Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman, and I thank Ranking Member Thompson and Ranking Member Pascrell. It is a pleasure for us to be here. And thank you, Chairman Reichert, for bringing this bill to the floor. We have been talking about this issue for a very long time, and I rise in strong support of the legislation. I strongly support the emergency communications provisions, particularly the interoperability strategy I first proposed more than 2 years ago.

It is really unfortunate that we waited 6 years into the 21st century to adopt the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act. Communications failures, as has been referenced by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, plagued the response in Oklahoma City in 1995, Columbine in 1999, New York in 2001, and in the gulf region following Hurricane Katrina. In all of these cases, first responders had to use many of the same communications as Paul Revere.

The lack of interoperability was deadly on September 11. Of the 58 firefighters who escaped the north tower of the World Trade Center and gave oral histories to the Fire Department of New York, only three heard radio warnings that the north tower was in danger of collapse. Three. So as these brave firefighters were running up, the majority of people were coming down. And many of the 343 firefighters who died that day would have likely been saved had they carried effective, interoperable radios.

The interoperability strategy in this bill is desperately needed, as is an adequate number of employees at DHS to solve this crisis and to validate manufacturers' claims that equipment meets widely accepted standards. So I am pleased, and I thank the chairman and the ranking members for bringing this bill to the floor.

However, the bill has one critical flaw. Despite the testimony of the Director of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, Dr. David Boyd, that it will cost over $100 billion to overhaul communication systems across the country, the bill does not provide any funding for State and local governments to plan, to implement, or to maintain communication networks.

However, while this bill is not perfect, the bill is a vast improvement over the lack of current policy. Right now, as we know, the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility has only five employees and a budget of less than one-half of 1 percent of the total DHS budget.

We cannot wait for the next disaster before we take action, and I urge your support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Sharon Daly and to congratulate her on being named a Human Needs Hero by the Coalition on Human Needs.

Sharon Daly has had a long, distinguished career serving the most vulnerable people in our society with a level of compassion and commitment that is unrivaled.

After hearing from numerous women escaping family violence that ineligibility for food stamps was a major hardship, Sharon played a vital role in convincing Congress that change was necessary, In 1980, federal law was changed so that women residing in battered women's shelters and families with high child care expenses could receive food stamps.

In addition, Sharon fought to secure benefits for people with disabilities and mental illness and played a critical role in garnering momentum for enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and family preservation/ child welfare services.

In her almost 30 years of work in Washington, DC, Sharon has worked at the Children's Foundation, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Children's Defense Fund, and Catholic Charities USA. Additionally, she provided expert leadership on the Board of the Coalition on Human Needs, including serving as Chairwoman from 1994 to 2000. Her career has been marked by remarkable dedication to providing help to those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my good friend Sharon Daly for an unparalleled career fighting for those who may be unable to fight for themselves, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring her tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, at issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives, a value that we all share regardless of race, culture or religion. Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them.

The President's veto of this lifesaving legislation is a slap in the face of the millions of Americans suffering from diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or debilitating physical injuries, who found new hope for treatment and cures with the passage of H.R. 810. This hope will remain only if researchers have access to the science that holds the most potential and are free to explore, with appropriate ethical guidelines, medical advances never before imagined possible.

The 67 percent of the American public that supports embryonic stem cell research understands this. Why doesn't the President?

There is no question that scientific advancement often comes with moral dilemmas. That is why we have examined and debated difficult ethical and social questions before passing this legislation.

Like many of you, I believe that strong guidelines must be in place with vigorous oversight from the NIH and Congress before allowing federally-funded embryonic stem cell research.

H.R. 810 would strengthen the standards guiding embryonic stem cell research and would ensure that embryos originally created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization could be made available for research only with the consent of the donor.

So today I ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as science allows us to be. We are closer than ever to remarkable discoveries and on the brink of providing hope to millions of individuals who otherwise have none. Congress must not allow the President to once again put ideology before science.

I urge my colleagues to vote to override of the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I thank the outstanding chairman for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is a powerful statement in support of Israel and the Israeli people during this difficult time.

Let us be clear about what is happening in the Middle East. Israel has been dragged into battle on two fronts to defend itself against terrorists who target Israeli civilians and seek the destruction of the Jewish State. The current hostilities were initiated, in both cases, by incursions of terrorists across recognized borders and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. As we know all too well, these battles are merely the latest chapter in a war that has been waged against Israel since its establishment in 1948.

