Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the farm bill in its current form is a missed opportunity to strengthen family farms while reforming American agriculture. The bill coming out of committee is absolutely the least that can be done.

Long overdue support for specialty crops is welcome, but a relative drop in the bucket in terms of overall agricultural spending. Conservation is honored more in word than deed, and the massive payments to the wealthiest few farmers are virtually unrestricted. The new adjusted gross income limit of $900,000 is almost meaningless, the proof being that it only saves a few million dollars. There is no meaningful limit on rice and cotton farmers, and it sweetens the outrageous deal for Big Sugar. It is sad that it continues to shortchange the family farm, forcing them to compete with heavily subsidized large operators who will continue to buy them out, making it harder for most farmers to make a living.

Luckily for people who eat and people who farm, there still is a chance for reform. And I urge my colleagues to carefully examine the bipartisan amendment from Congressmen Kind, Flake, and Ryan.

Mr. Speaker, the front page of the Washington Post yesterday had the harsh and ugly reality. We cannot afford not to help the Iraqis who trusted and worked with the United States with the opportunity for refugee status.

I quote:

``The American Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has asked the Bush administration to take the unusual step of granting immigrant visas to all Iraqis employed by the United States Government in Iraq because of growing concern that they will quit and flee the country if they cannot be assured of eventual safe passage to the United States.''

For the last 7 months, I have been working with a broad bipartisan group of people on legislation that would deal with the largest ongoing humanitarian crisis in the world other than Darfur. And unlike the tragedy in the Darfur region of the Sudan, the United States is front and center in Iraq. We have over 300,000 American soldiers, contractors, and civilian U.S. Government employees. We see firsthand every day the train wreck, while officials at the top of the food chain appear, sadly, oblivious and powerless to do anything about it.

I am proud to say that there are young American soldiers who will try to do something about it, even after they rotate out of the country. That is how I first became involved in this issue, as young Oregonian Guard members fought valiantly to try to save the life of their interpreter when they returned to Oregon, knowing that her life was at risk. Working with those young guardsmen and with high school students from Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon, we were able to have a happy resolution in this one case. But, sadly, it is only one case.

I have become acquainted with another true American hero. Kirk Johnson was a young USAID worker who, as he rotated out, embarked upon a crusade to save the lives of Iraqis who were at risk because they were known to have helped the United States. He has compiled a list of over 500 Iraqis who were interpreters, who were guides, who were civilian employees. Not one, the last time I talked to Mr. Johnson, had been able to make it to the United States.

The sad fact is that we are failing miserably in terms of responding to the refugee requirements. Since I became involved last fall, the United States has admitted the grand total of 133 Iraqi refugees, a shocking number when we consider that over 2 million Iraqis have fled the country and another 2 million within Iraq have been displaced from their homes. It's not that we can't figure out how to do it if we care, if we establish a priority, if we work on it. In that same period of time that we could only admit 133 Iraqis, we have allowed 3,500 refugees from Iran, a country with whom we have rocky relations, to say the least, where we have deep concerns about terrorism.

It makes a mockery of our commitment to accept 7,000 during this fiscal year which ends September 30. There must be a sense of urgency and a profound sense of obligation. In order to make even that modest goal of 7,000, we are going to have to admit more Iraqi refugees every working day than we have for the entire last 9 months.

It is not just the right thing to do for these poor souls and their families. There is a harsh geopolitical reality. With 4 million Iraqis displaced, more than half fleeing the country, there's 1.2 million in Syria, and the accounts of what these people are forced to do to keep body and soul together are truly disturbing. Or three-quarters of a million Iraqi refugees across the border in Jordan, threatening to overwhelm that small country, adding another element of instability to this already unsettled part of the world.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to look at a letter that we are circulating to them today that includes this article from the Post. I urge them to cosponsor our bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2265, have them urge a markup and action before we recess for August. Our failure to keep our commitment will be exceedingly serious. We undermine our ability to carry out

our current mission in Iraq if people we depend upon know that they can't depend upon us.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I am pleased to stand in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, producing a critical piece of legislation for times of escalating energy costs, congestion, pollution. The work that the committee has done, in particular putting the big picture together looking at the intersection between transportation, land use, and energy, is to be commended.

