Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, next week, the assault weapon ban expires. This ban, enacted 10 years ago, on some models has been supported by past Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and President Clinton. It has been supported by police chiefs and officers across America, and the majority of the public. Even candidate Governor George Bush 4 years ago said he supported extending the assault weapons ban.

Today, we stand poised in 120 hours to see the assault weapons ban expire because of a lack of leadership on the part of President Bush and of the Republican leadership in Congress. It appears that there is no intention to stand up to the National Rifle Association and bring forward an opportunity for the men and women in this Chamber to be heard on this critical issue.

I suppose this should not come as a surprise when we saw the administration, President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft cave in to the NRA when it came to eliminating within 24 hours the previous gun registration records that would have been available to this administration, to law enforcement authorities, to help in the fight against terrorism. Having the NRA trump this potentially important tool in the fight against terrorism in this country is unfathomable to most of the people I represent. But sadly, it makes sense in the upside-down way that we deal with politics and the politics of gun violence in this Chamber and in the American political system.

America has the worst record of gun violence of any developed country. There are a wide array of simple, commonsense provisions that would help deal with gun violence that would not in any way deny any legitimate hunter an opportunity to use their weapons to go out and hunt, to target shoot, legitimate collectors. There are, however, people who resist any effort at record-keeping, at enforcement, at dealing with the most simple, direct, commonsense, and nonintrusive proposals.

Does anybody think in America that we are going to be safer if the assault weapon ban expires and there are more opportunities to have assault weapons in the United States? There are people ready now to market, if the ban expires, to market new gun lines. There are people that have kits to convert weapons to make them, previously illegal, that would be lawful if the ban expires, to have these kits so they can make the conversion.

I would find it disappointing on several levels if this tragedy occurs. First, we are not going to be safer. I hear repeatedly from the people I represent that sports people do not need assault weapons to hunt game in this country. There are lots of opportunities for target shooting, for sportsman activities. Assault weapons are designed to shoot with great firepower very quickly and to generate maximum carnage on people. We will not be safer.

It will be a blow to the credibility of the political process if candidate Bush can make a promise that President Bush is not going to deliver on.

Finally, it continues the chipping away at our ability to function here with real live legitimate problems. Gun violence is a legitimate problem. There are legitimate policy options, and we are taking them off the table.

I would hope that President Bush remembers what candidate Bush said 4 years ago and takes a small step to provide real leadership that he had promised in coming out in support of extending the assault weapon ban and calling upon the Republican leadership in Congress to follow through, allowing a vote to prevent that expiration. We have 120 hours left. I hope that the American people will avail themselves to dealing with these candidates who are out around the country to have that conversation with President Bush to follow through on his commitment.

Mr. Speaker, on a day of good news, when we have a report from the 9/11 Commission that has been thorough, bipartisan, with some solid, hard-hitting suggestions to make our country safer, when later this morning I am confident the House is going to take a vote condemning what is going on in Sudan and calling it what it is, genocide, moving us in the right direction. Sadly the House Republican leadership has managed to take the terrible idea of enshrining discrimination in our Constitution against gay and lesbian citizens and trump it, take it one step further.

We are about to debate a rule that for the first time in our history would pass legislation stripping from the Federal courts the ability to rule on constitutionality of Legislation. They want to do it specifically in a case of discrimination against our gay and lesbian citizens.

Never before in our history have we done this. In fact our former colleague, Bob Barr, who authored DOMA, said it is unnecessary and a dangerous precedent. I hope the House will reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we do listen carefully to this debate. Why are we here today if it is not just a sad grab for votes after the embarrassing meltdown in the Senate last week dealing with the constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage?

Listen to the rationale. The overworked judiciary? That certainly has not stopped our Republican colleagues from trying to shift the burden when it fits their ideology. They want the States to have the final authority only in this area, not for consumer protections or environmental policy.

The Republican leadership do not like unelected lifetime judges making these difficult decisions.