I join all those who yearn for peace in praying for an end to the hostilities. I also recognize that the fighting can only be stopped by the terrorists who initiated it. I believe the U.N. should play a role in ending this conflict, but the deployment of another force with the same, weak mandate as UNIFIL will not get the job done. The U.N. and the international community need to unite to demand an end to this reign of terror and full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559. The Lebanese government must establish sovereignty over its own territory instead of allowing Hezbollah and Iranian Guards to operate freely. And we must keep the focus on Iran and Syria--the root causes of this conflict.

The last several weeks have demonstrated beyond all doubt why Israel must maintain its qualitative military edge in the region. Any action taken by the international community must respect Israel's right to protect its own citizens and must be aimed at disarming Hezbollah and Hamas and terminating their ability to attack Israel.

Israel seeks peace and has taken risks to achieve it time and time again. Sadly, its sacrifices have been met only with escalated threats and violence.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000 in compliance with U.N. resolutions. In return, it has been continuously threatened by Hezbollah terrorists on its northern border, allowed free reign by a reckless Lebanese government with Syria and Iran calling the shots in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. In return, it is faced with a Hamas-Ied Palestinian Authority that supports attacks against civilians and competes with exiled Hamas members over who can be more extreme.

This latest violence confirms that Iran currently poses the single greatest threat to regional stability. It has the motivation and resources to stage a methodical campaign of terror and violence throughout the Middle East, concentrating on fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq and supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria continues to shelter Hamas leaders and is widely acknowledged to be complicit in the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit. Both countries are transit points and suppliers of weapons to terrorists. The current hostilities are mere symptoms of the disease Iran and Syria have brought on the region. And our policies and those of the international community must respond accordingly.

We have potent tools to deal with Iran and Syria that we have ignored. The Iran Freedom Support Act passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly but has been held up by the Senate leadership and the Administration. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act became law in 2003, but the Administration has largely ignored the instruments it provides to pressure Syria. Sending Secretary Rice to the region may indicate our concern, but developing a strategy to join with like-minded nations to force Iran and Syria to abandon their campaigns of terror should be our ultimate goal. Until we have such a strategy in place, a high-level visit will accomplish nothing.

I join my colleagues in Congress in standing in solidarity with Israel during this difficult time. The American people understand what it feels like to be targeted on our own soil. As children in Haifa, Safed, and Nahariya remain trapped in bomb shelters, we reaffirm our support for Israel's effort to defend itself against terrorists stationed on its borders.

I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fanni Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. Our democracy depends on protecting the right of every American citizen to vote, which must never be compromised.

The Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. It was put into place in direct response to significant and pervasive discrimination taking place across the country, including the use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and violence. By outlawing the barriers that prevented minorities from voting, the VRA put teeth in the 15th amendment's guarantee that no citizen can be denied the right to vote on the basis of race.

This legislation has been renewed four times by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed into law by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. In the 41 years since its initial passage, the VRA has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic and language minority citizens by eliminating discriminatory practices and removing other barriers to their political participation. The VRA has empowered minority voters and has helped to desegregate legislative bodies at all levels of government.

Efforts to remove many of the key provisions of the original legislation are extremely unfortunate. States with histories of discrimination should not be allowed to repeat past injustices. Amendments to weaken the act undermine the heroic efforts of countless Americans who fought for decades for the right to vote. We must stand together to defeat any measure that would weaken the provisions of the

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks.

I rise today to express my continuing frustration with the Department of Homeland Security and its inability or unwillingness to focus our limited resources of time, money, and attention on the real risks that we face as a Nation. Yesterday, the bombing of railways in India reminded us not only that terrorists remain committed to senseless and horrific violence, but that they remain attracted to certain types of targets.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, terrorists attacked New York and Washington. Two years ago, terrorists attacked commuter trains in Madrid. Last year, terrorists attacked subways in the heart of London. Two days ago, rail systems in Mumbai were bombed. There have also been rail and transit attacks in Japan, South Africa, and Israel, and so far unsuccessful plans for attacks on New York's transportation system.

