Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The only purpose this amendment serves is to decrease access to family planning services and to mischaracterize the critical, life- saving work of Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Let me be clear. Under current law, Title X funds can not be used to pay for abortions. Nothing in the underlying bill changes that. Therefore, I am left to assume that the services the sponsor of this amendment wishes to cut include family planning, cancer screening, prenatal care and deliveries, fertility information and support groups, and support and advocacy for victims of sexual assault.

I am proud to defend the hundreds of Planned Parenthood affiliates, including the Hudson Peconic affiliate in my Congressional District. The dedicated work this affiliate and others like it engage in are the reason that more than five million men and women have access to any health care at all.

Their commitment is something that should be recognized and commended, not demonized. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Thank you to Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Walsh, and their staff for their hard work in crafting this bill.

At the start of the year, Chairman Obey asked us to consider not only the challenges of today, but those of the year ahead, and I believe the bill does just that. The bill addresses the appalling reality that 46 million people in this country lack health insurance by providing a $200 million increase for community health centers, $75 million for grants for States to develop plans to cover their uninsured, $75 million for States to create insurance pools for high-risk individuals. Furthermore, recognizing that one of the best ways to keep women healthy is to provide them with access to high-quality family planning services and other preventative health care, the bill provides a $27 million increase to the Title X family program for low-income women.

The bill acknowledges that millions of students are shut out of college for financial reasons or lack of preparation in the early years and increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $200, restores proposed cuts to supplemental education grants, and increases both GEAR UP and

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and would like to thank Representative Dicks for providing over $320 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.

Our contributions to the arts and humanities are the standard by which our history as a society will be measured. A strong public commitment to the arts and humanities, along with a dedication to freedom, is the hallmark of great civilizations. History has shown that religious and political freedoms go hand in hand with greater artistic and literary activity, and that the societies that flourish and have a lasting influence on humanity are those that encourage free expression in all of its forms. This is a lesson that resonates with people of every age, background, and belief, and one that we can guarantee our children learn.

Our support for the arts and humanities also has a profound impact on our economy. In my Congressional District, there are close to 2,000 arts-related businesses, providing more than 9,000 jobs. This creates a substantial economic impact. Nationally, the arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity, sustaining over 5.7 million jobs.

Even more significant is the return on the investment for the American taxpayer. While the federal government spent just over $250 million on the NEA and NEH in Fiscal Year 2007, it collected over $24.4 billion in tax revenue related to the arts industry. Federal funding for the NEA and NEH is crucial to the arts community, helping leverage more state, local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that investment in the arts is important not only to our national identity, but also to our national economy.

Mr. Chairman, we must act decisively to commit ourselves to our national heritage and culture, by voting to properly fund the NEA and NEH. I urge my colleagues to support creativity and reflection, to support our economy, and to support the continued growth and expression of democracy in its fullest form by rejecting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration requested an increase in economic support funds for Cuba from $9 million to $45.7 million.

Between 1996 and 2005, USAID and the Department of State signed contracts worth $74 million for Cuba programs, according to the GAO's study. The administration is asking for a 1-year, fiscal year 2008 request that is more than two-thirds the size of what was committed over the 10 years, from 1996 and 2005. This request is 500 percent of what USAID received in the last fiscal year. Given how ill-conceived and ill-managed the program is, there is no justification for an aid increase.

My friend from Florida has raised the GAO report and said that it has not recommended that funding be cut. But the objective of the report was not to recommend that funding should be increased or decreased. It was to examine the roles and objectives of the agencies implementing United States democracy assistance targeted at Cuba, and the characteristics and selection of the grantees receiving Department of State and USAID awards, the types, amounts, beneficiaries and methods used to deliver assistance for selected grantees in 2005, USAID's monitoring and oversight of these grantees, and the availability of data to evaluate whether U.S. assistance has achieved its goals.

Although I believe that this program does little to help dissidents, and very little to expand political space in Cuba, we have continued funding at the same level as provided by our former colleague, Jim Kolbe, when he chaired the subcommittee.

The bill has $9 million, and requires USAID and the Department of State to present a plan for improved coordination and for oversight of the Cuba program.

GAO concluded in a November 2006 report that ``poor monitoring and oversight of the Cuba program did not provide adequate assurance that funds were properly used.''

Administrative costs on the part of grantees were high, oversight of the goods chosen inadequate; specifically, according to the GAO study, there were instances in which cashmere sweaters, Godiva chocolates, Nintendo Gameboys, Sony Playstations were among the items purchased in the United States to be shipped to dissidents in Cuba.

The Cuba program is poorly managed and can be argued to be counterproductive. It is not a productive use of limited U.S. resources, and the result of this program is often to identify Cuban dissidents as U.S. funded opponents of the regime.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

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

Before I yield to my colleague, I would like to respond to my good friend, the ranking member, concerning his concern about the impact on the dissidents. I would daresay as an American who is proud of our values, if we open travel and communication and trade between the United States and Cuba, they would really understand what it's like to be an American. And I feel that's the best way to free the dissidents and to create an open and democratic society.

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield to my good friend, Mr. Delahunt.

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

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

With great respect for my good friend and ranking member, Mr. Wolf, we have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq, diplomatic operations and reconstruction.

In addition, there are $3 billion for unexpended IRF funds. This amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental provided $250 million for democracy activities, $67.6 million for civil society, $57.4 million for targeted development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities.

The amendment is also requesting $16 million in additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining activities. The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq.

Additionally, nowhere in this bill is there language restricting funding for humanitarian activities in Iraq. In my judgment, the administration should substantially expend the funds we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the same purposes.

And lastly, if the situation on the ground changes and our assistance can be used to make substantial achievements, we can address funding for Iraq as the President has requested, $2.893 billion in emergency appropriations for diplomatic operations and reconstruction in Iraq in fiscal year 2008.

So, my colleagues, my good friend is requesting $158 million for purposes that have already been funded in a $2.8 billion supplemental. And there is another $2.893 billion supplemental coming up in September. I know that $158 million can be used for the tremendous needs around the world.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues join me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the vice chair of this committee, my distinguished friend, Mr. Jackson.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I have a question for Mr. Boustany, my good friend, and the ranking member. I believe, Mr. Boustany, that you recommended that we fund this $158 million. Yet this amendment takes the money away from the State Department. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is doing a superb job. We just appropriated $2.8 billion in the supplemental. The American people have requested, and this Congress has requested, that we see some response to the benchmarks, that we see some response on the part of the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks that have been put in place.

So if I understand correctly, even though the supplemental funded, and I am not going to repeat it, every single category that my dear friend, the ranking member and my friend, Mr. Boustany, are advocating for, you want to fund $158 million with funds from the State Department which are supporting Ambassador Ryan Crocker and other ambassadors around the world who are doing such an amazing job representing us.

Mr. Chairman, I really think there is a disconnect here. I want you to know that for those of us who are opposing this amendment, with great respect, again, to my ranking member, we feel that the supplemental that has passed and the $2.8 billion that is coming up in September requested by the administration can address these issues if, in fact, there is an understanding that they are not being funded adequately.

So, again, I strongly object to this amendment. I strongly object to taking funds away from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and our other ambassadors around the world and representatives of the State Department.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, did the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) suggest that we decrease the money for HIV-AIDS around the world?

I thought you were suggesting that you didn't think that was a good idea; that it was more important to add to the $2.8 billion another $158 million and take it from the HIV funds. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the gentleman believes that the $2.8 billion in the supplemental is not adequate and we must add $158 million now, even though there is another $2.8 billion supplement requested by the President for the fall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

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

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, again, for our ranking member and for my friend Mr. Shays, who I know has been to Iraq many times, I do hope that in light of the supplemental, which has been funded at $2.8 billion, and an additional supplemental which will be presented to the Congress in September for another $2.8 billion, we won't cut the rug from under our good friend, the competent Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and take this $158 million from the State Department for several lines that have been funded already in the supplemental. I won't go through that again.