Well, frankly, looking at their efforts to pack the Federal judiciary with unqualified right-wing ideologues, I can understand why they are a little nervous about it; but, that is our system. Now they are afraid of their own conservative-leaning Supreme Court. This is so unnecessary, that the author of DOMA, our former colleague Bob Barr, has issued an edict. This is not needed; and Mr. Barr points out, to his credit, that this is a terrible precedent.

Ten years from now the American public, especially our young people, are going to wonder why we tied ourselves in knots politically trying to discriminate against citizens based on their sexual orientation; but if we pass this dangerous legislation today, while the controversy surrounding rights for gay and lesbian citizens will be gone, this dangerous, tragic, ill-conceived precedent will linger and will be dusted off every time people want to extend their political influence at the expense of issues that may be controversial but demand attention from our Federal courts.

It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on the point that was just made.

I have been listening to the debate. I have not heard my colleagues here say that this is unconstitutional. The point is the legislation the gentleman cited, the World War II Memorial, the timber legislation, exempted from judicial review under the terms of the specific act. As in Campaign Finance Reform it did not preclude challenges against the constitutionality of the legislation in question. That is legitimate use of congressional legislative authority.

What you are doing is not adjusting an act. You are saying we are not going to be able to deal with whether or not the laws in question are constitutional. That has never happened before.

I heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) here a couple of moments ago talk about his lifetime of working with young people. I just left 50 young volunteers who are working in Washington, D.C. neighborhoods. As we were leaving, one of the young women said she woke up this morning listening to what we were going to be debating here today. It made no sense to her and asked, is there any argument that this is being done other than pure political motivation?

This was, I thought, a very perceptive young woman. Her question, I think, answered itself, and I hope we are not to be guilty of undermining these young people's confidence in our activities.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time.

I, too, was saddened by the decision of the House Republican leadership, so ably articulated by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards); and I appreciate the service you are doing for our servicemen and -women, training the spotlight on this.

But I would like to speak briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to a specific area. Historically, I have come before this subcommittee talking about the problems of military cleanup. I did not this time, because I appreciated what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the members of the committee, were faced with. And I think they have done a good job under difficult circumstances, trying to put a little bit of money into the BRAC cleanup; but I would like to serve notice that I am hopeful that this is the last time that we place this low degree of priority.

I appreciate the imperative that you are facing, but we have a long- term time bomb, literally, that is ticking. The presence of unexploded ordnance and other contaminants on transferred military property limits our use of hundreds of thousands of acres of closed military bases from prime real estate to scenic open space. That is one of the reasons why we have such great apprehension about the BRAC process that is working its way forward. People are afraid that they are going to be left with a toxic white elephant.

And, indeed, the BRAC situation is just the tip of the iceberg, because we have between 10 and 50 million polluted acres; and at the rate of the spending that we are embarked upon now under the MILCON and the Department of Defense, we are going to take in the neighborhood of 300 years or more to clean up this responsibility that will be skyrocketing in costs over time. And these things get worse as the explosives, as the military equipment deteriorates, polluting groundwater, migrating to the surface. This is a problem that we cannot continue to sweep under the rug.

The Federal Government should be leading by example, cleaning up after itself, making sure we are not leaving an expensive, toxic legacy for the future.

Last but not least, this subcommittee can help by providing more leadership with local communities to provide a framework to the cleanup. I have been impressed with what happened in the State of California, recognizing that long-term operation of military installations must involve a partnership between the State, the local, the Federal Government; in some areas, tribal authorities.

I would hope that we could work together in a cooperative fashion with these other entities to be able to have a framework that will promote the clean-up because, ultimately, not only will this improve the quality of life of our military families, it will hasten the day that we solve this problem, saving billions of long-term dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey bringing it forward.

I think it is important that we are stepping forward to call what is happening in this troubled country by what it is, genocide. As has been referenced, we have already lost over 30,000 people. The best estimate is that we are looking at a third of a million people if everything goes right, and sadly, the path that we are on today is a million or more.

I hope that this will be an important first step for us to acknowledge, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) put forth, that this is different than when we stood by 10 years ago in Rwanda or a dozen years ago in Bosnia; or sadly, the United States was not forthcoming a generation ago in Europe during World War II. But I think that experience has chastened us and, I hope, has sensitized us; and I hope the language that is put forward here is just the beginning. By all means, call it by what it is. By all means, move forward with the United Nations.

