Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, but I rise to express my disappointment with this rule.

On a party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make my amendment in order to provide funding on a limited basis to the United Nations Population Fund. I requested that it be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to discuss this matter of grave importance, not only to the poorest women and their families, but also to United States national security. Unfortunately, we are being denied the opportunity to debate this issue.

Many of my colleagues think they have voted on this issue before. However, the debate we could have had today would have been different from those of the last 3 years.

To begin with, this amendment would have maintained the Kemp-Kasten restrictions in the bill in their original form. As many of my colleagues know, these restrictions prohibit funding to any organization that supports coercive abortion and sterilization.

The amendment would have provided funding for UNFPA in only six countries, all of which are strategically important to United States national security: Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya, and Tanzania. If UNFPA is found to be supporting coercive practices in any of these countries, the amendment would have prohibited funding for the UNFPA program in that country.

The amendment would have maintained prohibitions on funding for the UNFPA in China and would have restored a prohibition included in previous Foreign Operations bills that requires a reduction in U.S. funds to UNFPA programs for every dollar spent by UNFPA in a country which is alleged to support coercive practices. Currently, China is the only such country.

Essentially, my amendment would have asked a very simple question: Should we let concerns about UNFPA's programs in one country, China, stop the United States from investing in a proven, multilateral program that could, in fact, reap benefits for United States national security?

By improving the health of women and their children, reducing the rate of maternal deaths, and preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, UNFPA chips away at the demographic trends and public health disasters that threaten the stability of the world's poorest nations. As we all know, achieving global stability is a primary United States foreign policy goal. I am really disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to debate it today.

I am also displeased that the rule did not grant waivers to other Democratic amendments. One such amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) would have provided an additional $800 million in emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. While we have provided $400 million in the bill for the Global Fund, an amendment equal to last year's bill and $300

million above the President's request, the Global Fund will require much more in order to meet current and future commitments. It is unfortunate, I say to my colleagues, that we will not be able to vote on this sound policy initiative today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for the close working relationship we enjoy. The bill we consider today is the result of our close collaboration and represents the bipartisan commitment of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations to bring a bill to the House floor that accurately reflects United States foreign policy priorities.

As in the past, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has been a gracious colleague, and I am proud of the product of our cooperation. I believe this bill successfully maintains our commitment to ensure that foreign aid remains one of the three pillars of the United States national security policy, along with defense and diplomacy.

The bill provides nearly $19.4 billion in new discretionary budget authority, which is over $1.9 billion below the President's request. It contains substantial funding for pressing needs in support of the war on terror, such as the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and significantly increases funding for HIV/AIDS programs and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

The bill fully funds and even slightly increases the President's request for the Emergency HIV/AIDS Initiative. Since the very beginning of our effort to fight HIV, the subcommittee has led the charge to increase funding for this key priority. While I would have preferred to have included even more funding, our limited 302(b) allocation precluded us from doing so. However, within the context of our allocation, the bill does provide $400 million for the Global AIDS Fund, the same as last year's bill, and $300 million above the President's request. It also provides $30 million for microbicides research and development and a similar amount for HIV vaccine research and will allow for substantial program increases for all countries where the United States now conducts HIV programs, even those not among the 15 ``focus'' countries of the President's Emergency AIDS Initiative.

I am particularly pleased that we were able to preserve funding for other vital child survival programs, instead of cutting these as the President requested.

As we continue to ramp up funding for HIV programs and respond to the many administration initiatives requested, most notably the Millennium Challenge Account, we cannot retreat from our child and maternal health commitments in the developing world. The progress we have made on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS will be lost if the United States does not maintain its leadership role in meeting the basic health needs of women and children in poor countries.

The bill provides $400 million for basic education, which is an increase of $75 million over last year. Increasing this commitment to basic education has been one of my top priorities as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and I am proud that funding for basic education has increased from $98 million in fiscal year 2000 to a total of $400 million for fiscal year 2005. For the first time, we have included funding specifically to address the issue of school fees in a comprehensive manner in the form of a pilot project to be undertaken by

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), an outstanding, effective member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), our distinguished colleague who happens to have his daughter in the audience with her really distinguished road show for the show ``Oliver.'' So we are very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished New Yorker who happens to represent my former district in Queens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a good friend and distinguished, effective member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Providence, Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

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

While I have absolutely no sympathy for the government of Iran and would strongly prefer that the World Bank not approve loans to that country, I oppose this amendment because its passage will not in any way affect lending to Iran.