On the streets of Iraq, insurgents are perfecting the use of IEDs against our troops. When those terrorists look to transfer their skills to the United States, where will they look to use them? The pattern is clear, the message is deafening: High density, high profile targets are the most attractive targets for terrorists, and rail and transit systems remain dangerously vulnerable.

Like many of the Members of this House, I was pleased when Secretary Chertoff took office and stressed in his

first public speech that DHS must base its actions on threat, vulnerability, and consequence. Unfortunately, action has not measured up to that rhetoric. Last month, the Department cut by 40 percent for New York and Washington, D.C., cut funding by 40 percent, two cities that have been attacked and the two cities that remain the most likely targets for future attacks.

We are all looking for the best way to spend the limited money that has thus far been allocated to homeland security. The Department perfected the art of allocating funds the wrong way.

In addition to ignoring the plain facts about risk and vulnerability, DHS has sat on the sidelines in developing standards for safety and security. This void is being met in some areas such as New York where the Metropolitan Transit Agency has added 200 officers and 25 K-9 bomb detection units since September 11. New York City has 1,000 counterterrorism officers. The city and the MTA are working to develop and install state-of-the-art air monitoring devices in the transit system.

We knew that communications interoperability presented a problem for first responders in Oklahoma City. Those problems turned deadly on September 11. Nearly 5 years after September 11, first responders are still waiting for the administration to issue an actual interoperability plan. This abdication of responsibility has forced many cities and States to dig their own deficits deeper to put national security measures in place. That is not a plan, it is not a strategy, it is a failure of leadership that we are seeing again and again.

Mr. Speaker, our homeland security efforts are a race against the clock. We have received several wakeup calls. We don't need another study or another office or another Under Secretary; we need action. And next week I hope the House Committee on Homeland Security markup of the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill will provide us a real opportunity to strengthen our homeland security and spur DHS to act more quickly to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Ride for Lorraine, a charity bike ride to benefit the National Transplant Assistance Fund (NTAF) and raise awareness for stem cell research.

The Ride for Lorraine, a five-day bike ride beginning in Hartsdale, New York, honors Lorraine Valentini, a former High School English Literature teacher, volunteer firefighter, and U.S. Masters Gold Medal Cyclist. Lorraine's life was tragically altered in May 2005 when the spinal cord injuries she suffered in a bike accident left her paralyzed below the neck.

During the five-day trip, Lorraine's family, friends and supporters will stop at the Dana and Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation in New Jersey, the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Maryland, and finally here at the Capitol Building. I encourage all of my colleagues to listen to their message that stem cell research can bring cures and therapies for many devastating and debilitating conditions.

These dedicated, passionate participants are working hard to not only raise awareness for stem cell research, but to raise money for Lorraine's daily care and rehabilitation while directing donations to the NTAF to aid other transplant and catastrophic injury patients.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the efforts of teamLorraine.org and wishing the Ride for Lorraine participants luck.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, which provides $2.325 billion for international assistance programs, $162 million above the House-passed level. The bill provides $1.485 billion for Iraq reconstruction and fully funds the administration's request for Afghanistan.

I am particularly pleased that the conference report provides $50 million above the President's requests for Sudan, Liberia and Jordan as well as $20 million for Haiti. I am also pleased that we were able to include an additional $25 million for refugee assistance and $25 million in disaster assistance above the request level.

In light of the escalating security costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, I regret that we were not able to fully fund the administration's request for operating expenses, but I am pleased that the conference report significantly increases funding above the House-passed level.

While the conference report fully funds the President's request for assistance to Afghanistan, $46 million in program funds for that country is not even a drop in the bucket. In light of the increasing violence and fragile political situation in Afghanistan, it is shameful that the administration failed to push for the $600 million that Ambassador Neumann indicated was necessary.

I applaud the funding in this bill for Sudan and for other humanitarian needs in Africa. However, I was disappointed that the administration did not seek robust funding for the fledgling democracy in Liberia and the critical transition in Haiti. The funding added by Congress--an additional $50 million for Liberia and $20 million for Haiti--will provide critical short-term support to meet refugee and humanitarian needs as well as help to stabilize these countries during the initial months of their transitions.