Mr. Ryan Crocker represents us, and I am so proud of his good work. I would like to support him and the other good men and women in the State Department around the world.

So let's defeat this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will move $1 million from the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account to the United States Institute for Peace to reconstitute the Iraq Study Group. Although I feel compelled to point out the likelihood that by the time this bill is signed into law, the study on the effectiveness of the President's surge in Iraq will have passed, but, nevertheless, I support this amendment because I feel there is value added to reconstituting the Iraq Study Group, something that our ranking member continues to deserve kudos for establishing in the first place.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by thanking Mr. Shays again and my distinguished ranking member, who deserves our praise for establishing the Iraq Study Group in the first place. I thank you both.

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

This amendment would cut $20 million from the contributions for international organizations. The question posed by this amendment is straightforward: Do you want to take funds away from an account that is saving lives every day around the world?

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year told Senate appropriators that U.N. peacekeeping was an example of the benefit of empowering partner nations, and it would cost the United States taxpayers almost eight times as much.

Of course.

I apologize, we were responding to another amendment. Would the gentleman please clarify your amendment so we can direct our debate to the appropriate amendment. Is this the one you are going to offer and withdraw?

I would be delighted to respond to you then. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment.

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

Would the gentleman from New Jersey yield?

I really do apologize to the gentleman because the order of the amendments was changed.

And international peacekeeping is very important to me, but as soon as I understand what your amendment is that you are going to withdraw, I would be delighted to comment on the gentleman's amendment.

Could the gentleman redesignate the amendment? There seems to be a question. My comments were concerning

the amendment to cut CIPA. May I have some clarification on what amendment we are discussing?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I do believe that nuclear nonproliferation must be a key focus of this committee and this Congress. In fact, in this bill because of the recommendations of so many members of our subcommittee and Members of Congress, we have increased money for nuclear nonproliferation efforts. So I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue as we move ahead.

However, I do think that your offset, taking money from U.N. dues, is actually unwise and not a very good policy decision.

Many people have criticized the U.N., want to disband the U.N., want to cut off dues to the U.N., and then when we need the U.N., they wonder: What are we going to do if we didn't have a United Nations?

I look forward to working with the gentleman from New Jersey in strengthening the committees of the U.N. and working together to face the tremendous challenges we have internationally. So I support the gentleman's concerns about nuclear nonproliferation, and I look forward to working with the gentleman; but I strongly oppose taking the money from U.N. dues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

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

This amendment would cut $203 million from our contribution to international organizations. This amendment fails to realistically address the effect our arrears have on our standing in the world community. At a time when the United States is increasingly relying on international organizations to further our security interests around the world, shortchanging our treaty-obligated contributions to these organizations undercuts our foreign policy goals and undermines our reputation around the world. It also countermands our new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's call to pay our dues in full and on time. As of today, the United States is $291 million in arrears at the U.N. for regular budget contributions alone. The United States has chosen to belong to each of these organizations. They leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars and advance a wide range of U.S. foreign policy objectives, including monitoring nuclear proliferation through the IAEA, creating norms for international telecommunications through the ITU, and fending off global pandemics through the WHO.

The administration and the Congress have underfunded and cut this account in recent years. This amendment would continue this trend. The United States has an $80 million deficit in the CIO account and the State Department is paying U.S. dues late or incurring arrears in virtually every organization in this account. Shortfalls to the CIO account in 2006 caused the State Department to pay all of its regular dues to the IAEA almost a full year late, even as we relied on that organization to track nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea; pay dues to our allies in the OECD almost a year late; pay all of our dues to the WHO about a year late, even as we asked WHO to help contain avian flu; and pay the vast majority of our regular dues to NATO a year or so late, even as we relied on that organization to shore up security in Afghanistan.

This amendment has no appreciation of the influence this increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations has on our ability to sway others and it is difficult to justify why our priorities should be given full consideration when we chronically pay our dues late. Paying these international organizations late is counterproductive to achieving United States international security goals. The increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations confounds U.S. demands for better management in them.

An example of this detrimental effect is seen at the World Health Organization which reports that the arrears owed by the United States are preventing well-managed budgets and resulting in programs not reaching optimal effectiveness for a year or more after they were planned to be fully operational. Further, other dues-paying countries take note when the United States fails to honor its commitments in these international organizations. As a result, our influence on making budgetary and policy decisions in them is lessened. For example, the U.S. consistently wants the Food and Agriculture Organization to increase its capacity to set worldwide food and plant standards, yet it is very difficult to justify why U.S. priorities for the FAO should be given full consideration when the U.S. is chronically paying its dues there about a year late.

Therefore, I strongly object to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I thank the gentleman for your important work with Mr. McCaul on this issue.

I understand the urgency and the impact of methamphetamine in your areas and the tremendous negative impact on the people you represent.

I have a problem with the offset. Therefore, if you will withdraw this amendment, I would be delighted to work with the gentlemen as we approach our conference in increasing money for this very important need.

I would say to the gentleman that in my discussions with Mr. Cuellar he is very clear about the urgency of this issue and the impact of these concerns on the citizens that you both represent.

I would be delighted to work with you. We will certainly search for funding as close to the numbers you mention as we possibly can.

Again, the only issue with this amendment was the offset, not the important need for the funding.

I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with you. I thank you for withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. International broadcasting is an essential component of our Nation's public diplomacy strategy, enjoys broad bipartisan support in our committee.

The bill before the House includes $671.6 million for the international broadcasting operations of the BBG. It restores over $30 million in cuts to BBG language services proposed in the President's budget. It includes program increases requested for high-priority areas such as $2.9 million for broadcasting to North Korea, $.5 million for enhanced broadcasting to Somalia, $1.2 million for Radio Sawa in the Middle East, $5 million to retain BBG's broadcast capability.

The matter of broadcasting to Venezuela is an emerging issue. I commend the gentleman for his amendment and join him in urging its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Skelton, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank Chairman Skelton for his hard work on this project.

We included the SIGIR provision in our appropriations bill to ensure that this subject does not fall out somewhere in the process. You and I agree completely on the importance of the SIGIR office.

I look forward to working with you to make sure that the version ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report achieves the goals our respective bills laid out. It is my intention to drop section 696 of the State, Foreign Operations appropriations act in conference so that we do not end up with competing versions of the same language.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into colloquy with Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield to Mr. Blumenauer.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue and applaud your work over the past few years. As you have stated, the committee bill increased funding for safe water by $100 million and placed priority on long-term and sustainable safe water programs.

The report provides clear direction to the agency that funding must be provided in accordance with the strategy based on the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act.

Finally, we share the gentleman's concern about the reliance on emergency programs to meet this recommendation, and will work with the agency in the coming year to ensure that this does not happen again.

I thank you for raising these issues today. I look forward to working together on this issue in the coming year.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And I know of Mr. Payne's important work on water, in Africa in general, so many other issues. And I thank you.

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

I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Payne, who is really an expert on Africa and all phases of African development, and has a keen interest in water. And I thank you for coming.

I yield 1 additional minute to Mr. Blumenauer.

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

I am pleased to yield to my good friend, Mr. Cuellar from Texas.

Thank you very much for your kind words and your important interest in this area. And I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

I agree with the intention of the amendment. And I thank my friend for raising this important issue. As we know, tuberculosis is taking a terrible toll on men, women, and children in the developing world, with approximately 3 million people dying every year. The recent highly publicized case of extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis has brought this issue to the forefront, and the additional funding of this amendment will be used to strengthen the global tuberculosis treatment and care network. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue and would be happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

I thank my good friend for your important work in Africa and for your observations.

I rise to accept this amendment, and I agree with the intention of the amendment. I really do thank my friend for raising this very important issue.