What the amendment would do is cut $359 million from the International Development Association, which is almost half of the proposed fiscal year 2005 U.S. contribution. IDA funds loans to the poorest countries in the world, mostly African countries, at low rates of interest and on a long-term repayment schedule.

IDA is the source of much of the capital that poor countries use to rebuild vital infrastructure and deal with the chronic problems of poor health and education systems. The World Bank, through the IDA loan window, has spent over $1 billion to combat HIV/AIDS to date. The bank is also the center for the ``Education for All'' initiative, which aims to provide a free, primary education to the 110 million children around the world who currently do not attend school.

Because the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation was $1.9 billion below the President's request, we had to make some tough choices. In that context, the funding currently in the bill for IDA represents a $200 million cut from the President's request. I am certainly not totally satisfied with the quality of the World Bank's lending programs and will be monitoring closely the result of the new Performance Evaluation Scheme. The cuts the committee made were in that context, but cutting further would be a mistake and would only serve to reduce the bank's overall lending capacity without in any way affecting Iran.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. I want to say that we have tried to accommodate everybody with their amendments, and I believe this agreement does so. I look forward to working with the chairman, and, hopefully, everyone will go along with the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her important leadership on this issue. I know that she recently returned from the HIV/AIDS conference in Bangkok. I know that in this very busy place we never have adequate time to really listen and learn, but she has truly been a leader, and I hope that we all have the opportunity to share her experiences with her. I thank her.

Mr. Chairman, while the bill before us already contains $2.2 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, which is the requested level, it only contains $400 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The Global Fund has made clear to us that a $400 million U.S. contribution for fiscal year 2005 will endanger completion of multiyear grant agreements it has already signed and will totally shut down the Fund's ability to make new grants. The Fund has appealed to us for a total U.S. contribution of $1.2 billion this year, which is its estimate of the funds needed to meet anticipated demands for the next round of grant awards.

I want to point out that the committee has not been totally satisfied with the management performance of the Fund, and there are a number of reforms mandated in the bill to improve its performance. But, despite these concerns, the demand for increased funds for meeting the needs for HIV treatment, prevention, and awareness are vast and growing. One need only cite the daunting statistics of the most recent U.N. reports on the spread of HIV to understand the need for more funds. Based on this alone, I would support the gentlewoman's amendment.

I do, however, have another compelling reason to support the amendment,

and that is because I am convinced that the Global Fund is doing a better job at scaling up HIV treatment programs than our bilateral program currently is. As many of the Members know, the administration recently announced that the Food and Drug Administration would institute new policies that would dramatically speed up the process of approving generic drugs for HIV treatment. Unfortunately, this announcement was completely misleading.

As documented in a recent letter to HHS Secretary Thompson from our colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member on the House Committee on Government Reform, the administration's announcement in May that the FDA would be able to review these drugs in ``2 to 6 weeks'' raised the expectation of their imminent purchase and distribution. After close review, however, of FDA plans, it becomes clear that the expedited review starts only after companies have submitted a complete application to FDA. In order to have a complete application, these companies may have to repeat clinical studies, undergo a raw materials review, and submit to detailed inspections. The bottom line is that this presubmission process could add months, if not years, to the approval process.

The Bush administration has made treatment of those living with HIV its highest priority, stating that 200,000 people will be in treatment within 1 year and 2 million by 2007. As the cost for generic ``one pill combinations'' continues to decline to less than $150 per year, the United States is still purchasing brand-name drugs at four to five times that price. Without a viable regime in place to certify safe and effective generic drugs to treat HIV, our ability to meet the goals set out by the President will diminish. WHO has standards in place and in use today, but they are not currently recognized by the United States.

I believe that either the administration should implement a realistic plan for rapid approval of safe and effective combination therapies by expediting the FDA approval process, or we should participate in the WHO approval process.

I do not believe Congress should have to get involved in this issue. It is best left to medical experts to determine what is safe and effective in treating HIV. However, I also believe that the President should not mislead Congress and the American people. We should not continue indefinitely to purchase expensive brand-name drugs with no clear plan in place by the FDA to expedite its review of cheaper generics. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves today.

