Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for organizing this time for us to pay our respects to a man who has had a profound impact on our world and a profound impact on the oppressed throughout this world.

We feel sad because of our loss, but this is natural. But we should, in fact, rejoice, for I have no doubt that this great son of Poland has ascended into heaven and has been welcomed home by our Lord, whom he did so much to serve with his life that he was given.

We should not dwell on our loss, but we should rejoice for all the years we were privileged to know him, to see him, to hear him, and to learn from his example. We should rejoice in the strength he had inspired by his faith and conviction to suffer through Parkinson's for so many years, to survive an assassination attempt, and the unsurpassed Christian spirit to confront his nearly successful assassin and forgive him and pray with him, and to know that he is at peace now with the Heavenly Father he so nobly and humbly served.

It is difficult to remember what the world was like before we had the example of our Pope a scant 27 years ago. The year he was chosen, Iranian protests were brewing that would lead to the imminent fall of the Shah, usher in the ayatollahs, and produce an era of war and terror. The Soviet Union was jailing religious dissidents and staging coups such as that which they nurtured in Afghanistan and followed with a full-fledged invasion.

Before John Paul II, we did not yet have the vision and the leadership of

Ronald Reagan nor of Margaret Thatcher, who, together with them, he would usher in the end to the Cold War. We were told that the West was in irreversible decline, and that the freedom bequeathed to us as an inalienable right, preserved and protected by the wisdom of the people assembled in democratic government, had failed. The peoples of the world were being told that individual dignities should be subjugated to the collective. It seemed that the only religion was that of the state, and that it was to the state that people thought we should direct our worship.

A young Pole named Lech Walesa had not yet dreamed that a simple concept like solidarity could overcome the awesome forces of fear and oppression that were the Soviet system; that is, until another son of Poland had ascended to the throne of St. Peter and did what he would do for the rest of his life: He provided the world with a brilliant example of the best of humanity.

John Paul II knew better than the conventional wisdom of the intelligentsia, of those who had surrendered their birthright, who had chosen to obey the commands of the state, who had ceased to recognize the demands of the respect for human dignity.

He believed that communism would fall and freedom reign, because communism at its core represented a false understanding of human nature. He knew that totalitarianism in all of its forms would fall. He was in a position to know this because of the cruel and harsh experience he gained having seen them both up front and close as a youth, as Poland was plagued by both Nazi fascism and then communism.

He saw from an up-close vantage what is possible when authority is perverted to a philosophy contemptuous of life. He wrote to a friend, while a cardinal, that a degradation, indeed a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person was at the heart of the sickness in the human heart that made the tragedies of the 20th century possible; that when this happens, as it did in the totalitarianism ideologies of communism and fascism, the result was the unnatural death of 120 million people in Europe and Asia.

This truth is epitomized in an image seared in the collective memory of the world, when the Pope went to the Holy Land, bowed in remembrance over the memorial flame in Yad Vashem, the Jewish Holocaust memorial.

The experience of this youth informed his mission as a Pontiff and was made possible because of his indomitable faith in the Creator.

He fiercely pursued an agenda that life in all of its forms is sacred because it is created by God, especially human life, which is created in his image. Stalin once derisively remarked that the Pope was a relatively powerless person, a mere figurehead, once famously asking an aide, how many divisions does he have?

Stalin never had to come to face John Paul II, but later communist leaders would come to know the danger posed by this man and what he represented on Earth and in heaven. They knew that if the Church led by this man was not dealt with sooner or later, it would destroy them throughout the world where the people would travel to places where people were trapped under communism, and totalitarianism parts of the world that did not dare have hope until they saw John Paul II.

The power was understood by those tyrants who feared that John Paul II would come to them, would visit their land and inspire those people. This was understood by the communist masters of Poland, when the newly installed Pope made his first visit there in 1979, returning to the land of his youth, of his first flock as a young priest.

The Soviet system knew that it had met its match when one-third of all of the people in Poland turned out to witness the homecoming of their native son. The only thing for the Soviets to do was to tremble, and the trembling that started that day did not end until the Berlin Wall came down 12 years later.

The last few outposts of repression that remain in our world today deeply fear the loss of their power by the words and the actions of a simple man who would bring a measure of freedom. It was a simple, yet eternal, message of faith in the almighty. It almost defies our pitiful ability to comprehend just how different the world is today as we celebrate this man's life and mourn our having lost him.