I regret that our conference allocation only allowed us to maintain half of the $100 million for Jordan that was passed by the Senate. Jordan has been a steadfast and important ally in the war on terror, as was clearly demonstrated by the assistance of Jordanian intelligence in the targeting of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is a shame that arbitrary limits placed on this supplemental have prevented us from fully funding this priority country.

Finally, let me speak to the bulk of the funding in the Foreign Operations section of the bill, which is for activities in Iraq. I support the additional funding because I think we owe our men and women in uniform in Iraq every chance to enhance their safety and return home speedily. To this end, I am glad that the conference report includes at least $50 million for democracy and governance activities and $50 million for the Community Action Program. These programs are having a tremendous impact and are more cost effective than many of the investments we have made thus far.

However, I am dismayed that neither the House nor the Senate included placed these additional funds under the oversight mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. By failing to include this language, the House and Senate majority sent a clear message to American taxpayers that while Congress expects them to bear the burden of reconstructing Iraq, we are not interested in taking every precaution necessary to ensure that their money is accountably and effectively spent.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. U.S. policy toward Iraq should be focused on bringing home U.S. troops as soon as possible while minimizing chaos in Iraq and maximizing Middle Eastern stability. I believe that 2006 must be a year of significant transition toward full Iraqi sovereignty both politically and militarily and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Americans deserve a serious discussion in Congress about the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Instead, the Republican resolution before Congress today fails to address the road forward. A resolution to achieve a sovereign, free, and united Iraq is not a strategy.

This resolution is a partisan attempt to avoid the debate that the American people are demanding. It blurs the line between the War on Terror and the war in Iraq in an effort to legitimize Bush Administration mistakes, and fails to deal with key issues such as the effect of our `stay-the-course-at-any-cost' policy on other threats to our national security and military recruitment and the lack of oversight and accountability over the billions of dollars wasted or stolen in the war and reconstruction effort.

I am a strong supporter of our troops, and I have voted consistently to give them the funding and equipment they need to carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our courageous men and women in uniform have met their challenges with skill, bravery, and selfless dedication. We mourn the loss of the 2,500 who have died in Iraq, and offer our support and prayers to the 8,501 who have been injured so gravely they cannot return to duty.

While this resolution expresses our gratitude toward the troops, it fails to acknowledge the missteps, misrepresentations, and misjudgments that have fatally flawed our involvement in Iraq from the very beginning, making the mission of our troops more perilous. The President rushed to war based on false and faulty intelligence against the protests of the majority of our allies. Warnings from U.S. commanders about troop levels and equipment went unheeded, and shortsighted decisions were made which seriously damaged our efforts to establish peace and security in Iraq.

The Administration's horrendous miscalculations have damaged our ability to aggressively confront other emerging threats around the world and have endangered the stability of the Middle East. To make matters worse, the Administration has consistently rejected calls for accountability for some of its worst mistakes, including the squandering of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds, torture at Abu Ghraib and the provision of inadequate equipment for our troops. The sham resolution before us today is intended to avoid an honest discussion of these issues.

The American people deserve better than today's partisan grandstanding and the contempt of the Republican leadership for their genuine concern about U.S. policy toward Iraq. For this reason, I will oppose the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word, and yield to my distinguished member of the subcommittee, Mr. Fattah.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her commitment for so many years to Haiti, and I certainly share her views and that commitment. I do hope with the leadership of Haiti that the people, the families, especially the children, can have the opportunities that all deserve. I look forward to continuing to work with you, with the chairman, to ensure that the United States is a strong partner, and working together we can reach the goals which you have expressed so eloquently.

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

I rise in support of this amendment. I am a cosponsor of a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts that would accomplish a similar goal, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue of WHINSEC on the floor today.

What we are witnessing with regard to WHINSEC is a classic case of history repeating itself. For years, many Members of Congress and activists, including Maryknoll nuns based in my congressional district, fought to shut down the notorious School of the Americas. The school's very existence was undermining U.S. efforts to promote civilian control of the military and respect for human rights in Latin America. So the army closed the SOA and reopened it a few weeks later with a new name.

To quote William Shakespeare, ``A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.'' Indeed, WHINSEC is just another name for the School of the Americas, and neither of them passes the smell test. The same moral issues still plague the institution, and the U.S. military still refuses to take common-sense steps to fix the problem.

