Floor Statements

I want to thank the Chair for the time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 4033, the Labor-HHS bill. There is no bill that Congress produces on an annual basis that has such a profound impact on everyday people's lives like this bill.

I want to congratulate Chairman Obey and the subcommittee staff on the product that is before us today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Walsh and the minority subcommittee staff working with us to produce this bill.

I think former Labor-HHS Chairman Ralph Regula said it best when he described this bill as the ``people's bill.'' And I want to commend the gentleman for his statement in support of this product.

This might seem obvious, but your view depends on where you stand. From where I stand, I see an America today where the overall unemployment rate is 4.5 percent. For African Americans it's 8.5 percent. The average life expectancy is 77.6 years. For African Americans it is 69.2. Sixty-three percent of white students graduate from college. For African Americans, it's 43 percent. These numbers represent real problems for real people that need real solutions, not tax cuts and amendments to cut 1 percent and .5 percent across the board. This bill is a solution that illustrates how Congress can solve real problems.

We've heard from the other side already language like ``wrong,'' ``fiscally and recklessly irresponsible.'' The entire debate about earmarks is to divert our attention away from these very real problems that this bill seeks to solve.

Specifically, this bill includes a $43 million nominal increase for Job Corps, projecting the administration's proposal to cut 4,310 student training slots. The administration's request for CDC would have reduced funding for our primary health activities by $159.4 million, cutting childhood immunizations, State and local public health emergency preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and emerging infection.

Madam Chairman, I encourage Members to look at the facts around this bill and to be supportive.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) a question if it's appropriate.

I wanted to ask the gentleman a question specifically about his amendment and the hold-harmless clause and its impact possibly on Ryan White.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, what the chairman, I believe, and the committee sought to do by adding this language was to create a stop loss that does not prevent cuts, but rather reduces losses to a level that the jurisdiction can absorb in one fiscal year.

For example, the San Francisco EMA, which includes San Mateo and Marin Counties, for example, will still receive about a $2.3 million cut. The language caps losses for eligible metropolitan areas like San Francisco at 8.4 percent, misrepresents the 5 percent hold-harmless loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization, plus the average loss for all title I jurisdiction, which was 3.4 percent.

But I think it is important to note, and then I would be happy to yield if the gentleman would like to respond, here are some of the other jurisdictions that will benefit from the stop loss language which included in the chairman's mark: Hartford, Connecticut, 892,000; New Haven, Connecticut, 712,000; Nassau-Suffolk, New York, 432,000; Puerto Rico, 310,000; Caguas, 286,000; Sacramento, 195,000. And it goes on and on and on.

So what we are trying to understand here is how the chairman's language, which seeks to remedy a particular problem, is fundamentally changed by the gentleman's amendment.

I would be happy to yield for his response.

Reclaiming my time, I know my time is just about expired; I know the chairman may have some concluding remarks, but this has been very difficult from the beginning, and the chairman's language in the mark seeks to remedy ongoing problems, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from California, but I think it's appropriate to recognize the gentlelady from California because I have struck the last word already. And if she will give me 15 seconds, I would be more than grateful.

Madam Chairman, we agree that this is about people and not about cities, and that's why the committee has an overall increase in the Ryan White funding.

San Francisco has more people living, not dying of AIDS, but living AIDS, than any other point in the history of the epidemic. The need is not going down in any of the 11 jurisdictions protected by this language and, therefore, the committee is correct in opposing the Barton amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 989.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close, and I am the only speaker. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from California for offering his amendment and thus for the opportunity to defend

an important project to the people of the State of Illinois and the Nation.

While the gentleman has served two terms in Congress, he has inadvertently entered in a three-decade-old conversation about expanding aviation capacity in Illinois. And his amendment profoundly impacts 12 years of my work in this body.

In fact, the development of a new airport to service the Chicago metropolitan area was first advanced by a well-respected Republican governor, Governor Jim Edgar.

Nationally, aviation is growing at roughly 4 percent, but in the Chicago region it's growing at only 2 percent. Because of capacity constraints at our existing facilities, Midway's runways are too short and O'Hare Airport reached operational capacity 10 years ago and is subject to annual review of capping the number of operations at this facility.

ALNAC is a local airport commission constituted under Illinois State law and comprised of 21 home-rule municipalities in Cook, Will and Kankakee Counties.

ALNAC has created an innovative public-private partnership to design, finance, build and operate a new commercial airport for the Chicago region located near University Park, Illinois.

ALNAC is a legitimate airport commission. In fact, the Governor of the State of Illinois in his State of the State address said specifically, ``Congressman Jackson's plan to build the Abraham Lincoln National Airport at Peotone will not compete with O'Hare for needed Federal dollars, meaning the Airport Improvement Program, not small business or financial services problems, but the Airport Improvement Program construction funds.

