Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report; and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to thank Chairman Kolbe and our colleagues in the Senate for working with me to craft what I believe represents a good bipartisan and bicameral compromise.

This bill demonstrates the commitment of Congress to our Nation's foreign assistance programs and puts foreign assistance where it should be, alongside diplomacy and defense as a pillar of U.S. national security strategy.

In light of our conference allocation, which cuts nearly $2 billion from the President's request, we have put together a very good bill.

While I would have liked to see us maintain the Senate's level of funding for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, I am pleased that we have been able to increase funding by $125 million above the House level and $268 million above the President's request, including $450 million for the Global Fund.

I am also pleased that the conference agreement provides $440 million for bilateral international family planning programs and $34 million for the UNFPA. I am disappointed, however, that we could not retain commonsense provisions passed by the Senate that would have repealed the global gag rule and modified the Kemp-Kasten restriction. These provisions would have helped our programs be more responsive to the need for family planning assistance around the world.

I appreciate that the conference report includes increases over the request, the House-passed level and the fiscal year 2005 level for Development Assistance, including a $65 million increase in funding for basic education. Since Chairman Kolbe and I began working together, we have quadrupled funding for basic education, and I am delighted that the Senate agreed to include the House-passed level for this valuable priority.

The agreement fully funds our commitments to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries and provides increases for programs designed to mitigate ongoing conflicts. I am pleased that we retained the Obey amendment earmarking assistance for democracy and education programs in Egypt. We must use every tool at our disposal to encourage the government of Egypt to make greater strides in reforming its political process, and I think this bill sends that message.

I am greatly concerned about the impact of the October 6 earthquake on the people of Pakistan, and I think it important that we stand by Pakistan in this time of need. While this bill does not contain new funds for earthquake relief, I appreciate the inclusion of language in the Statement of Managers recognizing the need for additional funds and setting forth the expectation that some of the $600 million provided in this bill may be reprogrammed to meet relief and reconstruction needs.

I do feel that the bill has a few shortcomings. One is the funding for the Global Environmental Facility. Since the GEF recently adopted the management and transparency reforms advocated by the United States, I do feel we should have done our part by fully funding the fiscal year 2006 request. However, I understand that budgetary constraints limited our contribution to $80 million, and I hope that we can strive for full funding in fiscal year 2007.

I also regret that, while we fulfilled the administration's request for Sudan, the bill does not contain funding added by Senator Corzine on the Senate floor for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. I hope that the administration will seek these funds at the earliest possible moment and any subsequent request for funding or reprogramming in this fiscal year.

Finally, I am pleased that we were able to achieve compromise language placing restrictions on military assistance for Indonesia and paramilitary demobilization assistance for Colombia. While I would have preferred the more robust Senate language on these issues, I believe the compromises we have reached address the concerns of all interested parties.

Finally, I want to thank again Chairman Kolbe for his hard work on this bill, his commitment on this bill. I really deeply appreciate the close working relationship which we have enjoyed throughout the years. It has really been a pleasure for me to work on these very important issues in this bill with him.

I also want to thank the members of my subcommittee for their commitment to the issues that we worked so hard on included in this bill.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for their commitment and their cooperation in working on this bill and, of course, the staff.

Chairman Kolbe has an outstanding staff. Betsy Phillips, Alice Hogans, Rodney Bent, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, and Sean Mulvaney have been wonderful partners in this process; and we will miss a few of them who are moving on. Good luck to them.

Of course, our outstanding minority staff, it is always a pleasure for me to work with Nisha Desai and Beth Tritter. I thank them for their hard work as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the newest member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct the conferees on the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations bill will ensure that the House is clearly on record to provide the highest possible funding level for HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in 2006.

The motion I offer today makes a simple point: Although other issues have overtaken the global AIDS pandemic as front-page news, the pandemic is still growing; and we still have a responsibility to face the challenges it presents head-on.

I was very pleased, as always, to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to provide robust funding to fight the AIDS pandemic, both for the Office of Global AIDS coordinator at the State Department and for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. With an allocation that was more than $2.5 billion below the President's request, we were able to provide full funding, and even a little bit more, for this key priority.

Fortunately, the Senate had even a higher allocation with which to work, and I am pleased that the Senate-passed bill significantly increased funding over the President's request for HIV-AIDS, including $500 million for the Global Fund, the premier multilateral mechanism for fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases.

As we approach conference on the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations appropriations bill, we must maintain our resolve to fund the fight against the global AIDS pandemic at the highest possible levels.

When the fiscal year 2006 bill finally passes, Congress will have provided more than $10 billion to fight AIDS since 2003. Our assistance has saved millions of lives, offered hope for a better future to those already infected with HIV, bolstered the institutional capacity of developing countries to deal with serious public health challenges, and offered comfort and safety to children orphaned by AIDS.

We have done so much. Still, the United Nations estimates indicate that $15 billion will be needed in the upcoming year to fight the pandemic, a need that dwarfs the approximately $6.1 billion available. While some have benefited from our largess and that of the international community, many millions more are being left behind.

Just yesterday, we saw reports of staggering statistics about the effect of the AIDS pandemic on children. Only one in 20 of the HIV- infected children worldwide who need life-prolonging drugs gets them. Only one out of 100 gets a cheap antibiotic that can save nearly half of the death rate from secondary infections like diarrhea and malaria. Fewer than one in 10 mothers infected with the HIV virus are given drugs that can stop transmission to their babies. And every minute of every day a child dies of an AIDS-related illness.

The facts speak for themselves. We can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 66, which I introduced with my friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) to highlight the goals of the sixth annual ``Lights on Afterschool!'' celebration.

This event, organized by the Afterschool Alliance and sponsored by the J.C. Penney Afterschool Fund is the only national celebration of after-school programs and the important role they play in the lives of children, families, and communities.

