The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment shows 15-year-old students in the U.S. are performing about average in reading and science and below average in math. Of the 34 developed countries assessed, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math. While these scores are all higher than those from 2003 and 2006, they are far behind our global competitors, which include South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in China, and Canada.

Our domestic assessment results paint a similar picture. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that as of 2009 only about 33 percent of our Nation's fourth-graders are proficient readers. These low proficiency levels continue to fuel our dropout crisis on the high school and college levels. Nearly 7,000 students drop out of high school in our Nation daily, and about one-third of first-year American college students are required to take at least one remedial course. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of these students are underrepresented minorities.

Further threatening our global standing is the higher education deficit in the science and technology fields. In 2000, Asian universities produced 1.2 million science and engineering graduates. European universities produced 850,000, and the United States produced 500,000.

In an economy dependent upon an innovative workforce, in addition to addressing our national high school and college graduation rates, we must increase our level of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field graduates. To do so, we need an innovative agenda to develop the potential of all students, especially unrepresented minorities, who have represented the bottom of the academic achievement gap in this country for too long.

For this reason, and as I conclude, I commend the President for his proposed investments in education to support early learning, to improve schoolteachers and leaders, to improve science, technology, engineering, and math education, and to promote college access and completion.

However, I strongly oppose the nearly $5 billion reduction proposal from the Republican House leadership in the area of education. Cuts to teacher and school leadership programs, as well as Head Start, Pell Grants, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers are counterproductive in our effort to strengthen our national competitiveness.

I am also gravely concerned about proposed cuts to programs that stimulate job growth, that assist the working poor, that address health disparities, and that increase diversity. I strongly oppose cuts to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, training and employment services, community health centers, low-income home energy assistance programs, and neighborhood development initiatives. These cuts and others disproportionately impact our most vulnerable population.

While I understand that our economic crisis calls for difficult budgeting constraints, I believe this should be a shared responsibility, not an overhaul of the Nation's economic crisis at the expense of our most vulnerable populations and our global competitiveness as a Nation.

Mr. Speaker, while it is my hope that the Andean Trade Preference Act has promoted trade between the Andean countries and the United States and in so doing it has acted to limit drug production, I and many of my colleagues remain deeply concerned over certain recent conduct by the Peruvian government with reference to its treatment of U.S. investment in Peru. I would ask that a letter my colleagues and I recently sent in regard to this matter be made a part of the record. And I would hope our Government would work diligently to protect the interests of our U.S. citizens in this regard. I would

hope before Congress is asked to extend this Act again, the Peruvian government will have addressed this concern so that it will not be an issue when a further extension is requested.

February 8, 2011.

Hon. Hillary Clinton,

Secretary, Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary, Department of Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary: We are writing you

to raise a serious concern relating to the treatment of a

U.S.-based company by the Government of Peru. We understand

that this company has received disparate treatment by that

Government and is apparently the subject of a possible

expropriation. We understand that the Department of State is

aware of this situation and that it has already expressed its

concern to the Government of Peru.

As we understand it, Doe Run Peru (``DRP''), owned by the

Renco Group, a U.S.-based holding company, owns a smelter in

Peru that has been in operation for almost 100 years, though

DRP has only operated the smelter since 1997. At the time

that DRP acquired the smelter from the Government of Peru,

DRP agreed to assume certain environmental upgrade costs

associated with the smelter, and the Government of Peru

assumed soil remediation costs for cleaning up the

surrounding community. We understand that by 2009 DRP had

invested $315 million in meeting the terms of the agreement,

and, during this same period of time, and up until this date,

the Government of Peru has spent nothing to fulfill its

obligations.

While DRP has proposed good faith negotiations, to date the

Government of Peru has refused to enter such discussions.

Though DRP has completed eight and a half of the nine

environmental commitments contained in the 1997 agreement,

DRP has indicated its willingness to take further and

additional steps, but for whatever reason the Government of

Peru refuses to enter such negotiations.

We urge the Treasury Department and the State Department to

work together on this matter as it raises very serious

issues, particularly since the U.S. provides major funding to

the Inter-American Development Bank that in turn is quite

active in Peru. A de facto expropriation would raise

questions about the appropriateness of further IDB investment

in Peru. We would hope that your two Departments would

communicate on this matter with the IDB and express the

concerns of this Government and the consequences that might

flow from an expropriation by the Government of Peru.

Sincerely,

Donald M. Payne,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Proponents of this bill contend that the current health care law will destroy jobs, but CBO estimates of $230 billion support the fact that it is the repeal being debated today, not the health care law, that would harm jobs

and drain funds from potential job-building appropriations.

Essentially what is being repealed are the protections afforded to taxpayers through the recently enacted health care legislation, the relief given to American taxpayers who were for so long paying the bills for uncompensated health care costs--which we never hear mentioned over there--and the progress our country made last year to come out of the dark ages as one of the only three developed countries in the world that do not provide universal health care.

Forty-eight hundred seniors in my district and over 1 million seniors in the country were relieved last year by the doughnut hole rebate. But repeal would reintroduce that stress. Nearly 44 percent of non-elderly constituents in New Jersey and 134 million Americans nationwide have preexisting conditions.

Repeal would reintroduce the hopelessness these Americans felt in the past as health coverage denied and stole their ability to access quality health care. Repeal would remove nearly 1.2 million young adults from their parents' health care plan--including my grandson who's 23 and is on his mother's plan--and remove their ability to take preventative measures now to avoid becoming a burden to the system.

I urge defeat of this bill.