His plan to use private investment is both a welcomed and innovative way to build an airport. I strongly support it, and I hope you do too.''

The Illinois Department of Transportation said that ``ALNAC is a local airport authority that was formed through an intergovernmental agreement between its constituent members comprised of 32 Illinois municipalities located in the Chicago region.''

The Illinois Department of Transportation says that ``ALNAC and its provide partners submitted a comprehensive layout plan to the FAA and to IDOT in July of 2004.''

To give you some of the specific examples of the airport layout plan that we submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration that are presently before the FAA for review are under consideration as we await soon a record of decision.

And lastly, the Illinois Attorney General, in her most recent opinion, said that ``ALNAC is a legitimate airport commission that only waits for the governor to lease its land to the State of Illinois or to the commission for the purposes of constructing an airport.''

This grant allows ALNAC to partner with local universities and/or small business development centers to conduct a study on how the region can maximize job creation and retention and ensure minority participation for local residents during all phases of the airport project. Specifically, the study will produce recommendations and guidelines and benchmarks to do the following: assure maximum participation for local female, disadvantaged and minority businesses in airport construction and financing operations; identify regional job training needs and relevant job training programs; develop, grow and improve local small business opportunities. Support all aspects of entrepreneurial activities and monitor progress.

The gentleman might ask the question, why now? Many communities in the region have 60 people for every one job. Ford Heights, Illinois, according to Money magazine, is ``one of the poorest communities in America'' and it abuts the airport, and they deserve to participate in the economic boom that this project will bring.

The Illinois Department of Transportation is in the process of submitting ALNAC's layout plan to the FAA for final approval. IDOT has said that a record of decision could come as quickly as 6 months. If that's true, now is the time to begin planning for local participation in the financing and the construction of this airport.

ALNAC's airport plan, Mr. Chairman, also known as the ``Jackson Plan,'' has been repeatedly endorsed by every major newspaper in Chicago, including the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun Times, the Chicago Daily Defender, the Chicago Daily Southtown. Every major newspaper in the Chicago region, through our very transparent process at the local level, fully appreciates the extent to which for the last 12 years we have invested our time in helping solve the Nation's aviation capacity crisis problem by building a third regional airport.

A 30-year conversation and a 12-year conversation for which I have almost been solely responsible for leading here in the Congress of the United States. In fact, I've been called a one-issue guy in the 12 years that I've been in Congress, and it's focused around this issue.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I thank the chairman for his consideration of this earmark. I would strongly encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

[From the Chicago Sun-Times]

No Need for Greed

Since Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) is mum about his reasons

for tacking to a defense appropriations bill an amendment

that would give Will County officials a majority stake in

running an airport at Peotone and controlling airport

contracts, we can only go along with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s

view that the move is designed to scare off private

investors.

If that's indeed the case, then shame on Weller.

It's bad enough to be a Johnny-come-lately, but to act as

saboteur on a project that could benefit the entire region is

simply out of line. When few politicians gave Jackson much of

a chance to succeed, he staked his career on building a third

airport, even forging partnerships across party lines and

finding entrepreneurs willing to do the project.

According to Jackson, Will County officials have already

been offered five of the nine seats on the commission that

would oversee every phase of the airport's development and

operation. So what's the problem?

Rather than reach a compromise, Weller appears to be

turning to political games to give Will County officials

something--exactly what hasn't yet been disclosed. But any

proposal that would undermine the work done thus far toward

building a third airport should be viewed with a great deal

of suspicion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, a resident of the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois, Dr. Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin on her 80th birthday.

Dr. Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin was born July 1, 1927, in Cleveland, Ohio. During her long career in education, she obtained a master degree and doctorate degree in education, having taught in Virginia, Michigan and Chicago, IL.

She is a founding member and the first president of Theta Rho Omega Chapter, of

Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. The chapter has given more than $90,000 to scholars, and raises these funds through the Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin Foundation. The foundation provides academic scholarships and funds for community projects. Through her foundation she has worked diligently to cultivate the scholarship program for 44 years.

Dr. Franklin is the proud aunt of Maryland Delegate Marvin B. Holmes, Jr. Delegate Holmes was elected to the Maryland State Legislature in 2002 and currently serves on the House Environmental Matters Committee, is the Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee and is the Deputy Majority Whip.

On her 80th birthday, I join with her community, friends, and family in saluting her for devoting her time and talents to make our country a better place to live. This gracious lady has unselfishly dedicated herself to educational and humanitarian causes. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank and congratulate Dr. Franklin.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

We have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq's diplomatic operations and reconstruction. As the gentleman has accurately noted in committee, the funding in this supplemental is tied up due to benchmarks; benchmarks that reflect the will of the American people and the Congress; benchmarks that presumably reflect the President's concurrence, as he signed them into law; benchmarks that can be argued are in the best interest of Iraq in becoming a stable democracy.

