Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts the President's 2012 request for international affairs by $20 billion. That's 39 percent of the amount in diplomacy and development outside of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While diplomacy and development account for only about 1 percent of the overall budget, under the Republican plan this tiny portion of the budget would absorb a wildly disproportionate share of the cuts.

Here's what it means on the ground: Taking AIDS patients off lifesaving medication, withholding bed nets from children in malaria zones, and standing idly by during humanitarian emergencies.

I know the chairman of the committee, I know he doesn't want to see those things happen, but the effect of his plan would make them happen.

The Democratic alternative takes a wise and responsible approach to reducing the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I rise in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third debate we have had pursuant to a war powers resolution in the last year.

I completely agree with the gentleman from Ohio that as we are moving into the 10th year of this conflict, it is critical--not just nice, it is really critical for the House to have an open and honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and that debate should be outside of the context of a defense spending bill.

But what I also do is take strong issue with the invocation of section 5(c) of the War Powers Act as the basis for this debate. If we are here to respect the law and the procedures, you have to remember that it is that section which authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one we have before us today, to require the withdrawal of U.S. Forces when they are engaged in hostilities and Congress has not authorized the use of military force.

There may be aspects of our operations around the world that people can claim under section 5(c) have not been authorized. No one can make a contention that what we are now doing in Afghanistan was not authorized by the Congress. There can be no doubt this military action in Afghanistan was authorized. It was authorized in 2001, soon after 9/ 11.

But let's set aside the procedure and the specific dictates of the statute. I do think and share my concerns, well articulated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, that it is not responsible to demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development and expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the current strategy is indeed working.

I am very sensitive to the arguments posed by the gentleman from Ohio. The cost of human life due to the war and the heavy costs incurred by our country at a time of great economic hardship should give any Member of Congress pause.

I am also keenly aware of the concerns regarding our overall U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether a counterinsurgency strategy will succeed there and, equally important, whether the Afghans are taking sufficient responsibility for this war. I am troubled that the war very much remains an American-led effort and that the U.S. presence has created a culture of dependency in Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding all that, I won't support a call for a full withdrawal until we give the President's strategy additional time, at least through the spring, to show results or, without a responsible withdrawal strategy, to ensure gains made thus far will not be lost.

A number of positive developments make me unwilling to throw in the towel just yet. For example, as noted by General Petraeus in testimony yesterday, coalition forces have been making some progress against Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan. In addition, the training of Afghan security forces has exceeded targets, and we are inching slowly toward the point at which they may be able to secure their own borders.

A final plea to my colleagues, and that is to some of my colleagues who are joining me in opposing this resolution. I am sure we are not going to succeed in Afghanistan unless our civilian efforts are fully resourced. When I traveled to Afghanistan last April, I was encouraged to see our military forces, diplomats, and development experts working closely together in the field.

General Petraeus couldn't have been more clear in his testimony: We are setting ourselves up for failure if we fully fund the clear part of the President's counterinsurgency strategy, the part carried out by the military, but shortchange the hold-and-build portions of the strategy, like economic development and building good governance. These are the keys to lasting success in Afghanistan. These are the keys to a successful counterinsurgency strategy. And when we meet those tests and do those works, we may be able to create the environment that will allow our troops to return home.

For all these reasons, I oppose the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

May I inquire how much time is remaining on the time allotted to me?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 8 of those 22 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who is now controlling the time for the majority on the committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about one point. That part of the majority party that is urging the same position I am on this resolution, which is a ``no'' vote, has made the argument a number of times that when you're dealing with fundamental issues of national security, you spend money, even under difficult times, a point that I have no disagreement with. And they argue the issue of what the alternatives will be and the potential for providing new safe havens for terrorists or more safe havens for terrorists or a return of Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists if we pass this resolution, and I don't disagree with that point.

What I find upsetting about the majority's position is their denial of the fundamental point. They quote General Petraeus for every position that they find philosophically and factually satisfying and ignore General Petraeus and Secretary Gates on the fundamental concept of how we hope to change the course of what is happening in Afghanistan. Because if we don't change it, then we have to come and address the fundamental question of what we're doing there through a counterinsurgency strategy.

So we talk about clear and hold and build. And it is the military's job to clear and, for a time, to hold, but build is fundamentally a civilian program. General Petraeus over and over again has said this conflict in Afghanistan cannot be won unless we strengthen the governance of a very flawed government in Afghanistan, unless we provide economic opportunities for that society to progress and win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan to the cause for which we are fighting.

It's also a view of Afghanistan as if it's isolated from the rest of the world. I can go through countries around the world--failed states, nearly failing states, terrible problems--which are certainly becoming safe harbors for terrorism.