I am particularly pleased of the work that the committee has done in zeroing in on three particular areas. One that is of a particular interest to me has been the Small Starts program, which permits things like street cars to be reintroduced into American communities. It was something that I was able to work on and insert in the last reauthorization. Sadly, it has been 3 years since that bill was enacted, and the Federal Transit Administration has been unable to get the rules together to be able what should have been a simpler small scale program to be able to operate.

I deeply appreciate the work that the committee has done to be able to make clear that the FTA needs to get its act together; that, rather than using a single means of cost effectiveness and disregarding all the other factors required under the underlying legislation, that the FTA must weigh economic development and land use effects of the project. This is critical. It is something that 82 communities across the country are now looking at for the reintroduction of street car and Small Start. This committee language is an important step in that direction, to help the administration obey the law, something they have been unable to do for 3 years.

I am also pleased that there is clarification of the utilization of the CMAQ, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality.

The administration has unfairly limited the application of this funding simply to new bus services, leaving out rail transit all together. There are projects in my district and others around the country that would be unfairly impacted by the narrow implementation of this rule. It would be the wrong thing to do in a time of rising oil costs, transportation congestion, and the economic and environmental concerns. I appreciate that the committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to reinstitute the CMAQ eligibility regarding operating assistance for New Starts projects for up to 3 years. This is back to the original intent, it is a great step forward, and I appreciate them doing it.

Last but not least, ``location efficiency,'' particularly as relates to HOPE VI programs, is very, very important to where a project is located and how it is constructed. The committee has taken some pioneering work to be able to look at the application, to be able to deal with the implementation in a location-efficient way that will stretch transportation dollars. It will make a huge difference for low- income families who spend more on gasoline in many cases than they do on food, on education, or any other major discretion. In fact, many low-income people actually spend more on transportation than on housing.

I must conclude by noting that there are still some who hold on to the pathological notion that the United States should be the only country in the world with unsubsidized rail passenger service. I would note that the airline industry has made a net profit of zero in its 75- year history despite massive Federal subsidies. I think this legislation is a step forward by simply giving a little bit of what is necessary for a national rail passenger network. It is cost effective, it is energy efficient. It brings us in line with where the rest of the civilized world is. And I commend the committee for it.

I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in yielding time.

I see what the subcommittee has done here is not an effort to somehow dictate to local governments what they have to do, but instead, structuring how to get more out of scarce Federal investments.

As has been noted on the floor by people on both sides of the aisle, we are approaching a transportation infrastructure funding crisis in this country. There is not enough money remaining in the trust fund to deal with the existing level of programming, let alone what is going to be required as we move it in the next three authorizations. And countries around the world are spending trillions of dollars in China, in the European Union, in Japan, while we're falling behind.

I appreciate the big-picture approach that the subcommittee has taken in terms of dealing with location efficiencies, with balanced transportation, with initiatives to green the infrastructure. I am hopeful that the instruction that the subcommittee has given to some of the Federal transportation agencies on how to have maximum impact by weighing factors of economic development and trip reduction to stretch more of those scarce dollars.

I applaud funding the $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which hints at efficiencies that we can have in the long run. Because adequate funding of our rail passenger infrastructure is the cheapest, fastest way to increase airport capacity and reduce congestion, it's the cheapest, fastest way to get additional highway capacity while saving energy and reducing greenhouse gases.

This is an unprecedented effort on behalf of the subcommittee to look at the big picture under its jurisdiction in the appropriations process. I think it's going to have a dramatic impact in the years to come. I appreciate what they're doing, and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I have earlier indicated my appreciation of what the subcommittee has done, looking at the big picture and trying to squeeze additional efficiencies out of transportation and housing initiatives. And in that regard, I offer this amendment and hope to inquire of the Chair and ranking member to see if there is something we can do to move this forward.

I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I at least would like my 3\1/2\ minutes here to put it before the committee and seek their assistance as it moves forward.

My amendment deals specifically with the Conserve by Bike program.

This was unanimously adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and subsequently signed into law. It was authorized at $6.2 million, a program that would establish 10 pilot projects across the country. These projects would utilize education and marketing tools to encourage people to replace some of their car trips with bicycle trips.

The law also directs the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a national study to help us understand the benefits from converting cars to bike and how to educate people about these benefits.

Nationally, less than 1 percent of trips are by bicycles currently. But in many bicycle-friendly communities, the percentage is much higher. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, like yours, Madam Chairman, that percentage is 2 or 3 percentage points. In our community of Portland, we have the highest percentage of bicycle commuting in the country, despite the fact that it rains all the time.

