Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5522, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order on the amendment and I would allow Mr. Crowley to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 32, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman from Oregon has described this precisely. We all recognize that methamphetamine is a terrible problem. I represent a border district in a border State; we have a terrible problem with that with Mexico. The gentlewoman has described this amendment accurately, in that while it increases and decreases the same time, it does not change the structure of any of the accounts or any of the programs; and, therefore, I am willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman. There are few things in this hemisphere that are more important for us than the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. In our effort to try and fight drugs abroad we can fight drugs here at home.

The gentleman has suggested this money would go to the International Refugee and Migration account, and we believe we have funded that in a fair and reasonable way and will have accounted for the needs of that account.

Let me tell you why my concern is more not that we couldn't use more money in ERMA; my concern here is taking this money out of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Let me tell you why I think this is the wrong thing to do at this time.

We have rewarded in this bill good performers and taken action against those who have not done so well. As I described in my opening statement, we have restructured the accounts that go to Colombia. They are an important strategic partner in the region, and our bill recognizes that by normalizing how we fund Colombia. We move funds for the Colombia Alternative Development programs to the ESF account and to the other accounts; we have moved funds for Colombia rule of law to the INCLE account, the narcotics account. These are the accounts we use to fund similar activities for all of our other strategic partners.

So we have basically said to Colombia, you have graduated. It is time for you to become a strategic partner and for our funding of foreign assistance to fall into normal categories.

I firmly believe that, contrary to what the gentleman said, that Colombia stands as the most successful model of democracy in this region. It is not without its problems, but I think it has made enormous and positive strides in recent years. With our support it has been transformed into a much more secure democratic and economically prosperous country.

So why do I say that? How do I measure the success that we have had? Well, we have got more than 200,000 acres of legal crops that have been planted, 64,000 farm families provided legal farming options, coca eradication through spraying has gone from 47,000 hectares of the first year of Plan Colombian to 138,000 last year, and manual eradication also increased substantially. An additional 1,600 hectares of poppies were eradicated in the year 2005. We have regained Colombian sovereignty over most of the air space, and that has led to a 56 percent decrease in suspected trafficker flights. The drug flow by air to the United States has dropped by about 7 percent. Kidnappings are down 51 percent. Homicides are down 13 percent. All 1,098 Colombian municipalities have a permanent government presence. These are just some of the measures of the things that we have done that I think are very significant.

The bill from which this would take funds also rewards Peru by increasing the funds allocated it by $10.5 million. And I did this because we have decreased over the years the funds to Peru and we have experienced the balloon effect of having drug production move from one part of the region to another part, and that is why we have proposed a $7 million increase to Peru's interdiction and eradication program. The last thing in the world we should be doing right now is making a reduction in these overall accounts.

On the other hand, we have reduced some of the funds provided to Bolivia. We have reduced the President's request by 44 percent. Of course, that request was drafted very early in this year before the problems that we are seeing with the current government in Bolivia have occurred. There, the eradication efforts have gone absolutely the wrong direction, from an historic high in 1999 of 17,000 hectares of coca eradicated, to a goal in 2006 of only 5,000; and they are not on track to even meet that very reduced goal in Bolivia.

And so those are just some of the reasons why we are, as I said, trying to reward those who are doing the right thing in the region, but also make sure that our money is not used inappropriately in countries that are not doing the right thing.

So these are just some of the reasons why I think that this amendment would be absolutely the wrong signal at the wrong time and could be the best possible message that we could send to drug traffickers to reduce this Andean counterdrug initiative by the amount that the amendment calls for. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one of the members of the Drug Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to what the gentlewoman from Illinois said.

First of all, with regard to the accounts. It is true that the total amount in here for Colombia is above where the President requested. But in the ACI, that is absolutely not true.

I would just remind the gentlewoman from Illinois that the amount we have in this bill is $384 million. If you cut another $30 million, you would be at $354. The President requested $506 million for the ACI account. So the gentlewoman is absolutely incorrect in stating the amount that goes for the ACI. She just had her figures incorrect because she wasn't aware, I think, of the restructuring that we have done of this account.

Now, I want to just respond to what she was saying about the failures that we have had. I would stipulate to the gentlewoman from Illinois that our eradication programs have not been as good as we would like. She is wrong about the interdiction. We are having success with the interdiction. And we are having success with the interdiction because we have a president down there that is committed to making it work, committed to making Colombians more secure, and committed to providing people with economic well-being in the country.

Now, do bad things happen still? Yes. There are still too many homicides and there are still too many kidnappings. Sadly, we know our own troops have sometimes strayed and done things wrong. We know in our own cities that police departments sometimes stray and do things that are not right. But things are getting better in Colombia. There is more security in Colombia. There are fewer homicides. There are fewer kidnappings. The presence of the government in municipalities, of police in municipalities has increased. Roads are open and commerce is moving again in the country.

What a time to send a signal to them that we are going to cut them; that we

are going to say you are not successful. What we have done in this bill is to restructure the accounts so that much of the aid now flows through traditional accounts of the Economic Support Fund, the Development Assistance, the INCLE funds, and those kinds of accounts. And we are saying to Colombia, you are a strategic partner. We believe that you are succeeding and we are going to put the aid, as we do with other countries, in these kinds of categories.

But this is not the time to be cutting the funding for drug interdiction. And I hope this body will reject this amendment very soundly.

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

Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who has certainly been at the forefront of this issue.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I just want to respond to one thing that the gentlewoman said before I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas. I just want to respond to what she said about the Migration and Refugee account and Darfur. She made a reference to the fact that food rations in Darfur might be cut in half. We have provided in the fiscal year 2006, the current year's bill, we have $320 million for Darfur for food programs. When the United Nations said they might still have to cut the rations in half, the President, out of Public Law 480, pledged another $200 million. That is $520 million that the United States has pledged for food in Darfur. You know what the next largest country is? Libya at $4 million.

So I hardly think the United States has been delinquent in the amount of money that we have provided in Darfur.

Meanwhile, we have problems in our own hemisphere and we have problems on our own streets. We have problems in our schools and in our families with drugs that run rampant in our society. We do have an obligation to ourselves to try to prevent that from happening. We have a partner in Colombia that is attempting to do that.

This amendment is a signal to that partner that we do not believe his country should be a partner in our attack on drugs in this country. This would be the wrong thing for us to do at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

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

I want to just correct, for the record, a couple of comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin made for whom I have the greatest respect. He talked about a $107 million cut in these accounts. Let me just make it clear what we are really talking about. There is an $82 million reduction in the migration refugee assistance account. That $82 million, however, has nothing to do with refugees abroad. That is for admissions to the United States. And the numbers, 55,000 persons that are coming in, are exactly the same as last year. So we are continuing the program exactly as we have it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I am trying to explain what it is.

It is not the money, however, that goes to assist refugees overseas. It is admissions.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point that I am trying to make is that it is the processing of refugees inside of United States. We are not talking about people who are in camps overseas, who might not have food, might not have sanitation. That is not what is being cut.

The other account that is being cut $25 million is the ERMA account. And that is because they have a carryover of about 15 million. The 30 million that we have provided here brings them up to 45 million, and that is the average of what they have spent. It is an emergency drawdown account and they have spent that amount each year. So we are adequately covering the migration, the refugee and migration issues in our bill.

I yield once more to the gentleman.

And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that yes, we are looking at it on the whole, and I believe that on the whole we are adequately covering these accounts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if you will close on your side and yield back, I will close on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take the time, but I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a thorough debate on this. I will be very quick in my close here simply to say this is the wrong policy and the wrong message at the wrong time. This is not what we need to be doing with Colombia. This is not what we need to be doing on drug interdiction. We need to be saying to this country which has stood strong, to this country which has been courageous in its efforts to provide security for its own citizens, to provide for drug eradication, to provide for drug interdiction, we need to say to this country, to its leadership, to its president who was just elected by the largest margin in modern history in Colombia, we need to say to them, we stand with you. We support you in your efforts, because what you are doing in Colombia is on behalf also of the American citizens in the United States that we can save our children from drugs. This is not the time to send the signal that we do not believe that Colombia is doing what it needs to be doing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 60, line 18 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 11 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I would concede the point of order and that these funds for the Reagan/Fascell Democracy fellows program would be stricken.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 87, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I concede the point of order with regard to the private enterprise development fund in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 91, line 17 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 121, line 15 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against this language requested by the administration.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 127, line 24 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against that language dealing with separation pay for the Peace Corps.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 136, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order against this legislation, strongly desired by the administration regarding OPIC and Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose this.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from North Carolina has explained, his amendment seeks to strike the waiver provision that we have in section 581 of this bill. That section limits the availability, as he has described, of assistance to foreign countries that refuse to extradite to the United States any individual accused in the United States of killing a law enforcement officer. Certainly, as he has said, we want to pursue to the farthest ends of this Earth anybody that is accused of killing a law enforcement officer here in the United States.