On my bookshelf at home I have a well-read book of George Geigel's biography of John Paul II titled, I think appropriately, ``Witness to Hope.'' Billions of people around the world saw this man in that way, whether in the full vigor of his youthful pontificate or in his advanced years. For billions of people around the world, the sight of this man was to see hope. He stood for Catholicism and all of the principles; yet he was appreciated by all people around the world.

Here was a man who, while standing for his faith, brought the essence of freedom to everyone unapologetically. His 26-year Papacy saw him take this message to every corner of the world. He was seen by more of his flock than perhaps all of his 263 predecessors combined. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. He took the time to learn at least a few phrases in over 100 different languages just so that he could communicate his message of hope at every place that he visited.

His message of human dignity is understood in every language, and it was understood in every land he saw during the generation he served humanity and God as the bishop of Rome.

In one of his many writings, he argued that humanity is right to seed freedom, but only if it is a freedom that is used to do justice. And justice, as he reminded us, is to confer, preserve, protect, prolong, and give meaning and value to life.

The spread of freedom will continue unabated in his absence. It will continue to inspire by his example as America leads a providential mission that humanity will only know peace and prosperity when every one of God's children knows the freedom and enjoys the dignity bestowed on them by their heavenly Father.

We thank our heavenly Father that we were able to know this man and to benefit by his love for us and the love of God. We will profit and do service to our children if we remember the words of this man who will soon be known across history as John Paul the Great.

Freedom has continually to be won; it cannot merely be possessed. It comes as a gift, but can only be kept with a struggle. Gift and struggle are written into pages, hidden yet open.

Mr. Speaker, since I was a child and to this very day on the floor of the House I have been guided by a fundamental principle that we as men and women, indeed, we as a society will be judged according to how we treat the most vulnerable amongst us. That is the issue we face today. I believe Terri Schiavo's case must be judged in that context.

For me the following points are the most important: Terri left no living will or written instructions; Terri's mom and dad, the people that have loved her the longest and have fought so valiantly for her, want responsibility for their daughter. I spoke with her brother who wants his parents to be able to protect his sister.

Terri's life has value and worth, and we must do everything we can to protect her rights and those of other disabled people here in America. The law ought not to provide, should not provide, more protection for murderers guilty of terrible crimes than for an innocent woman lying in a Florida hospital bed. So today we must act on behalf of Terri Schiavo. Congress must act on behalf of all of those who cannot speak for themselves and defend themselves.

Americans believe in a culture of life, not a culture that tells the weak and vulnerable there is no place for them at the table. There must be a place for them at our table. We make progress towards that culture of life, one life at a time, one heart at a time. Today let us start by helping Terri Schiavo live.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima and pay tribute to a fellow Minnesotan and true America hero, Cpl. Charles W. Lindberg. In a manner that is so characteristic of our veterans, Cpl. Lindberg put his life in harm's way so that future generations may live in a world free of the oppressive forces of tyranny. On the morning of the fifth day of this historic battle, six courageous young Marines--Jim Michels, Hank Hansen, Louis Charlo, Boots Thomas, Harold Schrier, and Charles Lindberg--were able to climb atop the slopes of Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima, in the thick of intense enemy fire and destroy a Japanese outpost, marking the first plot of native Japanese soil captured by the Americans during World War II. It was here that these five brave soldiers planted the first

American flag on Iwo Jima. Later, this scene was recreated by the rising of a second American flag on Iwo Jima, forever to be remembered in our nation's history by Joe Rosenthal's Pulitzer Prize winning photograph and the famous statue in Arlington National Cemetery. Unfortunately, Cpl. Lindberg is the sole remaining survivor of this fearless group of initial Marines. However, as is the case with so many of our veterans, Cpl. Lindberg's dedication to our country did not end after the completion of his military service. Through his involvement in efforts to improve our country and the lives of soldiers, Cpl. Lindberg has and continues to be devoted to veterans, veterans' organizations, and his community. With much admiration, I salute this American patriot for his valiant spirit and actions on and off the battlefield.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment addresses the big issues surrounding this year's road bill. How do we meet expanding capacity? How do we do so without increasing taxes or expanding the deficit? How do we address an over reliance on the gas tax? The degree to which the FAST Act, introduced by myself and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), attracted strong bipartisan support reflects the success in addressing these issues; by expanding capacity, by removing an outdated prohibition against charging fees on the interstate, and preserving the trust of the driving public by doing so only if the fees are charged on new lanes, so we have new concrete or tar; charge electronically, so there are no toll booths; and the fees go away when construction and maintenance costs have been provided for.