I intend, along with Chairman Kolbe, to follow up with Global AIDS Coordinator Tobias and Secretary Thompson. In the meantime, providing more funds to the Global Fund will speed progress toward reaching the treatment and prevention goals we all share.

I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. For the last several years I have joined many of my colleagues, including this amendment's sponsor, in expressing concern about the composition of the United States 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 economic conditions in Egypt are so dire, should we be maintaining such a high level of military aid even as economic assistance levels drop?

I share the concerns many of my colleagues have expressed about Egypt's record. Egypt's media is rife with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic images and language, including constant comparisons between Israel and the Nazis in television shows that perpetuate anti-Semitism. Egyptian officials have called Israel a ``terrorist organization'' by taking self-defensive actions against terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt's move towards political reform has been slow and bumpy, with little support from that country's top leaders for adopting measures to make Egyptian society more democratic and inclusive.

As for Egypt's record on security and peace process issues, I have other serious concerns. The Egyptians have dragged their feet in stemming the flow of smuggled weapons through tunnels under the Egypt- Gaza border. The Egyptian leadership has not historically been helpful in pressing the Palestinians to comply with agreements they have already made and to negotiate with Israel on matters of grave importance to regional stability and security. Egypt has failed to return its ambassador to Israel since it recalled him nearly 4 years ago.

All these examples point to one conclusion: Egypt has not acted the way we should expect one of the largest recipients of United States foreign aid to act. Its policies have at times been in outright opposition to the best interests of United States national security. For these reasons, I agree with the message of the gentleman's amendment.

However, as much as I agree with my good friend's message, I am troubled by the timing. In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's decision to pursue a unilateral Israel withdrawal from Gaza, which I strongly support, Egypt has signaled a new readiness to play a constructive role in making the region secure. Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman has become the point man in discussions with the Palestinians, delivering the message of the United States and the Quartet that the Palestinians must consolidate and reform their security forces and empower their prime minister rather than Chairman Arafat.

Egypt is taking actions right now that are supportive of what Israel has determined is in its best security interests. So at a time when Egypt is preparing to take on the Herculean task of consolidating and training the Palestinian security services, a task that will require steely resolve and sustained pressure on Arafat to achieve, I am concerned about the unintended consequences this amendment may have.

In a July 2 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who has served both administrations and is probably one of the foremost experts in this region of the world, warned that the Egyptians are unlikely to succeed at the long list of goals they have, goals shared by both the United States and Israel without active United States support. I agree with Ambassador Ross, and I believe that this amendment could have the effect of chilling these efforts at a time when they could be most helpful for bolstering security in the region.

Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in opposition to the amendment. Because what the amendment would do is cut $250 million from the International Development Association and IDA funds, loans to the poorest countries in the world, mostly African countries, at low rates of interest and long-term repayment schedules.

IDA is the source of much of the capital that poor countries use to rebuild vital infrastructure and deal with the chronic problems of poor health and education systems. This amendment, if we had unlimited funds and we can do it all, it might make sense, but in light of the good work of the committee in trying to balance needs in all the accounts, I do not think we can possibly deal with cutting $250 million from IDA, and, therefore, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the spirit of the gentleman's amendment and regret that I cannot support it in this context. We have worked hard to bring a bill to the floor under a requirement to reduce the President's request by $1.9 billion. And so in order to accomplish this, we were forced to make, as you know, many tough choices, and reducing funding for the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank, unfortunately, was one of them.

I have always worked hard to get adequate funding for the GEF because

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate her thoughtful comments.

The problem of unexploded ordnance in Laos is real and will be addressed immediately. I would strongly urge a significant portion of the funds already in the bill for demining be used to address this problem in Laos, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the committee.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished chair of the Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds 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. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

As part of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental for Plan Colombia, Congress limited U.S. military and contractor presence in Colombia to 800 people. That bill, which first established our support for Plan Colombia, also strictly limited our assistance to Colombia for antinarcotic purposes.

As many of my colleagues may remember, that decision was made because Members were concerned that our involvement would increase as time went by and that the United States would expand the scope of its involvement from an antinarcotics campaign to an anti-insurgency campaign.