But I would hope that when we think of having spent $200 billion in round numbers in Iraq for actually a threat that has proven to be far less, that we can put forward the same sort of energy and interest in uniting the world community in making sure that we implement the extreme diplomacy that is necessary, that we use the power of this country from military to diplomacy to the moral suasion that we are capable of to make sure that we tip the balance and move it in the right direction.

I commend all my colleagues that are here this evening, late in the evening, for sharing their concerns and trying to craft a bipartisan approach. But I hope that this is but one of many steps of this nature to highlight, and that we will continue to spotlight and speak for as long as we are faced with this problem. We cannot ignore it, to let it slip away.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the sentiments just expressed by my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

This is about fundamental policy, not just accounting standards. I am as reluctant as any to have Congress meddle in regulatory affairs, but this legislation is most decidedly not about helping rich people. Enron did not have a broad-based stock option program. Indeed, the evidence is those companies that have broad-based stock option programs have a countervailing force that militates against this sort of abuse.

I personally am not worried about the investor class. They hire smart people to check what is already a part of company financial records. The mutual funds, the pension funds, the venture capitalists all know the status. Expensing would have a negative impact on the value of these companies who use broad-based stock options, and retroactive application would make it even worse. It would make it much less likely that we are going to have these programs in the future, and many current programs will be eliminated. This is a fundamental issue of policy that Congress can and should be involved with.

I take modest disagreement with some sentiments that were expressed here earlier. I do not know anybody who is against stock options per se. I do not think Warren Buffett is a part of a conspiracy to eliminate stock options, and there are legitimate issues about how they are taxed.

But my concern is making sure that we have an entrepreneurial tool that is available for start-up enterprises, particularly in high tech, where people can invest their sweat equity, that are broad based, and help not just the top of the financial heap. The top executives are going to be taken care of one way or another. The enactment of this standard is simply going to take it away from the vast majority of employees in the broad-based program.

I think it is important for us to maintain this tool. It is currently used by a minority of companies with no evidence of abuse. Strong support here from Congress in being able to keep this going is going to be good for the economy, it is going to be good for these entrepreneurial efforts; and, indeed, the extent to which we transition to broad-based stock options, I think it will be a tool against abuse in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to comment briefly.

I want to make three points: One, WorldCom and Enron, some of the abusers that we have talked about here, did not have broad-based stock option programs. If you have listened carefully to the debate, no one has given an example of abuse from any broad-based company scheme. Indeed, the fact that they are broad-based makes it less likely that they will be abused.

Second, cash poor, innovative companies deserve this tool. This is how they can compete with the more mature companies that the Warren Buffetts of this world invest in, where cash is king.

Third, contrary to what some of my friends have asserted, if one talks to investors, employees in these companies, and executives, they all agree that the highly variable balance sheet values that will be produced by this scheme will have a very negative impact on the perceptions of these companies, making it much less likely that they will use this technique.

The consensus is clear, and I hope my colleagues will approve the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to reference briefly, legislation that we are going to be dealing with tomorrow that I think is very important. I have been spending time, as I know a number of my colleagues have, questioning the recent proposal from the Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, about whether or not we are going to be expensing stock options.

This is particularly important for somebody from the State of Oregon where technology has become a critical part of our local economy. It is the largest export of our State by far, a State originally founded on agriculture and timber. Now, technology exports are twice what we have in those traditional areas. The wages that are paid are twice the State average. They are high-paying, important jobs for a growing part of our economy that is increasingly a critical part of a global economy.

When these proposals came forward, I looked at them closely because, sadly, Congress in the past has not always been the most constructive partner. When it comes to financial regulations, often our participation has hindered rather than helped. I think any objective analysis would suggest that congressional interference with what happened with the savings and loan scandal probably added billions of dollars to the long-term cost to the taxpayer.

More recently, congressional interference dealing with accounting standards probably increased the problems there when we had some of the most difficult fallout. We had an opportunity to play a more constructive role; I am not certain that we did.