Were we to increase bicycle trips by just 2 percent nationally, we would save more than 693 million gallons of gasoline per year, up to $5 billion. Increasing bicycle usage has additional benefits of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving public health. When we are concerned about an obesity epidemic among our young people, having bicycles is an opportunity to reduce vehicle emissions; and combating adult and childhood obesity would seem to be a logical step.

For all of these reasons, Congress had the foresight to include the Conserve by Bike program in the 2005 energy policy. Unfortunately, the program has not yet been implemented, because the Department of Transportation does not have the contract authority to fund the program. This appropriation is necessary to get the program off the ground.

Given its modest price tag and innumerable benefits, I was disappointed to see that the program did not receive funds under the Secretary's account for Transportation Planning and Research, especially considering the committee's laudable commitment to other green and efficiency measures.

Many cities and nations, particularly in Europe, have seen how converting car trips to bike trips can have measurable benefits for all its citizens. We have all perhaps been reading about Paris's recent inauguration of their bike-sharing program featuring over 10,000 bikes across the city to demonstrate that people will ride bikes when the infrastructure exists.

Madam Chairman, I would strongly urge that the committee consider working with me to make sure that this important authorized program find funding in the conference report. As I say, I deeply appreciate the work that the committee has done. This is a relatively low-cost, high-impact area. Given the fact that we have come forward with over $5.5 billion in transportation infrastructure for bicycles, for trails, and for pedestrian activities, this would seem to be a relatively modest program to be able to jump-start the Conserve by Bike.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's eloquence and his courtesy in allowing me to speak on this. And he is absolutely right; there has been a longstanding process of advanced funding to give our public broadcasting stations the ability to move forward.

He talks about it only being 15 percent of the budget. That 15 percent of the budget is critical, particularly for small and rural areas. There will always be public broadcasting in Denver or San Francisco or New York, but this money, these grants speak to the very heart of the ability to deal with sparsely populated areas from coast to coast. These are the people that would be punished if this ill- advised amendment were passed.

And, last but not least, he advances the notion that somehow this is just providing entertainment. I would strongly suggest that the gentleman offering this amendment go visit his public broadcasting system, because you will find that it is not just entertainment. Public broadcasting is culture, it is education, it is public safety. Indeed, this is the backbone in many parts of the country of emergency communications network. The notion that somehow this is only Big Bird and entertainment, and all we have got to do is commercialize public broadcasting more, misses the essence of why we have broad bipartisan support for public broadcasting.

I strongly urge rejection of this ill-advised amendment on behalf of 110 bipartisan members of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, over 100 of whom signed the letter to the appropriators supporting this budget. It is the 15 percent that is most critical for rural America. It is the advanced funding that provides the stability for things like the Ken Burns commentary. And it is not about just providing entertainment, it is education, it is culture, it is public safety. Public broadcasting is providing a voice for America, a noncommercial independent voice that is too often sadly lacking. It isn't available anyplace else in the gazillion channels on our cable networks.

And I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, today we take another step in ending the war in Iraq as we consider the measure to withdraw our troops by next April.

Each day, support for President Bush's war crumbles as evidence mounts of the cost of this debacle: $10 billion a month, more lives lost, and thousands of hopes and dreams shattered.

We who opposed this war from the start for the reasons played out every day on the front pages of our newspapers understand that the redeployment of 200,000 American soldiers and contractors in Iraq will take some time to implement, but that is no excuse not to start now as rapidly and responsibly as possible to get our people out of the crossfire of this religious civil war. They have done all that they can, all that we should expect of them.

I call on the doubters in Congress to stop enabling the President; instead, to join us in supporting the strongest, most direct measure possible, not just to send the President a message, but to rein him in and bring our soldiers home from this nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

It's not too early. It's too late, too late because the President's party has enabled these disastrous policies. And listening to some on the other side of the aisle, there are people still disconnected from reality.

But each day their congressional support is slowly crumbling as evidence mounts of the costs of failure. It's not just 10 billions of dollars a month. It's more lives lost and thousands of hopes and dreams shattered.