As the involvement of the Colombian terrorist organizations and drug trafficking increased, Congress approved an expansion of the authority governing our involvement in Colombia. Essentially, we allowed our resources and manpower to be used more broadly to pursue terrorist organizations involved in drug trafficking. The overall U.S. manpower caps remained in place, but were adjusted to allow 400 military and 400 contractor personnel, and this was done at the request of the administration in the 2002 Foreign Operations bill. The expanded authority was approved with those manpower limitations in mind; but this year, the administration has requested an expansion of our manpower cap to 800 military and 600 contractor personnel.

The House-passed Defense authorization bill partially grants this request, increasing the manpower cap to 500, while the Senate version of the bill grants the entire request to allow 800 military and 600 contractors. Today, the House should send a clear signal to the conferees in that bill by voting to limit our military presence to 550.

Our Armed Forces, and especially the Army and Special Forces, are stretched to the breaking point with our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It will take years for us to recover. While an increase of 400 may not seem large, I view this as a manifestation of a long-term plan to ramp up U.S. involvement in Colombia. Who knows what expansion will be sought next year?

The request to increase manpower is clearly intended to expand U.S. troop involvement in the Colombian's war against the FARC, that war that has been under way for 20 years. Solving Colombia's problems will not be accomplished with a few hundred additional U.S. soldiers. There must be a comprehensive effort that includes a plan for reintegration of former combatants back into Colombian society.

I respect the view of others. I certainly understand their point of view. I have always supported assistance for Colombia in the context of a plan that I thought made sense. The U.S. is now spending close to $1 billion a year in Colombia, including ever-increasing amounts found in the DOD appropriations bill. I do not support this manpower increase, because I believe it continues to expand U.S. involvement, and a violent political struggle will only lead to an ever-increasing commitment of U.S. manpower.

The amendment grants a modest increase in military manpower, reflects the House position as contained in the House defense authorization bill, and it is the soundest policy, in my judgment.

I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I thank the chairman and I want to assure my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), that I share the gentleman's commitment to working with you to increase the dollars for Latin America because we realize how critical this is.

The committee's recommendation to increase both the Child Survival and Development Assistance accounts by a combined total of $328 million above the President's request was in large part meant to restore cuts made to Latin American countries. In addition, the committee report as cited by the chairman contains specific directive language mandating that the Agency For International Development restore cuts made to Central American countries when the FY 2005 operating plans are developed.

Frankly, it is unclear to me why the administration would choose to reduce our commitment to our closest neighbors at a time when overall foreign aid is increasing. Additional funding would enable vital education, maternal and infant health, and democracy and agricultural programs to be restored.

It is my hope that the administration's fiscal year 2006 request will reflect the clear interests of Congress at a robust level of funding for Latin America, as evidenced by the gentleman's amendment.

I want to conclude by saying, I share our chairman's deep commitment to Latin America. We thank the gentleman for his comments on this issue, and we assure the gentleman that we are going to work together to make sure that Latin America gets the assistance that it rightly deserves.

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

I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who chooses to comment on a very important area of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good colleague from Connecticut for her discussion on this very important subject; and certainly as the chairman and I were crafting this bill, we acknowledge how important these issues are. I want to assure the gentlewoman that if there were more money to distribute, a good deal more would have gone to that very important effort. As we work towards conference, if we can possibly find some additional funds, we certainly will heed her important remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman's amendment and all the discussion may sound good, but it would have a sweeping and potentially devastating impact. It would cut off, and I want to make it clear, if you read this amendment, it would cut off economic assistance to a long list of countries in the Middle East and Asia of vital strategic importance to the United States in fighting the war on terrorism, and that includes Jordan, Indonesia, Turkey and Cyprus. It would end economic assistance to South Africa, as well as a number of other African countries such as Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan. The amendment would also cut assistance to Peru, Mexico and Ecuador, where U.S. counter-drug programs are attempting to stem the flow of narcotics to our country.

I could go on. But, in conclusion, I would like to make one final point: The American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 prohibits military assistance to countries that have not entered into Article 98 agreements with the United States. Although I opposed the bill, it became a law. But that bill, however, gave the President waiver authority for national security reasons. He has exercised that waiver for at least 16 countries so far. The Nethercutt amendment does not even allow the President that waiver authority and would result in the immediate cessation of economic assistance to many of the important allies to which I referred.