Furthermore, I believe the gentleman's argument is not valid, as the $2.863 billion we just provided will be available long before this bill comes back from the President's desk signed. Additionally, while I believe we provided sufficient funds for Iraq, I want to point out that the administration should substantially expend the funds that we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the exact same purposes. Besides, Congress provided an extension of the authority to deobligate and then to reobligate prior-year appropriations to the Iraq Relief Construction Fund, which, as of May 1, 2007, had $3.119 billion in unexpended balances.

In the committee, the gentleman raised the issue of visible support, as my last colleague raised in his remarks. I take a little bit of offense to that, because I think that every day our troops, our diplomats and aid workers are in harm's way, we show the greatest levels of support. What's more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go towards providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq. We just provided $2.863 billion.

So let's take the gentleman's amendment apart for a moment and be clear on what we are considering. This amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental provides $250 million for democracy activities; $67.6 million for civil society, and $57.4 million targeted for development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities.

On page 58, line 18, the amendment is requesting $16 million in additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining activities. I want to make a couple of points about that.

The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq. We do not appropriate nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining- related program accounts by country. We appropriate this account by program to allow the administration the flexibility to adjust to emerging priorities and opportunities. This amendment would seek to change that and radically affects how the President performs his duties.

Additionally, this bill, and I want to emphasize this, this bill for the first time fully funds the President's request for NADR, something I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not claim when they were in the majority. The humanitarian demining account is funded at the President's requested level of $56.5 million. It does not need further funding.

On page 63, line 23, of the gentleman's amendment, where he requests an additional $2 million, the amendment is requesting this $2 million for foreign language training of Iraqi Security Forces. To date, we have provided $18 billion in training for the Iraqi Security Forces. $2 million. Where does this figure come from? We have provided $18 billion, and, now the distinguished ranking member seeks an additional $2 million.

We have provided sufficient funding. Most of these accounts and numbers are unexpended. The administration should substantially expend those funds we have provided before Congress

provides additional funding for the exact same purposes, Mr. Chairman.

Lastly, what is more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go toward providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding me the time.

The question here is one of unexpended balances. The amendment is requesting an additional $140 million for rule of law democracy-related programs, but the supplemental that is still warm on the President's desk provided $250 million for those democracy activities, and they have not been expended; $67.6 million for civil society and $57.4 million targeted for development for $125 million in governance programs, and they still haven't been expended; $150 million in rule of law activities that have not been expended as we move forward with the surge.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is premature to request $140 million additional dollars, page 40, line 26 of the gentleman's amendment, for moneys that have not been expended that the Congress just voted on in this particular bill. The same can be said of the gentleman's request on page 58, line 18, and page 63, line 23, $2 million. We have $18 billion to date appropriated for Iraqi Security

Forces. Where does the figure $2 million come from? It comes from nowhere, Mr. Chairman.

Support the chairwoman's request to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess I am asking him to yield really to a question so I can have a better understanding of the gentleman's amendment.

Is it the intent of the gentleman's amendment that these funds would somehow not be subject to the benchmarks established in the supplemental bill for funding and future funding in Iraq? Is this around the benchmarks?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if in fact, I certainly hope the Iraqi Government is able to achieve the benchmarks, but if in fact, for whatever reason, they are unsuccessful in achieving the benchmarks and the Congress of the United States is to recontemplate elements of the supplemental and additional funding for the efforts in Iraq, does this gentleman's amendment appropriate dollars that are not subject to the specific requirements of the benchmarks established in the supplemental? Is this a funding in addition to that funding?

Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we are in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but let me be clear, the various international organizations for which this account is designated and the dues that we pay not only to the U.N. but to other member organizations that our country is a part of, believe me when I tell you, the State Department has made it very clear in each of those organizations that we are in a global war on terror and our contributions to those organizations, part of our mandatory obligations to those organizations for which the gentleman seeks to cut funding, would quite frankly undermine our ability to maintain our own status within those international organizations as we try to direct the global war on terror.

The spirit of the gentleman's amendment, some aspects of it are actually covered in the supplemental bill and some aspects of it are obviously covered in our bill, is something that is very difficult to argue against, an additional $20 million for demining activities. Part of this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in his amendment, and it is something in principle that we can support.

Sufficient in this bill are the resources to advance democracy activities and demining activities, but by cutting aid to international organizations and contributions, cutting our contribution, our mandatory contribution to those organizations, is something that I believe the chairman and the majority would reject.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Is my understanding correct that the gentleman was going to withdraw his amendment, and now he is not going to withdraw his amendment?

Then let me make it clear on behalf of the distinguished chairman and the committee that we rise in opposition to this amendment.

I thank the chairwoman.

Well, here we go again, cutting a multilateral account that allows us to

hold our head up high in the international community as we organize the international community in the global war on terror in favor of unilateralism.