On October 20, more than 1 million Americans, representing thousands of after-school initiatives across the country, including 166 programs in my home State of New York, are expected to open their doors to parents, neighbors, business leaders, and elected officials to showcase their accomplishments. In my own district, events will take place in New Rochelle, Mamaroneck, Ossining, and Yonkers, and more programs are registering every day.

In spite of the growing enthusiasm for this year's ``Lights On!'' celebration, we do need more than just one day a year to highlight the importance of after-school programs. That is why I joined with other representatives, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I thank also my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who I did not mention before for supporting this program, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). We formed the bipartisan Congressional After- School Caucus earlier this year. Our mission is simple: Build support for these programs within Congress and to translate that support into sufficient funding to meet the growing demand for after-school initiatives.

For years, we have known that what our kids do after school can have as great an impact as what they do in school. In 1996, from my seat on the Committee on Appropriations, I helped create the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers, the first ever Federal after-school initiative. Since then, we have watched it grow from a $1 million demonstration project to a $1 billion permanent program today because there is astonishing demand and tremendous unmet need for it.

In fact, according to a study conducted by the Afterschool Alliance, 40 percent of middle school children, the age when kids are most vulnerable to engaging in dangerous activities, are unsupervised for a good portion of the day. Parents need safe, structured environments where their kids can learn and play, make friends, and develop new interests, yet Congress is not doing what we should to ensure that our kids are safe and engaged while their parents are at work.

The Congressional After-School Caucus and the ``Lights On!'' celebration will focus on changing that. We will share the lessons we have learned to make sure after-school does not become an after-thought in our Federal education priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, join the Caucus, and fight tooth and nail for every dollar available so that kids and their parents have access to these desperately needed programs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order and emphasizing over and over again how important this issue is.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that 4 years after September 11 we are still talking about gaps in our Nation's strategy to prepare for the unthinkable, another terrorist attack. And one of these glaring gaps is the inability of first responders to effectively communicate in an emergency situation. We witnessed this 10 years ago in Oklahoma City. It resurfaced in Columbine in 1999. The problem proved to be deadly on September 11.

Of the 58 firefighters who escaped the north tower on the World Trade Center and gave oral histories to the Fire Department of New York, only three, three heard radio warnings that the north tower was in danger of collapse. People all over the city looked at it happening, but our firefighters who bravely responded did not get any kind of radio warning. We will never know how many of the firefighters who died that day while heroically rescuing thousands of workers would have been spared if they had effective interoperable communications equipment to receive the evacuation orders.

In the wake of Katrina, reports from the gulf indicate that communications failures plagued our first responders once again. The lack of communication with State and local officials in New Orleans compounded FEMA's poor response.

The New York Times reported that rescuers in helicopters could not talk to crews patrolling in boats, and National Guard commanders in Mississippi had to use runners to relay orders. In 2005? We are going back to the days of Paul Revere. They had to use runners. They could not communicate. Crews on the ground could not talk to one another to coordinate searches, slowing down the rescue effort.

For years, as my good colleague just said, several of us have demanded that the administration take the necessary steps to facilitate adequate communication between first responders in the event of an emergency. These demands have gone largely unanswered. I have once again introduced legislation to require the Department of Homeland Security to create a comprehensive interoperability strategy and to authorize funding for first responders and government agencies to plan and purchase equipment.

Despite consensus, I do not know anyone that disagrees that interoperability is a problem and that first responders do not have necessary resources. The bill has not even moved out of committee.

The record of this majority and this administration is troubling in other ways, too. First responders also lack adequate radio spectrum for their radios to work. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), my good colleague, referenced that legislation. Legislation has been repeatedly introduced to solve this, but the majority will not let it advance.

The Intelligence Reform Act that we passed last year stated the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, must come up with a timeline for achieving interoperability by April of this year. Five months later, I have not seen the report. Has the gentleman seen the report? There is no report.

Finally, in his fiscal year 2006 budget request, the President did propose to fund the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within the Department of Homeland Security at $20.5 million, a 35 percent decrease from fiscal year 2005 levels, and far below the billions needed to meet this challenge. The President did not get briefed adequately when Katrina hit. When he was preparing the budget, he clearly was not briefed adequately.

Eight years ago, let me repeat that again, 8 years ago, the final report of the Federal Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee concluded that, ``Unless immediate measures are taken to promote interoperability, public safety

agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient and cost-effective manner.''

Last week, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project found that minimal progress has been made to provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders, and Commissioner Kean has called the failed communications that slowed Katrina rescue efforts a ``national scandal.''

Now, forgive me if I sound impatient or even angry, but with nearly every major study and report on homeland security concluding that lack of interoperability remains one of the most serious issues facing first responders in this country, I simply cannot understand why this administration has done little more than pay lip service to this issue. Well, it is time to do more than talk the talk.

We must do something now to ensure that in the event of an emergency, be it a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, our local police, firefighters, EMS workers, 911 dispatch operators, State police, National Guard, Coast Guard, FEMA, FBI and all other public safety agencies have the ability to communicate with one another. Hurricane Katrina is not a wake-up call that something needs to be done, it is a fire alarm. And I urge my colleagues to immediately adopt legislation to address this critical problem.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for organizing this Special Order. I do hope that the administration and some people in the leadership are listening. I am tired, and I know the gentleman is, I am impatient and I am angry.

We have hearings in the Committee on Homeland Security. Members of the administration testify; they agree with us. We ask them, when are you going to send out requests for proposals; when are you going to seriously address this problem? We are going to do it; we are going to do it.

Katrina came. Hundreds of people lost their lives, and we still do not have a definite plan in place to make sure that people can talk to each other and communicate with each other to save lives.