This committee made global health a priority in this fiscal year. We provided a total of $6.517 billion for global health. And I do agree with the gentlewoman that strengthening the public health infrastructure should be central to our global health strategy. So I do appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue, and I look forward to working with you.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept this amendment.

I thank the gentlewoman again for raising an important issue. I agree with the intention of the amendment. Liberia certainly has been a priority for us. And we support the very important work that the President is doing there. We provided a total of $30 million in the Development Assistance account, $30 million above the President's request, and I would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

I will yield.

I thank the gentlewoman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment because, as I have explained to Mr. Shays, I believe this is a really critical program. I would love to work with you on it.

This amendment would provide $50 million in funding for Community Action Programs. There is no funding in this particular bill for Iraqi operations and reconstruction. As I explained to the gentleman, the reason there is no funding in this bill is because of the $2.8 billion in the supplemental and the $2.8 billion requested in September for the supplemental.

I want to make it very clear that I agree with the gentleman that the Community Action Program and NGO partnership with USAID does really good work. In fact, CAP is the only program of its kind to operate outside the Green Zone in Iraq. I have been a strong supporter of their efforts. I have met with them repeatedly. I know of their good work.

By working from the community level up and assisting Iraqi moderates who have eschewed sectarian and insurgent violence, the CAP partners directly engage Iraqis in reconstructing their own communities. They create employment. They build nationwide grass-roots constituency for democracy.

Congress identified CAP as a priority when it appropriated $100 million specifically for CAP in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental. Additionally, we just provided $95 million for CAP in the 2000 supplemental. I want to make it clear to my good friend from Connecticut that we put the money in after I met personally with representatives of CAP.

I understand the important work that they are doing. I have spoken to the CAP partners. They agreed that they do not need any additional funding in the regular fiscal year 2008 bill. They tell me they have enough to continue operations. As difficult as it is there, they are continuing operations through fiscal year 2008 at the current pace of operation.

They also noted that they worked very hard to stay under the radar in Iraq, which is what makes their great achievements possible. I want to make it clear that they have no interest, from my conversations with them, they don't want to be the foil in an Iraq funding debate. We have made it clear.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear once again that the reason we are not providing additional funding and we cannot provide additional funding to the CAP in this bill is because of the $2.8 billion in the supplemental, the $2.8 billion that is being requested. The CAPs have made it clear they don't need the money now. They are operating under the radar. If we are providing zero funding for Iraq in this bill, they don't want to be part of this debate.

This is not a partisan issue. They are doing very important work. It has nothing to do with any of the other debate on Iraq. It is what is needed now. There are tremendous needs around the world that we are trying to fill in this bill.

So, again, with great respect for my good friend, Mr. Shays, we have worked together on many issues. I appreciate your concerns. I agree with your concerns, but not in this bill; and I look forward to continuing to work with you as we move ahead.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, just to address my good friend, Mr. Shays, I agree with everything you said. I agree with all the good work that the CAPs are doing.

That is why we appropriated $100 million and then another $95 million. But I want to make it clear, at least from my interaction from the CAPs, and I have had many discussions with the CAPs, they don't need the money now. They are operating under the radar. They are doing good work. And with the supplemental in 2008 that is coming up in September, they don't need the money now. They certainly welcome, if it is necessary, some additional funding to them.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and again with great respect to the gentleman from Connecticut, in my discussions with the CAP, they made it clear that they don't need money now. This is now June. We just passed a supplemental. In September there will be another supplemental. They are doing great work, and we both admire their work.

Given the tremendous needs around the world, which I know you support, be it clean water or HIV-AIDS or peacekeeping, and we can go on and on, the CAP made it clear to me that they do not need the money now. Therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment, because I do not want to take the money from any other urgent needs that exist in the world today.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to make it very clear to my good friend from Connecticut, just as they had $100 million and then an additional $95 million in the last supplemental, I certainly would intend to fund this outstanding program in the next supplemental that will be before us in September to continue their important work.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept this amendment. I thank the gentleman for his interest in basic education in Pakistan. As the gentleman knows, I have been a firm believer in basic education for a long time. The bill includes a total of $750 million for basic education programs.

The gentleman recently went to Pakistan. I had the privilege of going to Pakistan and visited the earthquake zones, and in fact I had the privilege of opening a school in the earthquake zone. These beautiful young girls looked at me and said, can you send us science teachers? Can you send us computers? We know this experience can be replicated thousands of times around the world.

So I really do appreciate the gentleman's commitment to basic education, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and accept his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the committee. This type of government-sponsored terrorism was a hallmark of Saddam Hussein's rule and cannot continue. It was endemic. Unfortunately, it seems that the practice continues, and I continue to worry that our assistance may not be benefiting the intended recipients.

I too am concerned about the plight of the Christian minority, and I am dedicated to using whatever tools we have available to ensure their rights are given due consideration.

Furthermore, I want to note for my colleagues that the recent supplemental included a requirement for a report on the ethnic and geographic distribution of the United States assistance programs reaching the Nineveh Plain region, which should give us a clearer picture of the situation facing Iraqi Christians.

I want to assure my friend that I, and I know my ranking member, who cares passionately about these issues, will work closely with the Congressman to ensure that this $10 million does go for its intended purpose of protecting the Christian minority in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure my good friend from California, and, of course, my ranking member, that we together will make it clear that this is an urgent issue, and the amendment in the committee validated the urgency of the issue. I know we will continue to work together to address this.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this up, and, of course, I respect the interest and passion of my ranking member. We will be following up, and there will be attention given to this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for an important statement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for bringing attention to these important issues. As you know, the former Chair of this committee, Mr. Kolbe, has been a leader on trade, and continues to share with us the importance of trade as we move forward in this process.

I thank you very much for focusing on his very important legacy. He was a great partner for me working together on this committee, and I also appreciate your mentioning Colombia and the fact that we changed the balance of funding in this bill, putting more resources in the Fiscalia. When I was there, it was clear to me that they didn't have enough people to enforce the law to go after the narcotraffickers, so this was an important area, in addition to increasing funding for interdiction. Justice, rule of law, interdiction, and funding for the Afro-Colombians, and we know there has been a tremendous need. Thank you for your work. I look forward to working together. I know that my colleagues realize how important these issues are as well.

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

I rise to enter into a colloquy about the need for increased funding for the United States contribution to the Comprehensive Test Ban Organization with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

I am happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that my good friend from California brought this issue to our attention.

I really want to thank you for your work on CTBTO, and I agree with you that the United States should show leadership and pay our full share of obligations that it owes to the CTBTO.

The bill tries to draw balance between the various programs funded within the nonproliferation antiterrorism account, but I understand the concerns my friend has raised and these are concerns of the committee. There are many members of the committee who are working very hard on this issue, and it is my intention to continue to work with you as the bill moves through the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, despite the best efforts of our prevention programs, the HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to grow. In 2006, 4.3 million people were infected with the virus; and for every new treatment patient in 2006, six additional people became infected with HIV. If we do not slow the pandemic, treatment costs alone in 2010 could be as high as $11 billion. Unless this trend is reversed, global efforts to expand treatment will falter and our global effort to address the pandemic will fail.

That is why it is so critical to maximize the effectiveness of the $5.062 billion for HIV/AIDS programs provided in this bill and make sure that our prevention programs work.

A recently released Institute of Medicine report entitled, ``PEPFAR Implementation,'' stated: ``The earmark has greatly limited the ability of country teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention programs that are well integrated with each other and with testing, care, and treatment programs.'' These congressionally mandated funding restrictions are hampering our overall prevention efforts.

Therefore, and I want to make it very clear to my colleague, the bill allows the President to provide funding for HIV/AIDS prevention at his discretion. It does not change the underlying PEPFAR law, nor does it require that the President change the amount of funding for any particular prevention programs. In fact, it doesn't require the President to change the programs at all. The language simply provides flexibility to design the most effective prevention programs.