To fight the war on terror, we must be multilateral and not unilateral. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Khalilzad said pay our dues on time and pay it in full. Every time there's a crisis that confronts our country, we run to the U.N., we run to the international community demanding their involvement to help provide security for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's generosity in supporting the Payne amendment.

I want to just share with the full committee some of the views of the members of the subcommittee, because I think their views need to be taken into account.

While we overwhelmingly support the gentleman's amendment for an increase in $50 million, the offset does

have the effect, Mr. Payne, of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The committee worked very hard to increase the child survival account, which is another health care account that includes maternal health, that includes malaria accounts, and we worked very hard to increase the ESF account, which does impact profoundly sub-Saharan Africa, Afro- Colombian programs, and Israel and Egypt. And while these funds are extremely important, the subcommittee did the best that it could in the original mark to increase funding for tuberculosis, particularly the extremely drug-resistant strands of tuberculosis.

So I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I also rise in strong support of the committee's initial mark, which did everything it could within its power to increase child survival and ESF funds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time exists on both sides, please.

Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill provides the President flexibility, not mandates. The gentleman's amendment seems to be more interested in bean-counting than saving and treating those with HIV/AIDS. Is it more important to make sure that 33 cents out of every dollar, according to the gentleman's amendment, go to abstinence or that we give the President some flexibility if, that is if, he needs it?

We all know that HIV/AIDS prevention programs must be targeted to the group that we are seeking to influence and when abstinence programs may be appropriate for some groups, including the very young. I want to raise to my colleagues' attention that the underlying language in the bill that provides flexibility enjoys broad support from groups that are working on the ground.

I have a letter from the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatrics AIDS Foundation urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts amendment.

I have a letter from CARE, one of the world's leading NGOs providing AIDS care and prevention services, urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts amendment.

I have a letter from the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church urging a ``no'' vote on the Pitts amendment.

I urge my colleagues and their counsel and to vote ``no'' on the Pitts amendment.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote the distinguished ranking Republican member who said this on the floor last night:

``I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good, and I want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives not only here but around the world. This is the work of the Lord. And I know Members are going to come down here and they're going to be against this bill. And I hope that we can change some of the things to prevent a veto, but this bill eventually when it passes, and it will pass, assuming it will be vetoed, is really about feeding the poor, the hungry, the naked and the sick. Almost a better title would be the Matthew 25 bill. So it has the potential to do a lot of good and I hope to work with the chairwoman to ensure the State Department has what it needs to do these things.''

Matthew 25 is very clear, Mr. Chairman:

Then the king will say to those on his right, ``Come you who are blessed by my father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came after me.''

Then the righteous will answer him, ``Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see a stranger and invite you in? Or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison or did we go visit you?''

The king will reply, ``I will tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it unto me.''

Mr. Chairman, the people need medicine, not self-righteousness. Reject the Pitts amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I offer a unanimous consent request to give the gentleman an additional minute.

I'd like to offer a unanimous consent request to yield the gentleman an additional minute on both sides, and if the gentleman will accept my UC, to yield a minute.

I asked a unanimous consent request to yield both sides an additional minute in the debate.

If the gentleman would be so kind as to yield.

Would the gentleman please share with the committee the specific provision in Ms. Lowey's amendment that says funds are being used for this purpose, the specific provision.

If the gentleman would continue to yield. I'm asking specifically about the language in the statute that the gentlelady is advancing in her amendment. Could you show us the specific language in the statute, the recommended statute?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry about the remaining time on both sides.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, under my unanimous consent request, an additional minute was given to their side and an additional minute to our side, and I wanted to make sure that the additional minute has been calculated in the remaining time.

I thank the Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I think that clearly the ranking member is one of the extraordinary Members of this Congress, who has enormous credibility across a wide range of issues. But I think, given that the ranking member's arguments in committee are so substantive and so sound, I want to make it clear, at least for Members, about the context of the debate. And if the chairman would correct me if I'm wrong.

Many of the NGOs that we are talking about are also the same NGOs that provide primary care in many of these villages for which the language is directed. If we provide them with Child Survival funds, are these medicines fungible for the same NGOs? In many of these villages in the Third World, it's not that there are three or four doctors in the village, it's the same doctor. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses. It's the same doctors being sponsored by the same NGOs on the ground in these villages. They're either providing primary care, preventive care, making recommendations to people within the village on how they should behave and/or what are necessary to address their primary care issues.

If we provide them with AIDS treatments, are those same AIDS treatments fungible? And how is it that we can sit here and argue, at least from Washington, a different reality that is taking place on the ground where these issues are taking place? If the chairman would respond. I ask for the committee's indulgence.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I don't plan to use all of the 2 minutes.

This amendment jeopardizes greatly the national security of the United States. It devastates program increases in key diplomatic functions that the Secretary of State has requested, in particular in the State Department.