So when the same party that makes a strong case for our national security interests here at the same time passes legislation which slashes every aspect of efforts to strengthen governance and development assistance and to provide the kinds of opportunities that serve our national security interests, I find it a strange kind of logic and a flaw in their approach to this.

I understand the economic hardships we have. If one wanted to look at the foreign assistance budget and take specific things that aren't working and get rid of them, I understand that, and if one wanted to make proportional cuts in the foreign assistance budget. But to come with the argument of, ``We're broke; we've got to cut spending,'' and then disproportionately focus on that aspect of our national security strategy which will do a tremendous amount and will be fundamental to any effort to stop them from being safe harbors for terrorism, and that is to massively slash disproportionately foreign assistance, it's a terrible mistake. It terribly undermines the national security strategy that we're trying to achieve through our operations and our presence and the money we're spending

in Afghanistan. It's not thinking, I think, as clearly as needs to be thought. And I urge those in the majority to think again about how much the cuts that we need to make should be coming from that part of the budget that constitutes 1 percent of the Federal budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes of my remaining time to my chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

I simply would very quickly make the case that the resolution should be voted against for several reasons. Initially, because it improperly invokes a provision of the War Powers Act that's inapplicable. This war was authorized by the U.S. Congress. Secondly, the manner in which it would force withdrawal is irresponsible and I don't think is the right way to do it. And, thirdly, that I am not prepared, from this point of view, to say that failure is in any way inevitable, and that we should not at this time make the judgment to pull the plug out from what we are doing in Afghanistan.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, it seems to me that in this frenzied competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing all sense of reason and rationality. I am deeply concerned by what I see happening to the international affairs budget which is contained in this title XI of the bill before us.

In the past, the State Department and foreign appropriations bill has passed with strong bipartisan support, often by an overwhelming margin. Members of both parties have understood how important diplomacy and development are, not only to U.S. standing in the world, but to our country's own economic growth, to American jobs and to American national security.

They recognize that problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of deadly disease cannot be resolved unilaterally. They know that over the long term, the best way to create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas. They understand that we cannot defeat violent extremism by military means alone and that, as Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.

Yet the process by which this CR has been produced makes a mockery of the responsibilities we have as Members of Congress to advance our economy and protect our national security.

First, the Republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts. Then we started hearing other numbers: $58 billion, $74 billion, $100 billion. Each time it is measured a different way by a different baseline. And no matter how high the number goes, there are proposals to cut even deeper.

These numbers weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said, Here is something that is not working, or, Here is something we don't need to do. No, the number was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much that cost.

This bill isn't about making government more cost effective or more efficient. It doesn't promote the kinds of reforms and streamlining that are needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. It is simply a slash-and-burn process, hacking away with a machete without consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it affects our national security.

The base bill itself might be laughable if it weren't so appalling. Humanitarian programs to provide lifesaving assistance, food, water, medicine and plastic sheeting to victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and famines is cut by 50 percent. Do we really intend to stand idly by as innocent men, women, and children starve to death? Will we turn off our television sets when we see people's homes and livelihoods wiped away by an unexpected catastrophe?

It is not just disaster aid that is affected. Every other program that protects the poorest and most vulnerable people is savaged: refugee aid, food aid, water and sanitation, massive cuts in international efforts to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers who carry out these programs is also slashed. If there is anything we have learned over the past few years, it ought to be that we just don't hand over money to contractors and governments without adequate oversight and accountability.

Over the last month, we have all watched the incredible events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt. The United States did not create these democracy movements and does not control them. But our diplomats did and do play a large role in helping to promote peaceful, negotiated solutions so that the will of the people can be heard.

Our security assistance helped professionalize forces in both of those countries so they did not crush the demonstrators with force, as has happened in so many other places. And yet this bill and many of the proposed amendments would slash the kinds of assistance we provide nascent democracy movements and human rights activists under other authoritarian regimes.

Somehow, the draconian cuts in this bill were not enough for many in this body. Added on top of all these cuts, we now face amendments to remove ourselves completely from the United Nations, to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Institute of Peace. They would prohibit us from taking action to address climate change and increase the availability of voluntary family planning for couples who cannot feed the children they already have. They would cut aid to countries whose support is essential to us in the areas of counterterrorism, intelligence and nonproliferation just because they don't vote with us in the United Nations.

There is one thing the authors of these amendments don't seem to understand: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves our interests. Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves also out of poverty is just as important for us as it is for them.

Madam Chairman, the cuts to international spending in this bill will not create a single U.S. job. In fact, they will cost jobs.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I plan to vote against this amendment.

I want to just make two points: one, the gentleman from New York's argument is very good if, in fact, U.S. Institute of Peace was simply another think tank. If it were, then why shouldn't they compete like other think tanks do for projects and contracts through the discretionary funds of the appropriate agencies and decided on that basis?