Effective HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives must be designed to respond to the local social and cultural conditions. These efforts should include all available options, including abstinence programs, comprehensive prevention programs, condom distribution, and medical interventions such as male circumcision and mother-to-child prevention programs to ensure that we use every tool at our disposal to stop this deadly disease.

We know that the only solution to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is expanded and effective prevention programs. Our bill language again provides the administration with the flexibility to respond to the ever-changing pandemic in the most effective ways without the restrictions of arbitrary numerical targets.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, an expert on Africa and so many of the issues that are critical, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just like to clarify and ask either the ranking member or the gentleman a question. Number one, I'm puzzled that you don't trust the President of the United States and give him the discretion. We're not changing the law. We're just giving the President the discretion. Now, that's Number one.

Number two, I believe both gentlemen said that waivers can be issued. Of course waivers can be issued. I believe the gentlemen know that when a waiver is granted the other countries may make up the difference. So, for example, if waivers are granted to 50 percent of the countries, I think of my trip to Arusha, Tanzania. And there was a hut right in the middle of this community, a Masai village, and there were 15 huts around it. And the chief of that village went from hut to hut to hut to hut, spreading HIV/AIDS.

Now, I'd be interested to know how this would work if the waivers are granted, and many of the other communities around the world have to make up for that waiver, how would this be done.

And the gentleman, Number three, has also talked about a comprehensive program. Well, we may agree. I believe in abstinence. I think it's great. And if it can be implemented in Africa and Asia and all the other countries that are spreading HIV/AIDS like wildfire, I'm perfectly in support. But we're talking about comprehensive programs, including abstinence. And I'm glad the gentleman agrees that this should be comprehensive programs including abstinence. Would you like to respond?

No, excuse me. There's confusion in the amendment. My amendment would give the President the authority, the President of these United States, with Ambassador Dybul, to make these decisions. We're not removing anything.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

I move to strike the last word. And I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I thank the gentlelady. I believe I have 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify for my distinguished ranking member and my colleague from Pennsylvania that what this does is give the President of the United States of America the authority, the flexibility.

I believe in ABC, abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. But I want to make it very clear to my colleagues, when the administration uses the waiver, then the other countries of the world still have to meet that one-third percent when it comes to prevention, abstinence. All we're saying, again, is abstinence, be faithful, use condoms.

We have to prevent unnecessary abortions. We have to save lives. We have to make sure that we do whatever we can to prevent the spread of

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy with the distinguished former Speaker, Mr. Hastert.

Reclaiming my time, to my friend the former Speaker, I want to thank you for the collaborative way you have worked with me and our ranking member, Mr. Wolf. I would like to commend you for your many years of dedicated and unyielding work on Colombia.

I, as you, have long been deeply concerned about the situation facing us in the war on drugs. We agree that increasing drug interdiction efforts is necessary. We also agree that Colombia is a vital partner and ally of the United States.

I want to say again that I fully recognize the strategic importance of Colombia. In no way does this bill reduce our steadfast support to our friends in Colombia.

I've tried, in this bill, working with my good friend, Mr. Wolf, to strike a more balanced strategy that shifts the aid from the military and strengthens civilian governments, humanitarian assistance and rural development.

I continue to believe that we need to attack the underlying and pervasive poverty that is at the root of the problems in Colombia, as well as the region. I've attempted to increase the social component in our assistance to Colombia and begin Colombianization of the the military package and place a greater emphasis on interdiction rather than eradication.

This bill also increases funding for judges, prosecutors and rule of law and creates jobs in the legal economy.

Again, I say to my good friend from Illinois, I greatly appreciate your advice, the give-and-take you have provided as we drafted this bill. I want to assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to pay close attention to his concerns as we work through the next stages of the process.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman. And it was a pleasure working with you, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this important issue.

Announcement By the Chairman

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman. I agree that the counterterrorism financing program is a vital tool in assisting foreign countries' efforts to identify, freeze and prevent the use of financial institutions, businesses and charitable organizations as conduits for money to terrorist organizations, including giving countries an investigative ability to follow the money trail and arrest terrorists preemptively.

I support the work of the Department of State, the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury in assisting countries who are at risk to terrorist financing. However, overall budgetary constraints did not provide sufficient opportunity for us to increase the requested funding level at this time.

However, I want to assure you, this is a priority of this committee. This is a priority of this Congress. In fact, I have been a member for years of this same task force, the same committee of which you are cochair, I believe, and I look forward to working with you as the bill moves through this Congress to conference to see if we can bolster those funds.

I really do thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman and I appreciate your constancy and your passion on this issue. I know you are aware that our committee put in over $100 million above the President's request to assist the financing of the African Union mission. And I do hope that at some point in the near future we can talk with equal passion about what is being done to address this disaster.

I yield to the gentleman.

Absolutely. I thank you very, very much.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I understand the intent of this amendment, and we have worked to craft an amendment we both can accept.

As you know, I believe that the United Nations Development Program is a key partner in our efforts to address global poverty. Their programs work to spread democracy, to address global HIV/AIDS, to improve the environment, and to respond to natural disasters and crises. All of these programs are critically important and they are working.

Because of their broad mandate, they often work under very difficult circumstances, and it is their work in North Korea that has led to the recent allegations of inadequate controls on funds to North Korea. These are serious concerns and need to be addressed.

However, I want to point out to my colleagues that UNDP has reacted swiftly to these concerns by suspending its program and closing the office in North Korea. In addition, UNDP is working with its executive board to put new accountability and transparency measures in place.

In light of congressional concerns that have been raised on both sides of the aisle, I worked with the gentlelady to negotiate this agreement which reduces UNDP resources in order to provide support to the U.N. Democracy Fund and the U.N. Entrepreneurship Fund. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and accept her amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I thank the gentleman for his passion. I know you're concerned with so many issues in this bill. I appreciate your comments and I look forward to continue working together.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, through page 95, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I agree with the intention of this amendment and thank my friend for raising this very important issue. As you know, the subcommittee agrees with you that Liberia should be a priority. We support the efforts currently under way by President Johnson Sirleaf to move her country out of poverty. We provided a total of $40 million in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental and in this bill we provide a total of $106.5 million for Liberia.

We look forward to continuing to work with the gentlewoman and others in Congress to support Liberia. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and would be happy to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, under current law, the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy, prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, from receiving any U.S. assistance unless they agree not to use their own funds to perform or refer patients for abortion or to even advocate the legalization of abortion. This policy applies even when abortion is illegal in a country or when NGOs promote the legalization of abortion for cases of rape and incest.

The bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact with one important exception. It would allow for the provision of contraceptives, not direct funding, the provision of contraceptives to foreign NGOs to help reduce abortion, unintended pregnancy and the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Let me repeat that. The intent of the bill is to provide international NGOs U.S.-donated contraceptives, not funds for millions of men and women who desperately need them. The provision provides absolutely no assistance for abortion. It is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of this bill.

While I have made clear my intent to allow only for the provision of donated contraceptives, some of my colleagues have brought to my attention concerns that the language as currently written could be interpreted more broadly than intended. Therefore, to make it absolutely clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who may have concerns about the language, I am offering this amendment to my own bill to clarify the existing language by narrowing the provision in question by replacing it with the following language beginning on page 97, line 10 of the bill:

``That, in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/ AIDS, no contract or grant award exclusively for the purpose of providing donated contraceptives in developing countries shall be denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in the President's March 28, 2001 Memorandum to the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development with respect to providing contraceptives in developing countries, or any comparable administration policy regarding the provision of contraceptives.''