The provision does also include authority for the Secretary to provide assistance if she certifies to the Committee on Appropriations that the application of the restriction to a country or countries is contrary to the national interests of the United States.

Now, I acknowledge that that language was not in the bill when we passed it last year. It was added in conference. So what we brought to the floor this year is exactly the language that was enacted into law last year, but the provision that he seeks to strike was language that was not included in the House-passed bill last year.

And given that understanding, that what his amendment would do is to simply return the language in this bill to that that we passed on the floor of the House last year, given that understanding, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as he has explained what his amendment would do, and as we did with the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Carolina we would return this particular provision back to the same as the House adopted last year.

And with that understanding, I am certainly willing to accept this. The gentleman has also said that he will not offer the other amendment which does expand the authorities. He has asked us to consider that. We certainly can consider that in the conference committee.

But, as long as we are returning this to the provisions added last year, I would certainly ask that we leave it as it was last year, and not expand the authority either here on the floor.

With that understanding, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 146, line 21 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a longstanding and actually a very complex trademark dispute between Gallup Organization and Gallup International. It has been the subject of legal action in a number of countries, the courts of a number of foreign countries.

USAID says that they are complying with the law, that they are following the law. In fact, Ambassador Tobias recently instructed his staff to take numerous steps to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

He asked that, first, they develop contracting and procurement procedures to ensure the strict adherence to intellectual property rights be integral when evaluating prospective contractors and grantees.

Second, that they review current contracts and grants in question, which will be terminated if violations are discovered. And, third, for any product or material that is found to bear a counterfeit Gallup trademark, review it for proper disposition under relevant laws and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, they are very much involved in this, and are taking very direct and concrete steps to deal with that. However, having said that, I support certainly the concept that is behind this amendment. I would urge that we accept this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

Well, here we go. This is an old debate. It is an old amendment. Times have changed, but for some people things do not change. The school that is being described here, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, we call it WHINSEC, is a Department of Defense education facility that Congress established in the year 2001. It replaces, as the gentleman has correctly pointed out, it replaces the School of Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Now, WHINSEC provides future civilian as well as military and law enforcement, that is police officers, including U.S. military officers, professional education that helps support our democratic principles in this hemisphere. WHINSEC does that, promotes those democratic values and the respect for human rights and the knowledge and

understanding of U.S. customs and tradition through the time that the officers spend there and through the curriculum that is developed there. The courses build strong relationships between the participating nations, helping to ensure peace and stability throughout the hemisphere.

This is a school that is open. Anyone can visit the campus, tour the building where the courses are taught, sit in classes, talk to the students and faculty. People are invited in as lecturers from outside. A large part of the curriculum in this program is devoted to human rights and to values. It seems to me that if what we really want in this hemisphere is a military in different countries that shares those values that we hold, that are dear to us, that we should be doing more, not less, of this, more training of these people.

Has anybody ever graduated from the School of the Americas in the past that turned out to be bad? Yes, of course. But I can tell you that far more have turned out to be people, honorable officers, who have upheld democracy, upheld democratic values, upheld the civil rights of the citizens in their countries than vice versa.

So what we are doing now with WHINSEC as it is revised and restructured, the curriculum for the program, we are doing a great deal more to help to train officers who share our values and who have a contact, a relationship with U.S. military officers so that when there is a problem that occurs in these countries, somebody that is a colonel in the Pentagon and served at WHINSEC with some colonel in a Latin American country, they can get on the phone and discuss and describe the problems that exist there. These kinds of relationships are important, and they cannot be done if you do not have face-to-face contact, if you do not have time the people spend together getting to know each other and talking about issues and learning about values, and that is the importance of WHINSEC.

This is a program like IMET that I believe in very strongly that ought to be expanded, not a program that we should be talking about cutting.

There is not an example that the gentleman I believe can cite of anybody at WHINSEC who has committed any crimes back in their country. It has two important missions, to teach future leaders and to foster cooperation between our country and those of Latin America. It offers 24 discrete courses. They are from 3 to 49 weeks long, and all are teaching U.S. military doctrine according to U.S. laws and our values. In fact, in every single one of the courses, at least 10 percent of the instruction is devoted directly to democracy and human rights issues. Students come from throughout the Western Hemisphere, even from Canada, as well as the United States; and it is the relationships that are developed there that are so important in the future, in years that pass, that come later when we need to have the contacts with these countries.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has expressed, I simply do not believe that the evidence bears it out. I simply do not believe that what this organization is doing is wrong. In fact, it is doing everything that we would want an organization to do in terms of training military officers of the future in Latin America to share the values that we have in this United States. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) where the school at Fort Benning is located.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me just close. I think we have had a thorough debate on this.

As I said, this is an issue that we have debated over and over again, and I think time and time again it has been shown that this program of training military and police officers in Latin

America is one that is good, good for democracy, good for human rights, good for U.S. relationships with these countries in Latin America and Central America.

This is a program that is good for the United States. It is a program that is good for the countries that are involved. This is a program that, if anything, ought to be expanded. We should be doing more of this, more transfer of values from the United States to the people of these countries of the law enforcement and military of these countries is what we ought to want to be doing.

Bad things can happen either way. In 1992, Hugo Chavez conducted, he was not graduate of this, conducted a coup against the democratically- elected government in Venezuela. Are we to conclude from that, that if only he had gone to the School of the Americas, that everything would have been well? Probably not, but by the same token, one can hardly conclude that because somebody has gone to the School of the Americas and still ends up doing something that is bad, that overall it is bad for the United States or for their country or for the human rights or the citizens of that country because it is not.

It is a good program. It is a program that spreads democracy in the Western hemisphere. It is the kind of program we should be supporting, not the kind of program that we should be opposing, and I hope that my colleagues will soundly defeat this amendment as they have done in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman. She proposes, as she said, to reduce the funding to Mexico for the International Narcotics Control Law Enforcement account that we call INCLE, from $40 million to $39 million. It is only a $1 million reduction, but it is symbolic, and I understand that; but as a symbol I think it runs counter to what we have been asking the Mexican Government to do, and that is to help us seal the border with regard to drug trafficking coming across the border.

I have the privilege of chairing the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group,

and we met this year in Mexico, legislators, Members of Congress from both the United States and Mexico meeting there. We were struck, I think every member of the U.S. delegation was struck, by the degree of cooperation that we are seeing now from Mexico, particularly the Mexican policymakers, the congress, in struggling against the drug trafficking, and, actually, they have been very good on that for several years; but now the efforts they are making to help try and seal the border, it is certainly the most cooperation that we have seen in the last 20 years.

In fact, the Mexican congress has adopted unanimously a joint resolution expressing their commitment to helping resolve and expressing their acknowledgment that they have a responsibility for helping to control the problems of migration, illegal migration coming into the United States.

The bill that we brought before you is a very modest increase, the $1 million increase, over the previous year to Mexico to help to try and control the border. The majority of this goes to sustain border and port security by improving the ports of entry, improving the inspections at the ports of entry, more secure traffic laws, mobile interdiction teams, and national crime databases. These are all good things. These are the kinds of things we should want to support in criminal justice and institution-building in Mexico, and including the Office of the Attorney General and anticorruption programs. So I think it is a good program, and I think it is one that deserves to have support.

Let me be clear about one fact: the funds in this account are used by Mexico to help stop narcotics from entering the United States. Cutting funding in this area doesn't really hurt Mexico, because it isn't anything that has to do with their own law enforcement per se. It hurts our efforts to keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools.

I think this amendment won't have a huge effect, but as a symbol I think it is the wrong kind of symbol that we should be sending to Mexico, and I do oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say again I think this is an ill-advised amendment, but, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In this bill there is a total of $420,000 for Saudi Arabia. Now, just so we understand where these accounts are, the $20,000 we have heard about before, last year that is what we were arguing about, $20,000 in this entire bill when this amendment came up. And why do we have that in there? That is for providing a classroom space for the IMET, the International Military Education Training program, for IMET students.