But the U.S. Institute of Peace is not just the Brookings Institute or the Heritage Foundation. It's really more of a ``do'' tank than a think tank. It engages very specifically in projects, implementing projects that have direct benefits for our forces and for our diplomats based on their charter.

Secondly, if we're going to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace because it's no longer necessary because it isn't worthy of a direct earmark, then repeal the legislation that created it. There wasn't legislation that created Heritage or Brookings or American Enterprise Institute. These were private organizations. The U.S. Institute of Peace was created by legislation, passed by both Houses. This wasn't dropped in in some conference committee. This was a piece of legislation that authorized and created that institute. And what the appropriators do each year is decide what appropriation should come, as the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening remarks.

They've already taken a whack out of the Institute of Peace for this particular year because--in some cases, they took a bigger whack out of some programs that I wish they hadn't done, but they have cut this. But then to come back with legislation to repeal the authorizing legislation, and then there will be nothing to earmark for, nothing to fund.

The fact is, yeah, it's a nice building and it's right next door to a pretty drab building, the State Department. The State Department may not like the building they're in, but they sure like to use the U.S. Institute of Peace for a whole variety of activities that they think they're able to get value added from, and they choose to direct and work with and contract with and partner with the U.S. Institute of Peace on a whole variety of projects, as does the Pentagon.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I respect that the gentleman is not saying they shouldn't exist. But this isn't a matter of whether or not they should exist. It's that we, by statute, decided to create them for very specific purposes. If you don't think this is worthy of Federal funds, then put in legislation to repeal the authorization and the creation of this institute. Don't keep a statute on the books that creates an institution which we're now going to take away the direct appropriation for.

If retroactively you could undo the money that was spent to build the building, make that argument. You are right now trying to zero out the appropriation for the programs of an institute that Congress created through legislation passed in both Houses. Put in a bill to repeal the legislation, and then we will go through the arguments about its merits or not and decide. Don't wipe it out through this indirect fashion. If you put in legislation, the authorizing committees will consider that legislation. This isn't the right way to do it.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

This is called the YouCut agenda. It's the second bill on the YouCut agenda. If this is the kind of bill that's going to be on the YouCut agenda, I would suggest that we name it the ``YouCut what?'' agenda.

The CBO says, in its official cost estimate, implementing H.R. 519 would have no effect on the Federal budget, no effect. Not $1 is saved by this particular proposal.

So we are faced with a piece of legislation that jeopardizes critical security upgrades at the United Nations headquarters, and let me just point out here, there's a large improvement plan for the U.N. building that's going on now. That is not paid by the U.S. It is paid by the apportioned assessed dues of all the member countries.

This is about a perimeter cost dealing with FDR Drive that our colleagues Mr. Thompson and Mr. King and the other New Yorkers who will speak on this will go into more detail on, that's a host country obligation. There is not $180 million in that fund because $100 million of it has been committed to the request of the New York City Police Department to securitize the perimeter of the U.N. building where FDR Drive goes under the U.N.

Secondly, it puts us back in arrears at the U.N. We tried that once. That doesn't get our agenda through. We have a big agenda and a big reform agenda at the U.N. Failing to pay our obligation is not the answer, and because of the nature of this fund and the commitments already made, I repeat what the CBO says: H.R. 519, this legislation, would have no effect on the Federal budget.

So we are not saving money. We are spurning the important security requests, and we are going back into a pattern of arrearages that undermines our efforts at the U.N. and does not help to achieve those goals.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking member of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of House Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security

Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in whose district these security perimeter improvements are being made.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Ellison.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let's go through some of the issues and sort of disaggregate all of this.

We have a bill that seeks to withhold funds unless the Secretary of State certifies she has gotten back $179 million from the fund. The fund doesn't have $179 million, because $100 million has been designated to this perimeter security on FDR Drive at the request of the New York Police Department. Why did they do it that way? Because to do it now in the context of the overall U.N. reconstruction will save at least $100 million over doing it when we finish appropriating.

Well, why didn't we do an appropriation? Well, if anyone has noticed, the Congress didn't exactly do appropriations this fiscal year. So we are left in a situation where the administration

makes a decision to designate $100 million from the fund to do something that if they don't do it now will cost twice as much to do it later through the appropriations process and to take the rest of that fund and offset it against our fiscal year 2012 dues.

But the strangest part of this bill, in addition to all the arguments that have been made, it seeks to withhold the payment of dues that the CBO says will have already been paid and there will be nothing to withhold. Fiscal year 2011 dues will be paid before this bill is ever law. You can ask the Secretary and require the Secretary to withhold a certain amount of dues, but once you have paid it all, there is nothing to withhold.