This bill is already $700 million below the President of the United States' request. And for the gentleman to offer an amendment to cut this bill $2.9 billion across the board has profound implications for the committee product.

I would encourage Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to reject this amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

While talking about how we arrived at this deficit for new Members who are joining the body can be long and drawn out, but the number of tax decreases that we have voted on in this Congress under their leadership which greatly contributed to the enormous deficit that we presently confront, it would require several hours of discussion and probably pull some scabs off of some wounds that aren't worthy of discussion.

I do want to talk about the implications, however, of this particular cut on this bill.

This bill is already $700 million beneath the President's request. The last I checked, the President of the United States is not from the majority party. The President of the United States is from the minority party. He is already suggesting that the bill itself is beneath the funding levels that he is requesting for the national security of the United States.

But don't believe me. Believe the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Wolf, who said last night that he believes this is a good bill, that this bill has the potential to do a lot of good.

I quote him: ``And I want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives, not only here but around the world. This is the work of the Lord. And I know Members are going to come down here, and here they come, and they are going to be against this bill. And I hope that we can change some of the things to prevent a veto. But this bill eventually, when it passes,'' as the ranking member said, ``assuming it will be vetoed, is really about feeding the poor, about the hungry, the naked and the sick. Almost a better title would be the Matthew 25 bill. So it is has the potential to do a lot of good, and I hope to work with Chairwoman Lowey to ensure that the State Department has what it needs to do these things, the war on terror, to provide humanitarian assistance to the most needy, and to improve human rights around the world.''

And the gentleman offers a cut to the ranking member's acknowledgment of how important this product is.

So, Mr. Chairman, if this is the Matthew 25 bill, according to Matthew 25, which I repeated earlier, and these gentleman who obviously have come down here at the 11th hour to message on this bill, they missed this part of the statement when I read it earlier, but I will be happy to read it again:

Then the king will say to those on the right: ``Come you who are blessed by my father. Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me.''

Then the righteous will answer him: ``Lord, when did we see you hungry and

feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in? Or needing clothes to clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison go to visit you?''

The king will reply: ``I tell you, whatever you have done for the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.''

Reject the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment goes to the heart of this bill, which is designed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and liberate the captive.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 2764, The State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill. I can think of few things we do on an annual basis that are more important and crucial to the success of U.S. foreign policy than passing this bill.

I would be remiss if I did not begin my comments by thanking the chairwoman, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, the first woman to chair this subcommittee and, in a very short time already, its most extraordinary chairman. I also want to thank Ranking Member Wolf and the majority and minority subcommittee staff for helping to produce a great bill.

Despite the fact that the allocation for this bill is $700 million below the President's request, this is a well-written, well-measured bill, taking into account the concerns of both the majority and the minority. However, I am worried about the amendments I have seen that want to cut some of the vital programs in this bill in the name of fiscal discipline.

I am worried, Mr. Chairman, because yesterday around the world nearly 15,000 to 20,000 people died of extreme poverty. Today around the world 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of extreme poverty. Tomorrow around the world 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of extreme poverty. Extreme poverty like malnutrition and disease are claiming tens of thousands of lives every day.

This bill has a real opportunity to reverse these facts. Look at what has been done to date with our foreign aid bill. Smallpox eradication began in the 1960s; control of river blindness in the 1970s; increased child immunizations in the 1980s; initiatives to fight Guinea worm, trachoma, and leprosy in the 1990s; and the effort to end polio in this decade. Measurable results produced with the dollars in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out some of the highlights of this measure. This bill before us today makes significant improvements in our aid package to Colombia, especially for Afro-Colombians, by emphasizing alternative development and rule of law, programs that work.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, provides increases for both our multilateral and bilateral peacekeeping obligations. These funds will provide security for trouble spots like the Darfur region of Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This bill provides increases for global health programs that fight the scourge of HIV, TB, and malaria. This bill provides increases for development assistance programs. Some of these funds are educating children and providing clean drinking water and sanitation around the world.

The increases in this bill are the least we can do. I don't understand why some Members plan to offer amendments that cut some of the increases in

key development programs, tearing apart the majority party as tax and spenders. Our former colleague from Illinois, my friend John Porter, used the term ``noblesse oblige,'' the belief that the wealthy and the privileged are obliged to help those who are less fortunate. In Luke chapter 12, verse 48, Jesus simply says, ``To whom much is given, much is expected.'' In Matthew chapter 6, verse 21, Jesus said, ``For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'' If this verse is true, what does it say about these amendments that want to cut these crucial programs that are improving millions of lives around the world? I have a master's degree in theology from the Chicago Theological Seminary, and I have read my Bible from cover to cover. And nowhere does it say, ``only clothe the naked and feed the poor after you have cut taxes for very wealthy people.''