Why do we have to provide one space? Because by giving them a grant for one space, they are then eligible to buy seats in the classes that they pay for at the somewhat reduced rate. So that is just simply a kind of a dues that are required in order to have them eligible for this program.

We have talked about IMET before. Again, it is similar to what we were just talking about a moment ago with regard to the WHINSEC program in Latin America. If we want to have American values of democracy and civil rights and justice transmitted to

these countries, to these people, then we need to have that kind of program.

Now, the other $400,000 is new this year. Not a heck of a lot of money, but it is for nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining programs. This pays for American experts, bomb detection experts, criminal investigation experts to go and help train antiterrorism police in Saudi Arabia.

For heaven sakes, is this not something we want to do? Do we not want to train the Saudis to help the Saudis become better at detecting antiterrorism, at detecting terrorist attacks? Do we not want to help them try to deter those kinds of attacks against us and against their own society?

This is about the war on terror. And this amendment is about saying, no, we don't want Saudi Arabia involved in the war on terror; we don't believe they should be on our side in the war on terror, because we want to cut out the money that allows us to help the little bit that we have that allows us to help train those people.

So I understand the sentiment that is behind this. It is an easy kind of sentiment to scratch the surface and get to this kind of emotion, but it is not the right thing to do. It is clearly not the right thing to do. If we desire that the people of Saudi Arabia embrace a more Western tolerance and a value system, how do we expect them to learn to do that? If we want them to be a better partner in the war on terror, how do we expect them to do that if we are not willing to help train them?

This is absolutely the wrong signal for us to send, and I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond very briefly to what the gentleman just said. I think what he just said demonstrates what this issue is all about: Are we talking about something that scratches the surface of emotions, or are we talking about something that is real.

The money is not symbolic. It is real. The $20,000 allows them to buy a seat at the IMET table. It allows them to send their students to the United States to be trained in western values, in democracy and justice.

The $400,000 is to pay for American experts to go over and train them in bomb detections and in criminal investigations. Is the gentleman saying we do not want them to be trained, we do not want them to participate? What does this have to do with Wahabism? Nothing. This has to do with whether or not they are going to be a partner in the war on terror.

But yes, you can reach beyond that to the emotion and you can do the wrong thing, which this amendment would do, which is to cut the money which enables them to participate in a significant way in the war on terror.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we were sending, millions of dollars to support economic development in

Saudi Arabia, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, they are a rich country, so as you pointed out, they are doing some bad things, I would agree with them. If we were sending millions of dollars for various projects in Saudi Arabia, I would agree with them.

But we are talking about training a police officer to have the tools to detect a terrorist attack. We are talking about fighting terrorism. This is so narrow and so focused. It is on counterterrorism, and that surely is what we want the Saudis to do, to have the skills to detect a terrorist attack in advance, to head it off, to investigate terrorist attacks and to be able to prosecute those people. Surely that is what we want to do.

We do not agree with the policies of Saudi Arabia. I do not agree with them, but I certainly want their police officers, I want their detectives to have the kinds of skills they need to go after terrorists, and that is what this amendment is about. This tiny amount of money is about that. We ought not to be taking this kind of step. It is more than symbolic. It has to do with very specific kinds of training that combats terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and just say very quickly that a 2,000 percent increase is a bogus argument. There was $20,000 last year. There is $420,000 this year because we have $400,000 for terrorist training specifically to pay for the salaries of American experts who go over there to train their police. It is not the percentage amount that we are talking about here. It is, should we be doing this kind of work at all; and the answer, I think, if you believe we should be fighting the war on terror and that we should be fighting it where we can find it, wherever we can find police forces that need to be trained, we ought to be doing it with the Saudis, and that is all this is about. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) who represents a border State and a border district.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say once again I think this would be a very wrong-headed amendment, the wrong thing for us to do. This is not symbolic. This cuts all the ESF funds that we provide to the country of Mexico, which is, relative to most of our programs around the world, very, very small because Mexico is a country that is beyond the least developed; it is now rapidly developing.

The money that we provide here is important money. It is money that helps promote democracy. It is money that helps promote such things as property rights. It is money that helps promote such things as microfinance. It is the kinds of things that we do that help provide economic livelihood for the people in Mexico. This is about job creation. It is about allowing people to live and work in Mexico and not have to come to the United States. If you want less migration from Mexico to the United States, we have got to give them a hand, a hand up to prevent them from having to come to the United States because they have no way of taking care of their families. So this would be the wrong thing for us to do in terms of cutting the economic support funds for Mexico.

It is also the wrong thing to do to a neighbor with whom we have a very good relationship. Do we have problems? Of course we have problems. Are there times when we disagree? Of course we disagree. Would we like to have more help on some of the migration problems and the drug interdiction problems? Yes, we want more help. But I remember, I have been here in this Congress for 22 years, and I remember going to the inter-American, the U.S.-Mexico parliamentary meetings 22 years ago when we were told by our State Department, our law enforcement officials, there was no cooperation with Mexico. Today, that is very much changed. There is cooperation. We have significant cooperation. This is the wrong thing to do to a country like Mexico that is doing its best to try and cooperate with the United States, both on migration and on drug interdiction. These are small programs, but they are programs that make a difference in terms of economic livelihood in Mexico, and I hope we will defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from Ohio is trying to do to look out for the interests of the people of El Salvador, but I think he has got some misinformation. Now, there is one thing he is right about and we can certainly agree on and that is that the Millennium Challenge Corporation proposed compact for El Salvador does have a major roads component. But we are not talking about a superhighway that is blowing through the fields of some poor farmers in El Salvador. It is not about a road that is going to allow building profits for the multinational mining firms that are somehow earning it on the backs of the peasants. And the proposal certainly wasn't developed by the central government at the expense of the opinions of those at the local level.

This proposal was developed over 7 years as part of a consultative process, a process which is developing as part of a regional development plan with the other countries in the region, which have identified the lack of transportation infrastructure as a significant impediment for development. If anyone wants proof and reads Spanish, you can go to the Web site for the government of El Salvador where reports about the consultations have been put online, where they are actually online about all the kind of town meetings and the other consultations that have taken place. And why is that? Because for one thing, that is one of the core requirements of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, that this kind of transparency absolutely must be included in the development of the MCC proposal for the partner countries.

I was recently in Nicaragua and Honduras, and there too we have roads as a major component of what we are trying to do with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And why is that important? Because that is how, in a country that is heavily reliant on agriculture, that is how you get products to market. You can't get the products from the farms up in the hills and in the valleys if you don't have roads, secondary roads and main roads, to bring those things to market. So that is why it is an important part of this. But it is not about taking things away from peasants, and this is certainly not about multinational mining companies. It is not about building a superhighway. This is not a four- lane or six-lane. It is a two-lane road, a two-lane paved road that will be good for trucks to carry things on for products to go to market. And importantly, there are 150 miles of tertiary farm to road markets that spread out from this central highway that bring the products in from the little villages and the farms to this highway and then bring it to the markets where it can either be sold in the major cities of El Salvador, or it can be shipped into international commerce, not just to the United States, but regionally, where it can travel on the highways in the region and help to develop the economy of this region. This is the kind of thing that we ought to be trying to encourage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

With all due respect to my good friend, this road is about helping a poor gold mining company more than it is about helping the people. We know what the stated purpose is: to connect small farmers to a larger market. Yet gold mining, a process that releases cyanide into the environment, is going to result in serious environmental damage, and it is going to displace the farming communities that depend on clean water and land.

So you help the gold mining operations move forward and you effectively eradicate farming in that area, which is exactly the opposite of what we are being told. And if the purpose of the highway is to help the poor in the northern region, then why are those same poor and those who work with the poor opposed to the construction of the highway?

I have here a photo from a newspaper in the area that shows a huge protest against construction of the highway, among other things, by people in the Chalatenango area, a poor area in the north which will be affected by the highway. The Catholic Diocese of Chalatenango, as well as Caritas, El Salvador, a Catholic relief organization that works with the poor and oppressed, they are marching in protest to this road that is supposed to be being built for them. There are so many other groups that are opposed to this. I submit the following list for the Record.