As my colleague from Massachusetts has pointed out, the vetting process for students at WHINSEC is still broken, resulting in known human rights abusers attending the school. DOD still refuses to monitor the careers of WHINSEC graduates, preferring to be kept in the dark about how U.S. military education is applied in Latin American countries. And past questions about the School of the Americas have still not been answered, giving us no basis on which to build a better, more credible and more effective program at WHINSEC.

I understand that the majority of WHINSEC's funding does not come from this bill, but I believe the amendment before us today provides an excellent opportunity to send the message that we still cannot stomach the continued reckless use of our military training dollars.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

For me, it has been a great privilege to work with Jim Kolbe. And since this is probably the 10th retirement speech that we have given for Jim Kolbe, I just want to add that he is probably a person that all of us would agree has the most integrity, wisdom, and compassion, and for me it is a real, real privilege. But, above all, Jim Kolbe is the most punctual person I know, so I won't give my 10- page speech today. Good luck. Congratulations. We love you. And let us go on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Allan Rosenfield on his 20th anniversary as Dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

As Dean of the Mailman School of Public Health and professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield is a true giant in the fields of population, reproductive rights, health policy and human rights.

Throughout his career, he has fought against the global gag rule; worked around the world on issues of family planning and maternal and children's health, and been recognized as a pioneer for his work on maternal mortality.

During his distinguished career, one common denominator is found throughout his work--he embraces the needs of the people least likely to receive care. Dr. Rosenfield is a man who sees need and steps up to the plate to enact change.

Dr. Rosenfield is an extraordinary man whose courage and dedication have inspired all who know him. Among his many admirable traits, there is one I am particularly happy to share with him--his strong belief in the power of humankind kind to change the world for the better.

I am honored to not only know Dr. Rosenfield, the highly respected and dedicated academic, but to call him my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the tremendous career of Dr. Allan Rosenfield and to congratulate him on his 20th year as Dean of the Mailman School of Public Health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I thank the Rules Committee for granting a fair, open rule for the consideration of the foreign operations bill.

While I am disappointed that this rule leaves several commonsense provisions in the bill vulnerable to points of order, I am grateful that the Rules Committee has protected section 587 of the bill. This provision will enhance the focus of U.S. foreign assistance programs on supporting women's access to economic opportunity and will help women take full advantage of the possibilities of the global economy.

I am particularly appreciative to Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman Hyde and, of course, Chairman Kolbe for enabling this language to be maintained; and I look forward to several robust debates today on a number of issues affecting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. foreign assistance.

Of course, I am appreciative of our chairman, and I will thank him appropriately again. I think we have expressed our appreciation and devotion and respect probably at least a half a dozen times, but you deserve it every time, Mr. Chairman.

So I want to again thank the Rules Committee for allowing these debates to proceed by granting an open rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Our 302(b) allocation, which was nearly $2.4 billion below the President's requested level, presented us with several challenges. Within this sharply reduced allocation, we were compelled to fit dramatic increases in presidential priorities such as the Millennium Challenge Account and the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, as well as increased funding for Afghanistan and Iraq.

I generally agree with Chairman Kolbe on the spending levels recommended within the reduced allocation. We worked closely together as always to ensure that, in the face of devastating cuts, we at least level funded child survival and health and development assistance priorities. The bill provides the President's request of $3.4 billion for HIV/AIDS, increasing the overall amount for HIV/AIDS and TB by $751 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and more than doubling the President's request for the global fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $444.5 million. Although I know we both wish we could have done more for the global fund, I believe we are doing the best we can with the resources we have.

The bill maintains level funding for basic education in the development assistance account at last year's level of $365 million. And I am pleased that we have been able to increase non-DA funds for basic education in the bill for a total of $550 million. We also continue the U.S. reconstruction program in Afghanistan, fully fund the requested levels for Liberia, Haiti, and Sudan, and fully fund our strategic commitments in the Middle East. I am pleased that we have also restored deep cuts the President requested in family planning and reproductive health programs. The bill substantially increases family planning funding and the child survival and health account from the President's request, fully restores bill-wide bilateral funding to $432 million, the fiscal year 2006 House-passed level, and earmarks $34 million for the United Nations population fund.

I am also pleased that the bill restores funding for several key U.N. agencies, including UNICEF; UNDP, UNIFEM, and the UNIFEM Trust Fund.