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

I would like to engage in colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

As my colleagues may be aware, the administration is expected to announce soon that for the third year in a row it will deny U.S. funding for the life-saving programs of the United Nations Population Fund. In my view, the administration's justification for this denial is flimsy at best. UNFPA has a long-standing program in China which aims to help introduce voluntary family planning into that country and change China's destructive and coercive one-child policy. The basis of denying UNFPA our support is precisely this: UNFPA is being punished for working within the Chinese government to change a policy we all agree is wrong.

Contrary to assurances from the administration and the leadership of this House since 2002 that the decision to de-fund UNFPA would not negatively affect the U.S. commitment to international family planning programs, the funding Congress originally intended for UNFPA has not all gone to support USAID's bilateral family planning program. A significant portion of it has been diverted to combat trafficking.

While I certainly do not take issue with anti-trafficking programs, I would urge the administration to request adequate funding for this priority instead of relying on transfers of funding that should have gone to UNFPA. It is our understanding that the administration will propose to Congress the UNFPA's fiscal year 2004 funding be diverted for anti-trafficking programs instead of going to support USAID's family planning programs.

I certainly hope that we can include language in the conference report indicating that the FY 2004 money meant for UNFPA can only be used for bilateral family planning programs. I would like to ask the chairman if he agrees with this sentiment, and if he will support such an effort.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with him.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct.

By now we have all seen the pictures and heard the stories that flow daily out of Darfur and Chad. Innocent men brutally murdered. Women and girls raped and mutilated. Families put on forced marches away from their villages, left with no food or shelter.

We have heard the statistics. According to the World Health Organization, 10,000 people will die this month in Darfur if nothing is done. We are looking at the possibility of hundreds of thousands of deaths, from disease, starvation, violence and, ultimately from the inaction of the global community.

``Never Again'' is a phrase we have all heard before. We have all said it before. It is one of the most powerful expressions of the natural human inclination to stop suffering, to end the death and destruction that stems from senseless hatred and indifference to human life. Never again will we let 6 million Jews perish under the noses of the civilized world. Never again will we let Rwandans be rounded up and indiscriminately killed because of their tribal affiliation. Never again will we allow ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

My colleagues, there is problem with the phrase ``never again.'' It is usually said after the violence is over--as a rallying cry against history repeating itself. We have seen, time and time again, that history does repeat itself, and it is simply not enough to say that we will take care of it next time. We need to end the genocide in Darfur now.

What will that take? It will take more than the tentative involvement of the United States and the international community. It will take the pressure we have not yet seen to get the Sudanese Government to stop denying a problem exists, acknowledge the role it has played, and take concrete actions to stop the brutality and save the lives of the people of Darfur. It will take more than 300 African Union peacekeepers to end the Janjaweed militia's genocide campaign.

The funding included in the Defense bill for relief in Darfur and Chad, combined with the money we will soon consider in the Foreign Operations bill, is a good start. But it is just a start. Money will help feed people if they can access that food. Money will help shelter people if they are not being driven out of the squatter camps. Money will help protect children from violence and exploitation only if relief workers can safely access refugee camps.

We should be proud of what we are doing today, but not too proud. If we are serious about ``never again,'' the United States must lead the way, using all bilateral and multilateral diplomatic tools at our disposal, to stop the Darfur genocide in its tracks.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Dr. Robert A. Cook, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, of Larchmont in the 18th Congressional District of New York. On Saturday, July 10, surrounded by friends and family, he will celebrate his 50th birthday.

Dr. Cook has long been committed to the practice of veterinary care. His passion for his work has led him on a constant search for new skills, and new ways to use those skills to enhance the well-being of animals and wildlife.

Dr. Cook's career is a testament to his commitment to both public service and personal fulfillment. He has blazed trails to improve his profession and expand its public mission. As the Chief Veterinarian, Director of Wildlife Health and then Vice President of Wildlife Health, of the Wildlife Conservation Society in the Bronx, New York, Dr. Cook has lead wildlife health care at Central Park, Queens, and Prospect Park Wildlife Centers, the Bronx Zoo, the New York Aquarium and the Wildlife Survival Center in St. Catherines Island, Georgia.

This work has spurred Dr. Cook to pioneer veterinary care for free- ranging wildlife, to forge invaluable expansions of the public's involvement and commitment to wildlife care, and to take the lessons learned in the great state of New York around the globe. From Bolivia to Bangkok, and from Tanzania to Thailand, Dr. Cook applied his unique skills and programs, and shared them with other parts of the world where they can be of help.