So I thank the gentleman again.

I rise today in support of this legislation, a down payment toward fulfilling our obligation to help the citizens and cities ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

The tragedy of Katrina has exposed some difficult truths of American life. That the richest Nation on earth is just as vulnerable to the laws of nature as the poorest. That the have-nots are not only poorer than the haves--they are also less safe.

The tragedy has also brought into sharp focus the debate about the role of government in citizens' lives. It has exposed the fallacy advanced by the leadership of this Congress and the administration that government is the problem, and it can't ever be the solution.

I believe that government should work with the private sector to help people help themselves to achieve their goals. Government should be a partner in making the lives of Americans better.

Unfortunately, too often, on the floor of this chamber, we've heard from Members who bemoan the size of the government and blast programs to help vulnerable populations, even as they tout legislation providing billions in Federal resources to the most powerful and connected companies and individuals in this country. They have been allowed to snip away at the web of structures put in place to help the American people.

Katrina was the deluge that exposed what we have warned of all along--when you starve the government, it fails those who need it most.

In times of crisis and in times of need, the people expect--and should expect--that their government will stand with them. American taxpayers deserve strong, competent leaders who jump into action, rather than ignore crisis and delay response. Who take responsibility, not rush to point fingers. Who understand that government is necessary and can be a force for good.

Last week, the U.S. Government failed its people. This legislation is merely one step toward repairing this breach of basic trust, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rabbi Amiel Wohl of New Rochelle for being honored with the 2005 Yitzhak Rabin Peacemaker Award.

The Yitzhak Rabin Peacemaker Award is given annually to an individual who has sought to bring better understanding and harmonious relationships between various religious and ethnic groups. Rabbi Wohl has carried out this mission time and time again, including efforts to aid Christians suffering in Lebanon through his organization, People for Relief in Lebanon.

Rabbi Wohl has been committed to inter-faith communication since his arrival at Temple Israel of New Rochelle in 1973. Almost immediately, he coordinated the Interreligious Council, which brought together Catholic, Protestant and Jewish houses of worship and religions organizations. He has also been instrumental in other groups dedicated to interfaith communication, including the Westchester Jewish Conference, which has sought to cross both denominational and municipal lines.

Rabbi Wohl has exemplified the ideals we seek in individuals of faith. From creating the Coalition for Mutual Respect in 1979 to traveling as far as Sacramento, California, to participate in inter- faith efforts, Rabbi Wohl has worked tirelessly to sustain the dialogue necessary to address conflicts among the different faiths in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Rabbi Amiel Wohl on his accomplishments and in congratulating him on receiving this award.

Mr. Speaker, our first concern over the coming weeks must be assisting those who need to be rescued, who need essential supplies and medical attention, and who need temporary shelter to survive these difficult days. I am committed to helping provide that assistance and Congress was correct to pass this aid package today to ensure that immediate resources are available for those efforts.

However, as the recovery continues and we begin the rebuilding process, we cannot forget about the problems that have plagued our response to the hurricane. It is not too soon to ask what went wrong so that we can avoid those missteps in the coming weeks and in future disasters.

Early indications point to the fact that once again, our response teams have been hampered with the inability to effectively communicate with one another. In Oklahoma City in 1995, at Columbine in 1999, and then again in New York in 2001, our first responders were unable to communicate. The administration has done little to address this problem despite my efforts over the last four years. We must find out exactly how communications deteriorated as quickly as they did and put in place a real interoperability plan.

In addition, there appears to be a massive disconnect between the information the government has issued on the aid effort and what individuals on the ground have experienced. We have to make sure that aid gets to those in need immediately--right now, too many still lack basic necessities and that is simply unacceptable.

We have known that the levees in New Orleans could not withstand the most severe storms. Former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt recently stated that in the 1990s, planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario included the pre-deploying nearby of hospital ships and ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea- level city. We have to ask--why was this not done? Was it incompetence, a lack of leadership or has the deployment of National Guard troops to Iraq slowed recovery efforts?

We also need to ask if reorganizations of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offer us the best protection against all hazards. Prior to the creation of DHS, FEMA was largely viewed as a very effective organization. Since it has been placed in DHS, FEMA's role in preparedness and response has changed. Does the current departmental organization offer the best model of response to any type of hazard, be it a natural disaster or man-made?

These are difficult questions but they are necessary ones. In the coming weeks, I will push for answers even as I work with Members of the Homeland Security Committee to make sure that the current crisis is addressed and victims are given the assistance they still so desperately need.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is a Member opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this commonsense amendment would simply ensure that the areas in our country facing the

greatest threat receive their fair share of homeland security funds. Recent worldwide attacks against areas with significant critical infrastructure are not wake-up calls, they are fire alarms.

This amendment already has widespread support. The House voted for these same provisions by a vote of 409 to 10 just 10 months ago.

I urge my colleagues to once again support these provisions. Let us take action tonight so that we can allocate our precious resources to those who need them the most.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their support. I thank them for accepting it. This is a very important amendment. I thank the chairman for his wisdom and for his comments. I am glad we were able to use this as a vehicle to get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. I am grateful for the Committee on Rules for granting an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3057, the FY 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

It is always my preference each year to allow as broad a debate as possible on the provisions in the bill and on United States foreign aid policy generally.

I believe this rule will accomplish that.

However, I did ask the Committee on Rules to grant a waiver to one amendment during today's debate, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to provide $1 billion in emergency funding for veterans health care. While I do not usually support giving waivers to amendments on the foreign operations bill that are not directly related to the bill, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman from Texas' effort.