Other groups opposed to construction of the highway include

the SHARE Foundation; Committee in Solidarity with the People

of El Salvador (CISPES); Unidad Ecologica Salvadorena, an

umbrella group of 32 environmental organizations in El

Salvador; the Association of Communities for the Development

of Chalatenango, an association of 100 villages and 22

municipalities; the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network

(SEEN); among others.

Furthermore, not only is the northern region of El Salvador home to half of El Salvador's poorest areas, but it also contains the main source of water and biodiversity in this Lempa River Basin.

So you have got the degrading environmental impact of gold mining, and it is going to have a negative consequence for the whole area; and El Salvador is going to end up having to borrow other money to complete the highway. They will end up getting loans from the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to finance the rest of the project, get into worse debt and have that debt paid off by the poor. This is a nightmare.

I repeat: the people of the United States are building a highway in El Salvador for the benefit of two gold mining companies while gold is about $800 an ounce and these companies could build their own road with a couple of truckloads of gold. Why in the world, when we have bridges falling apart in America, when we have chuckholes all over our highways, when we can't even repair our own infrastructure, are we ready to fork over a couple hundred million dollars, principally to help gold mine companies from Canada? This is insane.

So friends, Republicans, and budget hawks, lend me your ears. Reject this plan to fund a road for gold miners, and support the Kucinich amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will close very quickly. Let me just say that the gentleman may be right that there are some groups that oppose this; but every single mayor, every single elected mayor in those villages and those towns shown on the map that he just showed there of El Salvador has voted in favor of this during the consultative process. Every single elected mayor has come out in favor of this.

The economic analysis of this has shown that it has about a 20 percent return on the rate of investment. This is the kind of thing that is going to help farmers and businessmen and others who have been too long isolated in this region. In addition to markets, the project connects people with better education, better health care, and better futures for themselves and for their children.

So I struggle to see how this amendment is against the people of El Salvador. It is not for mining companies. It is for the farmers; it is for the poor people. It is about not only their livelihood, but it is about their education, it is about their health care.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment would be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I certainly would intend to try to work to resolve this problem within the degree to which the foreign operations appropriation can do that with foreign countries. But coming from a ranching background and being a rancher myself, I would certainly agree this is a problem that is important.

If I might, I understand that you are prepared to withdraw the amendment. If that is the case, then I will not need to insist on my point of order.

I appreciate the exchange with the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, certainly the thrust of this amendment is a good one and what he is attempting to do with this is very good. I have some concerns about the cuts, continuing to cut in what is a very limited increase for the O&E for USAID. But having said that, at this time I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas. I understand she has some comments she would like to make.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that would focus on not having any funds be made available in this act to be used to assist any foreign government in enforcing any religious law that has the effect of punishing a victim of sexual assault or rape.

This is an area and an issue that has a heavy burden in many of our Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Middle East and North Africa, and as well incidents that have occurred in Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey.

Of course, many of these are our strong allies. However, I think it is befitting and important for this Congress to make a very strong statement.

For example, in South Africa, a woman is raped every 26 seconds. In South Africa, a woman is killed every 6 days. Bangladesh shows vigilantism against women for a perceived moral transgression. In Pakistan, a woman by the name of Dr. Shazia, a 32-year-old Pakistani physician, is no longer in that country after being raped because of some problems with the judicial system, although the government has expressed support for her and I hope that she will be able to come back to testify against the particular culprit. Because of the religious codes that surround these incidences, women are not protected.

My amendment will simply go on record, Mr. Chairman, to say that we are paying attention to this issue, we are concerned about it, and, of course, we want to be able to address it.

I would hope that in the statement of managers, as we move toward the Senate, we would be able to express our concern, in particular, about this unique issue

And, Mr. Chairman, if I might add, as you well know, I have just recently returned from Afghanistan, and had many, many women surround me, many of them elected officials, the newly elected parliament which we are excited about, has a high percentage of women.

These women said to me directly in general Chambers, we are afraid to go back to our provinces. I want to make sure that the security funds for Afghanistan have a particular sensitivity to the security of women elected officials after returning to their provinces and are fearful for their lives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Let me just say gentlewoman has been a leader in this field. I appreciate the fact that she has brought this issue to the attention of this subcommittee and to this body.

There is no question that the treatment of women, as it relates to reproductive rights and their treatment in their relationships with their husbands and with others is horrific in many countries, and certainly violates all of the standards that we would consider minimal in this country.

Clearly there needs to be, in our appropriations, and in the money that we spend on foreign assistance programs, there needs to be an understanding of this issue. There needs to be a sensitivity to it.

And I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has brought this to our attention. I think by having this dialogue here today, we emphasize to USAID and to all of our mission directors around the world, that this is something that we believe they should be very much focused on, to be sure that the treatment of women in their respective countries, balancing, balancing the secular rights with the religious law that exists in some of these countries, balancing that, that we protect the rights of women, the basic human rights of women in these countries.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly believe that this subcommittee should work to that end. I know that my colleague, the ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, has been very dedicated to doing this. And so together, as we move into conference, we will continue to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, for her commitment to this issue here.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I appreciate again the good work that she has done in this area, and certainly in our subcommittee, she has asked for some consideration in the conference for language, and certainly we will want to consider that. I do appreciate that.

If the gentlewoman is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I would not have to insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

I would make the point of order unless the gentleman would like to say anything further before I make my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as I have the right to close and I am the only speaker on my side, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, in fact, I think this amendment would be defeated unanimously if people understood what it is really about. It is not about big oil companies. It is not about supporting big oil companies. It is about supporting usually small suppliers, small U.S. manufacturers that work in the large, huge energy industry around the world. So I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

We are looking at one of the largest projects, in fact it is the largest infrastructure project in the world today at Saklan Island. The reserves there are larger than the North Slope. They are larger than the Gulf of Mexico. These are huge possible reserves.

Now, if we are concerned about energy in this country, if we are concerned about oil and gas in this country and having enough gasoline to run our cars, we ought to be concerned about developing this. And if we are concerned about making sure we have environmental protections for a project like this, we want to have some participation in this project, and that is exactly what the funding from OPEC and Ex-Im Bank allows us to do to have that kind of participation.

The gentleman made some comment about even though it is not the Saklan project about PEMEX, but there again PEMEX in Mexico, that is the state-owned oil industry in Mexico. There is nothing in here about supporting PEMEX. It is about supporting American business contractors, American manufacturers that export to PEMEX, that sell pipe, that sell drill equipment, that sell rigs, that sell all kinds of things. It is about keeping jobs here in the United States. That is what this is about and that is what it is about with the Saklan Island project as well.

This is absolutely not the right way to go. And, again, if we want to have some participation in this, if we want to make sure that this project is done the right way, we want to be sure that Export-Import Bank is involved with supporting those small suppliers that he was not talking about, supporting those contractors, those business people, because that helps us to participate in this.

It is really not so much about the big company, the ExxonMobil and the Kelloggs. It is about companies like Solar Turbines Incorporated, about S & P Steel Products. This is why we have the Ex-Im Bank to support these kinds of exports to other countries, to support jobs here in the United States. That is exactly what the Export-Import Bank is about, jobs here in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right way to proceed, and I hope that my colleagues will soundly defeated this amendment. If you are concerned about energy, if you are concerned about gas prices, and you want to develop in a reasonable way reserves of energy overseas and if you want to support American manufacturers and American jobs, defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I take the time in opposition, and I will spend even less time than the gentleman from Colorado did as we both go out the door here, and we will follow each other out the door of this distinguished body.

I want to say to him that I would say the same thing about him, the kind words he said about me. He has had very distinguished service here in this body, and he is a person that is known for his integrity and his commitment to principles. One of those commitments is the holding down spending, and it is something that all of us could heed from time to time.

However, having said that, I would oppose this amendment for the obvious reasons, but I think that we have a carefully crafted bill and a $213 million across-the-board cut from every account would have some devastating impacts in certain areas.

For that reason, as much as I respect the gentleman from Colorado, I would oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to move to strike the last word and give a 5-minute speech, but I sense a sense of urgency here. So, Mr. Chairman, I simply move the committee do now rise and report the bill. And I thank the Members for their comments.

But let me say, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5522, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. And I get the chance tonight at your quasi-graduation, your finishing exercise, tonight to say a few more words to you so I will save most of the thoughts I have, which probably are not terribly profound anyhow, until this evening.