In 1984, referring to Marxist-ruled Ethiopia, President Ronald Reagan said, ``A hungry child knows no politics.'' All he knows is that he is hungry.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I hope that Democrats and Republicans will rally behind an extraordinary product created by the chairman of this committee, the ranking member of this committee, and the extraordinary Foreign Operations staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me first thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) for his remarks and for his leadership in bringing this topic to the attention of our colleagues. I would also like to recognize the timeliness of his comments, as National HIV Testing Day is on June 27.

The gravity of this issue cannot be understated, and I hope to work with Mr. Bishop and lend my support to address the veterans who suffer from this interminable disease.

Chicago is the epicenter of HIV/AIDS in Illinois. Roughly 70 percent of reported AIDS cases in the State are in Chicago. Minorities account for approximately 69 percent of the city's total population, but represent 81 percent recently diagnosed AIDS cases. Minorities constitute 20 percent of veterans in Illinois; yet the trend of HIV/ AIDS among the State population and the higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS among veterans in general demonstrates minority veterans are disproportionately affected by this disease.

HIV/AIDS has had a significant impact on veterans across the country. Combating the spread of this disease through testing and education is not only important to our communities, but vital for the health of all Americans.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding me the time and thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2025, naming a post office building in the Roseland community of Chicago, Illinois, as the Willye B. White Post Office Building.

Willye B. White was born to run. She was a five-time Olympic track and field athlete from Money, Mississippi. She was the best female long jumper of the time. She made Chicago her home in 1960 until her untimely death in February, 2007.

She wasn't a household name, but she should have been, especially if your household happens to be one of the millions that includes a female athlete. Or an athlete of color. Or a once or future Olympian. She was better known for her actions than her name, better known for her deeds than her medals.

At 16, she competed in the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games and became the first American woman to ever medal in the long jump, earning a silver medal. She participated in the next four Olympiads as well, and is the first American to compete on five Olympic track and field teams. She won another silver medal in the 1964 Tokyo Games in the 4-by-100- meter relay. Ms. White competed in more than 150 nations as a member of 39 different international track and field teams.

Over the years, White remained active in the field of sports. She represented track and field on the U.S. Olympic Committee, coached athletes in the National Sports Festival in 1979 and 1981, coached and managed at the 1981 World Cup Track and Field Championship Games in Brussels and Rome, and served as the head coach for the 1994 Olympic Sports Festival.

Born on December 31, 1939, in Money, Mississippi, and raised by her grandparents, White discovered her talent

for running and jumping at age 10. In 1959, White graduated from Broad Street High School in Greenwood, Mississippi, the same year she set an American record for the long jump, which stood for 6 years. Breaking loose from the poverty of the racially segregated delta, she attended Tennessee State from 1959 to 1962, and achieved national acclaim with the Tigerbelle team that produced Wilma Rudolph. She moved to Chicago in 1960 and began working as a nurse in 1963, first at Chicago's Cook County Hospital and then at the Greenwood Medical Center. In 1965, White became a public health administrator at the Chicago Health Department. She graduated with a B.A. in public health administration from Chicago State University in 1976.

White was one of 21 people on President Ford's Commission on Olympic Sports, a panel that restructured the U.S. Olympic movement. She lobbied extensively for Title IX and raised money for the Women's Sports Foundation. She worked for nearly four decades for the City of Chicago, devoting much of her time to children's recreation and creating sports programs for girls.

In 1990, White found WBW Hang on Productions, a sports and fitness consultancy. A year later, she founded the Willye B. White Foundation helping children develop self-esteem and become productive citizens through such initiatives as the Robert Taylor Girls Athletic Program. This program taught sports and teamwork to children living in the Nation's largest housing project and provided summer day camp and health care in the form of immunizations and dental and medical checkups.

White was the first American to win the world's highest sportsmanship award, the UNESCO Pierre de Coubertin International Fair Play Trophy. She is a member of 11 sports halls of fame, including the National Association of Sport and Physical Education, Black Sports, Women's Sports Foundation, and National Track and Field. She was chosen by Sports Illustrated for Women in 1999 as one of the 100 greatest athletes of the century and by Ebony in 2002 as one of the 10 greatest black female athletes.

Ms. White passed away from pancreatic cancer on Tuesday, February 6, 2007. It is with great pleasure that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges Willye B. White not only for her outstanding athletic abilities, but for her tireless service to the community and to the young girls on the South Side of Chicago, indeed young women everywhere.

Finally, I would like to thank my staff, especially my legislative assistant, Ms. Megan Moore, for her hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for a unanimous consent request. The minority rejected it, and now I understand that the Clerk continued the reading, and I get the impression that we are moving to a vote.

My inquiry is, because the unanimous consent request was brought up under unanimous consent and there was an objection, isn't that the end of it?

That is my parliamentary inquiry.