The administration's recent revelation of a $1 billion shortfall in veterans health care funding is already significantly impacting our veterans, as facilities across the country deny new requests for appointments. This admission, which emerged during a congressional hearing last week, comes less than 4 months after Secretary Nicholson wrote to the Senate with a bold assertion that the VA ``does not need emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005.'' It seems Secretary Nicholson was either misleading Congress or simply was not informed of the facts; and, frankly, I do not know which poses a greater threat to the veterans health care system.

The nonchalance with which the administration has handled funding for veterans health care is unbelievable, especially as our men and women in uniform continue to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. These brave Americans continue to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms, and we must fulfill our commitment to care for them upon their return.

The gentleman from Texas' effort is not without precedent. The Committee on Rules made in order a Republican amendment to the Iraq War supplemental on REAL ID, allowing for adoption of this provision without any real debate or hearings. The committee also made in order a nongermane amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill, arguing that the continuity of Congress was too important not to include.

Given what our veterans have done for this country, the gentleman from Texas' amendment is too important not to consider today, and I urge defeat of the previous question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3057, the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations appropriations bill, and I want to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his hard work in putting together this bill. The good working relationship we share is evident in the product we present to the House today.

The President's fiscal year 2006 request, when compared with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, presented us with an array of difficult choices. Our allocation is a full $2.55 billion below the request level, and into this reduced allocation we had to fit increases in administration priorities, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief.

While I do believe that the bill reflects, for the most part, a bipartisan compromise on the distribution of resources, I feel that this allocation fails to meet our overall foreign policy and national security needs at a time when the world is facing greater instability due to disease, deprivation and conflict.

The world's attention is focused on the upcoming G-8 Summit, in which wealthy nations will announce new commitments to achieve development progress. It is in this context that we must consider the bill before us today. We must ask if it is sufficient to lead the community of developed nations in creating a new compact for global development; if it will make the United States the standard bearer in a renewed effort to lift the least fortunate among us out of poverty; if it represents the commitment we must make to achieving the good governance and adequate financial resources to address the world's challenges.

My colleagues, we did the best we could with what we had, and I commend the chairman for that, but it is not enough. We are missing an opportunity today to demonstrate that the United States understands not just the need but the urgency of beating back the AIDS pandemic, getting children in school, encouraging reformers and oppressive societies, an opportunity to show that we understand business as usual simply will not do the job and that we are willing to take dramatic steps to bring the rest of the world on board.

This bill will do a great deal of good for a lot of people. It will address many of the challenges around the world that most directly affect U.S. national security, but it is not the bold statement that we all know it could be. Nevertheless, I generally agree with my chairman on the spending levels recommended within the reduced allocation. We worked closely together to ensure that in the face of these devastating cuts, we at least level-funded child survival and health and development assistance priorities.

We provided an increase over the President's request for HIV/AIDS, doubling his request for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Although I wish we could have done more for the Global Fund, I believe we are doing the best we can with the resources we have. We provided $465 million for basic education. We continued the U.S. reconstruction program in Afghanistan, and we fully funded our commitments in the Middle East, a powerful statement at such a critical time in the peace process.

The message we have sent with this bill is clear: In contrast with the President's request, Congress will not increase funding for MCC and PEPFAR on the backs of our core development accounts.

I am pleased that we were also able to restore deep cuts the President requested in reproductive health programs. This bill provides $432 million of bilateral funding, the fiscal year 2005 House-passed level, and earmarks an additional $25 million in International Organizations and Program funds for the United Nations Population Fund. The bill further specifies that any funds for the UNFPA that cannot be spent should be transferred to USAID specifically for bilateral family planning programs, a provision we carried in the fiscal year 2004 bill as well.

As I said, I am also pleased that this bill provides a total of $465 million for basic education, $65 million more than the fiscal year 2005 level. And, once again, we provide $15 million for a pilot program to eliminate school fees and, for the first time, require a GAO study on our education programs to ensure that we maximize the effectiveness of our aid dollars.

This bill fully funds Israel's annual economic and military aid package, including early disbursal of these funds within 30 days of the bill's passage. It also includes language carried in previous years, placing conditions on U.S. support for any future Palestinian state. This year, the bill includes an additional provision requiring a GAO audit of the fiscal year 2006 West Bank and Gaza program, as well as a project-by-project plan from the State Department on how these funds are being spent. And it extends a reporting requirement included in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental on the Palestinians' progress in reforming their security services, dismantling terrorist groups, and ending incitement against Israel. I agree with the chairman that these provisions are critical to monitoring the results we achieve as well as the money we disburse.

I am proud that the bill and report carry a number of provisions aimed at increasing the U.S. commitment to fighting gender-based violence around the world, including in areas with high HIV infection rates and in areas undergoing conflict and civil strife. I want to thank the chairman for including a provision requiring police, judicial, and military training programs funded in the bill to develop training curricula on how to prevent and deal with victims of gender- based violence. And I am pleased that we were able to increase funding for UNIFEM and the UNIFEM Trust Fund to a total of $5 million.

I want to point out a few specific concerns, however, I have with the bill. First, it provides no funding to the Global Environmental Facility, GEF. The GEF is the largest single funder of projects to improve the global environment, and every dollar invested by the U.S. in the GEF leverages $14 from other sources.

I do understand why the chairman has proposed this cut. The GEF has dragged its feet in implementing a performance-based allocation system. And while I agree with the chairman's desire to send a message that we are serious about reform, I do believe cutting funding is not the right way to accomplish this. I hope we will have the opportunity to restore funding to the GEF as this bill moves to the Senate and through conference.

I am also concerned that the bill places no conditionality whatsoever on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and international military education and training for Guatemala. For the first time since Indonesian military-backed militias laid waste to East Timor in the wake of its August 1999 independence referendum, we will provide FMF to Indonesia free of any conditions. And despite the Guatemalan government's noncompliance with military reform stipulated in the Peace Accords, we have removed IMET restrictions on that country as well.