I did want to be here on the floor. I think it is appropriate, as a matter of fact, that this is the last time I will speak to you and the last vote that you got to see was on Congressman Kolbe's appropriations bill for foreign operations. So you can say the last set of votes the last day was spent on the floor with Congressman Kolbe in the

debate on the bill that he was responsible for.

It has been a great pleasure. It gives me an added sentimental value to this occasion.

I think most of you know that I have a special relationship with the page program that stems from the fact that I started as a page. Albeit as some of you know it was over on that other side in that other body over there, but you will forgive me for that. At that time it was really run as one single program.

I have to say that the page experience, as you can probably tell from where I am standing today, is one of those things, those experiences that had a profound change on my life. But having started here as a page, I promised Peggy and Miss Ivester and the others that I would not tell you all the stories about the things that I did, that we did as a page. So I promised not to tell you the story about how we hauled the English teacher's Volkswagon bug up the steps of the Library of Congress and planted it in the middle of the platform up there. And I promised not to tell you about the story of how we faked the suicide of one of the pages jumping from the balcony and there was a page spread out down below.

There was no question that almost all of us in the page program would not have survived the mentorship.

I promised not to tell you those kinds of things. Fortunately, it is on your last day anyhow, so you are probably not going to find time to do too many of those things today.

The gentleman from Illinois was talking about the celebrity sightings. Some people would think there are celebrities enough here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and with all the joint sessions that we have. But I remember not too long ago when I had that actor. What's his name? Oh, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie down in my office down below here on the first floor just below the Chamber here.

When I finished the meeting and came out, there were a bunch of secretaries and few pages there with their cameras, and I thought, wonderful, they want pictures of me. But no, none of them were interested at all in having a picture with me. It was this actor and actress that were there.

So I guess we know that really Members of Congress are pretty second- rate when it comes to celebrity sightings, and sometimes maybe we are just a little bit of chopped liver.

But I do want to say to you that this experience obviously is one that you may not realize it now, but you are going to carry away with you some very important things, some things that will change your life in ways that you probably cannot even imagine right now.

It does not mean that all of you are going into politics, because probably only a handful of you might. As a matter of fact, in my graduating class at the page school, we went all the way through high school in those days. In my graduating class, I am the only one that ultimately stayed in elective politics.

But there, it does not matter. This experience will make a difference to you. It will make a difference not only in your school and make a difference not only in the way you look on things and events in the world, but hopefully will make you more of a citizen of the world and a citizen of the United States, and I think this is the important thing.

Many people ask us why do we continue this program. Let us face it. We could do this a lot easier with a lot less expense if we just contracted out and hired some people to serve as messengers, but year after year, the Congress of the United States supports this program for young men and women, and through the course of the more than 150, or really almost 200 years, several thousand young men and women like you have come through this program and had this experience because we think it makes a difference, and we think that your experience becomes the experience of the future leaders of the United States.

So I hope that whatever you do when you go back, you will think about this program, and, of course, you will think about your friends, the friendships you have made here and you will maintain those friendships and you will come back for your reunions. You always come back for the first year reunion, 5-year reunion, 10-year reunion. It is wonderful to have these friendships, but you will also remember what you learned here and you will incorporate into your daily lives and into the thinking of whatever you do, if you are in business, if you become a physician, if you become a lawyer, if you become a teacher. All of these things will be valuable to you.

So you have had a rare, rare experience, and I hope that you can appreciate that. But I want to say now in closing how much we appreciate what you do. You make our lives just a little bit easier every day. You are the grease that makes the wheel go round without squeaking quite so much, and sometimes we take it for granted and we do not realize how much of a difference that you make in our lives and the work of this body.

So it is my great privilege to be here to say thank you to you for the wonderful job that you have done for us, and I hope that I will see many of you in the years ahead, that we will stay in touch and I will follow your career, your successful careers in business, but most important, in your lives with your families and with the people that you interact with. God bless you all and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this time, and I also want to thank him for the very kind remarks that he made a few moments ago.

As he pointed out, this will be the last regular, foreign ops appropriation bill that will be brought to the floor under my tutelage as chairman of that subcommittee. It has been a great privilege and a pleasure for the last 6 years to bring this bill to the floor. It has also been a great pleasure to work with the gentleman from Florida, who has the responsibility for foreign affairs issues in the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule. I will be very brief because I will make most of my remarks during the debate, when we get to general debate on the bill itself, but I do rise in support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 5522, which is the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for foreign operations, export financing and related programs.

As has been pointed out, the total in this bill is $21.3 billion. That is $597 million over the amount provided in fiscal year 2006, not counting supplementals; but it is fully $2.4 billion below the President's request. This means that there is $2.4 billion elsewhere in the budget for critical needs. The gentleman from Florida on the other side also spoke about some of those. Whether we are talking about veterans care or education or health programs, it is $2.4 billion that is freed up by the fact that our allocation has been reduced, and yet our allocation is still more than 5 percent over the amount that we had last year, and I think it is a fair amount.

We are once again faced with difficult choices in developing this recommendation because we are significantly below the President's request. The President's budget request had significant increases for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for HIV/AIDS, and reconstruction and stabilization efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While no one got everything they wanted, the recommendation I think strikes a difficult balance among the competing priorities, and at the same time fiscally responsible.

Our priority has been to increase funding for the war on terror. We have also increased the Millennium Challenge Corporation by about $245 million, enough of an increase to make clear our commitment to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We believe the MCC is working. We believe they are doing the right thing, and we are going to continue on a path towards increasing it as a vehicle for delivering foreign assistance around the world. We have also increased international health spending, and those are the three priorities which lie at the core of U.S. interests abroad.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5522 is a package of foreign assistance which has been formed by experience. It funds programs that are accountable and transparent; and most importantly, it helps to secure and protect the United States abroad. It was developed in a bipartisan manner, and I believe that it should have wide support on the floor of the House.

This is a fairly standard rule. It is an open rule, allowing for amendments; and we have a number of amendments which will be discussed here later today. I expect a thorough and complete debate on a number of areas of U.S. foreign policy, and I believe that this will be the House of Representatives at its finest hour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5522, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to present to the House of Representatives H.R. 5522, the fiscal year 2007 appropriation bills for foreign operations, export financing and related programs. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am pleased to have you back in the Chair for I am not sure how many of the consecutive years since I have been doing this bill that you have been there, but it feels very good to have you back with us.

Before I turn to the bill, let me just mention that this is the last appropriations bill that I will be bringing to the floor, at least the last regular foreign operations appropriations bill.

As with nearly every other foreign operations bill over the last 6 years, this bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation, something I could not have done without the support and cooperation of my esteemed ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, or my vice chairman, Mr. Sherwood and every member of the subcommittee.

I am proud of this bill. I can honestly say it has probably been one of the more difficult ones that we have put together. The bill before you totals $21.3 billion. While this level is $597 million above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006, not counting supplementals, it is fully $2.4 billion below the amount requested by the President. In other words, by reducing the allocation by $2.4 billion, we have freed up that amount for pressing domestic needs.

The bill includes increases for three priorities, the war on terror, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and international health spending, priorities which lie at the core of the United States interests abroad. For the war on terror, this bill includes $962.3 million for Afghanistan. This amount is $137 million below the President's request, but $85 million over fiscal year 2006.

As with last year's bill, this bill continues a provision that withholds $385 million until the Afghan government, both at national and local levels, fully cooperates with our efforts against narcotics production and trafficking. I want to be clear that I appreciate the support of the government of Afghanistan in the war on terror. However, that government must take difficult but necessary measures to fight narcotics production and trafficking, measures that it has so far been unwilling or unable to take.

The bill also includes $521.9 million for Iraq. While below the President's request, it represents a very large increase of $461 million over what we provided in fiscal year 2006. That is because last year we required the administration to fund Iraq programs from unexpended relief and reconstruction funds that were in the very original supplemental appropriation. Now, however, these funds are nearly all expended.

This bill would normalize Iraq and Afghanistan assistance programs, moving them away from emergency supplementals that exceed budget limits.

The bill contains no funding in the economic support fund for West Bank and Gaza programs. Although the President's requested $150 million for this purpose, the request was made before Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian Authority. The subcommittee believes that humanitarian assistance must continue to the Palestinian people, a view, I might add, that is shared by the Israeli government and by the administration.