So we're moving to a vote now on the amendment that was objected to brought up under unanimous consent. I'm asking for an inquiry. If the Speaker would kindly just explain to me what process we're in.

I thank the Speaker.

So we're voting on the Thompson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to send condolences to the family of my colleague, Chairwoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, and let them know that they are in my heart and in my prayers. I also want to send condolences to the people of the 37th Congressional District of California who placed their faith and trust in the strong, dedicated and elegant Juanita Millender-McDonald.

You have heard from some of my colleagues about the many firsts that Juanita achieved here in the Congress of the United States, including serving as the first African American woman to chair a full committee in the United States House of Representatives. But I just want to take a moment to reflect upon an aspect of her strength that was not readily apparent but clearly on display long before she came to Congress. While some of us have focused on the life that she lived, I want to talk about the Juanita Millender-McDonald who did not believe in self-pity but believed in using what she had to make a difference.

While many of my colleagues will come to this mike and talk about the life that she lived and her service to a grateful Nation, Juanita Millender-McDonald taught us something about character in her transition. No self-pity. Not a single Member of Congress knew that Juanita was ailing and that her ailment was terminal. Juanita did not want to walk around the House of Representatives and have Members of Congress feeling pity for her or feeling sad for her or making special speeches or concessions to her. She wanted all of us to recognize that we live our lives as if life is certain and death is uncertain, when in reality it is death that is certain and life that is uncertain. And, therefore, each of us is under an obligation to do the very best that we can with the time that God has given us on this Earth and in this world.

The Bible talks about serving this present age. ``O may all my powers be engaged to do my Master's will.'' Clearly the type of ailment that ailed our colleague and our close and dear friend, Juanita Millender- McDonald, was not the kind of ailment that strikes one suddenly. She knew about it for quite some time and chose not to share it with Members of Congress. That is a statement about her dignity. It is a statement about her commitment to public service. It is a statement about character. And it is a statement about her strength under extraordinarily life-threatening odds.

Juanita Millender-McDonald was married, she raised five children, and then went to college to launch an impressive and inspiring career at an age when many people start slowing down. She combined higher education with her native Alabama wisdom and she set out to show women and men in life and in death that no matter where you came from, you can go where you want to go. She was a living example of the power of not only keeping your eyes on the prize but putting in the old-fashioned elbow grease to earn it.

No self-pity. She didn't want people looking down on her or feeling bad about her or seeing her physical ailments. No self-pity. She possessed the necessary tough-mindedness combined with the tenderheartedness that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about. She understood, and Dr. King wrote, ``There is little hope for us until we become tough-minded enough to break loose from the shackles of prejudice, half-truths and downright ignorance. The shape of the world today does not

permit us the luxury of soft-mindedness. A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men and women purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan.''

I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with Juanita Millender-McDonald, and once again I send my condolences to those who loved her. The House and the Nation have lost a dedicated public servant and someone who in life and death has taught us the meaning of character.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Village of South Chicago Heights, Illinois on their Centennial Celebration. On its founding day, March 7, 1907, 150 citizens of Hannah and Keeney Subdivision voted to incorporate as the Village of South Chicago Heights.

The first permanent settlers in the area, Adam and Phoebe Brown of Ohio, built a home and opened a general store some 74 years earlier at the intersection of Sauk Trail and the old Hubbard Trail. ``Brown's Corner'' became a busy crossroads, first allegedly for the Underground Railroad, then later for wagons, stagecoaches, railroads, and automobiles.

One year after incorporating, the residents worked together to build the village's first school, the U.S. Grant School. As the village grew so did the budget and city services. The first year's budget was $3,800, which was met by property taxes and three saloon licenses at $500 each.

In its early days the village steadily grew as immigrants of Italian, Polish, German and other ancestries moved here to work in nearby factories, railroads, and local businesses. South Chicago Heights is still home to many of these families and businesses.

The village has had only 12 mayors in 100 years, including the Honorable David Owen, who has served as mayor since 1989. Mayor Owen has officially declared South Chicago Heights as a good place to live, to work, and to raise a family; and the Centennial gives all 4,000 citizens a special opportunity to take pride in our history and to celebrate our heritage. On May 7, 2007, during the Founders Day program, the Village will dedicate a new Village Clock to start the next 100 years.

I am proud to represent the Village of South Chicago Heights and I congratulate them on 100 years of service and I look forward to future celebrations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in defense of our national security, in support of our troops, and in favor of this resolution.

This measure is a first and important step in preventing the President's ill-conceived escalation plan; reversing our present, perilous course; and ultimately bringing our brave troops home from Iraq.

Mr. President, when in a deep hole, stop digging.

But rather than searching for a way out, the President proposes to dig down deeper, plunging further into a dark abyss. Blinded by ideology and steeped in delusion, the administration's answer to the chaos in Iraq is to send an additional 21,500 troops into the middle of it.