That is why I look at this carefully. I started by talking to business people I know back home who were involved with this process to find what impact expensing options would have on their businesses. It was clear that were we to be dealing with the expensing of broad-based stock option plans, the impact would be negative.

Now, it is clear that we are not talking about the vast majority of stock options that are granted to only a small number of high-level employees. Here we have seen expensing take place with little or no impact on shareholder value. That is because they are very limited. In the area that we are talking about with broad-based stock options where the majority of the employees have these options vested, not just the top few, it would have a dramatic impact on the balance sheet.

What it would mean in the long term is that a number of these firms, because of the lower values, they would simply stop offering broad- based stock option programs. That would be a tragedy on several levels. One has to do with the fact that broad-based stock option programs probably are a counterweight, a check and a balance against abuse. If you have a large number of employees who have a stock option program, there is less incentive and it is harder to manipulate. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single case of a broad-based stock option program that has been one of the problems we have been reading about in the papers. The Worldcoms or the Enrons have been those stock options that were more limited in nature. So we would lose that check and that balance.

Additionally, we lose an important part of start-up capital. What we are finding in the volatile world of technology finance is that there are a number of people who are willing to grab the brass ring, they are willing to take a chance to forgo salary for stock options, putting, in effect, sweat equity into the business on the prospect that it will prosper and that they will reap handsome rewards in the future. This does not happen all of the time, but it happens frequently enough that people are willing to make that type of investment. It has been a critical part of the success in getting the talent and getting these start-ups off the ground.

It is particularly important in a small State like Oregon which does not have access to capital that we see in other parts of the country like Silicon Valley; and as a result, Oregon would be particularly hard hit if we were to lose the opportunity for broad-based stock options.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues carefully examine this legislation coming before us tomorrow and look at the impact that broad-based stock options have in terms of the entrepreneurial spirit, in terms of what it means for the benefit of large numbers of employees, and the integrity of stock options themselves. Members should look carefully at the problems of valuation for something that is in effect equity in the future that is unknown and avoid a problem of adopting a new policy that could have a very negative effect on our technology industry and small business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing us together this evening. I thank him for training his insight on a situation that, as I say, this as somebody who did not vote for the resolution in the first place because of my apprehension, but I could not have foreseen it being mishandled in a way that has produced the situation we face today.

I salute the gentleman for his leadership, his voice of reason throughout my tenure in Congress during some very difficult times. Whether it is in the Balkans or it is the Middle East, he has focused our attention. He has asked the right questions, and he has done so in a way that permits people to get past some of their biases and concerns and I think really approach it in an open, honest and forthright fashion. I salute the gentleman for that. I appreciate the leadership he is providing this evening.

I listened to the gentleman's appraisal and I could not agree more, that, sadly, this administration was not prepared to win the peace, and this, as my colleague has pointed out time and again, is not the fault of our men and women in uniform, who have performed heroically. They have done the task that is assigned to them and more.

I think it is clear that what we have seen here has been a failure of the people at the top, who refused to listen to the men and women in uniform in the command structure. They have indeed, as the gentleman mentioned, been diverted from the real war in Afghanistan, something that the vast majority of people in this chamber were united behind. They understood that was the origin of the attack on the United States. That is where al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were headquartered. That is where we needed to act. Sadly, we did not finish the job. We were diverted.

We have seen stress unprecedented on our National Guard and ready Reserve, and I appreciate the gentleman focusing on that. It is something that I encounter every week as I go home, hearing from the families, from the employers, the news accounts, the meetings we have had at home where sometimes there are people that just want to have a confidential moment.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a young man call the office. I was very tightly scheduled. He said, ``I'll tell you what. I know you're going back to Washington, DC. Can I come and ride to the airport with you? I just want to tell you what's in my heart before I go back.''

It was for me extraordinarily frustrating to hear this young man unburden himself. He was back stateside because he had won a special commendation. He was back, but he wanted me to know the deep concern that the men and women he served with had about what was going on.