It is really a poorly crafted bill, not contemporaneous with the situation that exists now that seeks to jeopardize an important security project and start us going down the road towards simply trying to not pay; but it won't even work to not pay the dues that we owe through our assessed contributions.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I oppose this resolution. I oppose it because I think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage.

But I want to focus my time on the limited question but the very important question of what is in and what is not in security funding, because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, when asked at the Rules Committee whether foreign assistance, diplomacy, and development were part of security--was that part of the exemption?--he said no.

My definition--me, David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, out of which this resolution comes--is as we have outlined in here: This is discretionary spending--that is non-security spending--other than defense, military construction, VA, and homeland security.

I assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to less than a week later.

I am happy to yield.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for reaffirming that position. Now let's take a look at what that means.

That means not exempt from these drastic cuts are: weapons in training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in Yemen, in Pakistan, in the Philippines. That's all part of our security assistance package, part of our international affairs budget; financing for the purchase of U.S. military equipment to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge; defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism.

In Afghanistan, they're cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge. It would force the military to perform civilian jobs. The reductions would harm four Provincial Reconstruction Teams and forward operating bases, security forces and police training, explosive ordnance disposal, counternarcotics and poppy eradication programs.

In Iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition of ``non-security funds'' that have to be dramatically cut back are: training for Iraqi police and security forces to take over when the U.S. troops depart; funding for our Special Inspectors General in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and are properly managed and implemented.

Everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in Congress is going to be undermined by virtue of what he is proposing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non- security'' spending to 2008 levels.

That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security.

That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone.

In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it.

The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.''

It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''

In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.''

All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.''

In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.''

He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces.

Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!''

President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''

The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk.

And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget.

Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget.

In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain.

The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against

those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel?

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building?

Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low.

Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships.

We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership.

We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.

But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.

International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe.

We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security.

As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''

In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run.

Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing.

President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.''

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non-security'' spending to 2008 levels.

That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security.

That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone.

In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it.

The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.''

It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''

In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.''

All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.''

In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.''

He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces.

Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!''

President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''

The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk.

And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget.

Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget.

In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain.

The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel?

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building?

Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low.

Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships.

We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership.

We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.

But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.

International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe.

We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security.

As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''

In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run.

Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing.

President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.''

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the fourth anniversary of the passing of Beth Sharon Samuels, an extraordinary Angeleno who lost her life to cancer in January 2007 at the age of 31.

Beth grew up in Los Angeles, attending the Yeshiva University High School of Los Angeles and graduating as valedictorian. She went on to study at a women's seminary in Israel before graduating from Columbia University with a degree in mathematics. She then completed a three- year program at the Drisha Institute in Bible and Talmud, a Ph.D. in math at Yale, and earned an assistant professorship at the University of California, Berkeley. In the meantime, she gave birth to a daughter, Danelle, and later to daughter Natalia while undergoing intensive chemotherapy treatments.

Beth remains with us, even with increasing distance from her passing. Last year, Beth's friends and family published The Wisdom of Bat Sheva: The Dr. Beth Samuels Memorial Volume, a series of lectures and discussions on Torah learning, including an essay by Beth. The book highlights that Beth's spirit continues to teach and inspire. Beth was such a powerful force of spirituality, learning, and divine presence, and her memory will continue to serve as a powerful blessing.

My condolences go out to her parents, Elana and Zachary, her husband, Ari, her daughters Danelle and Natalia and her extended friends and family on this solemn occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, a bill to repeal patients' rights and empower health insurance companies at the expense of consumers.

I am proud to have voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, landmark legislation to reform our country's health insurance system and expand opportunities for quality, affordable health care to millions of people who otherwise go without.

In my district, in the heart of California's San Fernando Valley, rolling back reforms would have devastating consequences for my constituents. This repeal would leave an additional 116,000 of my constituents without health insurance. It would increase prescription drug costs for 5,600 seniors in the Medicare D ``doughnut hole'' and deny new preventive care benefits to 64,000 seniors. It would expose over 100,000 of my constituents--and perhaps as many as 290,000 people in my district--to the possibility of being denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents who support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of whom feel strongly enough to share their stories with me. Some are thankful that their child's pre-existing condition is no longer a barrier to getting coverage. Others are relieved that treatment of their chronic illness is no longer subject to a lifetime spending cap. But some are simply the parents of uninsured young adults who live with the day-to-day worry that their kids are one accident away from financial ruin or that they won't be able to access the care they need. I'd like to share one of these stories with you.