Such funding is not affected by this bill. It does contain humanitarian pro democracy funding with restrictions and safeguards that have been included in the past.

For international health, the bill contains the President's requested amount of $3.4 billion for the emergency plan for AIDS relief, and increase of $751.6 million. Within this sum, we more than double the President's request for a contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, to attain last year's level of $444.5 million.

At the same time, I am pleased that the bill maintains last year's funding levels for other health programs, including an increase for malaria programs of $243 million. For several years now the President's budget request has included deep cuts to international health programs. We have worked hard to restore them to at least the level of the previous year.

In order to bring these accounts back up, we have had to cut some other programs that are also priority programs. We provide $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, but that is $1 billion below the request of the President. It is $248 million above the amount that we provided in 2006.

This is a difficult decision for me, but I saw no way to move forward with a bill that gave the full amount that the President asked for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. My goal was very simple, I wanted to send a clear message that Congress supports the MCCs innovative, accountable approach to help countries move away from reliance on donor funding. I think a $248 million increase does send that very clear message, while it frees up funds above that level that enables us to bring before you today a bipartisan bill.

The bill contains two important innovations. First, it includes a Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund which consolidates trade capacity funding from a variety of accounts. This new account includes $522 million, virtually all of what is spent for trade capacity by agencies and accounts that are under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. And it is about half of the $1.3 billion that is spent on a government-wide basis.

Since we will now require a coherent strategy for the use of these funds, it is my hope and my belief that this new account will provide a strong incentive for countries to liberalize their trade regimes.

This bill would also restructure assistance to Colombia, formerly provided only through the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI. I want to be very clear about one point. This

bill does not cut funding from the President's request for Colombia.

It simply reallocates the funds requested and appropriated to regular assistance accounts. It begins to treat Colombia as we treat other strategic partners.

I think it should be clear to all of us by this time that Colombia has made significant progress in the war on drugs. They are now bringing guerilla forces in from the jungle, they are prosecuting those who are implicated in serious crimes, and they are reintegrating others back into society. Coca interdiction, although not eradication, but interdiction, continues to improve. I spoke with Speaker Hastert, who years ago fathered the legislation creating the ACI, about this reformulation of assistance. It has his support. The Colombian government also supports this move. It is time to recognize both successes of Colombia and its strategic importance to the region.

Finally, this bill includes the President's full request for Israel and for Egypt, our two partners of longstanding in the Middle East. Report language from previous years is continued directing $50 million of Egypt Economic Support Fund assistance to be used for democracy and another $50 million for education. Other language, again the same as last year, would withhold expenditures until Egypt implements financial sector reforms. Importantly, this bill would also rescind $200 million from unexpended balances made available for Egypt in previous years.

In closing, let me say, again, it has been a great pleasure to work with my distinguished colleague, ranking member on the minority side, Mrs. Lowey, who I have the greatest respect and affection for. It has been a pleasure to work with her and with her staff, with Beth Tritter and Nisha Desai. And I don't want to neglect mentioning the fine work of the majority staff, Betsy Phillips, Rob Blair, Craig Higgins, Delia Scott, and Lori Maes, and also Todd Calongne, a USAID fellow working on my personal staff. They are all competent, professional, and a joy to work with. The work that we have accomplished together, and I want to underscore the word ``together,'' has helped make America more secure. It has improved the lives of millions throughout the world.

We have accomplished much over these last 6 years. My colleagues have often heard me say that foreign assistance is a vital component of United States economic and security interests, to say nothing of the humanitarian imperative. And while two significant initiatives were begun under my watch, the Emergency Plan For Aids Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the changes we have implemented in 6 years of appropriations run even deeper. We have worked to direct our nonsecurity foreign assistance around three primary issues, which I believe are at the heart of global development: Health, trade, and governance. This bill continues that direction.

In 2001, international HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis spending from these accounts was $535 million. Today, just 5 years later, we are at $3.4 billion. With these steady increases, we have provided life-saving medicines to hundreds of thousands of people in the developing world, people who are still alive to take care of their children and be productive members of their economies, thanks to the antiretroviral drugs that we are now providing to them and other important therapies. As importantly, these are people who now live with hope, and I believe that people with hope are less likely to be attracted to crime and violence.

The New Trade Capacity Enhancement fund will place trade where it belongs, at the center of our international development agenda. Without trade, sustained global development is simply not possible. This new account will provide further incentives for countries to enter constructive trade agreements with the United States and others. It will also help to ensure that the right programs and policies are in place to make sure the poor are not left behind as economies improve.

Finally, the bill provides further support, as I mentioned, to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I see as our best hope for weaning countries from foreign assistance. The MCC provides another set of incentives to countries to make the correct policy decisions, policies which improve rule of law and economic policies, investments in the health and education of people.

I am proud to have served in this institution, and I am especially proud of the work of this committee and this subcommittee. The package of foreign assistance before you is built on a solid basis of experience, funds programs that are more accountable and transparent, and, most importantly, helps to protect U.S. security at home and abroad. It is an example of the good that can be accomplished with a bipartisan effort, and I can think of no arena more important for a unified American voice than in foreign affairs.

Mr. Chairman, fellow members, I am pleased to submit this bill and urge your favorable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN06.006

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has identified a problem that we think is absolutely of critical importance. We have moved from, I believe, no money just in 2003 to 1 million to 5 million to $7 million in this year, so I think we are moving very substantially in this area.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The report accompanying H.R. 5522 does indicate the committee's awareness of the Gift of Life International's Project Iraqi Hearts. It is an initiative that should be thoroughly explored. The ranking minority member and I are both committed to working with the gentleman from New York to ensure that this proposal gets careful consideration from the Department of State and USAID. Specific funds have not been set aside, but if review by State and AID show the program can deliver results that save lives, it would have the committees's strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, a very important Member who has contributed much to the work of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Kansas for his discussion on this very important subject, and certainly as the subcommittee was crafting this bill, we acknowledge how important these issues are.

I want to assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to pay close attention to the reports from USAID of possible and confirmed violations of this amendment. We also will work with the USAID to ensure the timely reporting of violations if, and when, they occur.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a member of the House International Relations Committee for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for the statement you have just made and

your commitment to the international environment.

As you pointed out, I have in the past supported the mission of the GEF. I had the opportunity to sit down with the CEO of the GEF, Mr. Good, to engage in some very good discussions about their reforms and also on their programs in the past.

I have in the past been concerned about the pace of reform at the GEF. Last year, the House withheld funding for the GEF because it had not completed reforms associated with the third replenishment when our bill came to the floor. There were subsequent agreements that allowed us, in the end, to fund the GEF fully last year.

It is my understanding the GEF has now adopted the reforms sought by the committee and the administration for the fourth replenishment. We will certainly take this into consideration when we meet with the Senate in conference on this bill. In order to facilitate this, I urge the administration to consider a budget amendment requesting additional funds should they decide that is appropriate.

I thank the gentleman again for his commitment to GEF and the environment and will work with him as the bill moves through the process.

If I am correct, I think I have 30 seconds remaining, and I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's comments and strong support for ECESP. We will have those discussions with USAID to emphasize the importance of continuing ECESP activities in Albania and Macedonia this fiscal year to shape future utilization of ECESP's expertise.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take that much time, but let me just respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin and let me just say that he has been very cooperative, and I appreciate very much his cooperation in trying to work out some time limitations so that we could work our way through this bill in an orderly fashion, and hopefully in a timely fashion, and get everybody home at a reasonable hour.

With the number of amendments that we have, it does not appear that we can get any kind of a unanimous consent agreement that would allow us to finish the bill by the time that the gentleman has said that he would prefer us to be out and not considering major issues of appropriations of taxpayers' dollars after the hour of 10 o'clock at night.

So it is beyond my pay grade at this point to decide how we proceed, whether or not we do agree to a unanimous

consent agreement to have some limitation on the time of amendments and stop at a reasonable time tonight, or whether we simply plunge on through without any kind of agreement and get as far as we can tonight, which will certainly be much shorter, but we will not get nearly as far or nearly as fast.