I want to commend the chairman for his willingness to take a critical look at the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative, and specifically how the continuation of a special program aimed primarily at eradication of coca is consistent with the myriad U.S. foreign policy goals in the Andean region. I do believe that our overemphasis on the drug war has caused us to neglect many of the critical objectives throughout Latin America, and it is my hope that the changes made by the chairman in the allocation of funds in this bill are the first steps toward a wholesale reevaluation of our foreign aid program in the region.

I want to point out a few specific concerns I have with the bill. Our shamefully low allocation required us to make cuts from the requests in several key areas, including Migration and Refugee Assistance, peacekeeping, programs for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, key Economic Support Fund programs, and Congo debt relief. It is my hope we will be able to restore these cuts and even provide increases where warranted, in conference, in addition to providing funding for many of these priorities in the supplemental conference report expected on the House floor tomorrow.

I also hope that we can restore full funding for the United States commitment to the Global Environmental Facility. The President's requested level granted in this bill is more than $20 million less than what we had pledged. In light of the GEF's adoption just this week of a number of U.S. initiated matters and reforms, I believe we have a particular responsibility to fully fund our commitment to this organization.

I am disappointed that this bill places no conditionality whatsoever on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and Guatemala. Despite constructive language on Indonesia included in the FY 06 bill, this bill fails to send the message that the United States does expect Indonesia to continue on the path of achieving true civilian control over the military and accountability for human rights abuses. Again, I hope this is something we can remedy in conference.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Kolbe for his hard work this year and every year throughout his tenure in creating a bipartisan environment for examining our foreign aid policy priorities and addressing the funding needs of our foreign assistance program. The chairman has shown tremendous leadership in steering our subcommittee, setting an example of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration that, unfortunately, is too rare in Congress today, and, Chairman Kolbe leaves behind an impressive legacy as he prepares to retire.

Chairman Kolbe has overseen the largest increases in the foreign aid budget post-Cold War, understanding implicitly the key role foreign aid plays in maintaining United States national security. Under his stewardship, funding in the bill to combat HIV-AIDS has increased from $485 million in FY 02 to $3.43 billion in the mark before us today. Basic education has increased more than five-fold. I know he is particularly proud of his work on trade capacity building, as well as on shaping and promoting the Millennium Challenge Account.

Today, the last time Chairman Kolbe will manage the Foreign Operations bill during floor consideration, I do hope we can all take a moment to express our appreciation for the chairman's leadership and his friendship. This Congress and the American people are richer for his service to this body, and his departure will leave a void of intelligence, expertise, professionalism and decency that will not easily be filled.

Chairman Kolbe, you are really a great Member and a great friend. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it has been an honor and a pleasure to work with you.

I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and with our Senate counterparts as the bill moves into conference. However, I think the bill before us today is a good product. I appreciate the chairman's leadership, the involvement of all of our subcommittee members and associate staff, of course, the hard work of our staff, as exemplified by Nisha Desai and Betsy Phillips celebrating their birthday here in this Capitol at about 1 or 2 in the morning. So we all say happy birthday. Happy birthday, Betsy.

We thank Beth Tritter, Craig Higgens, Rob Blair, Delia Scott, Lori Maes, Kevin Hernandez and Todd Calongne for their hard work in crafting this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished member of the committee, Ms. Kilpatrick.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlewoman for her interest in the issue, and I understand that Radio Al Mahaba has given Iraqi women the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression during a very confusing and dangerous time in their country.

I will look forward to working with my colleague from New York to support the continued operation of this vital resource. And I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it to our attention.

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

I just want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey. I appreciate your advocacy on this very critical issue. Many of us in the Congress on both sides of the aisle understand the urgency, and I do hope we can work together on the next step because these young women come there with this terrible, terrible problem and then they are repaired. And without contraceptive coverage, without family planning, they come back again and again and again. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue and I thank you for your advocacy.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that this program should be thoroughly considered by the Department of State and USAID. It can save lives that would otherwise be lost, and advance our national interest by demonstrating the compassion of the American people. It deserves a chance to go forward. I look forward to working with the Chair and the gentleman from New York to ensure that Project Iraqi Hearts gets the attention and consideration it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

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

Mr. Chairman, since the time has expired, I will just say that I will be happy to work with him, too.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been one of the strongest advocates for clean water in the world, and we thank you for your important work.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Kolbe. I understand and support what the gentleman from Oregon seeks to accomplish; but I believe passage of this amendment would upset the delicate balance of funding we have achieved in this bill on a bipartisan basis.