The use of these optional lanes would be optional to drivers, and the program is optional for States to use and does not impact their funding allocations. It is estimated that the FAST provisions could provide $50 billion in additional capacity over the road bill period without increasing taxes or expanding the deficit.

The FAST Act had 73 bipartisan cosponsors. Both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the new Democrat Progressive Policy Institute have written favorably about it. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to reflect FAST concepts in H.R. 3. I have been very open with him about my intent to offer this amendment, but the concerns we have with H.R. 3 are that it is drafted so that it limits the ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-like section to only three projects and, in that way, gives States far less flexibility than they deserve. It limits the ability to increase capacity by limiting its FAST-lane section to only three projects, as I said; allows tolls to be charged on existing lanes in both 1209, in sections 1603 and 1604; and allows those tolls to be charged indefinitely under those programs. It allows revenues under these programs to be diverted to a variety of nonuser purposes.

Long-term FAST-style fee lanes can be a major solution to relieving congestion, but only if we preserve the trust of the driving public. The provisions included in TEA-LU could lead to the same distrust and resistance that has resulted in every recent State referendum on increases in gas tax being defeated. When used with FAST-style protections, it has been accepted by drivers, as witnessed by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Star Tribune poll showing 69 in support of FAST.

Frankly, many States around the country are using FAST. This amendment authorizes variable congestion tolls on existing roads and on newly-constructed lanes, and I would just recommend to my colleagues that we adopt this capacity-expanding, State-empowering, maintaining- the-trust-of-the-driving-public amendment.

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

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

When I listen to the gentleman from Oregon, I am always trying to figure out whether we are on the same page or on a different page because I would agree we need to give States more flexibility.

First of all, Mr. Poole pulled his name off the letter the gentleman referred to when they saw the actual wording on our amendment.

Second, value pricing would have more use, I am convinced, at the end of the 6-year road period under our amendment than under the existing language. We allow value pricing on existing toll roads. We allow value pricing on HOV to HOT conversions under our amendment, different than last year. And we would allow value pricing, congestion pricing on all new FAST lanes which we do not limit to three as the very highly restrictive draft put forth by the committee, but would allow an unlimited amount using value pricing if States so wish because we grant them that flexibility if it meets those simple criteria to honor the trust of the driving public.

I appreciate very much the good work that AASHTO does, but I have never really viewed them as a highway-user organization; they are a highway building and constructing organization.

Those that are supporting the Kennedy-Smith amendment is the Highway Users Association, is the American Truckers Association which makes this their top priority, is the 108,000 small business owner-operator individual drivers of America, is AAA. All of those are the preeminent highway users, as well as it is supported by those that believe we ought to be fiscally responsible and we ought to honor the trust of the driving public, whether we are talking about Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and many others.

Mr. Chairman, this is pro-capacity, and this is pro-give-States- flexibility, and this is to make sure that we add more construction and add more capacity to our lanes.

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

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

I respect the leadership of the chairman and his commitment to work to try to figure out whether we can have tolls be part of the solution in a fiscally responsible way. I would suggest it is not every DOT that is opposing it. Minnesota is supporting it. With regard to Texas, all eight projects in Texas have allowed that they are working on doing this.

Our amendment allows more capacity because instead of restricting FAST-type lanes to only three projects around the country, there can be an unlimited number in place around the country. This frankly gives more capacity, not less. Katie Freeway, for example, is one of those that allows. Highway Interstate 69 that they are trying to build is allowed. There may be some misinformation that is being spread on this.

I would also like to address some of the information that may have come from the committee suggesting this is an anti-tolling amendment. This is a responsible expansion of fee-type lanes being built and would allow for more than the underlying amendment. This does give, maybe in different ways than the committee drafted, but more flexibility to the States. It also allows more lanes to be built.

If the goal is to put tolls on existing lanes, which we restrict further in this amendment, there is ability to put more tolls in existing lanes in the committee draft. But if the question is whether we can put more tolls on new expansion of highway capacity, there is unquestionably greater flexibility offered under this amendment.