I regret that we were not able to fully fund the President's request for

refugees and peacekeeping. The reduced allocation simply made it impossible. I am pleased that we were able to provide additional funding as part of the fiscal year 2005 supplemental, and I am optimistic we can increase funding for these accounts in conference.

Let me also say that even though this bill provides no funding for Iraq reconstruction, I take seriously the role this committee plays in exercising oversight over this effort. Reports of wasted money and poor accounting for taxpayer funds are certainly alarming. Congress, and particularly this subcommittee, has a responsibility to ensure that these funds are used properly and efficiently, and the chairman and I will continue to make this a priority.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Senate's allocation for foreign operations is a full $1.6 billion above the House. It is my hope that this allocation will enable us to significantly increase funding for a number of critical priorities in the final conference measure.

I want to thank the chairman once again for being such a good partner in the process. I particularly want to thank him and wish him a very happy birthday from all of us. With few exceptions, I believe we have put together a good bill within the context of our difficult allocation.

I appreciate the gentleman's help and the work of the staff, Nisha, Betsy, Alice, Rodney, Rob, Lori, Sean, and Beth, in bringing this bill to the floor and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished new member of the committee.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California for raising this important issue. As I have said repeatedly throughout the process of moving this bill to the House floor, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not fulfill the U.S. commitment to the Global Environmental Facility.

Since its establishment in 1991, the GEF has provided $5 billion in grants, leveraged $16 billion in co-financing for projects in 140 countries around the world, has provided more than 4,000 grants directly to smaller organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion to the GEF over this same time frame.

The GEF is unique in its laser-like focus on environmental sustainability. It is the most effective way for the United States and other donor nations

to support biodiversity and prevent climate change.

House passage of the bill with no funding for the GEF will send a strong message, but I hope not the wrong message. I agree with the chairman that the U.S. should encourage transparency, responsibility, and accountability of the institution. And I hope that is what the international community takes away from today's debate.

However, I do believe that in cutting off all funding to the GEF, we run the risk of sending the message that the United States no longer supports the good work of the organization. I am pleased that today's discussion will clarify that this is not true, and I join the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) in looking forward to the August GEF Council meeting, which will hopefully include the adoption of a performance-based Resource Allocation Framework. I am optimistic that the Senate will do the right thing by the GEF and that we will be able to provide the requested levels in conference. I look forward to working with the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to see that this happens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a real advocate for the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority leader, who has been a strong advocate for the United States' increased role in the world today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), distinguished member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has been very active in a whole range of issues involving our foreign aid program.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California for raising this issue. I too am very concerned about the repressive and totalitarian turns that Zimbabwe has taken in recent years under Mr. Mugabe.

The decision to evict thousands of poor people from their homes and bulldoze their property is one of the worst forms of brutality Mr. Mugabe has used against his own people, who are already suffering from food shortages and economic stagnation. He is truly relentless in his effort to quash any opposition he perceives.

As the chairman has said, there is no U.S. funding for Mr. Mugabe's regime contained in the bill. However, at a time when Zimbabweans are suffering so much, I am loathe to place conditions or limitations on any assistance that might help the beleaguered people of the country and ease their isolation from the rest of the international community. I am particularly concerned about any limitations on HIV/AIDS programs which comprise the bulk of our assistance to Zimbabwe.

Once again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for raising this issue, and I hope to work with him and the chairman as the bill progresses.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for raising this important issue today. I agree with him that ensuring a robust level of funding for all of Latin America, particularly in the Child Survival and Development Assistance account, serves U.S. national interests. We need to remember that the challenges of development are not only found halfway around the world, they exist in America's own backyard as well.

I want the gentleman to know that the chairman and I worked hard to restore cuts proposed to these two accounts in the President's budget request, and it would be my expectation that the funding in this bill is sufficient to ensure that at least the fiscal year 2005 levels would be achieved. That was certainly our intent in working to avoid the proposed cuts.

I thank the gentleman again for raising this very important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I want to thank the gentlewoman for her commitment to combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic. She has been a strong and constant voice championing the cause of the poorest, and I agree with my colleague from California that more needs to be done to help address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) discussed the funding in the bill. However, we all agree, and I know the chairman agrees, that more needs to be done. And the U.N. has estimated the total resources needed to combat HIV/AIDS around the world to be $15 billion per year. An additional $5 billion is needed to combat TB and malaria. And while I do not believe that the United States can or should fulfill all of the need on our own, the amount that we are currently contributing, about 15 percent of the total need, is not representative of what we are capable of doing.

So although the Chair has mentioned, and I would agree that we have done as much as we possibly can in this bill, I would like to work with him, you, and certainly with the Chair to make sure that we continue to increase our commitment to HIV/AIDS. I thank the gentlewoman for entering into this colloquy.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises important issues. For the last several years, I have joined many of my colleagues in expressing concern about the composition of the U.S. aid package to Egypt. Why, at a time when Egypt has no major enemies, should we be providing over $1 billion each year in military assistance? Why, when Egypt lacks economic prosperity, should we maintain such a high level of military aid even as economic assistance levels drop?

In Cairo last week, Secretary of State Rice announced a new commitment to human rights in the Arab world, imploring the Egyptian Government to hold free and transparent elections and end human rights abuses, and I was very pleased to hear her remarks. For too long, we have coddled undemocratic regimes, looking the other way as democracy and freedom have been stifled.

Despite President Mubarak's pronouncements to the contrary, Egypt is a hotbed neither of democratic reform nor respect for the rights of the opposition.

In late May, members of the Egyptian movement Kifaya, which means ``enough'' in Arabic, were beaten and dragged through the street by a government-organized mob. Police stood by as women were sexually assaulted; and in some cases, police actively participated in beating and arresting protesters. What radical agenda does Kifaya have? Free, fair, and transparent elections.