As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) said, we did it to ourselves. Three years ago, the world was united behind us. We had specific objectives. There was a sense of unity here that could have been mobilized and was not, but I think the question that the gentleman is raising for us is not just focusing on what went tragically wrong, understanding what is there, but he is focusing our attention on where we go from here, how do we do right by these young men and women in the field, how do we do right by the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I think, first and foremost, I would like to see us do a better job at oversight, and I know the gentleman has done his best as the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, but there is no excuse for our not being able to do a better job of pulling this information out, sharing it with our colleagues and the American public, and holding people accountable, doing a better job of focusing on what is happening to the 5,600, what are we calling them, post- active duty people who are being brought back to service yet again. The strains that have been put on the ready Reserve, more people called up than in every previous mobilization from the Cuban missile crisis through every decade, every year right up till today, we have had this amazing stress.

What can we do? We can have an honest accounting of the costs and consequences, not the budgeting that puts it off till the future. We can chase down what happened with that prison abuse scandal and not scapegoat a few young men and women who were in a situation, candidly I think, over their heads. I would have liked to have thought that they would have known better, but by no stretch of the imagination can the evidence coming forth lead us to believe that we can resolve this by simply coming down on a half dozen, a dozen of these young men and women. It goes much further up the chain of command, all the way to the top. When we look at what orders have been issued, side-stepping the Geneva Convention, detention, it is a failure of responsibility at the top. We ought to hold them accountable.

There is also the focus on the people who are, to a greater extent than ever before in wartime in the United States, dealing with unaccountable, unelected, no-bid contracts and contractors who are doing things that should be the purview of the United States military, and had they been done, they would have been done far, far better.

We can shift much of this activity overseas to the locals, but it is insanity when we are paying $10-, $12,000 a month for contractors to drive a truck when we have Iraqis, for instance, unemployed, who would take that job for a couple hundred dollars a month and put that right back into their families.

Last, but by no means least, it is important that we not forget about Afghanistan, and I appreciate my colleague focusing our attention on that this evening. Here is a country from which the attack on the United States on 9/11 was launched. Here is a country that has been abused and damaged for over a quarter century. It is larger than Iraq. It is poorer than Iraq. It has a larger population than Iraq. Our friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) just pointed out how narco- terrorism is building and some of those resources are being used against us in the war on terror, and yet we are investing less than one-tenth of the amount of money in Afghanistan as we are in Iraq, and we have a much tinier military footprint, about one-ninth.

I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) leadership, his attention and the calm and quiet, thoughtful way he has analyzed this issue in a way that I think ought to touch the mind and heart of every Member of this chamber. I look forward to working with him in the weeks and months ahead to try and recover our momentum, our balance, and place our priorities where they belong and do right by the American people, the Iraqis, Afghanistan, and win this struggle against terror.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on Wednesday July 7, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 329, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Flake Amendment, to prohibit the use of funds in the appropriations bill to implement the Commerce Department's new restrictions on gift parcels to Cuba and the amount of personal baggage allowed for travelers to Cuba.

Rollcall vote No. 330, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Weiner Amendment which would have increased COPS funding but at the expense of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Rollcall vote No. 331, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley Amendment, an amendment to eliminate funding for the re-engineered design process for the 2010 Short-Form Only census.

Rollcall vote No. 332, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Kucinich amendment, to expand the membership of the President's ``Manufacturing Council'' to include representatives from unions and the steel industry.

Rollcall vote No. 333, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Paul amendment, an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to pay expenses for any U.S. contribution to the United National Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Rollcall vote No. 334, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Farr amendment, directing that none of the funds in the appropriations bill may be used to prevent the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont or Washington from implementing state laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana.

Rollcall vote No. 335, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Paul amendment, which would have prohibited the use of funds to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

Had I been present for the following votes on Thursday July 8, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 336, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rules of debate for H.R. 4755.

Rollcall vote No. 337, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rules of debate for H.R. 3598.

Rollcall vote No. 338, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3980 to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

Rollcall vote No. 339, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Sanders amendment, which would have restricted the investigative powers of the FBI and homeland security, and restored some of the basic civil liberties revoked by the PATRIOT Act.