So I am hoping the leadership, that is not on this floor at this time, will shortly be able to come back to us with some understanding of how we are going to proceed, and I hope we can just move on and do the reading, and we will get to amendments as we can here.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, if the gentleman would be prepared to proceed in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I would just rise to say that I am prepared, if the gentlewoman will keep her remarks very short, to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the kind of amendment that we are going to hear a great deal about this afternoon and this evening. It is the kind of amendment that if the world were different, if we lived in a world

with unlimited resources, it would be wonderful to say ``yes'' to an amendment like this.

But, of course, we do not live in a world of unlimited resources. As described in general debate, the allocation for our bill is $2.4 billion below the amount requested by the President, and certainly lower even than what all Members would like to see in the bill.

We have $1.29 billion for development assistance. That is $12 million above what the President requested. So in this particular area, despite the fact that we are $2 billion below the President's request, we have actually exceeded the amount in this area. It is equal to the amount we provided in fiscal year 2006 once you adjust for the trade capacity funds that have been moved to the new account.

We have some very tough choices that we have to make in this bill, and yet we have provided at least steady funding levels for the Development Assistance Account.

Now, the difficult part of this amendment is where the money comes out of. The gentleman says it is more important to provide safe drinking water than it is to make military sales to other countries. I would agree with that statement certainly when it is phrased that way. But I think it is important, and the gentleman understand, that of the $4 billion that we have in our bill for military assistance, foreign military financing, all but $900 million is designated for countries. It is designated to Egypt, Israel, Jordan and some for Colombia, and a couple of other countries. But there is only $900 million that is not designated.

The gentleman's amendment takes this money out of it, but does not touch the earmarks, of course; and so it comes out of that $900 million that is left. What he is doing is taking the money away from a handful of countries which would absolutely decimate the handful of countries left. You would be talking about taking away the small amounts of money that we give to such countries as Armenia, the substantial amounts that we give to Pakistan, Turkey, the small amounts that we give to countries like Liberia and Ethiopia. All of it would come out of the funds that go to those countries, which money is important, very important in terms of their security, very important in terms of their international obligations. In many cases, it goes for things so those countries can meet their international obligations towards peacekeeping forces.

So the amendment is going to reduce funding out of 68 small country programs which would have to be cut by 50 percent or more in each of those cases in order to accommodate the gentleman's amendment. I think to do this would be absolutely irresponsible on the part of the House of Representatives, and we should not allow this to happen.

Let me conclude by saying what we have done on water programs in this legislation. We have directed the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide not less than $50 million from the development assistance accounts to build wells in rural areas and to secure water systems in urban areas of Africa and communities that lack access to fresh water.

In addition, we have language, bill language within the Development Assistance Account, that mandates $20 million specifically for water programs in East Africa, and that of course is where we know the need is the very greatest.

These directives, these mandates, will double the fiscal year 2006 allocation for Africa in the Development Assistance Account. No one, certainly not the least of whom is me, doubts the need to provide clean, safe water for drinking around the world. I believe this bill as presented to the House helps us deliver on that promise.

Does it do everything we would like it to do? No. But in so many other areas, this bill so necessarily falls shorts, as do other appropriations bills.

This amendment is not the right way to proceed and the consequences for the small countries that rely importantly on our foreign military financing programs and are affected by this reduction would be absolutely drastic. I would urge my colleagues to defeat this well- meaning amendment, but with consequences that are quite dire to the effect of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and I say so with the greatest respect to my colleague David Obey. Often on this floor, we say things about each other and we say things because it is the oil that helps make this place move forward, but I do have the greatest respect for him and I believe he has been a great part of this institution, it has been a privilege to serve with him. We just differ on this amendment. We had a very good debate in the full Appropriations Committee on this, and I hope the debate this afternoon will be as constructive and as good as the debate that we had in the committee.

We both agree that Egypt should strive toward greater democracy and greater freedoms, and I believe the approach taken by this amendment is the wrong approach.

Mr. Obey suggests that we would take $100 million of funding in economic support funds from Egypt. The intent is to take these funds from the amounts that are designated as budget support for Egypt. These are the funds that are transferred to Egypt when it successfully completes certain financial sector reforms. In other words, we have put benchmarks in front and said the money can't be released until they meet these reforms. As they meet these reforms, the money is then released. This would then take the money away from that, reducing that incentive to make these kinds of reforms.

The funds that are targeted by this amendment support one of our strongest allies in this region. And I say that very carefully, one of our strategic partners, our very strong allies in this region, to help them meet the memorandum of understanding that we made in March of 2005 about these financial sector reforms.

Last month in the same kind of debate that we had in Committee, the Secretary of State said in a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, ``Reducing U.S. assistance would seriously damage our partnership as well as the broader strategic interests of the United States.'' And she also went on to state, ``We firmly believe the U.S. assistance to Egypt could continue at the full level requested by the administration, and ask your support for that request.''

In the past, the ranking member Mr. Obey has himself recognized this when he has stated on the floor his support for the funding for Egypt. Now, I recognize and he could argue quite correctly, times have changed, there are different things that have happened, and he could say this is a different source of funds perhaps from it. But nonetheless, he himself has recognized the importance of Egypt as an ally.

While it is sometimes important to dispense tough love by withholding or eliminating funds, we also have to ensure that Egypt remains allied with the United States as a leading moderate nation within the Middle East. And I believe that, in this case, any attempt to pressure Egypt into hastening its transition to democracy could push this country away from the United States and allow another foreign power to gain a foothold in the region that could be very detrimental not only to our interests, but to the interest of peace in the region. This certainly would not be good for any of us.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that is before us today already has a $200 million rescission in funds for Egypt in the economic support fund. So for those who want to make this claim, the bill already has sent a signal to the Egyptians, and I think this amendment just simply piles on. It is overkill, in my opinion.

As in the programs that would receive funds with the Obey amendment, he would put some of it to the global HIV/AIDS initiative. I don't believe that anybody could claim that we have not supported this program or provided all the funds that could reasonably and effectively be spent. In fact, this bill has a total of $3.4 billion for HIV/AIDS programs. The President's request, $750 million increase over the 2006 level, this is the largest increase in this bill, and that demonstrates how much I think all of us on this committee and in this body care about fighting the HIV/AIDS. To increase it by another $50 million is simply not necessary and doesn't do anything more to meet in any way, certainly not as much as it detracts from the strategic interests that we have in Egypt.

The second area is in the international disaster and famine assistance, and this is a contingency count for uses when disaster strikes. In this bill there is a total of $348 million, again, the President's request for this account. The supplemental that 2 days ago was considered by the House and Senate conferees includes an additional $161 million for IDFA to accommodate emergencies that have recently arisen. We have done what I think is the responsible thing in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Obey-Lantos amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to correct some statements that were made by previous speakers with regard to the International Republican Institute having been denied the ability to operate in Egypt. I have the privilege of serving on the board of the IRI, and I did speak yesterday to the president of the IRI.

There has been some disagreement, some misunderstanding, I think, really in terms of the registration process for the IRI in Egypt, but it is the belief of the President of the IRI that this is going to be worked out very shortly. But we do not believe it will, in any way, affect the programs of IRI in Egypt.

So I think he would agree, and certainly I would suggest to you that $100 million whack at Egypt over the slowness of registering an organization, an NGO that has engaged in democracy building, is a little bit of an overkill.

That leads me to my larger point, and this has been a bipartisan debate, and we have seen speakers here on both sides of the aisle speaking against this amendment and appreciate my colleagues who have come to the floor to make the points about how important Egypt is as a strategic partner.

That is the bottom line here. Egypt is a strategic partner. Egypt is a country that is in transition as we speak. Everybody knows that we are moving on to a post-Mubarak age. The question is, where do we want to be 10 years from now? Where do we want Egypt to be? Where do we want to be with regard to our relationship with Egypt. I would suggest to you that Egypt which has been since 1979, with the Camp David Accord, the key part of our strategic effort to achieve peace in the Middle East, that this would not be the time, this would not be the way to achieve that, to continue on that path by kicking sand in the face of Egypt.

This is not the right move, Mr. Chairman. This is not the way to go about this. We need to continue this strategic partnership. We need to continue to say to Egypt, we do expect you to reform. We do expect these kinds of political reforms to be made. We will work with you and we will stand with you and we will stand with the people of Egypt to make these reforms. And

we are glad that you have moved towards the multi-party presidential election. We are glad some of these things are happening. We expect more to be done, but we are not going to achieve that if we do not continue the partnership. If we jerk the rug out from under them, if we take away that partnership, we can hardly expect that to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I hope in just a moment here that we will be able to have the committee rise and we will have a unanimous consent agreement to propound. But let me say before that moment that I do think this debate that we have just concluded has been a very constructive debate, a very productive one.