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

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

First of all, there was a statement of opposition from the State of Texas without really seeing our amendment, and so I have a call in and have not yet had a return call from the commissioner in Texas. We would be happy to work with them to make sure they have the flexibility they need. This provides more flexibility. I would agree with the chairman, we want to be having an expansion of construction using these types of lanes, which is what we are for. But a big part of the disagreement is whether we want to put a toll on existing lanes and just make it more painful to drive, or whether we want to actually build and add construction and add capacity and use fee-type revenues to help facilitate that expansion, which this unquestionably would add significantly more of. I encourage support of the amendment.

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

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

I would just respond, I agree with the gentlewoman. We ought to be giving more capacity to the States. Our amendment provides that, estimated by a study done by Mr. Poole, of, I would say, $50 billion. So we are turning away, by opposing this amendment, the $50 billion it could generate.

This is really a debate about whether we want to toll existing lanes and just bring in more revenue, or whether we want to add capacity. The Kennedy amendment adds more capacity.

In closing, I would just reiterate to try to clarify some of the factual errors that have potentially been espoused on behalf of this amendment. First of all, we do not affect existing tollways in the least. We do not effect the HOV to HOT conversions. We allow the three projects that were currently in law to allow new expansions, conversion of existing lanes to tolls. But beyond that, we put a limit so we stop the further expansion of just putting tolls on existing lanes, and we unquestionably provide far more authority than the underlying bill to add new lanes, new tar, and new concrete because the existing bill only limits it to three projects where there is an unlimited amount of increased projects funded by fees, providing they are new lanes charged electronically so there are no toll booths, and fees go away when it is paid for.

Again, I plead with Members to look at the underlying facts of the bill and look at the ones that are supported by highway users across the board and look at the ones supported by those looking for responsible government.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the 80th wedding anniversary of Clarence and Mayme Vail of Hugo, Minnesota.

Eighty-two years ago, Clarence and Mayme met when Clarence's family moved to Hugo and he joined Mayme's eighth grade class. Clarence and Mayme were the only two from this class to continue into high school, though they both left school early a few years later. They left for a good reason: to get married. Although the couple heard people say that they were too young to be married--he was eighteen and she was just sixteen--they began their wedded lives together on February 17, 1925.

For the first few years they were married, Clarence and Mayme lived in the telephone office where Mayme's mother worked. Their first children were born in that office. Since then, Clarence and Mayme have lived in two homes, both in Hugo, and they now have six children, 39 grandchildren, 98 great-grandchildren, and 32 great-great grandchildren.

Before retiring, Clarence worked as a machine and tools salesman, and after their children were older Mayme worked at the local grocery store. Now, in their retirement, Clarence and Mayme spend their time reading, playing cards, and attending church every morning. Mayme also enjoys making quilts for local charities.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Clarence and Mayme Vail on their 80th wedding anniversary as an example which we should all try to follow. Clarence and Mayme have been married for a near-record number of years, and it is likely that they hold the record for being the longest-married couple in Minnesota history. I admire the love and dedication which this couple has shared for so many years, and I wish them many more years of happiness together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th birthday of Wright County, located in East Central Minnesota. Bordered on the north by the Mississippi River and the east by the Crow River, Wright County was founded on February 20, 1855, 3 years before Minnesota became the 32nd state. The Big Woods, as Wright County was called then, was inhabited by 504 pioneers from across Europe, as well as Native Americans from the Dakota and Winnebago Nations.

Wright County was a part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The Homestead Act of 1862 accelerated settlement of the area, and people arrived from across America and Europe. When the pioneers arrived in Wright County, they found the ``Big Woods'' moniker to be an apt description of the territory--a place covered with elm, basswood, sugar maple, ash and red oak. The county grew steadily, but travel was difficult because people could only clear a few acres of trees a year. The construction of the railroad had the biggest impact on the county, as farmers could get their goods to market faster and people could move with greater ease. Today, the county has a population of over 100,000 and is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Minnesota.