I do not support the President's shortsighted, wrong-headed, reckless approach. And on behalf of the American people, this House must act now to stop the continuation of an ambiguous, constantly changing, open- ended engagement in Iraq.

During the last 4 years, our men and women in uniform have answered the call of duty. They have demonstrated true courage and bravery and honor. They have served our Nation valiantly, even as many civilian leaders have failed them.

I mourn the loss of 3,100 Americans who died, 95 of whom are from my home State of Illinois. I pray for the thousands who have been seriously wounded and permanently disabled. And I have voted again and again to ensure that our troops in Iraq had the body armor and the equipment that they need to protect their lives and discharge their duties.

Tragically, the war in Iraq is a case study in ``mission creep.'' And the fact is no amount of troops can successfully complete a mission that is unclear, that is ill-defined, that is muddled and mutable.

During the run-up to the first gulf war, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, put forth eight criteria to be met for military action. Among the critical questions posed by the Powell doctrine were the following: Do we have a clear attainable objective? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our actions been fully considered?

The answer to each question when applied to Iraq today is the same as it has been since the start of this war: no, no, and no.

With the help of its author, the Powell Doctrine was shredded to bits and the mission in Iraq is adrift.

Consider this: On September 12, 2002, President Bush challenged world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly session to confront the grave and gathering danger posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found there.

Then President Bush shifted his justification, arguing that the war was about liberating Iraqis from a brutal dictator. But in December 2003, 4 years ago, Saddam Hussein was found and captured. He has since been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.

After Saddam was taken into custody, President Bush claimed that the mission was to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. Yet Iraq has deteriorated into sectarian violence erupting into a bloody civil war.

Now, with the violence increasing, the President says our mission is to confront the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home. However, according to government intelligence, the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists, not vanquish them.

Madam Speaker, now is not the time to close our eyes, cross our fingers and stay the course. We cannot continue to engage in the same action and expect a different result. We should not send more of our soldiers to the desert on a mission that shifts like the sands beneath their boots.

The President's plan attempts to impose a half-baked, unworkable military solution, when Iraq needs a political one. Rather than a military escalation, this situation in Iraq requires a diplomatic and political intensification. The American military must stand down, so the Iraqi people can stand up and seek a political settlement and assume responsibility for their own future. The Iraqi government must engage in negotiations and compromises that balance the power of provincial and central governments, share oil revenues and protect the rights of every Iraqi citizen.

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, released a report in December stating the same. They said the security situation cannot improve unless leaders act in support of national reconciliation. There is no action the American military can take by itself that can bring about success in Iraq.

As Democrats, we support our troops, but we don't support the Commander in Chief squandering billions of our tax dollars and recklessly putting our brave soldiers in the cross-hairs of someone else's civil war. I believe our domestic national security rests on redeploying our military forces from Iraq in order to build more consensus in the Middle East.

To conclude, Madam Speaker, I support this resolution opposing President Bush's failed policy of escalation. It is time to bring a responsible end to this war, to bring our troops home, and to bring them home right now.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 521, naming a post office building in Rock Island, IL, as the Lane Evans Post Office Building.

For the past 11 years, I have had the great pleasure and high privilege to serve in the Illinois Congressional delegation with a true American hero, Lane Evans. At a young age, he heroically served our country by joining the Marine Corps after high school to fight in the Vietnam War. He has never forgotten his friends and has fought diligently for the rights of veterans. Lane Evans led the charge to compensate Vietnam veterans for diseases linked to Agent Orange exposure, fought to ensure that children of veterans received government benefits and that women veterans had access to the same services as their male counterparts.

A son of a firefighter and a nurse, Lane Evans understood the needs of working families and has been a tireless fighter of protecting American jobs, providing affordable health care for all Americans and increasing the minimum wage. He is a soldier, activist and defender of the underdog and has given a voice to millions of veterans and especially to the good people of the 17th Congressional district of Illinois.

I pay tribute to a man that has well served his constituents and has become a trusted colleague and friend. His work on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs will serve as a blueprint for future legislators. He has shown tremendous political courage over the past 24 years in office and will show even more courage as he continues his battle with Parkinson's Disease.

At this time our Nation demands fearless leaders that stand up for American families and dedicate their lives for the improvement of others. Lane Evans has committed his life to others as a courageous public servant, a man that deserves the title, ``The Honorable.'' I too was drawn to public service, believing that I can help the people of my district and those outside my district. I have not lost that feeling, and I know Lane Evans has not either. We need more leaders in this institution that constantly remember why we are here--to serve the public shoulder to shoulder.

Lane Evans has worked for his district, country and for the freedom of all. His subtle style and modest voice will always reverberate loud in my ears. Congressman Evans, I would like to thank you for your leadership, determination and willingness to fight! Your work in Congress will forever be remembered and your legacy will live on.