As I said in the committee, I hope that our friends in Egypt, whether they are here in the United States or whether they are listening to this abroad, have taken some message from this debate that we have just had on the question of our relationship with Egypt and the support and the strategic partnership which we all recognize as an important one. But I hope the message that our friends in Egypt take from this is that democracy is about this kind of a debate.

In a democracy, you not only allow this kind of debate, you encourage it. What we hope to be able to say to our friends in Egypt is that this debate is an important one, and we have had a very constructive debate that I believe is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5522 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 851, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. McGovern regarding Andean counterdrug funding, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. McGovern regarding a funding limitation on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding funding for Ireland;

An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding INCLE funding for Mexico;

An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding Child Survival and Health program;

An amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for Haiti, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for Haiti;

An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding INCLE funding;

An amendment by Ms. Berkley to strike the waiver authority in section 544 of the bill;

An amendment by Ms. Berkley to strike the waiver authority in section 550 of the bill;

An amendment by Ms. Berkley to strike the waiver authority in section 555 of the bill;

An amendment by Mr. McHenry to strike the waiver authority in section 581 of the bill;

An amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding section 583 of the bill and certain waiver authority;

An amendment by Mr. Terry regarding funding limitation on importation of counterfeit goods and services;

An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding funding limitation on Saudi Arabia, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on ESF funds to Mexico;

An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave regarding funding limitation on importation of U.S. beef;

An amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding funding limitation on Northern Transnational Highway in El Salvador;

An amendment by Mr. Poe regarding funding limitation on countries that do not accept the transfer of certain individuals issued a Final Removal Order by ICE;

An amendment by Mr. Poe regarding reduction of funds in the bill;

An amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding funding limitation on Ex-Im Bank approval of an application related to oil and gas field development project, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on IMET funds for the Government of Chad;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on Pakistanian enforcement of the Offence of Zina ordinance of 1979;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding authorization of funds for security activities in Afghanistan;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding limitation on IMET funds for child soldiers;

An amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding funding limitation on the use of INCLE funds;

An amendment by Mr. Culberson regarding funding limitation on assistance to Mexico;

An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding reduction of funds in the bill; and

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Kolbe regarding funding levels.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Programs, and Related Programs may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Flake amendment regarding the GEDAC Packaged Gas Engine-Driven Heat Pump Development. I appreciate the attention that my fellow Arizonan has brought to the issue of so-called ``earmarks.'' I share his passion for limited, responsible government. We have seen instances in which inappropriate or even corrupt projects have been funded in appropriation, authorization and tax bills and we must ensure that all of the bills we pass--appropriations bills, authorization bills and tax bills--fund only projects that can stand up to scrutiny.

However, the GEDAC Heat Pump project is a project that deserves our support and will help us to find solutions to our country's energy and water needs. Specifically, this project will allow for the continued development of natural gas-based heat pump technology that saving both energy and water resources. When completed, this will be the first small packaged system available in the United States. The technology is broadly applicable throughout the country, and it provides a number of benefits, including greater energy efficiency and water savings. The technology will not only save energy but will save water, which is important to Arizona. If successful, it could displace central station power generation which uses approximately a gallon of water per kilowatt generated. It is in line with the President's efforts to address climate change by developing technologies that having significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It also is in line with the President's efforts to utilize domestic energy resources.

None of the money in this particular project goes to private industry. Every dime of it goes to the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL has a sophisticated facility for testing that private industry cannot afford to replicate every time it has a new idea.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern that we fund only those projects that can withstand serious scrutiny. But this project stands up to scrutiny and deserves our support. I urge a no vote on the Flake amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the following votes because I was traveling on a congressional delegation to Egypt: S. 1235, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act, as amended (No. 177). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' H.R. 3858, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (No. 178). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the following votes because I was traveling with President Bush to Arizona:

H. Res. 818, on ordering the previous question, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes (#160). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

H. Res. 818, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5386) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes (#161). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

H. Res. 795, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006 (#162). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Weiner of New York amendment (#163). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to Poe of Texas amendments (en bloc) (#164). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Pallone of New Jersey amendment (#165). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Beauprez of Colorado amendment (#166). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Hinchey of New York amendment (#167). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

H.R. 5386, on agreeing to the Chabot of Ohio amendment (#168). Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Iran Freedom Support Act. We are at a crucial point in U.S. relations with Iran. The U.S. must insist that they stop the nuclear programs, respect international regulations, and end harboring of any terrorist or terrorist funding organizations.

I support my colleagues in taking up this piece of legislation. I urge a yes vote. However, I believe a few changes and improvements to the legislation need to be made before it is sent to the President.

One concern is that section 202 of this bill sanctions companies in the countries who are

working with us to oppose Iran's nuclear program. These sanctions have a potential to split our allies, aiding Iran, something I'm sure supporters of this bill would not want to do. Congress and the President should have a united front against Iran and enacting legislation that threatens that unity is not in our best interests.

Additionally, Title II urges managers of U.S. pension plans to divest stocks of companies that report investments in Iran's energy sector. These provisions could negatively affect the smooth functioning of U.S. capital markets and the savings and investment flows that are essential to economic growth.

We must send Iran a strong signal with a united front. I urge passage of this bill because we must address the very real threat of the nuclear arms race in the Middle East stemming from Iran's irresponsible actions. The current regime in Iran must be held accountable for its threatening behavior even as we support a transition to democracy and tolerance in Iran.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4916 authorizing a replenishment of the Enterprise Fund for the Americas.

The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) was created in 1993 as part of the `Enterprise for the Americas' initiative to provide technical assistance in Latin American and Caribbean countries to stimulate innovation and economic growth. The objective of the fund is to use grants and investments to develop micro enterprises, build worker skills, strengthen environmental management and improve the functions of financial markets. I'm pleased to be able to say that the Multilateral Investment Fund has been a model of reform and transparency for other multilateral banks of reform and transparency. The Fund has aggressively embraced transparency in it's work. It is on the front line of change in a development sector where indictments of ineffectiveness are most often heard.

Experience demonstrates that private sector development agencies can be a powerful and transformative development tool. In Poland and across central Europe these types of funds have helped build small and medium size businesses, created jobs, changed the economic environment and helped establish a middle class. Given the rapidly deteriorating political condition in Latin America, we need every arrow in our quiver if we are to demonstrate to countries in our hemisphere the inherent value of open market--both political and economic.

In the preceding 4 years, Congress provided almost $72 million for the MIF. Although the U.S. has pledged $150 million over the next six years for MIF II, meeting that commitment will depend on budget constraints and shifting spending priorities. There are many competing needs in the fiscal year 2007 budget and it will be no different In following budget years. It is, however, worth noting that our pledge has leveraged thus far an additional $352 million from 36 other countries.

We need to be innovative in our development work if we are to increase trade and build small and medium size businesses. The Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund helps to achieve these goals. I support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the full committee for yielding to me for purposes of this colloquy. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I particularly thank him for his longstanding effort on behalf of West African nations and the people of West Africa, and certainly Liberia. I share his concern about a long lasting peace for Liberia, as I know all in this body do, and we also share the concern that Charles Taylor represents a threat to everything that the United States is trying to accomplish through its aid efforts and its commitment of troops to bring about peace and stability in Liberia.

I will tell the gentleman as this process unfolds, the committee has been and will continue to closely monitor developments with Charles Taylor.

I think I have some good news I can bring to the gentleman. Just before this series of votes, Mrs. Lowey, my ranking member, and I completed a meeting with President Sirleaf, who, of course, addressed this body yesterday. We asked this question specifically, will there be an extradition request? I asked it three times, and got the same answer three times, that it has been done. She used the word ``done'' three times. So the request for extradition has been done. We believe and she has said that he needs to be brought to justice in an appropriate court.

So the request to the President of Liberia has been made. She went on to tell us that President Olusegun is now consulting with African leaders from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African Countries, ECOWAS, to make sure that the extradition will not in any way destabilize

the very fragile peace that now exists there. Once that is done, we would expect to see this accomplished.

The request for extradition has been done, and we will continue to remain engaged and watch this very, very closely, as this process of the supplemental unfolds.