Or consider the case of Ayman Nour, leader of a small Egyptian opposition party, who was jailed on charges of faking signatures to form his party. In the weeks leading up to his arrest, Nour had called for a constitutional overhaul to restrain Mubarak's powers.

Nour spent 42 days in prison being beaten and held under inhumane conditions and is awaiting a trial that will start next week.

The Egyptian record on human rights is rivaled by its record on incitement in the media. Even as diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt continue to progress, with the recent return of Egypt's ambassador to Israel, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks in the official Egyptian media persist, with claims of Holocaust exaggeration, Zionist-Nazi collaboration, and anti-Semitic canards.

The amendment sends the message that the status quo is not okay. Baby steps toward political reform are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. Tepid efforts to stop smuggling along Egypt's border with Gaza are not enough. Disclaimers that the Egyptian press is free and cannot be influenced by the government will not be believed.

The tide in the Middle East is turning toward democracy and freedom, toward rights for women and educational opportunities for children. The tide is turning toward peace between Israel and its neighbors, toward economic cooperation and coexistence.

Egypt has been part of this turning tide. It was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, and it is a needed partner in closing any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. But too often we have seen this powerful player in regional affairs place stumbling blocks in front of progress instead of easing the way.

We know Egypt is listening to our debate today. A lot is at stake. So the one message I have is this: great nations recognize when the changing times will leave them behind, and they stay ahead of the curve. I hope we will see the pace of reform quicken and the quality of cooperation increase in the coming weeks and months.

I wish to be heard on the point of order.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on the issue. I am pleased that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I were able to double the President's request for the Global Fund in the bill from $200 million to $400 million, and, as the gentlewoman probably knows, given the allocation, it was simply the best we could do.

However, I understand the urgency of the situation, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman as we move the bill forward to continue to

meet our responsibilities, and then some, because of the tremendous, tremendous impact of HIV/AIDS in every part of this world.

Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order, I ask for clarification as to which of the two amendments the gentleman is offering to the House.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I withdraw my reservation, because I understand from the chairman that this does not have any substantive changes being made in the bill. But I certainly think that the content of the gentleman's amendment deserves greater discussion at another time. The chairman and I were also in Botswana, we were also in South Africa, we were in Tanzania as well, and there is progress being made in some parts of the country, and some not. It is a tremendous challenge, but I think

it is simplistic to say that only one area deserves further funding, and that the ABC approach may not be as successful as one may think.

So I think we need to discuss this further, and I would like to enter into dialogue with the gentleman at another time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on the bill. And I hope the gentleman will work, certainly, with the chairman and myself and many of us who would support increased funding to address the critical issues that the gentleman mentions.

However, within this allocation, the gentleman knows it was very difficult; and I feel very strongly that in terms of our international policies, nothing is more important than expanding our support in the country for all the important initiatives included in this bill and increasing the dollars that we can spend on them.

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

I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I certainly agree with his intent, which is to minimize United States investment in failed counternarcotics programs.

For far too long, we have supported policies and funded programs in Colombia that simply do not work. Our counternarcotics programs in Colombia have long been an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

The data we have from the National Drug Intelligence Center at the Department of Justice with respect to the success of this program is negative. It shows that the program has not decreased the amount of cocaine coming into the United States. In fact, the quantity of cocaine on our streets is increasing, and the price is decreasing, making it all the more affordable and attractive to our youth.

The billions that we have put into Plan Colombia have not been effective in substantially decreasing the amount of coca being grown in Colombia either. After spending over $4 billion and spending nearly 6 years, have we even cut coca production in half? No. We have decreased by less than 7 percent the number of hectares of coca in Colombia.

It is becoming even more difficult and costly to eliminate each hectare of coca. The U.N., whose own surveys found a small decrease in Colombian coca in 2004, found that for every acre of coca reduced in 2004, 22.8 acres of coca had to be sprayed. This ratio has never been so high.

U.N. statistics indicate that the overall amount of coca grown in the Andes increased by 3 percent last year, led by substantial increases in Bolivia, 17 percent; Peru, 14 percent.

Finally, the failure of this program to solve the problem of coca production is all the more compounded by the heavy toll it imposes on the rural communities in Colombia that are already suffering from armed conflict. Continuing to fund it at such a high level is simply bad policy.

I am troubled by the fact that this amendment cuts $100 million from the foreign operations bill without adding it back for one of the many programs that could use it. The allocation with which the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I had to contend is already $2.5 billion short of the President's request; and with the increased needs we face around the world, to combat the HIV/AIDS virus and other diseases, fight hunger, improve child health and education, and promote peace and security in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe, I am concerned that this amendment further reduces our funding in the bill.

Again, I support the gentleman for raising these important issues, and I thank him for all the time he has spent really understanding the issue, working on the issue and trying to stress how useless this funding really is in making a dent in the coca operation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

And I want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue today. I strongly support continued funding for programs to secure and destroy small arms and light weapons around the world, and I join my chairman in delightfully accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Strengthening democracy and promoting human rights are at the heart of our national security strategy. The President has made these ideals central components of U.S. foreign policy.

The State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund focuses on the countries and regions of greatest strategic interest to the United States, supporting those who seek to bolster human rights and promote democracy in key areas of the world.

Unfortunately, the administration's request cut funding by $9 million below FY 2005 levels. This was in part because the administration requested increased funding for democracy programs through the National Endowment for Democracy in the Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill. However, the House did not grant the requested increases for NED; and, in fact, the SSJC appropriations bill cut funding for NED below the FY 2005 enacted levels.