Diane, a constituent in Valley Village, wrote me last October to tell me about her daughter's experience with the health insurance reform bill. Her daughter graduated from a prestigious university in 2008 and got a job but still couldn't afford health insurance. She left her job after two years. Two weeks later, she was in a serious car accident. Her car was totaled but she, luckily, was not hurt. At age 24, this young woman found herself unemployed and without health insurance, having narrowly escaped every parent's nightmare. Diane writes, ``And then, two weeks ago . . . she was able to be covered under the plan of her father and stepmother. I wanted to share this story because we want you [to know] that this change has already had a huge impact on our lives. As a mother, I now have one less major issue to worry about.''

On behalf of Diane and her family, and on behalf of children, young adults, parents, seniors, small business owners, small business employees, people with pre-existing conditions, hospitals that provide uncompensated care, and everyone else who benefits from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I stand strongly against H.R. 2 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against repeal.

Madam Speaker, from December 3 to 5, a delegation of Members of the House met with a delegation of Members of the European Parliament for the 69th session of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. The TLD is the principal inter-parliamentary organization to foster discussion between U.S. and European Union legislators. Following my remarks is the Joint Statement issued by the TLD chairs and vice-chairs summarizing the results of this meeting.

A highlight of this meeting was the participation by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, His Excellency Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who gave an enlightening presentation on current issues in Pakistan and the South Asia region. His remarks stimulated a lively discussion.

For the past four years, the TLD Congressional delegation has been ably chaired by our colleague, the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Shelley Berkley. Indeed, she has been the driving force in making the TLD an effective mechanism to strengthen the working relationship between the Congress and the European Parliament. In recognition of her energetic commitment to trans-Atlantic diplomacy, the participants honored her at this meeting. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I join them in commending Ms. Berkley for her outstanding leadership of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue.

Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, From the European Parliament and

the United States Congress, Joint Statement

Shelley Berkley, Chairwoman, United States Congress

Delegation

Cliff Stearns, Vice Chairman, United States Congress

Delegation

Jim Costa, Vice Chairman, United States Congress Delegation

Elmar Brok, MEP, Chairman, European Parliament Delegation

Sarah Ludford, MEP, Vice Chairwoman, European Parliament

Delegation

Niki Tzavela, MEP, Vice Chairwoman, European Parliament

Delegation

We, the Members of the European Parliament and the United

States House of Representatives, held our 69th

Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators'

Dialogue) in San Francisco, California, from 3-5 December

2010.

Building on the joint statement issued following our last

meeting in Madrid on 3-6 June 2010 we reasserted the

importance of regular dialogue on political, social,

security, economic and environmental challenges that affect

all of our citizens. We agreed to report back to our parent

bodies on the content and outcome of our discussions in San

Francisco, in particular in the areas where joint efforts are

likely to produce positive outcomes.

We discussed issues ranging from the global financial

situation and trade, to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

and climate change. We were briefed on data sharing and

privacy issues by Mary Ellen Callahan from the Department of

Homeland Security and met with the Foreign Minister of

Pakistan, His Excellency Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Our delegations noted that the U.S. and EU must be aware of

long-term trends and challenges including the economical and

political rise of Asia, cooperation with Latin America, and

seek answers to issues like climate change and cybersecurity.

In this context, we discussed inviting a NATO representative

to the next TLD meeting.

The European Parliament Delegation expressed its gratitude

to the U.S. for its vote in support of a strengthened EU

presence in the United Nations General Assembly.

We noted the statement by the leaders of the U.S. and the

EU giving a central role to

the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), and outlining ``the

potential of transatlantic commerce to boost our growth and

generate jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.'' We support the

joint efforts to ``promote innovation, streamline regulation,

and eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade and investment,

bringing benefits to business, workers, and consumers in both

markets.'' The reducing of non tariff barriers and the

streamlining of regulations were agreed as priorities when

the TEC was established. We call on the TEC leaders once

again to reach out directly to Congress and the European

Parliament.

The October 14 2010 European Parliament Delegation `Brief

on EU-US trade and economic cooperation' was well received

and we look forward to further proposals to improve the

Transatlantic market. In this respect we also discussed the

need for us as legislators to take a more active role to

reduce non-tariff barriers to trans-Atlantic trade, including

working with executive agencies on a few specific projects,

for instance as regards product testing procedures of

automobiles and emerging products through advances in

nanotechnology.

We discussed ways to further enhance our dialogue and

deepen transatlantic ties, even in times of economic

constraints and respecting the need for cost effectiveness,

including:

--expanding contacts among staff of our institutions,

--inviting EU and U.S. officials to provide perspectives on

strategic issues related to financial recovery and economic

growth,

--expanding interaction between the U.S. Congress and the

European Parliament, including through video-conferencing,

--promoting closer contacts between the Members responsible

for specific legislative issues, in particular on a committee

to committee basis,

--the possibility of joint hearings and the issuance of

joint statements.