Eventually, the Big Woods region came to be called Wright County in honor of Silas Wright, a former Congressman, Senator and Governor from New York State. Buffalo was established as the county seat in 1873. Most of Wright County's early residents were involved in agriculture, and appreciation for the county's vast natural resources carries on today. There are nearly 2800 acres of land devoted to the nearly 30 county parks. Residents also make use of the 298 lakes within the borders of Wright County, swimming and boating in the summer and ice fishing in the winter.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud resident of Wright County, I am pleased to honor a place so rich in Minnesota history and culture on the occasion of its 150th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up as a minority; not in the traditional sense, but as an Irish Catholic in the land of Scandinavian Lutherans. The option of attending Catholic schools was not really available to my family, until we attended

college. When that time came, my parents sent all seven of their children to the nearby Catholic Benedictine schools of St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict, a formidable feat given my father's salary from the local small-town insurance agency.

My first real encounter with Catholic elementary and secondary students was my interactions with the graduates from Catholic schools that I went to school with at St. John's. I was universally impressed by the quality of these students. They were not only well prepared for college, but they were friendly to a country hick like me. They were courteous, kind, respectful, caring. They say that you can tell a tree by its fruits. By this measure, I assumed Catholic schools must be great.

Then I sat in on a conversation in a dorm room with three graduates of Catholic high schools reminiscing on their high school experience. One of these students was so cynical about his Catholic education that I resolved never to send my children to Catholic school. Well, it turns out the cynical student became a priest, and so I changed my mind. Catholic schools really do nurture one's faith.

My next exposure to Catholic schools came when I attended graduate business school. We did a case study on a sports program there for a Catholic high school, and I will never forget how the room erupted into laughter when a fellow student proposed a solution that assumed that the Catholic schools would not be able to afford to invest in their extracurricular activities. Indeed, my fellow students already knew what I learned: that Catholic schools have great extracurricular programs, not just in sports, but in music, theater, math league, speech team, and much more.

My wife Debbie and I have four wonderful children. They have been able to experience the best of both worlds. They all graduated from Watertown Mayer Public Middle School and experienced the great public education that my wife and I received in Minnesota, but they also chose to attend Catholic high schools and get not just a great education, but be able to talk about how God influences the world around us and history as well.

We are pleased to see that they were nurtured in the Catholic spirit of helping others. They participate in many programs to help those in need. My daughter organized a food drive for Mary's Place, an outreach for the needy while she was at Holy Family Catholic High School. Emily collected enough from her fellow students to fill up our van.

They have kept that spirit alive even after graduating from high school and going on to college. Our son Charles, a graduate of St. John's Prep School, led a group of students from the University of Notre Dame to lend a hand in Appalachia last spring break, forgoing the more pleasurable trip further south. Catholic schools really do teach students to care.

Catholic schools provide a great education to 2.5 million students across America and have a student-teacher ratio that averages 15 to 1. I can attest to a quality education with two of our children now attending the University of Notre Dame. More than 26 percent of the students enrolled in Catholic schools are from minority backgrounds, and nearly 14 percent are non-Catholics. Catholic schools have done an extraordinary job of reaching out to disadvantaged youth throughout the country.

This week has been designated as Catholic Schools Week. The theme for Catholic Schools Week this year is ``Faith in Every Student.'' Tomorrow is National Appreciation Day for Catholic Schools, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my resolution that commends our Catholic schools and the teachers, parents, and religious communities that support them for their service to our Nation's youth.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor the 100th birthday of the Minnesota State Capitol. The Capitol first opened its doors on January 2, 1905 and on January 2, 2005, over 6,000 people attended the first of a full year's worth of birthday celebrations.

The Minnesota State Legislature first met in a log hotel when Minnesota was declared a territory in 1849. The first Capitol building was built in 1853, but burned in 1881. The second, built in 1882, was erected on the same downtown St. Paul site as the first. As Minnesota's population grew, officials realized that the building would soon be too small to house the Legislators and a new building would be needed. In 1895, Cass Gilbert from St. Paul was selected to design the new building. It took nine years and $4.5 million to complete construction of the new capitol, which is still in use today.

Today, the Minnesota State Capitol building is more than just a place for the Legislature. It is a museum dedicated to preserving Minnesota's history. Its many priceless artifacts

detailing Minnesota's past include flags that were carried by Minnesotans who served in the Civil War and statues of influential Minnesota political figures.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 100 years the Minnesota State Capitol has served as a place of government, history and learning. As a fourth generation Minnesotan whose ancestors were well established in the state when this capitol was built, I am pleased to be able to help honor it today as a lasting symbol of the spirit of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the dedication of an historical marker where the Red River Ox Cart Trail once passed through the city of Anoka, Minnesota.