Dr. Cook's work as a veterinarian for the Wildlife Conservation Center is impressive in its own right, but I am staggered by the powerful example he has set with his commitment to the public mission of his organization and profession. Dr. Cook's expansive view of his own role has allowed the success of his work to be amplified far beyond the bounds of what we might expect from one person. It is a shining example to all of us that commitment to community and others can provide the truest and best rewards.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Robert A. Cook on the occasion of his 50th birthday, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him for all that he has accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2005 budget authored by Ranking Member Obey. I also want to thank the House Leadership as well as Chairmen Nussle and Young for allowing an up-or-down vote on an alternative budget. Until today, the budget process had operated under severe restraints--doing a disservice to this chamber and an injustice to the millions of Americans whose lives are improved by Federal government programs.

My colleagues, federally-funded programs are critical. We provide the children of working parents with safe places to go after school. We recruit young professionals into nursing--a profession with a looming shortage that will affect all Americans who seek health services. We help law enforcement officers and public safety officials obtain needed equipment and training. We prevent our most vulnerable from having to choose between food and heat. We make owning a home--the pinnacle of the American dream--a reality. We help put kids through college.

These activities benefit every fabric, every member of our society. Yet, many of these services will be cut short if we continue down the current path.

It is important my colleagues remember that on the heels of this year's limited budget will come an even skimpier spending proposal in fiscal year 2006. America was put on notice in May, when the Administration circulated a memorandum indicating that the future spending cuts outlined in this year's budget will be implemented. What does that mean? --huge reductions in spending on health, education, and homeland security.

Whether you vote for the Obey budget today or not, the sad reality is the forecast for our future is troubling. That is, unless we change course.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Obey budget. Too many of the initiatives and programs that benefit our constituents and our communities are at stake.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise today as a strong cosponsor of this crucial amendment. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Sweeney, Maloney, Fossella, King and the rest of the delegation for their support and leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, high-threat areas have been at a disadvantage when it comes to securing Federal homeland security funds for nearly 3 years now. As a result, the Urban Areas Security Initiative was created to address the specific needs of these areas. But with insufficient funds and an increase in the number of cities eligible for these grants, even that program has fallen short of the mark.

The issue of how best to allocate homeland security dollars has been debated within the administration, within the Department of Homeland Security, and in at least five committees in this Congress, and many of us have engaged in these debates and believe the time has come for action. And I certainly respect the chairman's hard work on this issue, and we were in the committee together when he said that he is demanding from the Department of Homeland Security some specific guidelines as to this formula. By increasing funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative, this amendment is consistent with the President's budget proposal.

Quite frankly, it amazes me that we have gone this long allocating such a large portion of homeland security funds based on everything but the threat of a terrorist attack to a particular area or region. It is no secret that my home State of New York, where the threat is well established and widely acknowledged, receives less money per person than 49 other States. Frankly this defies logic. So I want to be very clear. None of us are proposing to eliminate funds for any region or area of the country. What we are proposing to do is to ensure that those cities that are facing the greatest threat from terrorist attack have access to the resources they need to face these threats head on. We just simply cannot continue to wait, wait for the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a better formula, wait for another committee to come to a conclusion. We cannot wait. We cannot ignore the very real and urgent threats that loom over so many of our high risk areas.

I will not repeat, Mr. Chairman, the numbers that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) presented to this group. We know the numbers. We have met with the New York City Police Department. We understand what they are spending each day, each month, each year to protect this city and to protect the surrounding environment. This is so very important. It is important to all of us. It is important to us as New Yorkers, it is important to us as Americans. And I just

want to urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to support this amendment, and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to cooperate and to respond to us.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment and strongly urge its adoption.

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

By sharing ideas and images from a diverse range of backgrounds and through many different media, the arts and humanities help to create a more informed citizenry. We are better prepared to meet the responsibilities of democracy; to ask ourselves the hard questions and to judge fairly the actual and potential endeavors of our country.