The Sanders amendment would have repealed some of the most dangerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which allow the government to monitor the reading and research habits of citizens in libraries and bookstores. It is clear that there is potential for abuse of individual rights in every community across the nation, and there has been mistreatment in my own. I am appalled by the behavior of the House leadership in administering this vote. It was made clear that even if I had been present to cast my vote of support, the vote would have been held open for as long as it would have taken to strong arm enough members into defeating the legislation.

Rollcall vote No. 340, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Akin amendment, which prohibits funds in the appropriations bill for HIV/ AIDS programs that do not explicitly oppose legalizing sex trafficking and prostitution.

Rollcall vote No. 341, I would have voted ``nay'' on the King (IA) amendment, providing $1 million for the enforcement of provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act regarding receiving and providing information to the federal government on the citizenship or immigration status of an individual.

Rollcall vote No. 342, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Smith (MI) amendment, which increases funding for scientific and technical research and services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology by $20 million. The amendment offsets the increase by reducing funding for U.S. contributions to international organizations by $20 million.

Rollcall vote No. 343, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley amendment, an amendment to reduce funding for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by 50 percent.

Rollcall vote No. 344, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hefley amendment, an amendment to cut total appropriations in the bill by 1 percent.

Rollcall vote No. 345, 1 would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 4754.

Rollcall vote No. 346, I would have voted ``yea'' on the passage of H.R. 4754, to make appropriations to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and other related agencies for the fiscal year 2005.

Rollcall vote No. 347, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Had I been present for the following votes on Friday July 9, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 348, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Rollcall vote No. 349, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Rollcall vote No. 350, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question.

Rollcall vote No. 351, I would have voted ``nay'' on the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 2828.

Rollcall vote No. 352, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to reconsider.

Rollcall vote No. 353, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to adjourn.

Rollcall vote No. 354, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 2828.

Rollcall vote No. 355, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to authorize $120.6 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and 10 percent yearly increases for FY06-08 and to allow the Federal cost-share for MEP Centers in the FY05-08 to increase up to one-half on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Administration.

Rollcall vote No. 356, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to prohibit funds authorized from being used to require centers participating in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to re- compete for funds that already have been approved.

Rollcall vote No. 357, I would have voted ``yea'' on the amendment to establish a Manufacturing and Technology Administration within the Commerce Department and to direct the President to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, an Under Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology, an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and an Assistant Secretary for Technology.

Rollcall vote No. 358, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 3598.

Mr. Speaker, after the debacle in the other body over the same-sex marriage amendment which would have been the first time in American history the Constitution would have been used to deny people's rights, there are rumors that the House Republican leadership would like to bring this doomed proposal to our Chamber in an effort to keep us away from issues that we could actually do something about.

One would hope that the Republican leadership would learn from watching the President and the leadership of the Republicans in the other body as they tied up the Senate for days, only to shoot themselves in the foot. Republicans in the other body could not agree amongst themselves, and the Vice President could not agree with his wife. In fact, the Vice President could not even agree with his own position on this issue from a few years ago.

For a President who claimed to come to Washington, DC, as a uniter, this represents another spectacular failure. Efforts to use sexual orientation as a political tool to divide this country for political advantage are shameful and will ultimately fail. One only hopes the voters will hold people who use this tool accountable sooner rather than later.

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

I would join in the praise that I think is well deserved, commending the committee for what it has accomplished within a 302(b) allocation that is far too small, given the immense task that they have been assigned.

There is truly no money that is more important for humanitarian and national security purposes than the money that is spent under this bill. For example, 10,000 people per day needlessly die from waterborne diseases. That is why I am pleased that the chairman mentioned the funding for Water For the Poor, the $970 million 3-year program to finish our commitment that was launched at the United Nations Environmental Summit in Johannesburg.

I note the report language on Urban Programs that is to be found on page 21 where it is pointed out that massive urbanization occurring throughout the developing world is a significant problem. It has been identified by the CIA as one of the seven top threats to American security. The committee is suggesting the USAID focus on urban issues appears to be diminishing as the urban-specific problems are accelerating and seeks to have a report on this issue.