In conclusion, we reaffirmed our commitment to

strengthening the transatlantic relationship and working in

partnership to solve common challenges. We pledged to

continue improving the effectiveness of our dialogue in order

to realise the full potential of our interparliamentary

relationship, as well as to ensure the relevance of the TLD's

work to the European Parliament and the United States

Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 335) honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the significant contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which recognizes and honors the life and career of one of America's most potent diplomatic assets, Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke.

For opening comments, I yield as much time as she may consume to someone who was a close and great friend of his. She is the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, the chief sponsor of this resolution on which the ranking member and I have joined, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), someone who worked for a very long time on issues with Ambassador Holbrooke.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio, the State where Ambassador Holbrooke's most difficult and successful diplomatic effort took place, Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our retiring colleague from California, herself with diplomatic experience, Ambassador Diane Watson.

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

We have heard from the Speaker of the House; from the author of the resolution, Mrs. Lowey; from Ambassador Holbrooke's dear friend, and of a variety of aspects both of his accomplishments and of his nature, and it was quite a series of accomplishments, in all parts of the world, in the diplomatic sphere, in the development assistance sphere, in southeast Asia, in the Balkans, obviously more recently in South Asia.

What I would love to do here on the House floor, because I think in a way it might best illustrate what I could say about his talents, was just to speak to the details of six or seven interventions and times that I dealt with him on a particular project over the years, but I feel like I would be bringing WikiLeaks to the House floor were I to go through all of those.

So I will restrain myself just to say he truly was one of a kind. We will miss his brilliance, his energy, his ability to play chess, to see the long term and the unbelievable force of his personality.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1765) supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1765, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this resolution to the floor because I believe negotiations are the only path to a two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. For this reason, the United States Congress has every reason to be concerned about efforts of some in the Palestinian Authority leadership to attain recognition of statehood while bypassing the accepted negotiation process.

These efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally witnessed commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 Oslo Agreement and the 2003 Roadmap. Most important, the Palestinians will only get a state by negotiating with the Israelis.

That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the recently announced decisions of Brazil and other Latin American countries to recognize an independent Palestinian state, actions prompted by a direct request from Palestinian President Abbas.

Ultimately, such recognition of nonexistent statehood gives the Palestinians nothing. In 1988, Yasser Arafat declared a state and garnered recognition from more than 100 states; now, 22 years later, there is still no state. The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of declarations of statehood. They want a state. And they should have one, through the only means possible for attaining one, negotiations with Israel.

The Obama administration has been unwavering on this point. Unless an independent Palestinian state is formed via a negotiated settlement, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved. Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached on the core issues of borders, water, refugees, Jerusalem, and security. Unilateral declarations of statehood will not eliminate the sources of the conflict; they will exacerbate them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not have been more correct when she said just this past Friday that ``it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable.''

I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel, so I hope they will take Secretary Clinton's message to heart. This body has been very generous in its support of their worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy on the West Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the world in that regard. So I think our friends should understand: If they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S.-Palestinian relations.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important pro- negotiations, pro-peace resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for his position, for his resolution, and for his cosponsoring of this resolution. And I am here to stand not only with the Israelis, but I stand with the Palestinians on this issue because the Palestinians want this state, and negotiations are the way to get it.

I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to my colleague from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the chairman of the Middle East and Southeast Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee, chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a

distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with an ardent interest in this issue, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to one who has been, really, an ardent supporter of the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace in the Middle East, my friend from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the comments of my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps).

I am obviously grateful for her support of this resolution and for her agreement with the notion that unilateral steps like this are not the way to achieve peace. Yet she made certain comments regarding issues which are not in the resolution--and she is right. This resolution has nothing about settlements. There is nothing about incitement. There is nothing about the Palestinian denial of the Jewish connection to the Western Wall. As for the settlements, I have my own reservations about Israel's activities, but this resolution isn't about any of those things.

This resolution is about the most central issue of all--the pathway to Palestinian statehood. There is only one path, and that is through negotiations. No negotiations, no state. It is as simple as that.

I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would close by quoting from Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in an interview he gave just yesterday--actually, it was tonight in that time zone--where he said, ``We want a state of Palestine, not a unilateral declaration of statehood.'' He explained that he did not see how a unilateral declaration of statehood would assist the Palestinian cause.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 987) to protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010 and yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, S. 987, is the corresponding legislation to legislation introduced by our colleague from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), H.R. 2103.

Child marriage is one of the most harmful practices affecting girls in the developing world today. Globally, more than 60 million girls under the age of 18, many only 12 or 13, are married, usually to men more than twice or three times their age. Between one-half and three- fourths of all girls are married before the age of 18 in countries such as Chad, Mali, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Should these numbers remain consistent in the next 10 years, there will be 25,000 new child brides every day.