Our support for the arts and humanities also has a profound impact on our economy. In my Congressional District, the arts support over 10,000 jobs, and in Fiscal Year 2000, they contributed more than $92 million in revenue to Westchester alone. Nationwide, the figures are even more impressive. In 2002, the arts were a $134 billion industry sustaining nearly 5 million jobs. While the federal government spends just over $250 million on the NEA and NEH annually--approximately 40 cents per person--it collects over $10 million in tax revenue related to the arts industry. NEA and NEH dollars are crucial to the arts community, helping them leverage more state, local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that investment in the arts is important not only to our national identity, but also to our national economy,

Mr. Chairman, we must act decisively to commit ourselves to our national heritage and culture, and vote to increase funding for the

NEA and NEH. I urge my colleagues to support creativity and reflection, to support our economy, and to support the continued growth and expression of democracy in its fullest form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great patriot, soldier and fellow New Yorker, Major General Lawrence Richard Adair. General Adair is retiring after 30 years of distinguished service in the United States Army.

After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy, the Larchmont, NY, resident entered the Army in 1974, with a commission as a second lieutenant in the Field Artillery.

He held numerous commands and staff assignments in both the Federal Republic of Germany and the continental United States, and led soldiers into combat as a Battalion Commander during Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm. Following successful tours as the Commander, Division Artillery, 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, Texas; Deputy Commanding General/Assistant Commandant, United States Army Field Artillery Center and School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and Commanding General, United States Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia, Major General Adair assumed the role of Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Army G-1. This critical part of the Army works on a wide variety of personnel issues affecting the Army's functioning.

In this capacity, his dynamic human resource vision has been absolutely critical in transforming the Army for its continuing global war on terrorism. For the past two years, he has served as the principal advisor to the Army G-1 and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) in managing our most important resource--people. Major General Adair's influence has been far-reaching and strategic. One of the greatest challenges the Army G-1 has faced in recent memory has been to restructure the Army to better support the war on terrorism. A common sense approach to this difficult and complex human resource challenge was his hallmark. He provided leadership and guidance in efficiently activating a new system that supports commanders in the field with units rather than individual replacements. Major General Adair has also worked extensively with officials throughout the Army in order to determine the best way to take care of soldiers and their families. One example is the implementation of the Rest and Recuperation Program in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, deployed soldiers have

received increased incentive pay due in part to his determined efforts to ensure that their sacrifices and contributions are appropriately recognized.

Major General Adair is married to the former Maria D. Davis of Scranton, PA. They have two children, Ted, a Captain in the Army who is currently serving in Iraq with the 1st Cavalry Division, and John, a ninth grader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking General Adair for the leadership he has provided, for the care and concern he has demonstrated for our soldiers and their families, and for his dedicated and honorable service to our Nation and its Army. As he prepares for life after the Army, we wish him, his wife Maria, and his family Godspeed and the very best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today, Congress comes together to honor those veterans who selflessly made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. More than 42 million people have served the United States in war, and more than 1 million have died in battle or service. This moment of silence is a tribute to them, but does not fully express our gratitude for their bravery and sacrifices.

Next weekend, the National World War II Memorial will officially open. More than 16 million Americans served in the Armed Forces during World War II, and more than 400,000 died. The memorial will stand as a reminder of the commitment, bravery, and sacrifice of those who died, and those who survived.

At the same time, today, more than 100,000 service members are risking their lives in the dangerous operations taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The daily and vivid reminders of their courage provide a window into the sacrifices of the past. These reminders should harden our resolve to work for a peaceful future in a just world.

Veterans have continuously defended our democracy and renewed America's promise through their efforts. No service to our nation comes with more peril or is more deserving of our gratitude. With our silence we pay them tribute. With our actions we can begin to repay our debt.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services

with their own money. I want to thank my colleague Susan Davis for her fine work on this important issue.

More than 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation and deserve the freedoms of our country. And yet, these women-- for the past 8 years--have been denied the very Constitutional rights they fight to protect.

My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Speaker, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as models of democracy at work, rather than examples of freedom suppressed.

This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures to which they are opposed because they are protected by a broad exemption. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access safe and legal abortion services.

As our Nation works to preserve our freedom and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the path of our troops overseas. We know that the restriction on abortion does nothing to make abortion less necessary--it simply makes abortion more difficult and dangerous.

It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our military personnel. I urge passage of the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, during an absence yesterday, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 177-179. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 177: ``Yea,'' rollcall No. 178: ``Yea,'' and rollcall No. 179: ``Yea''.