This is critically important, and very necessary at this point.

I would also urge continued oversight on the part of this subcommittee about the balance of aid between Iraq and Afghanistan. We have already spent 10 times as much on development assistance for Iraq, a smaller, richer and less seriously damaged country than Afghanistan, where, after all, the 9/11 attacks were launched and where we are now seeing over two-thirds of the global illicit heroine production.

I am hopeful that the subcommittee can use its oversight power to deal with the correction of that imbalance toward this needy country.

Mr. Chairman, while the words of the dean of the House are ringing in our ears, I would just point out that Egypt also has a vital interest in maintaining stability in Gaza. They are going to do so, move in to help deal with stability there, not because we bribe them, but because it is in their national interests. They cannot afford for it to fall apart.

I appreciate what the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations has done bringing forward this amendment. We have a long and productive relationship with Egypt, and it is not going to change if we change the emphasis. We have already invested in Egypt as the number two recipient of our aid, over $30 billion, much of it in military assistance. We bought interoperability.

The question, I think, is after 25 years, how do we make adjustments, 6 years after the most recent alignment. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) asks, `is this the wrong time?' I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is saying now is the time, even if it does not pass, to signal that the way that we are going to have peace in Egypt, in the Middle East, is to stabilize the economy, shift away from massive military buildup, which they do not need, and feed that positive public opinion.

I can think of nothing more positive than for us to invest in the Egyptian people at a time when their government sadly has fallen short, fallen short in terms quieting virulent anti-Semitic rhetoric. It has fallen short in meeting the needs of the Egyptian people. They have all the military they need to deal with their current needs and with moving in to Gaza for their own interests. It is time to send a signal that we are going to beef up the economic side of the equation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today on an amendment dealing with the Global Environment Facility. It is the primary financing mechanism for important environmental work around the world. It helps developing countries address environmental challenges that may impact the United States as well as those countries. And as the world's largest donor to the institution, our country plays a critical leadership role.

The projects of the GEF fall into four major categories, conserving bio-diversity, expanding clean energy production and its use, cleaning up international waters, and protecting its fisheries, and phasing out ozone depleting chemicals. All critical priorities for this country and citizens around the world.

Since 1991, the GEF has funded over 1,000 projects in 160 different countries. And it is not just the investment that the United States made. A key point I think that needs to be focused on here is that for every dollar spent by the United States the GEF leverages $15 in funding from other sources.

I have a wide range of examples, but the committee is well aware of the good work; and I will conserve time by not going into that. But I do want to make the point that it is the United States as the largest shareholder that has a unique responsibility with this program. Two years ago, the Bush administration committed to increase its contribution to GEF for 4 years and to pay off our long-standing unpaid debt that was $210 million in 3 years. This agreement served as a catalyst for other donor governments to also increase their donations.

Now, I appreciate and I referenced earlier on the floor the difficulty that this subcommittee has given the allocation that they were given. But that said, the subcommittee reported out a funding level of $107 million with no arrearage payment. The amendment that I am offering here today would add $13.2 million in order to at least fully fund the President's budget request of $120.7 million and at least continue the commitment towards dealing with the arrearages even though it would put us behind schedule.

I appreciate this difficult situation the subcommittee is in. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I would seek to ask either the Chair or the ranking member if there is some prospect that if we are able to work this through the process, if we might be able to continue meeting the commitment that the administration has made in the past to fund the arrearages.

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

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

I appreciate both, again, the difficult situation that the subcommittee was facing and the comments from my friend the Chair and the ranking member.

I will withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that we could continue to focus on trying to keep this commitment. I appreciate that there were a number of other areas that we simply had to shut the door on in terms of paying arrears where we were in arrears, but this I hope, if we get to the point where there are additional resources, bears special attention because of the global impact of these environmental programs, how they are targeted at some of the most desperately needy of countries and how this is an area, if we do not continue to make progress, we are going to slide back.

But I appreciate the work that has been done and look forward to working with my colleagues so that hopefully we will be able to restore it and gain the benefit of those important investments.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.