Marrying at such a young age comes at a terrible cost for these girls--girls who, in most developed countries, would otherwise still be happily playing sports and singing in their school choir. These young girls are at an increased risk for health problems like HIV/AIDS due to the sexual history of their older partners. In addition, young girls are at risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. In fact, childbirth complications are the leading cause of death for women 15 to 19 years old in developing countries.

Not only are child brides at a higher risk for disease and death during childbirth, they are frequently victims of domestic abuse. Premature marriage deprives girls of their dignity and dooms these girls to a life of poverty and dependence. It is for these reasons, and many more, that child marriage is categorized as both child abuse and a violation of human rights.

Poverty and a lack of education are both key contributing factors to why young women fall victim to child marriages. Girls who live in impoverished homes are twice as likely to marry under 18, and 60 percent of girls involved in child marriages have no education.

Families struck by poverty cannot afford to keep their daughters in school and often do not have the resources to provide for their daughters at all. Marrying off female children is often the only alternative for struggling families. With an often false promise of a better life for their daughters, parents marry their girls off at an all-too-early age.

However, there are undoubtedly better alternatives. This bill before us seeks to eliminate the harmful practice of child marriage overseas. It requires an integrated, strategic approach by our government to reduce the incidence of child marriage by authorizing the President to provide assistance through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith- based organizations to prevent the incidence of child marriage and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. It also requires the President to establish a multiyear strategy in developing countries and promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage.

Mr. Speaker, we need to invest in these young girls and provide safe spaces where they can evolve socially and become self-sufficient. Empowering young girls through education can help prevent child marriages and lead to a brighter and healthier future for millions worldwide.

I want to thank Representatives McCollum and Crenshaw for their leadership on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, which will be an invaluable investment in the future of millions of girls around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the author, along with Congressman Crenshaw, of the corresponding House legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Indiana has no further speakers.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I would yield the gentleman such time as he may consume, up to a point, everything except 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I do it simply in the context of urging my colleagues to vote for this legislation; to point out, number 1, that this is not an entitlement program. This is an authorization. It is not an appropriation.

To the extent, after we pass this legislation and it is signed into law, that the statement takes its appropriated resources and uses some of those resources to develop the strategic plan to work with these organizations for what the gentleman himself concedes is a very important cause, those resources will come from some other form of resources. They will not be additional spending unless there is an appropriation. And this bill is not an appropriations bill; it is an authorization bill.

I urge my colleagues to support it. It's a critical issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 20) calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' with respect to religious freedom, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution calls on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' with respect to religious freedom.

I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Ed Royce of California, for introducing this important resolution.

This year marks 15 years since the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam. Bilateral relations have deepened in recent years with Hanoi emerging as an important partner in ensuring a peaceful and secure Asia-Pacific region.

We have seen close cooperation on a number of important fronts, including regional security and nonproliferation. Unfortunately, the lack of progress in the area of protecting basic rights and civil liberties enshrined in Vietnam's constitution remains an impediment to our bilateral ties.

Since the Bush administration lifted the ``Country of Particular Concern'' designation for Vietnam in November of 2006, freedom of religion and expression have come under increasing attack. Hanoi has tightened its control of religious organizations with numerous reports documenting physical harassment, intimidation, surveillance, seizure of church properties, arrests, and other forms of ill treatments made against Catholics, Protestants, Khmer Buddhists, and others.

As Secretary Clinton rightfully noted during her visit to Hanoi this October, the United States takes notice of these curbs on religious freedom in Vietnam. Two recent events stand out as particularly egregious.

First is the dispute at Bat Nha pagoda last September, when 400 monks and nuns were assaulted and forcibly evicted. The majority of these monks and nuns have subsequently left Vietnam due to a lack of protection by the government.

More recently, this May, several hundred Vietnamese Catholic villagers in Con Dau were attacked by tear gas and bullets, during a funeral procession, for refusing to relocate as the government had ordered. Several detainees have been held incommunicado since May and have not been allowed to visit their families.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and stand up for religious freedom in Vietnam.

I will be handing over the management of this legislation for the remainder of the time to the chairman of the Asia and Pacific Islands Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Faleomavaega.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Lofgren, the chairman of the subcommittee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. For 30 debate-time minutes we have heard the other side's arguments, and so many of them have been filled with scare tactics and blatant inaccuracies. We have been working on this bill for nearly a decade. We have recently made a number of changes to make clear our intentions about who the bill should cover and who it shouldn't.