Even those of us who opposed this from the beginning understand that 300,000 American soldiers and contractors cannot leave overnight. But that's no excuse not to start now, as rapidly and as responsibly as possible, to get our people out of crossfire of what is now a religious civil war. Our soldiers have done all that they can do and can be expected of them.

I call on the doubters to join us in supporting the strongest most direct measure possible, not just to send the President a message, but rein him in and bring our soldiers home from this nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2269, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, the single largest investment in college financial aid since the 1944 GI bill. This legislation will help millions of middle- and low-income families and students pay for college without any new cost to taxpayers. At a time of skyrocketing tuition costs, government investment has not kept up. As college degrees become more expensive, we must help keep bright students in school and ensure a bright future for America.

The legislation boosts college financial aid by about $18 billion over the next 5 years, and pays for itself by reducing excessive federal subsidies paid to lenders in the college loan industry by $19 billion. Over the course of 5 years, almost 70,000 Oregon students would benefit from an additional $194 million in available loans and Pell Grants. The average Oregon student graduates with more than $14,000 in debt, and this legislation would cut by almost $5,000 the interest paid on their loans. By investing in our students, we ensure a well-educated, globally competitive workforce. We also benefit our communities by providing incentives for our brightest to go into public service jobs and into our neediest schools.

I am proud to be part of this new Congress that prioritizes education, making it feasible for all families to send their kids to college, and keeping America competitive.

Madam Speaker. today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, Alcee Hastings and Randy Kuhl, the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act. This legislation amends the Department of Agriculture's conservation programs to put a greater emphasis on increasing habitat and establishing cropping and integrated pest management practices to protect native and managed pollinators.

The bill also states that the Secretary of Agriculture should designate pollinator protection as a ``national priority resource concern'' for the conservation programs administered by the Department.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize our national agricultural policies, raising awareness and placing a greater emphasis on pollinators and their habitat could not come at a more important time-- particularly as research and newspaper headlines continue to highlight the collapse of bee colonies and general population declines and threats to pollinators.

The risks to our food supply and ecosystems from which pollinators are declining cannot be underestimated. Pollinators are integral to the very survival of an astounding number and variety of plant life that sustains us. The numbers tell the story--nearly 75 percent of the world's flowering plants, more than two-thirds of the world's crop species, and one out of every three mouthfuls of food have a direct connection to pollinators. Disruptions of localized pollinating systems and declines of certain species of pollinators have been reported on every continent except Antarctica.

Populations of a variety of pollinator species have been declining in recent years, due to a loss of habitat, improper use of pesticides and herbicides, and replacement of native plant species with non-native or engineered plants. The introduction of non-native, invasive species-- either by accident or through farming practices--has significantly contributed to this problem.

I introduce this bill as one important step to address these problems by recognizing the contributions that pollinators make to our agricultural production and our food supply. Another step is the legislation of my colleague Alcee Hastings, H.R. 1709, which I support and which authorizes research funding to strengthen native bee, as well as honey bee, populations. I look forward to working with the Agriculture Committee and the House to ensure pollinators and their habitats receive further attention and protection as we reauthorize the Farm Bill in the coming weeks.

Mr. Chairman, I supported the Hinchey-Wolf amendment to the FY 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. This amendment would have established a one-year spending limitation with regard to the designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors under section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I supported this limitation amendment because section 1221 is a flawed provision of federal law, and the Department of Energy's implementation of the provision has enhanced concerns about the law rather than addressed them.

Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act grants the Department of Energy unprecedented siting and construction authority for transmission lines. While I strongly support the upgrade of our nation's transmission infrastructure and believe that states and the federal government need tools to make this happen, section 1221 goes too far. The provision

invites only illusory participation from the states--one year is much too short a timeframe for states to make any decision about transmission siting, much less the right one.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide a realistic backstop for the federal government that gives the states time and flexibility to suggest alternatives. I hope that this Congress can advance a more balanced approach.

Mr. Speaker, the largest refugee crisis in the world, other than the Darfur, is unfolding in Iraq. Four million Iraqis have fled their homes. Two million have fled the country, and an estimated 20- to 50,000 a month or more are added to that toll.

Yet the United States has been able, with all our resources, to only allow 70 Iraqis refugee status in the United States since October, only one in April, only one in May.

It's time for us to accept responsibility to aid the people in this desperate plight. If there are any, any of my colleagues who have any doubt that we need to change the policy and reach out to them, I would urge that they seek out the soldiers who have returned home, who are fighting to try to save their interpreters and their guides.