More than 150 years ago, the Red River Ox Cart Trail served as one of the main channels used by traders from Canada into St. Paul, Minnesota. The first of many ox cart trains on this trail was brought from Canada in 1844 by Norman W. Kittson, a trader for the American Fur Company, and within 20 years an annual amount of more than $250,000 worth of pelts, food and other goods were being transported in this manner to St. Paul, where some of the goods would be unloaded, repacked and sent down the Mississippi River to St. Louis, Missouri for shipment east.

The carts used on this trail were unmistakable--large and wooden with six-foot wheels held together with wood pegs and rawhide, which produced a loud squealing sound that could be heard from miles away. The carts and their drivers, in their blue outfits adorned with brass buttons, red sashes and beaded caps became a familiar sight in St. Paul, where, after a 30-day trip from the Red River, the drivers would re-load their carts with food, medicine, hardware, and other goods before they returned northward.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize today's dedication of an historical marker where history literally drove through Anoka, Minnesota. The use of this trail and others like it helped create a thriving shipping economy in Minnesota, which was sustained well after ox carts were replaced by the railroads. Today's dedication is the result of much hard work. I applaud Anoka's Heritage Preservation Society in keeping a piece of Minnesota's rich history alive.

Offered By: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

Amendment No. 4: Page 33, line 24, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

Page 89, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. This is about innovation that drives our economy. So many businesses have stock options as a primary tool to get the innovative juices of their employees going. It also really helps align the employees of the company with the interests of the company, moving it forward, helping it to be competitive.

This is a prime source of our innovation and success here in America. We do not need to limit it beyond the top five officers, as this does. If we went ahead with expensing stock options, the volatility and uncertainty, I think, would end the use of stock options and be detrimental to our economy.

So I do believe that we have to move forward to protect this innovative source of energy in our economy, keep our small businesses creating the new jobs of the future, keep America at the cutting edge, keep employees motivated and aligned with the interests of their enterprises, and this, in the end, will be good for America and good the American economy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman for his great work on foreign relations. I share his great concern with the fact that half the people in this world live on less than $2 a day, that half the people in this world have not made a phone call, that one-fifth of the people do not have safe drinking water, and that 115 million children do not have a school to go to.

We need to, with this crisis out there, have a razor-sharp focus on results, not dollars spent. We need to demand results from our aid programs, not try to comfort ourselves by saying that we spent some dollars on certain programs.

What this amendment does is it takes $425 million out of our contribution for this year to the World Bank, which has a poor track record of delivering results. The World Bank is far too much focused on process, as opposed to performance. They might record how many schools they built, but they are not focusing on how many children we have really educated. They may focus on what water treatments they have helped fund but not on how many families are really getting clean water from them.

They already do have sufficient capital to expand their programs. We put this money, $90 million of it, into the global AIDS initiative, which has a proven track record. It meets this year's commitment of our $15 billion plan that we have approved as a Congress. There are millions of orphans throughout Africa because of the AIDS epidemic. This is a horrible pandemic. It threatens the stability of the continent. It must be addressed.

We also put $215 million into the Millennium Challenge Account. Today in this bill only half of the President's request is funded. This gets us part of the way there. The Millennium Challenge Account has criteria that ensure results. They make sure that the countries that we are investing in rule justly, that they invest in their people, that they pursue free enterprise, economic freedom. There is substantial evidence that exists that shows that countries that do this have growing standard of livings, that they are more likely to eat better, live longer, have children in school rather than working in the fields, speak, assemble, worship more freely. They are three times more likely to elect their governments democratically, and they are less likely to fight wars.

It would be mistaken to say that this amendment reduced investments in aid. We indeed invest in a proven AIDS initiative. It is also mistaken to say that it is designated towards AIDS funds within IDA. IDA can continue their AIDS program with the capital they have already, and the MCA encourages health care spending. It is also mistaken to say that this reduces investment in Africa. The AIDS program is for Africa, and over half of the first 16 countries chosen for the Millennium Challenge Accounts were part of Sub-Saharan Africa.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote to support putting our dollars where the results are, in fighting AIDS, in

fighting other diseases, in fighting hunger and poverty.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

I would just like to respond to the distinguished ranking member and my distinguished fellow Member from Minnesota. This is not a debate as to whether we give to the poorest countries on Earth, whether we give to sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases IDA gives, yes, to the poorest countries but so does the Millennium Challenge Account. In fact, the Millennium Challenge Account is required to go to the 74 poorest countries. If you look at the 16 countries that were included in the initial allocation, Madagascar, one of the ones my fellow colleagues mentioned, is a recipient of the Millennium Challenge Account as is Benin and Cape Verde and Ghana and Lesotho and Mali and Mozambique and Senegal. So we are addressing sub-Saharan Africa. We are addressing AIDS. We are doing it again in a way that focuses on results, that focuses on making sure we are making a difference for the poorest people in the world.