This amendment, which replaces the current provision in the bill with the one I just read, can leave no doubt in any reasonable individual's mind that the provision will provide contraceptives. It will not provide funding to foreign NGOs. In fact, this amendment would advance the Bush administration's stated goal of the Mexico City policy ``to make abortion more rare'' and protect women and children.

Filling the unmet need for contraceptives could prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 children from losing their mothers in just 1 year. These are statistics. How much more evidence do my colleagues need to be convinced that contraception reduces abortion, saves lives? It is simply not enough to say that you support family planning as long as the current restrictions remain in law, denying millions of the poorest men and women around the world access to contraceptives.

In my judgment, support for my amendment represents a good-faith effort to find common ground on this issue. I really do hope that we can all agree that voting against family planning and the provision of contraceptives, which my colleague from New Jersey will ask you to do in a later amendment, and against the opportunity to provide more than 200 million men and women in developing countries with access to contraceptives is the most extreme vote any of us can take.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

It is such a pleasure for me to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

I do thank my two friends and colleagues for their work on this important issue and for this opportunity to clarify the intent of the provision. I want to be very clear. The intent of this provision is only to allow for the donation of the contraceptives and not to provide funding.

While I disagree with broader interpretations of this language, I wanted to offer an amendment to clarify this provision. My amendment is crystal clear. It would only allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated contraceptives, not funds, for distribution to millions of men and women across the globe in desperate need of these products.

I hope that our discussion and my clarifying amendment that I intend to offer will alleviate any concerns that you or other Members have about the intent behind this provision.

Absolutely not. My amendment would not alter or weaken these long-standing provisions which I chose to retain in the fiscal year 2008 bill, 15 different provisions that were offered by various Members of Congress. Every provision is still in this bill that prohibits the use of U.S. tax dollars for abortion or restricts family planning.

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

I just would like to respond quickly, before I recognize Mr. Kirk, to my good friend, Mr. Wolf. As Mr. Wolf knows, no money is going to China. China has no participation in this debate at all. It's very clear. In fact, not only did we not address UNFPA in this bill, we strengthened the prohibition so that not a dime would be spent in China. So I just wanted to clarify that China has nothing to do with this debate on contraceptives.

I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a distinguished Member of this Congress from New York, Mr. Joseph Crowley.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest before I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Levin, that these provisions, the charts disappeared. If you would like to refresh your memory, there are 15 provisions that I left in this bill that make it absolutely clear that no U.S. dollars may go for abortion.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact, with one important exception. It would allow for the provision of contraceptives, not direct funding, to foreign NGOs to help reduce abortion, unintended pregnancy, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The amendment I offer today makes absolutely clear that no funding would be provided to international organizations that do not comply with the Mexico City policy. In addition, the provision provides absolutely no assistance for abortion.

This is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of the bill. Every provision in this bill has been kept there that forbids U.S. dollars going to abortion.

There are tremendous unmet needs for contraception in developing countries that most need this assistance to address population and health crises, including the spread of HIV/AIDS and unintended and high-risk pregnancies.

The global gag rule has only made matters worse for decreasing access in many countries. U.S. shipments of contraceptives have ceased to 20 developing nations, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In some areas, the largest distribution centers for contraceptives have experienced decreased access for over 50 percent of the women they serve. This decline in access to contraceptives has led to increases in unintended pregnancy and in the number of women seeking postabortion care.

It is clear that withholding contraceptives, my friends, does not reduce abortion. Providing contraceptives is the way to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. The numbers speak for themselves. Increased use of contraceptives in the last two decades has been accompanied by significant declines in abortion rates in a number of countries. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate declined by 61 percent, as has been mentioned, between 1988 and 2001, as modern contraceptive use increased by 74 percent.

Proponents of the Smith amendment will make several false claims. They

may say that this provision would provide funding or assistance for services and products other than contraceptives directly to international NGOs who are not compliant with Mexico City. It absolutely will not.

They will argue that the Smith amendment will not cut family planning funds in this bill. However, it will dramatically decrease the effectiveness of our international family planning aid by withholding contraceptives to the areas of the world that need them most to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV-AIDS.

The other side will also say that my provision encourages abortion as a means of family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is already illegal in many of the areas that would receive contraceptives under my provision, particularly in African countries. Furthermore, these organizations do not promote abortion as a means of family planning. They provide family planning to prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing abortion.

You may also hear that by providing contraceptives, these organizations will be able to use their own funds for other purposes prohibited by Mexico City. I have already made clear the incredible unmet need for contraceptives. In Uganda alone, the average number of births per woman is 7.1, while the unmet need for family planning is reported by married women at 35 percent. The bill will provide donated contraceptives, not funding, to groups that are unable to provide enough contraceptives in areas with severe shortages.

Furthermore, contraceptives are not fungible. They are used for contraception. Period. By filling the unmet need for contraceptives, each year we can prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 children from losing their mothers.

It is clear that voting for the Smith amendment and against contraceptives is an extreme position that will in fact hurt our efforts to decrease abortion. So if you really want to decrease abortion, if you really say you are for family planning, if you really want to save lives, if you really want to decrease HIV/AIDS, which is spreading throughout the world, vote no on the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), an outstanding member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Before I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds for clarification to my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel).

I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

May I ask how much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear in closing, we all may have different views about abortion. I respect your views. I may differ. Each person is entitled to their own conscience and their own views on abortion.

But this is not about abortion. Every provision forbidding U.S. dollars going to abortion is in this bill, and it remains in this bill. The choice is clear, my friend.

My amendment will provide donated contraceptives, reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, prevent HIV/AIDS, save lives, save the lives of millions of poor people around the world. This amendment will save lives. Mr. Smith's amendment will lead to more abortions, put more lives at risk.

My friend, the choice is very clear. If you want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, if you want to save lives, if you want to prevent abortion, you vote for the Lowey amendment and against the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. And I want to be clear to my colleague from Iowa we all agree that the United States should not be an occupying power in Iraq, but in no way does my acceptance of this amendment come to my or the American people's acquiescence to establishing any other kind of short- or long- term basing agreements in Iraq. But we are accepting the amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

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

My colleagues, this is a difficult and sensitive issue that the House has debated many times before in many different ways.

We all know that Egypt is an important ally of the United States. We all know that Egypt plays a very important role in the Middle East, and that role will even be more crucial in the months ahead. We all know that Egypt was the first Arab country to have made peace with Israel, and that the peace, while not nearly as warm or as forward-leaning as many of us would have liked, has held for close to 30 years. That is why Egypt has consistently received more foreign assistance in this bill than virtually any country other than Israel. And that is true of this year's bill as well.

Nevertheless, there is a frustration level with our very good ally over two key issues, the Egyptian Government's increasingly harsh response to dissent of any kind and the government's failure to take serious steps to stopping the smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.

When Israel withdrew all of its population and military forces from Gaza nearly 2 years ago, one of the biggest concerns was what to do about Gaza's border with Egypt. Some in Israel argued that Israeli forces should remain at the border to ensure that it did not become an opening to allow the smuggling of weapons and terrorists to Gaza. Those who argue that Israel needed to completely withdraw and that Egypt could effectively play that role ultimately prevailed. Israel and Egypt even reworked parts of their peace agreement to allow for an expanded Egyptian force on that border. Unfortunately, however, those forces have not done the job, have not stopped the smuggling.

As was highlighted so vividly during the recent fighting in Gaza, the forces of Hamas are very well equipped. The bulk of that equipment has come through that border. Especially now that Hamas has effectively taken over in Gaza, it is critically important that Egypt do everything within its power, including stopping these armed shipments before they even get to the Gaza border, to put an end to this deadly arms trade.

The language in the bill does not cut aid to Egypt, which many have wanted to do, I can assure you. It simply fences off a portion of Egypt's assistance, pending a report and certification by the Secretary of State that Egypt is taking steps to, one, enact a new judicial law; two, to curb police abuses; three, to detect and destroy the smuggling network into Gaza.