The heart-wrenching stories of people via cell phone trying to guide them to safety will, I hope, inspire you to action and encourage you to support bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2265, for Congress to do its job for these refugees.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate what my colleague from Ohio said a moment ago. But with all due respect, I couldn't disagree with her more.

First of all, what is brought here today is not a NAFTA-type agreement. Bear in mind, this is being urged for approval by the Council of Textile Organizations, the Bush administration and the AFL- CIO. It is an 8-month extension for us to be able to move forward in an orderly fashion.

We have, in fact, heard concerns that have been voiced by our friend from Ohio and others. That's why the committee is hard at work. And I commend the leadership of Chairman Rangel and

Chairman Levin to be able to put together a framework on a bipartisan basis that speaks to those concerns. I am quite confident when we bring forward the FTAs that they are decidedly not NAFTA-type agreements.

I think the gentlelady is right, there are certain parts of this decision that were made beyond perhaps the chairman, but there are also two bodies that are at work. And our chairman has been working to be able to accommodate a complex set of issues going forward.

This 8-month extension ought to be welcomed because it will enable more concrete information to be available that I think will raise the comfort level of the gentlelady. It will certainly speak to the concerns that I have heard back home, and will underscore the hard work that this committee has been doing.

I respectfully suggest that the work that we're going to see, for example, with the environment in Peru, with illegal logging, with what's happening with the environmental sector, labor standards, these are going to provide a more complete package that is going to enable us to have trade, provide that two-way comfort level, and work for all concerns.

In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that we support this extension under an expedited process that will enable us to return to this floor with a more comprehensive approach, and that will enable us to move our entire agenda forward.

Mr. Speaker, this last week I had the opportunity to meet a true American hero in Iraq, Kirk W. Johnson. No matter what your position on the war in Iraq, how it started, where it's going, how it will end up, you should be deeply concerned by the 4 million Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homes. And you cannot help but be impressed by Mr. Johnson and his deep concern for their plight.

This young Arabist, who worked for the USAID as regional coordinator on reconstruction in Fallujah--from, I might add, impeccable Republican lineage--figured prominently in George Packer's haunting essay in The New Yorker on March 26 of this year. That essay, entitled ``Betrayed: The Iraqis Who Trusted America the Most,'' had a profound impact on me. It is a harsh title, but the facts are harsh. In a country with a population about the size of Texas, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes. Two million are currently outside the country, primarily in Jordan and Syria where there are jarring press accounts, for instance, of women forced into prostitution to feed their families in Syria. Mr. Johnson has been focusing on a special subset of these unfortunate people, people whose lives are at risk because they helped the United States, translators, guides, people who worked on the reconstruction effort. He has compiled a list of over 500 Iraqis that he knows personally are in that category. Five hundred, not one of whom has been able to yet make it to the United States for asylum. They are part of the tip of the refugee iceberg. Two million, as I say, in Jordan and Syria.

Mr. Johnson asks the question that each Member of Congress must confront: What kind of superpower can't convert its ``very top priority''--the words, by the way, of Ellen Sauerbrey, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration in her testimony before the United States Senate--can't convert its very top priority into a program that starts saving the lives of people who helped us before their visas expire?

The stark reality is that only 70 Iraqis since October of last year have been admitted to the United States. Only eight in March, one in April and another in May.

I strongly urge that my colleagues join me in supporting H.R. 2265. This comprehensive refugee legislation will allow for more Iraqis to be granted refugee status in the United States. Why should the United States accept fewer refugees than Sweden? It would allow them to apply for refugee status in Iraq. Why should they be forced to flee the country, to Jordan, for instance, when we have the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? This legislation would put somebody in charge, having a special coordinator to help us make sure that this problem is solved. I strongly urge my colleagues to make sure that Congress does its part to deal with the greatest continuing refugee crisis in the world with the possible exception of the Darfur. This is a crisis for which the United States has a unique responsibility and a unique role in its solution.

Please examine H.R. 2265, add your name as cosponsor, but, more important, join Mr. Kirk Johnson in making the plight of these millions of unfortunate people, especially those who helped us, part of your mission in Congress.

I appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleague again in this effort to try and reduce this output. I respect my friend, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, but I do think it is time for us to take a more aggressive action to reduce what is a gratuitous waste of resources and is a signal, I think, for us all to find ways to be able to deal with the electronic era.