I do encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

Amendment No. 11: In title II, in the item relating to

``millennium challenge corporation'', after the aggregate

dollar amount insert ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.

In title II, in the item relating to ``global hiv/aids

initiative'', after the aggregate dollar amount insert

``(increased by $90,000,000)''.

In title IV, in the item relating to ``contribution to the

international development association'', after the dollar

amount insert ``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2507, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. Federal child nutrition programs were conceived to offer wholesome meals and snacks to children in need, and to support the health of lower-income pregnant women, new mothers, and their young children. Federal child nutrition programs touch the lives of countless children. The National School Lunch Program alone serves an average of 29 million children each school day. Fifty-eight percent of these children receive a nutritious lunch each school day for free or at a reduced price. Nearly eleven million children also take part in school breakfast, after- school snacks, and summer meals. These programs provide an extraordinary opportunity to send a strong, consistent message to children about maintaining a healthy, active lifestyle.

Along with nutritional provisions, this legislation works to streamline the eligibility criteria and paperwork parents and guardians need to participate. For schools, lunch certifications will now be valid for a full year. Additionally, parents will be allowed to submit a single application for multiple children, and to file school lunch applications electronically. And, eligible children whose parents live in privatized military housing will continue to receive free- or reduced-price meals.

This bill also addresses the Women, Infant and Children program commonly know as WIC. This important program helps safeguard the health of nutritionally at-risk pregnant women and new mothers, infants, and children up to age five. It provides vital nutrient-dense foods to supplement diets, along with nutrition education and referrals for health care and other social services. WIC is based on the premise that early intervention programs can prevent future medical and developmental problems in at-risk individuals. The success of WIC is well documented. Participation in WIC has led to better pregnancy outcomes--fewer infant deaths, fewer premature births, and increased birth weights. Through this legislation, WIC is authorized through 2009 and a number of enhancements are made to program access and operations.

Finally, this bill also ensures that supplemental foods available through WIC are consistent with current nutritional science, a key link in fighting youth obesity. Mr. Speaker, The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act will help strengthen and improve all these programs which are so valuable to children and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my strong support for this legislation's important language on the creation of a ``Democracy Caucus'' at the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing crisis at the UN. This crisis is the decline in the UN's focus on building democracies and spreading freedom throughout the world. Increasingly, the UN is becoming dominated by non- and, in far too many cases, anti-democratic governments. For example, the 191 members of the United Nations, 102 do not have completely free and democratic governments. 47 members are notorious dictatorships. 6 are even known terrorist states.

As the UN has lost its focus on promoting democracy, scandal has plagued the organization. Take the Oil-for-Food program. The world, particularly the Iraqi people, is waiting to learn the magnitude of corruption involved in the Oil for Food scandal. Credible reports allege the UN paid itself at least $1.4 billion in commissions for its work on a program that stole as much as $10 billion in food and humanitarian relief from the Iraqi people it was designed to help. This is only the latest examples of a crisis of confidence at the UN.

Nearly half of the 53 countries sitting on the UN Human Rights Commission are known violators of the human rights of their own citizens. For example, take the Sudan, which

was just reelected to the Human Rights Commission. This Is the same country that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has cited for its ongoing acts of ethnic cleansing against its people, which may result in the deaths of more than 320,000 people this year alone.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations was created by the United States and the other victors of World War II to be an instrument for world peace and democracy. Instead, since its founding, there have been 291 wars which have resulted in over 22 million deaths. The UN needs a Democracy Caucus, and it needs one now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my friend's legislation, because I share his belief that the UN system is broken. Democracies and dictatorships are not the same, yet within the UN system they have the same vote. It is time for the democracies of the world to come together to provide the leadership that has been lacking for too long in the UN.

I yield back the balance of my time.