It would also severely disrupt foreign military financing programs that are a key part of our overall national security strategy.

I was pleased that the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations bill included a $200 million earmark for drinking water supply projects in the developing world, and I understand that USAID will indeed meet that earmark in this current fiscal year. As we have not reduced development assistance funding below the 2006 enacted level, and have not reduced disaster assistance significantly from the enacted level, I am confident this bill has room to at least meet the 2006 earmark for water supply projects.

As I said, the potential effect of the gentleman's amendment, and the chairman referred to that, would be to cut nearly in half the 68 unearmarked recipients of foreign military financing. So I am very concerned, but I hope to work with the chairman and the gentleman from Oregon in conference to ensure a high level of funding is earmarked for water supply projects.

In the meantime, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in support of the Obey amendment and I want my colleagues to know that the decision to support this amendment has not been an easy one for me. I support it out of a deep sense of disappointment and unease with recent actions taken by the Egyptian government.

I returned from Egypt with many of the members of the committee just a couple of weeks ago. Our brief visit there was filled with candid meetings with key Egyptian officials. We heard about Egypt's support for the Darfur peace process, its pledges of support for a U.N. peacekeeping force.

We heard the fears of Egyptian officials about the prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the threats to Egyptian society and industry from terrorism, and that what happened in the Palestinian elections with Hamas could happen to them.

We also heard about the great strides Egypt has made on economic reforms and the difficult reforms still ahead, and we heard about Egypt's cooperation on the Middle East peace process and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and on ensuring speedy passage for U.S. military vessels through the Suez Canal.

However, in recent weeks and months, we heard other stories as well, of thousands of riot police being deployed to crush peaceful demonstrations by supporters of judicial independence, of judges being punished for publicly saying that past elections have been rife with fraud, of efforts to quash moderate opposition parties, including through the prosecution, brutal physical abuse and lengthy incarceration of an opposition candidate, of the extension of the sweeping emergency law despite explicit statements that it would not be removed and, most recently, of the termination of democracy-building projects under the auspices of the International Republican Institute simply because IRI's Cairo director criticized the slow pace of Egyptian reform.

I have such great respect for the chairman and am delighted that he had conversations with the IRI as a board member, and I do hope that there has been a misinterpretation of the public information with that issue, and I do hope it can be straightened out.

I am concerned about these developments, and I just finally came to the conclusion that the U.S. has an obligation to speak out; and to those who say that Egypt is a close ally of the United States and we should deal with these

issues in private, I believe that we are a close ally, we will remain a close ally. We understand how important the United States-Egyptian relationship is, but I would say that we have dealt with them in private, countless times; but the Mubarak government refuses to acknowledge our messages.

We, as members of the committee, delivered those messages in person. We understand that Egypt is a close, essential, strategic ally which is precisely why we tried to deliver those messages quietly, in private. It did not work. The reports kept appearing. The pictures on CNN when we were even in Egypt kept appearing.

Since 1979, Egypt has received more than $60 billion in military and economic aid from the United States, and I have supported it every time I had the opportunity to vote for that, understanding the importance of Egypt in that very difficult region of the world. This is proof enough of the importance of Egypt's continued strength, stability, and friendship to the United States.

The Obey amendment is not about devaluing that relationship or causing instability. It is, rather, a strong, unequivocal message that only a friend can deliver, that the way in which the government of Egypt currently approaches its moderate political opposition is simply inexcusable; and for this reason, I do urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I respond to my colleague, I feel strongly that I am not going to tell Mr. Mubarak or his son, with whom we were very impressed, I am not going to tell them whether they should democratize in 1 year, 2 years or 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, in response to my good friend Mr. Wicker, as you well know, we had some very, very solid, powerful dialogue with both President Mubarak and his very impressive son, and we both felt that his words were very strong, very optimistic about the future of the continuance of our relationship and the importance of their role in that region.

I am not even suggesting to my good friend Mr. Wicker that we should tell them they should democratize in 2 years or 3 years. They are living in a tough neighborhood, and they are taking actions that they may think are appropriate in their move towards democratization.