I believe it is a moderate and reasonable approach to two very difficult and important issues that we have discussed on numerous occasions, to no avail, with our good friends in Egypt.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to Mr. Ellison.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. For years, many Members of Congress and activists, including the Maryknoll nuns based in my congressional district, fought to shut down the School of the Americas. The school's very existence was undermining United States efforts to promote civilian control of the military and respect for human rights in Latin America.

So the Army closed the school of the Americas and reopened it a few weeks later with a new name, WHINSEC. Past questions about the School of the Americas has still not been resolved, giving us no basis on which to build a better, more credible, effective program at WHINSEC. We need to shine the light on the past of the School of the Americas in order to put WHINSEC on track to be a beacon of light for the militaries of Latin America.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I move to strike the last word, and I'm pleased to yield to my colleague, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

I agree with the intention of the amendment and thank my friend for raising this very important issue.

I want to reiterate my support for the United Nations. I strongly believe in the mission of the United Nations. That plays an indispensable role in the world today. In fact, it has often been said that if the United Nations did not already exist, we would surely need to invent it.

The U.N. plays an important role in maintaining international peace and security, promoting economic and social development, alleviating hunger, championing human rights, and supporting efforts to address humanitarian crises.

However, the U.N. is by no means perfect. It is often too slow to act in times of crisis, and too often the U.N. is a reflection of the lowest common denominator, rather than the best and the brightest.

A perfect example of the problems with the U.N. is the Human Rights Council. My friend and I agree that there are problems, and I want to assure my friend that as we move toward conference that we will ensure that none of the funds in the CIO account will go toward paying the costs of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

And, again, I thank my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my friend (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express reservations regarding the gentleman's amendment.

I do share his deep concern over the refusal of certain countries to extradite to the United States any individual indicted in the United States for killing a law enforcement officer. I certainly do not condone the refusal of those governments to extradite those accused of murdering a law enforcement officer in order to allow the families of fallen law enforcement officers to see the person or persons involved face justice.

However, the remedy that the gentleman is proposing is not targeted at the central government but at all persons from those countries applying for a visa. I just have some reservations about punishing the people of a country because their government is doing something objectionable that goes against the way we would like to be seen in the world.

But I am prepared to accept the amendment and bring this matter to conference.

I rise to accept the amendment, and I thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is fiscally irresponsible, it will harm our national security, and I strongly oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to withdraw the amendment. I know we'll work together on these very important issues. The discussion certainly will continue between this Congress and the administration as we move forward. I thank the gentleman again for withdrawing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the gentleman that this bill is $700 million below the President's request. We all understand that the Nation is at war. We have tremendous challenges. This bill provides important resources to address these challenges internationally. It is absolutely irresponsible, in my judgment. It is not in the national security interests of the United States of America. I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for foreign assistance programs. This is not the way to balance the budget. Instead of an overall cut, we should work to decrease instability worldwide and address the underlying problems that cause that instability.

The programs in this bill are pivotal to winning back the hearts and minds overseas. They address the most difficult problems in the world today, HIV-AIDS, famine, disease and disasters. The bill includes programs that work to address the root causes of global instability that require us to devote so many of our tax dollars to failed and failing states to ensure that we protect our Nation. It is these problems that have gotten us into the disastrous deficit that we are in and it is these problems that the programs in this bill will address.

This bill is a carefully crafted, bipartisan measure. It is currently $700 million below the President's request. We have already cut enough from these important foreign assistance programs, and this amendment would cut an additional $324 million.

Think about the most vulnerable and susceptible among us. This amendment would take $51 million from addressing global HIV-AIDS. Our goal is to turn the tide on this horrendous pandemic, not turn our backs. This bill currently has the funding to ramp up treatment, care and prevention activities. We can't turn around now.

I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment. It is not consistent with our national security. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to shed some light on the misinformation that we have been hearing this evening about tax increases.

It seems to me, Mr. Jackson, that we have this huge deficit that has been brought about by the Republican majority in the past 10 years, at least. Would you like to comment on it for 3 minutes?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am pleased to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, we have expressed our real concerns about these cuts and I strongly oppose this amendment.

In addition to the cuts that have been mentioned by my colleagues, I wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Colorado in particular, really understands the impact of this across-the-board cut.

First of all, this bill has already been cut 2 percent from the President's request. Two percent. Now you are recommending another half percent.

You support a $120 million cut for Israel, Mrs. Musgrave? You support a $120 million cut in aid for our ally Israel? You support a $250 million cut for HIV/AIDS?

You support $200 million for foreign military financing; and my colleague, Mr. Israel, talked about the impact on the military that these cuts would cause.

My colleagues, this is a bill that is in the national security interest of the United States of America. We have heard many people on the other side of the aisle that we have to fight it over there. We don't want to fight it over here.

Well, when you are funding HIV/AIDS, when you are preventing avian flu, when you are funding our colleagues in the war on terror, we are fighting it over there rather than fighting it over here.

I strongly, strongly, would not support the cuts which you are recommending. I strongly oppose them.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask you the time remaining on both sides?

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rothman.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the committee is going to follow the House rules, and I understand the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the gentleman that we are happy to accept the amendment.

We are happy to work with you in the future on this amendment or any other amendments, and I am pleased that we are accepting this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

It is my understanding that it reiterates the restrictions on direct aid to the PA that are already in current law that are clearly included in this bill. I certainly expect the administration to abide by these restrictions, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment. In fact, I am wondering why the gentleman is offering the amendment if it is already included in the bill.

I also understand that my good friends on the other side of the aisle are whipping against this bill. This bill provides millions of dollars for Israel and for many good causes all around the world. So for those who are standing up as friends of Israel and want to protect Israel, I wonder why you are whipping against a bill that is providing millions of dollars for Israel.

And I thank the gentleman for your amendment.

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

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

I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I also am delighted to know that you will support the bill. It is a good bill. The ranking member and I worked very closely in a bipartisan way. I have the greatest respect for my friend and ranking member, Mr. Wolf. It was really disappointing for me to hear that the whip's office was working against the bill.

I thank you so much. It's a good bill. I appreciate your support, and I'm happy to accept this amendment because the current restrictions, which you rightly suggest, are in this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to accept the amendment from the gentlelady from Nevada.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman who offered the amendment. I appreciate your offer to withdraw the amendment. I pledge to continue to work with you and Mr. Israel and the other members of the committee and the Congress. We thank you very much for your intent and your willingness to withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, 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 all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2764,

and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to present to the House H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of State, foreign operations and related programs.

I'm particularly pleased that the appropriations bill that I bring to the floor as chairwoman of the State Foreign Operations Subcommittee reflects a bipartisan process, and that the ranking member, Frank Wolf, was instrumental in pulling this bill together, as well as a very talented and engaged subcommittee.

I'm very proud of our product. The bill before you totals $34.243 billion in new discretionary budget authority, $2.9 billion above fiscal year 2007, not counting supplemental appropriations, and $700 million below the President's request. This is the largest increase over the prior year enacted level that this subcommittee has received in over a decade. I appreciate Chairman Obey's recognition of the importance of this bill and the programs it funds.

The bill includes over $7 billion to address our strategic priorities and national security interests, as well as increases for programs that promote development and reduce low global poverty, meet humanitarian needs, and respond to urgent health crises, priorities at the core of our interests abroad.

For the war on terror, this bill includes $2.656 billion in economic assistance for our strategic partners and $4.509 billion in military assistance. While the bill includes $1.057 billion for Afghanistan, there are no additional funds for Iraq. In light of the $2.86 billion provided for Iraq reconstruction in the recently passed supplemental appropriations bill, and the $2.89 billion requested by the administration in the 2008 supplemental, I feel extremely strongly that there is no need at this time for additional funds for the same purposes in this bill, given the extraordinary needs to be met around the world.