I therefore am very pleased that the chairman will accept the gentleman's amendment so that we may ensure sufficient funding for democracy programs in the FY 2006 bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the comments of the chairman. I think that this amendment would be detrimental to the national security, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weiner amendment. This provision was included in the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations bill, and I believe it should be included again.

This is a common sense amendment. It sends a message to Saudi Arabia that the United States is serious about reform.

We impatiently await Saudi Government efforts to eliminate anti- Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda from its state-controlled media. We are looking for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, including reforms that would allow the women of that country a voice in shaping their country.

We still have not seen Saudi Arabia disavow its propaganda campaign against Christians and Jews, a campaign that is alive and well here in our very own country, as Saudi-exported materials inciting hatred and prejudice are made available at Saudi-supported American mosques.

In short, it is all carrot these days and too little sticks. The Weiner amendment provides some incentive for change in Saudi Arabia. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues from California, the cochairs of the Haiti task force, for their important work on this issue. So many of us continue to look at the horrors that are occurring every day, and instead of being minimized, they seem to increase in intensity. In talking to friends who have been there recently, each day the violence gets more grim, and it affects the average person who just wants to go about their business living normally. That is impossible.

So I am very pleased that the chairman is accepting this amendment, and I hope that we can work closely with the Haiti task force to see if we can come up with some kind of positive recommendations that can have an impact on the lives of people.

So I thank my colleagues for introducing this amendment and I look forward to working closely with them so that perhaps the average family can look forward to a decent life one day soon.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for clarifying the amendment. We understand the important purposes of our

aid to Romania, and I hope we can really make a change in the adoption policy. I look forward to working with the chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for spending some time to discuss the genocide that is currently occurring in Darfur. He and I understand that the administration does currently have the authorization to take steps, and with his help and with the help of the Chair, I hope we can continue to keep this issue on the tops of our agenda so that the world does not actually watch what is going on without taking all appropriate action, and I want to thank the gentleman.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the chairman's clear concern and commitment to focus on the severe issues in Darfur, and I certainly would be delighted to work with the chairman to see if we can come up with some report language that would clarify the intent of the gentlewoman from Texas' concerns as expressed in this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for a concluding statement.

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation as well to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work in crafting this legislation. I know they did the best they could with the allocation, and this bill does include many of our most important priorities, from education funding and worker training, to biomedical research and public health activities, and impacts the lives of virtually every American.

I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant.

However, because of this limited budget allocation, many important needs will remain underfunded. For example, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we built up in the 5 years completed in 2003. And despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award, and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low- and middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester, New York.

The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade, allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education, IDEA.

The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting base account by $100 million, and I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to restore funding to CPB.

Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over 30 years there have been Federal laws which allow doctors, hospitals, and nurses to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies. And just as the law protects religious and moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections. I want to make it very clear that States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their Federal health, education, and labor funding. I will work to remove this provision from the final bill.

Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws. However, I hope that as it moves through the process, we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure. I will vote ``no'' today.

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for their hard work in crafting this legislation.

This bill includes many of our most important priorities--from education funding and worker training to biomedical research and public health activities. The programs and policies in this legislation impact the lives of virtually every American.

I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant.

However, because of the limited budget allocation many important needs will remain under-funded. For example,

This bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we've built up over the last five years.

Despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last two years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low-and-middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester County, New York.

The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade and allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education. And frankly, I was appalled that the majority chose to completely eliminate the Foreign Assistance Language Program (FLAP). There is little disagreement that the nation continues to face a shortage of language experts after the attacks of September 11th. FLAP is the only federal program that supports language education for students in elementary and secondary schools.

The bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy Start, training grants for health care workers and grants for public health and hospital preparedness, and eliminates $100 million for the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's base account by $100 million. I hope that my colleagues will support an amendment that I will be offering with Ranking Member Obey and Representative Leach to restore funding to CPB.

I'm also disappointed that when so many other programs faced the chopping block this year, the bill provides a $10 million increase for abstinence-until-marriage programs despite mounting evidence of the scientific and medical inaccuracy of their curricula and ineffective results. We all agree that we must teach our children that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. However, federal dollars should be invested only in programs with strong evaluation components and those found to provide medically and scientifically sound information to young people.

Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over thirty years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies.

And just as the law protects religious or moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections, gutting the stipulations included in the Title X family planning program which require that all legal options are presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal abortion services; and overriding state constitutional patient protections. States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their federal health, education and labor funding.

I will work to remove this provision from the final bill.

Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws, however, I hope that as it moves through the process we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure.

I will vote ``no'' today.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

What we have today is a new remake of an old show: the misguided effort to deny the American people the quality, thought-provoking, and insightful programming of PBS.

Ten years ago, when the right wing launched an all-out assault on public television, Americans understood what was at stake and rallied around PBS. The Republican leadership retreated, and public broadcasting was saved.

Today, the majority is again trying to pull the plug on public television and radio. This time, well over a million Americans have signed petitions calling for the restoration of CPB's operating funds, and thousands more have contacted congressional offices in opposition to these devastating cuts.

Families across the country turn to public radio and television for educational programs, job training, the latest digital services, balanced news, local information; the very types of programs and services commercial television stations simply do not offer because they just are not profitable.

Local public stations are already struggling to provide these quality programs with limited dollars. This $100 million rescission, 25 percent of CPB's operating budget, could force many stations to fade to black.

Do we want to live in a society where pop culture dictates all that is offered on the airwaves? Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters that appear on Sesame Street and other children's programs are the ones that gross the highest profits, rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids?

We have an opportunity today to send the same strong and successful message that beat back these cuts to public broadcasting 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to restore this critical funding to CPB by voting in favor of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for their commitment and work on restoring these monies. None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11.