However, I happen to believe, from the bottom of my heart, that those pictures on the camera of 10,000 riot police beating people over the head or the jailing of political opposition for 5 years on forgery charges, and I know we heard that he was not a very good, upstanding citizen, I believe that, however, I am taking this action because of the behavior which I think is inexcusable and because I have confidence that they will continue to move towards the path of democracy.

So I am taking this action not because I am commenting on their slow move towards democracy, but because of the actions that they have taken that I think are inexcusable and, in my judgment, would be problematic if you are moving towards democratic reform.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope the headline would emphasize the over $1 billion that we are providing in assistance to Egypt because we acknowledge the very critical role in that region: the critical role they are playing in Darfur; the critical role they are playing in the peace process. And I have confidence that that relationship is so strong that we will continue to work together to make sure that someday, in our lifetime, we will see peace in that region of the world and hopefully it will be based on democratic principles.

I thank my good colleague for your very thoughtful question.

Mr. Chairman, I will soon offer a motion to recommit. This motion seeks to increase first responder grants by $750 million. This amount will keep each State and locality funded at whichever is higher, fiscal year 2005 or fiscal year 2006. It is critically important that we increase the allocation for first responder grants.

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe, but it is true, that DHS has announced that New York, which remains the likeliest target of a terrorist attack, will receive a $106 million reduction in funding for fiscal year 2007. Short memories. Such a cut is unconscionable.

New York is the only city that has been attacked by terrorists twice. And the New York Police Department has prevented efforts to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and other critical infrastructure.

Reducing funding to New York and Washington, D.C., the two targets of the September 11 attack, is a slap in the face to every first responder who rushed to the emergency scene that morning and every individual living in those regions.

In a letter sent to the New York congressional delegation last week, Secretary Chertoff stated that New York is at the top of the national risk ranking. Yet, inexplicably, New York's share of funding decreased.

Now, the allocation method that DHS uses, frankly, defies common sense. The Statue of Liberty was not considered part of New York City because, technically, the Federal Government owns the property.

DHS classified over 200,000 entities into four risk quadrants, with all items in each quadrant receiving equal value. This means that something that is clearly a target, such as the Capitol, the Empire State Building, and the Golden Gate Bridge is considered the same as whatever target was number 50,000 on the list. And Washington, D.C., as a whole, was placed in the lower risk quadrant because DHS claims it does not have significant critical infrastructure. And by the way, if you call DHS to get an explanation, they respond, it is classified; we can't tell you.

Now, remember, DHS claims that Washington, D.C. does not have significant critical infrastructure.

The September 11 hijackers did not care about the total amount of critical infrastructure in a specific region. They sought to destroy symbolic targets full of thousands of Americans. Our preparedness effort should reflect this fact.

Unless the motion to recommit is adopted, first responder funding will once again be slashed. In the last 5 years, terrorists have murdered thousands in New York, Washington, Madrid and London. Within the past 2 hours, the Canadian government has stated that the terrorists they arrested last week planned to storm Parliament and behead the prime minister.

Now, my colleagues, this should sound an alarm that now is not the time to reduce funding to prevent, prepare and respond to attacks in areas that face the greatest risk. We must pay now to protect our country or we will pay later.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order because, frankly, it is beyond belief to me that this committee could appropriate less to major cities like New York and Washington than they received last year. Given the current threats that are still out there loud and clear, we should not be cutting back on these important critical homeland security dollars.

Madam Speaker, because this ruling defies the imagination of anybody living here in the United States of America, because of this ruling and the decision of this committee to cut back on homeland security funds and refuse to adjust them according to risk-threat vulnerability, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in strong support of this amendment which would provide much- needed funding for interoperability.

Amazingly, we have made so little progress in solving the communications problems that plagued first responders on September 11 and in every other emergency in the last 15 years. SAFECOM, which has been tasked as the lead Federal agency for first responder communication issues, has only five employees and less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the Department of Homeland Security budget.

Due to its lack of resources, SAFECOM is just not meeting its objective. It has not adopted a single equipment standard. There is no long-term strategy to solve the interoperability problem. We are not prepared to effectively respond to any emergency unless our first responders on the ground are able to communicate with one another.

I ask my colleagues to let us move this amendment, let us support this amendment.