The bill includes over $4.7 billion to support State Department operations, both in the United States and abroad. The recommendation fully funds the President's request for worldwide security upgrades, and provides $364 million for public diplomacy efforts at the State Department, as well as $501 million for educational and cultural exchanges.

The bill also provides $6.517 billion for global health. Addressing tuberculosis, avian flu, HIV/AIDS and other health threats is one of the best preventive measures to protect the health of the United States. We provide $5.082 billion for international HIV/AIDS efforts, which, in addition to appropriations in other bills, brings the total for international HIV/AIDS to $5.876 billion. This is $550 million above the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request, and includes $850 million for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

The bill also includes $1.73 billion for development programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, an increase of $225 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The increased resources will fund an initiative on basic education for developing countries, as well as an expansion of safe water and environment programs.

As many of you know, basic education has been one of my top priorities for years and, I'm pleased to say, a top priority of the members of this committee. I'm convinced that access to quality primary education not only improves an individual's chances for a better, more productive life, it creates a more tolerant and informed citizenry. I've provided a total of $750 million for basic education in the bill, an increase of $200 million from the fiscal year 2007 House-passed bill.

This bill also provides $501 million for the environment and clean energy programs, including $106 million for the global environmental facility, and $175 million for biodiversity programs at USAID. We've also included a provision that encourages the Export-Import Bank to support projects in renewable energy and other environmentally beneficial products. This initiative could result in an estimated $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008.

There is $1.8 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account. This is a $1.2 billion reduction from the request, but $48 million above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. I'm supportive of the MCA. I want to make this very clear. And while I believe the MCA is under the strong and capable management of Ambassador Danilovich, I would like to see more results on the ground from the $6 billion that has already been appropriated, $2.1 billion of which is not yet even obligated, before we significantly scale-up the MCA. The reduction to MCA helps us address the shortfalls for development assistance and health accounts. We have also funded a basic education initiative as well as expansion of safe water and environmental programs.

With an investment of over $5 billion in the 6 years that Plan Colombia has been in effect, the numbers of hectares involved in coca production has increased by 42 percent. Because our efforts to combat narcotics in Colombia have been ineffective for some time, this bill restructures assistance for Colombia. We cut overall funding by 10 percent, or $59 million, and shift greater resources to the development, interdiction, rule of law and justice programs. It is time for the Colombians to take ownership over their eradication and military assistance programs, and this cut reflects that position.

The bill provides over $5.4 billion for Africa, including a total of $949.3 million for Sudan, $210.5 million of which is for Darfur, $104 million above the request. We have provided $100 million in increased funding for the African Union Force in Darfur.

This bill allows us to fully meet the President's request for Israel and Egypt. And I want to make it clear that Egypt is a friend, an important ally in the war on terror and a partner for peace in the Middle East. However, there are growing concerns about the independence of its judiciary, police abuses, and the smuggling operation from Egypt into Gaza. As a result, this bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that steps are being taken to address these issues before a portion of the military aid to Egypt can be released.

Lastly, as you know, U.S. Government assistance for family planning is prohibited for groups that provide, promote, refer or counsel on abortions. Groups that merely exercise their legal rights to advocate for policies such as the legalization of abortion are denied U.S. assistance. This bill provides an exemption to those restrictions simply for the provision of contraceptive commodities. Foreign family planning organizations, which have been denied USAID family planning funds, could receive contraceptives from USAID to help reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV, as well as save the lives of mothers and infants.

This provision does not amend any of the provisions in existing law that prohibit assistance for abortions or otherwise restrict family planning funds.

They're all there; 10 of them are all there; and 5 for restricting family planning; 10 to be sure that there's no money for abortion, and 5 to restrict family planning. All there.

Mr. Chairman, this package of foreign assistance before you preserves our Nation's interests, reflects the values and priorities of the American people, and most importantly, helps to protect the security of Americans at home and abroad. It was developed in a bipartisan manner, and I expect it to have wide support as it passes the House.

In closing, let me say again that it has been a pleasure working with Ranking Member Wolf and the minority staff, Christine Kojac, Rob Blair, Mike Ringler, Alice Hogans and Molly Miller. I would like to thank my vice chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. for his hard work on this bill. I greatly appreciate the outstanding work and support of Nisha Desai, Lucy Heenan, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Mark Lopes and Celia Alvarado. They're all competent, professional and really a joy to work with. The work we have accomplished together in this bill will help make America more secure and will improve the lives of millions throughout the world.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN07.007

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished vice chairman, a very hardworking member of our subcommittee, my partner in this effort, Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a valuable member of our subcommittee, who has focused his intellect on nuclear nonproliferation, on counterterrorism and on demining and I look forward to working together for many years on this committee (Mr. Schiff).

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new member of the committee, a valuable addition, an expert on Africa and HIV/AIDS, Ms. Lee of California.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from New York, another new member of the subcommittee, who has had a particular interest and has great knowledge in the environment and made a major contribution to this bill in encouraging Ex-Im to focus on supporting projects that will contribute to the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a valuable member of the full committee, an alumnus of the Peace Corps and an advocate for so many parts of this bill. He was a real partner in helping us craft this great bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Wolf, my ranking member, again. I do believe that we have created a good, strong bipartisan bill. I appreciated the comments on both sides of the aisle. Although there may be some differences, I know that when the amendments are presented, these differences will be apparent.

I do hope in the final analysis, as a result again of both Republican and Democratic members of the committee, this bill passes. This is a good, strong bill, and it is so needed by the people of this world. I know that both my ranking member and all the members of the committee and myself understand the important responsibility we have in this committee, and I look forward to passing this bill tomorrow with a good, strong vote.

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

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

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

As a New Yorker, I must tell you as honestly and openly as I can, that the hours that we have spent on this issue are an embarrassment, an affront to every New Yorker who experienced 9/11, who went down to that site, and saw our brave men and women responding to the emergency, every New Yorker who went to a funeral, to talk to a family about the loss of their loved one because of the lack of interoperability for one thing.

I cannot understand how my friends on the other side could be spending all these hours debating earmarks when we should be passing one of the most important bills of the House.

As Chair of the committee that funds State and Foreign Operations, I've always worked in a bipartisan way. I know my good friends, David Price and Hal Rogers, have always worked in a bipartisan way. We should get on with the business of this bill, and I would be embarrassed to have a constituent watch us, spend all night, all day focusing on Member-directed projects.

You and I know that they need to be evaluated. A process has been in place for transparency. I think we've moved in a very positive direction. So let's get on with the business of this bill.

We have no higher priority than to take every action necessary to protect our country, and I would just like to highlight a few of the provisions in this bill that are so important.

The first would create a pilot program to screen airport workers, and I've worked in a bipartisan way on this issue. In March, two airport workers in Orlando boarded a plane and made it to Puerto Rico with a bag containing firearms and drugs, and this incident set off an alarm, reminding us that we've waited far too long to take sufficient action. Those who have unfettered access to sterile and secure areas of airports need to be physically screened. Meticulously screening passengers but giving workers open access is like installing an expensive home security system and leaving the back door open. This bill is the first step to close this loophole, something that is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.

Aviation security enhancements are not limited to airport worker screening. The bill makes the necessary investment to purchase and install explosive detection systems. Last year, British authorities uncovered a plot to destroy airliners over the Atlantic, which the terrorists believed would be on the same scale as the September 11 attack. We have to do all we can to reduce our vulnerabilities, particularly to known threats that terrorists have attempted to exploit.

The second item I would like to applaud is the inclusion of much- needed funds for interoperability grants. After September 11, I wrote a bill to require the administration to create an office and grant program dedicated to interoperability and to implement a national strategy. Since that time, the office has been created, and last year's appropriations bill included my strategy proposal. This bill would fund that grant program, which the House overwhelmingly approved in January as part of the 9/11 bill.