This is a holdover. We have attempted in the past to be able to scale it down. I have also checked with legislative counsel to find out what we need to repeal. But I have been told that simply by enacting our amendment today, we will, in fact, achieve that objective in terms of reducing the number of unnecessary printed copies.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple: by instructing the Government Printing Office (GPO) to print half the number of Congressional Records daily, we will save $3.2 million in taxpayer dollars and 57 tons of paper annually.

An unofficial survey of House offices revealed that many swiftly discard their daily copy of the Congressional Record. And why shouldn't they? The full, easily searchable text of the Record is available online back to the year 1989. As electronic viewing of this resource becomes more widespread, we must continue to adjust the number of printed copies accordingly. In fact, since 1995 we have reduced the number of daily printed Congressional Records from 18,000 to 5,600 per day.

We have an opportunity to save millions of dollars by taking advantage of paperless technology and pushing House operations into the 21st Century. I commend Speaker Pelosi in her recent effort to ``Green the Capitol'' and this is a common-sense amendment that is consistent with that initiative.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy, as I appreciate the hard work that she and her committee have done bringing forward, I think, a really terrific bill.

I wish to enter into colloquy with you, Madam Chair. At the end of 2005 Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act with broad bipartisan support. At the time it was called landmark legislation.

Unfortunately, today it's clear that the intent and many of the legal requirements in the Water for the Poor Act are not being met by the State Department and USAID.

Earlier this month the State Department delivered its second report on the required drinking water and sanitation strategy. Unfortunately, it continues to be more of a recitation of the work they're doing, rather than a strategic, forward-looking road map to move from the current state of access to achieving the international commitment to cut in half the percentage of people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

While our legislation was specifically written so that it would improve aid quality at any level, there was also a call to increase the amount of resources devoted to the very poor. For instance, as part of the strategy, we required an increase in the percentage of assistance going to high-priority countries, defined as countries with the greatest need, and countries in which assistance would be expected to make the greatest difference. Many, if not most of these countries would be in sub-Saharan Africa.

For too long the State Department has used disaster funding to artificially inflate the numbers it used to meet congressional requirements, instead of giving the necessary focus to long-term sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the poor.

For too long, sub-Saharan Africa has gotten funding that is inversely proportional to the level of need. For too long the State Department has treated Water for the Poor Act as if it were a guideline or a suggestion, rather than a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that they're obligated to fully implement.

I very much appreciate the work of Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman Obey, for whom I know this is a particular interest. I deeply appreciate increasing the overall level of funding for water and sanitation to $300 million, and directing that much of it be spent pursuant to the Water for the Poor Act.

I hope for the opportunity, as we move forward towards conference, to work together to ensure that as much money as possible is made available to the long-term development of safe drinking water and sanitation programs in the areas of greatest need, with a strategy needed to ensure that we're make the most effective use of our AIDS dollar.

Most important, I hope that the Appropriations Committee will continue to help with the oversight needed to make the Water for the Poor Act fully implemented and the United States lives up to our international commitment.

If the gentlewoman will yield.

I just can't tell you how much I appreciate what you've done and this commitment. I appreciate your words and everything the committee has done to make our water investments go to the right places in the right ways for the right thing.

I am reassured that your intention that only $80 million of the $300 million level come from disaster assistance. That's an important step in making the necessary long-term investments to deal with this leading cause of preventable death in the world.

I'm particularly pleased by the requirement that funds be spent in accordance with the Water for the Poor Act, which was carefully crafted to provide a framework, a policy and a goal for ensuring affordable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the poorest in this world. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you.

There was, at one point, our colleague, Chairman Payne of the Africa Subcommittee was going to be here I

thought, and I apologize, I don't see him. But I know he has done outstanding work with the subcommittee. And I think between the three of us, great things could happen.

I would just like to express my deep appreciation, Chairman Payne, for what you have done with your Africa Subcommittee shining a spotlight on the international water issue. The hearing that you convened was riveting, and I thought it was the best expression of the needs we've had in Congress.

The prospect of our Subcommittee on Foreign Ops, working with your subcommittee, on Africa, being able to focus on this, I think, is the brightest spot, and it's going to make a difference for millions of lives around the world. I appreciate your leadership and your focus on this, and thank you both for your efforts.