In my judgment, the committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State workers' compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York. The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. What we do know is that the health needs of September 11 responders continue to be great and the Federal response continues to be incomplete. There have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who work or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack. The men and women were exposed to toxic materials, included asbestos, fiberglass, PCBs; and many may not even exhibit symptoms of sickness for years to come.

We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11.

I rise in support of the Maloney amendment and thank my colleague from New York for her leadership on this issue.

When President Bush stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center, and when he sat in the Oval Office with New York's Congressional delegation almost four years ago, no one doubted his promise to give our State and city the funds we needed to recover from the terrorist attack on our Nation.

None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11.

In my judgment, this Committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State Worker's Compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York.

The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

What we do know is that the health needs of September 11th responders continue to be great, and the federal response continues to be incomplete.

Since September 11, there have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who worked or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack.

These men and women were exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos, fiberglass, and PCBs, and many may not even exhibit symptoms or sickness for years to come. We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11 responders.

If any of these funds are not needed for workers compensation payments, then we should redirect the money to supplement the federal response to the ongoing medical needs of September 11th responders.

When New York needed help, volunteers from New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and even as far as Florida and California--and the list goes on--came to aid the victims of this tragic attack. I hope you will join me in fighting to preserve the funds to assist these individuals should they become ill as a result of their efforts in the aftermath of September 11th.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time, and I want to express my enormous respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my dear friend, with whom I agree on some things but not on this issue, although the majority of the bill I know is consistent with the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lantos) and my view, although I do rise in strong support of the Lantos substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill, but it is with great respect; and I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague on this and many other issues.

It is no secret that the United Nations is going through a period of intense soul-searching, precipitated by increasing evidence that it has become an ineffective and unwieldy institution that long ago lost sight of its reason for being.

When the world changes, its institutions must change with it or become irrelevant, and so the U.N. has embarked on a mission to adapt to the changing times. As the Nation most involved in the founding of the U.N., the United States has an obligation to play a key role in this reform process.

Reform cannot, frankly, come quickly enough. The U.N. suffers today from a credibility gap around the world and for good reason. The Volcker Commission has exposed some uncomfortable truths about the Oil- for-Food program. The U.N. has dragged its feet in addressing some of our world's worst crises, such as the Darfur genocide, and has been impotent on human rights issues; and the record of the U.N. and many of its member states with respect to Israel has, frankly, been abominable.

In many ways, the U.N. is broken; but we must remember that it remains and must remain a central actor in global affairs. The organization has provided critical resources to nations coping with great poverty and social dislocation.

The U.N. Population Fund has reduced the number of unintended pregnancies around the world through basic family planning services.

UNICEF is the premier organization combating childhood disease in poor countries.

Agencies like the United Nations Development Program have raised living standards by improving governance, health, and education.

For millions around the world, the U.N. is not some distance bureaucracy. It is a hot meal for a hungry family. It is a doctor for a pregnant mother. It is protection for a first-time voter, and it is peace for a war-ravaged village. Indeed, even when the U.N. efforts fall short, and they often do, progress toward international cooperation is made, and recognition of common interests and values is encouraged.

As many have said, the U.N. is the kind of organization we would have to invent if it did not already exist. A strong U.N. is good for the United States and good for the world.

So enacting the Hyde bill, which is more about punishment than reform, simply does not serve, in my judgment, the best interests of this country.

In requiring a mandatory 50 percent cut in the United States dues to the U.N., unless 32 of 39 specific reforms are achieved, the Hyde bill provides no flexibility whatever to the State Department to negotiate with other U.N. member states. Rather than providing Secretary Rice a tool to encourage ongoing U.N. reform negotiations, it ties her hands.

The Lantos substitute would call for most of the same reforms as the Hyde bill, while providing the Secretary of State with room to maneuver to get real reforms passed.

It is a common-sense way to achieve the changes we all agree are needed with the right balance of diplomacy and muscle. And while I support the goals of the chairman, I cannot endorse his means, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lantos substitute and defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would correct an error in the interpretation of our law that has put the lives of the world's most vulnerable women and children at risk.

Since 2002, the United States has provided no funds to the United Nations Population Fund. The facts are clear. UNFPA has a worldwide policy of not providing abortions, even when they are legal in the country in which UNFPA is operating. UNFPA does not coerce women into abortion and sterilization. It works to secure voluntary reproductive health options around the world.

U.S. law prohibits funding for organizations that support coercive practices.

But UNFPA is being penalized because it is trying to overturn, end coercive practices in China.

In meeting after meeting over the past 3 years, the State Department has repeatedly said that nothing UNFPA does will lead to a restoration of its funding as long as it continues to operate in China, unless China changed its laws.

Let us make it very clear. UNFPA is the premier multilateral organization helping to provide safe motherhood, reproductive health assistance to the world's poorest children.

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this weekend should serve as a time for all Americans to reflect on the great sacrifices of those who have defended our great nation and to honor the men and women who continue to protect us.

As we celebrate this Memorial Day, the thoughts and prayers of our entire country are with our troops and the families who have lost loved ones. Throughout our history, brave men and women have answered the call to duty, and their courage and dedication to protecting our democracy is an inspiration to us all. We are the beneficiaries of their bravery, and we must also be the protectors of their legacy. That is why I am proud to join many of my colleagues in cosponsoring the comprehensive New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century.

These benefits for active duty service members, veterans, and military retirees would ensure that we fulfill our obligation to our men and women in uniform. At a time when our nation is asking more men and women to risk their lives and security on behalf of our country, we should make every effort to fulfill our promise to them upon their return.

The strength of our nation should not be measured only by our military or diplomatic might, but also by the compassion and dedication we show to those who defend us. Freedom is not free, and we honor those who have paid a price for the liberties we enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to our nations' fallen heroes and honoring those who have made sacrifices in defense of the United States.