I encourage all of my colleagues to go back to their districts and ask first responders what the Federal Government can do to help them. I guarantee that one of the most frequent responses will be interoperability and communications problems. This bill provides not only the funding, but language on standards and other planning provisions that are beneficial.

Third, this bill significantly enhances our ability to protect our ports. One of the biggest fears of security experts is that a terrorist will bring a nuclear weapon into the country through a port. This bill nearly doubles the funding for grants to protect ports and provides much-needed funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to develop and deploy the next generation of radiation portal monitors.

A fourth improvement is transit security. In the last 5 years, terrorists have attacked trains in Madrid, London and Mumbai.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would provide $400 million, more than twice the amount previously provided, for first responders to reduce this glaring vulnerability.

This bill is full of substantive provisions to assist first responders that we need to debate. For example, I look forward to considering several substantive amendments such as one submitted by my friend on the other side of the aisle that would assist a program that provides a ring around New York to prevent a terrorist from bringing a nuclear weapon into the city. But we can't have that debate and others about making our Nation safer if the minority continues to insist on pushing procedural roadblocks.

In addition to serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee, I'm a member of the Homeland Security authorizing committee. We know that the threats against our country are real. Let's end these procedural delaying tactics.

Although the chairman, the ranking member and the members of the committee have produced a really important bill, I know that many Members who are here getting up to speak may have additional thoughts, additional ideas to make our homeland safer. Shame on all of us if we're spending the time arguing procedural tactics and not focusing on the homeland security issues that are before us. As a New Yorker, I am personally offended. Let's move on with it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Harold Snyder on his 85th birthday.

Harold was born on April 25th, 1922, in New York City. The son of immigrants, he has lived the American dream, ascending from a poor childhood through hard work to a successful career, and continues to give back to his community.

In 1941, he proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps and served as a gunner and radio operator of B-17s in the 301st Squadron.

After his service ended, Harold attended college on a GI Bill and received an undergraduate degree from New York University. He then pursued a Masters degree in Natural Sciences from Columbia University.

In 1963, Harold founded Biocraft Laboratories. A pioneer of the pharmaceutical industry, Harold has devoted his career to providing affordable prescription drugs to Americans. As the cost of health care has skyrocketed, Harold Snyder has fought to ensure that American consumers have access to the medications they need by leading the charge to develop less expensive, safe, effective generic pharmaceuticals.

In addition, Harold contributes to and advocates on behalf of a number of charitable causes including medical research, education and the Arts. He believes in the power to change the world for the better and has devoted himself to helping provide opportunity to others less fortunate than himself. Indeed, Harold has graciously helped to give hope to many facing all kinds of struggles, to give back to a world that he feels has provided him with exceptional opportunities. I am honored to call Harold Snyder my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the tremendous accomplishments of Harold Snyder and to wish him a Happy 85th Birthday.

Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 280 on H.R. 1429, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote No. 280.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Putnam

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy and accomplishments of our recently-passed colleague and dear friend Juanita Millender-McDonald.

Juanita Millender-McDonald's life epitomized one of a true leader. Her deep commitment to those she served led her to be the first African American woman to chair a committee in Congress.

Juanita Millender-McDonald's vision and leadership since 1996 will have a lasting impact on the House of Representatives. Her

fight for full voting participation for all Americans and her tireless efforts for fair elections in the United States have helped millions of Americans and made our democracy stronger.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in paying respect to the family of Juanita Millender-McDonald and in honoring her career in service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey for your efforts to protect our troops, respect the wishes of the American people, and preserve our Nation's interest in this bill.

Our troops have served with honor and courage. However, they should be deployed only when battle ready and with a clear and achievable mission. Neither is the case today in Iraq. Recent reports indicate the troop surge is not working. The number of casualties rose again in March, and this bloody trend continues.

We have heard from this administration that it is not willing to negotiate on Iraq. Frankly, their unwillingness to compromise has led us to this point, and the right of the American people to be heard is nonnegotiable. No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if the Iraqis don't help themselves.

The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront extremists, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future, and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. That is why this bill asks the President to certify that the Iraqis are doing their part in meeting critical benchmarks.

In addition, I am pleased the conference report includes nearly $200 million in increased funding for Afghanistan, $80.3 million for Jordan, $45 million for Liberia, $769 million for Lebanon, much needed assistance for Sudan and Somalia, increased funding for disaster and refugee aid to Iraq, increased accountability through funding expanded mandates for the special Inspector General and the State and USAID IG operations.

While this bill provides most of the funding requested by the President, it puts in place safeguards and oversight to stop waste, fraud and abuse with U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 236-244. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 236: ``no''; rollcall No. 237: ``no''; rollcall No. 238: ``no''; rollcall No. 239: ``no''; rollcall No. 240: ``no''; rollcall No. 241: ``no''; rollcall No. 242: ``no''; rollcall No. 243: ``no''; rollcall No. 244: ``yea''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for moving this bill to the floor in a bipartisan manner.

The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 includes only $41 million for TSA for surface transportation, less than 1 percent of the TSA budget. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2006, DHS distributed approximately $387 million for rail and mass transit security grants. On average, that is only one penny of Federal homeland security funding spent for each of the 9.5 billion transit passenger trips each year. This number is miniscule compared with the average Federal security investment of $9 per airline passenger trip.

This legislation represents the first step in closing the enormous gap between Federal spending on aviation security and spending on security for rail and public transportation.

As we saw in the uncovered plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station in New York City, as well as the horrific attacks in Madrid, London and Mumbai, terrorists are targeting mass transit systems, and we must do what it takes to protect and secure our transportation networks.

This bill, for the first time, authorizes dedicated risk-based funding for the security of railroad carriers, public transportation systems, and over-the-road bus systems.

It also provides for fire and line-safety improvements to be made at Amtrak tunnels throughout the critically important Northeast corridor, including six tunnels in the New York City area.

Every day, thousands of my constituents join more than 7 million riders traveling on Metropolitan Transit Authority trains and buses throughout the New York metro area. They expect and deserve to know that the Federal Government is just as committed to rail security as it is to other homeland security priorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey, Chairman Murtha, and our Speaker for putting together a bill that protects our troops, responds to the will of the American people, and preserves our Nation's interests.

Our men and women in uniform have served with honor and courage, but we are not doing our part. Our Armed Forces are not battle-ready, nor is their mission clear and achievable. There is no definition of victory. The nature of the battle has changed, and our troops now find themselves policing a bloody civil war. It is well past time to set clear parameters for this war.

Since the beginning, this war and reconstruction efforts have been ill-managed. Just yesterday the Iraq IG reported yet again on how unprepared the administration was for the task of reconstruction. The Defense Department had no strategy for restoring government institutions, establishing security, or rebuilding infrastructure, and the State Department was cut completely out of the work.

There continues to be a lack of coordination and strategy to achieve our objectives. Putting billions of dollars more into this war without any parameters and risking the lives of more of our brave men and women is not only foolish; it is immoral. As the New York Times editorial noted on Thursday, if the President won't step up to the task of setting benchmarks and ensuring the safety of our troops, then it falls to us, this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does just that. We are stepping up to our responsibilities. This legislation does not micromanage the war, as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim. It is a very carefully considered approach to bringing accountability to the execution of the war and to the reconstruction efforts. Moreover, it sets a date certain for the end of this war so we can bring our troops home.

No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if the Iraqis don't help themselves. The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront extremists on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future, and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. Congress didn't pull these benchmarks from the air. They were put forth by the Iraqis and by President Bush in his January 10 speech.

Mr. Speaker, we are already into the fifth year of this war. The bill provides the funding the President requested, but it does not do so unconditionally. This bill sets benchmarks, provides a date certain for withdrawal.

The days of open-ended commitment and unilateral check-writing privileges are over. This bill deals with Iraq responsibly, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Parliamentary Inquiry