Nearly every speaker on the other side has used the term ``amnesty.'' Think about that. Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. If you say it enough, you can scare a lot of people into being against this bill. We are talking about a group of people who didn't do anything wrong. They didn't possess the intention to commit a crime or to cross the border illegally. They were brought here. This is a universe of people who deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so clear. And for that you use the term amnesty? That's outrageous.

Next, we hear scare tactics regarding chain migration. My good friend Dan Lungren says these people, once we give them this status, will be able to petition for their adult siblings. We have taken away petition rights for adult siblings, young siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; and it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here, because we never undid my friend Lamar Smith's provision that required 10-year absence after the petition is filed for anyone who came to this country without authorization. The chain migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty argument.

Then we hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) about the affirmative action amnesty legislation which will give preference to all these people. This is a group of people who under this legislation will not be allowed to receive Pell Grants, will not be able to get into the health insurance exchanges. I know you plan to repeal them, but they will not be able to get into them. They will not qualify for food stamps. They are ineligible for the Medicare program. They are ineligible for the SCHIP program. And you are talking about tremendous preferences over U.S. citizens? Another bogus argument.

In closing, I would just say one sentence. In the end, this bill is less about the kids who deserve to benefit from the legislation than the country that will get the benefit of having them use their skills and their talents on our behalf. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1735) condemning North Korea in the strongest terms for its unprovoked military attack against South Korea on November 23, 2010.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A little over a week ago on November 23, North Korea launched a brazen daytime artillery barrage on a South Korean island inhabited by civilians. North Korea fired over 100 rounds at Yeonpyeong Island, killing two South Korean civilians and two young Marines. The shelling also caused considerable damage to the island.

This provocative military act by North Korea was one of the most serious attacks involving civilians since the end of the Korean War and is in violation of the Armistice Agreement.

This bipartisan resolution strongly condemns North Korea's unprovoked attack, calls on the North to renounce further acts of aggression and abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement.

I would also like to express my deepest sympathies and condolences to the South Korean victims and their families.

This resolution expresses the House of Representatives' firm solidarity with the people and the government of South Korea. We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them at this time of national crisis.

This resolution also expresses support for the continued close security cooperation between the United States and South Korea and for the alliance between our two nations. Indeed, a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group is currently conducting exercises with the

South Korean Navy in waters west of the Korean Peninsula. This exercise demonstrates the strength of the alliance and of U.S. commitment to regional stability through deterrence.

The United States is committed to the security of South Korea, maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula, and ensuring peace in Northeast Asia. We are ready to encourage cooperation and dialogue with our allies and other countries in the region to promote peace and security in the Asia-Pacific.

Last week's artillery attack was just the latest in a long line of provocations by North Korea. The recent revelations about a new North Korean uranium enrichment facility are very troubling, as it will enable North Korea to again expand its nuclear arsenal.

The construction of this enrichment facility is a clear violation of Security Council resolutions that were passed in 2006 and 2009. We call on North Korea to cease its uranium enrichment activities, take concrete steps to dismantle all of its nuclear facilities, and fully and transparently abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Finally, this resolution urges China to restrain North Korea from further acts of belligerence and to work constructively with the rest of the world to promote lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula and stability in Northeast Asia.

A longtime treaty ally of the North, China can clearly exercise significant leverage on that nation. No one wants to see another war on the Korean Peninsula, but North Korea must understand that its actions have consequences, that it cannot violate the Armistice, kill innocent civilians and break its international obligations.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from the committee, as well as the Financial Services and Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I join in asking for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of our country, my good friend Janice Kamenir-Reznik. She is being honored as the Co-Founder and President of Jewish World Watch (JWW) at the Global Soul event on February 1, 2011. Janice is one of Los Angeles' most dedicated activists, as seen by her relentless advocacy for human and civil rights worldwide.

Through co-founding JWW with Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, Janice has directed the energies of this effective Jewish movement to focus attention on ending current and future genocides and mass atrocities. Her dedication and efforts to end the current crises in regions such as the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo are clear examples of her compassionate and caring nature.

JWW urges individuals and communities to take local action to produce powerful global results in the fight against genocide. The organization has impressively enlisted 65 synagogues, and works in coalition with schools, churches, individuals, communities, and partner organizations that share a vision of a world without genocide. JWW has successfully influenced legislation that ends the trade of conflict minerals from Congo which funds armed groups committing atrocities in the region. They also provide high-impact relief and development projects that improve the lives of survivors and help build the foundation for a stable region.

Janice is a pillar of society and a role model for all of us. As President of JWW, she has

demonstrated not only the influence of advocacy but the power of action as well. She ensures that this important movement will not ``stand idly by'' as she continues to provide educational awareness, advocacy and direct relief efforts in the killing fields of Sudan and war-torn Congo.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Janice Kamenir-Reznik for her invaluable contributions and dedication to the JWW cause.