[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14550-14570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 341 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3057.

                              {time}  1335


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am very pleased to present to the House H.R. 3057, the fiscal year 
2006 appropriations bill for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs. This bill provides important funding for programs 
that support the global war on terror, the battle against HIV/AIDS and 
other infectious diseases, and the national interests of the United 
States.
  The bill includes a total of $20.3 billion in new budget authority 
for fiscal year 2006. This represents a reduction of $2.6 billion, or 
11 percent, from the President's budget request. The bill is $533 
million above the fiscal year 2005-enacted level, not including the 
most recent supplemental appropriations of 2005. With all of the 
supplemental appropriations of last year included, the recommendation 
represents a decrease of $2 billion from the 2005 level.
  As to whether this amount is considered adequate, I quote from two 
headlines in Associated Press articles that appeared after the 
subcommittee markup of June 14. The first reads: ``Lawmakers Propose 
U.S. Foreign Aid Boost,'' and less than an hour later the headline 
reads: ``GOP-Led Panel Slashes Foreign Aid Program.'' Those were 
headlines an hour apart. So Members can lend their support to this bill 
because it increases foreign aid, or they can oppose it because it 
slashes foreign aid, or they can do either way with either one of those 
ideas.
  It is important to state at the outset that the bill was developed in 
a bipartisan manner. I give enormous credit to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking minority member, for engaging in a 
process that resulted in agreement on the basic components of this 
package, even if funding compromises had to be found on both sides.
  We have made a focus of this year's proposal greater oversight of the 
expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. The report accompanying this bill 
includes language that requires more accountability of our foreign 
assistance dollars by urging the Department to set transparent goals 
and in tangible ways that measure progress toward these goals. Results, 
rather than resource levels, should be the yardstick for measuring U.S. 
assistance programs.
  Furthermore, this bill and report include many requirements for the 
submission of financial plans, limiting expenditures until certain 
reforms are implemented, and continuation of congressional notification 
requirements prior to the obligation or expenditure of funds.
  With that, let me turn to some of the highlights of the bill.
  First, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The administration 
requests $3 billion for MCC. That would have doubled our $1.5 billion 
appropriation last year. We are funding it at $1.75 billion, or an 
increase of $250 million, 17 percent, over 2005, but $1.25 billion less 
than the President asked for.
  As chairman of the subcommittee, I have made the MCC a priority in 
this bill. I believe in the President's vision for a new form of 
development assistance, where a country's commitment to fighting 
corruption, its commitment to reform, its commitment to investing in 
its people is complemented by an assistance package from the United 
States, negotiated by the country in the form of a signed compact.
  On the Global Environmental Facility, the budget included a $107 
million request for the GEF, up from $106 million last year. Our bill 
has no appropriation for GEF. As part of this multilateral agreement 
with donors in 2002, the GEF agreed to establish a performance-based 
allocation system for the disbursement of funds. Despite this 
agreement, GEF has resisted attempts to establish this performance-
based allocation system, and I think our reduction, not including any 
funds for this, sends a clear message about the imperative of reform to 
GEF.
  On Afghanistan, the budget included a $430 million request for 
Economic Support Funds, ESF, for Afghanistan, an increase of $205 
million over the 2005 level. It also included a request for $260 
million for International Counternarcotics and Law Enforcement, an 
increase of $170 million over the 2005 level. This bill fully funds the 
$430 million in ESF and $211 million in INCLE for police and 
counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan. The bill also limits 
expenditures of about half of the ESF funds, or $225 million, until the 
Secretary of State certifies to the committee that the government of 
Afghanistan, at both the national and the local level, is fully 
cooperating with the United States-funded narcotics eradication and 
interdiction efforts.
  On the West Bank and Gaza, the budget included a $150 million request 
in ESF for the West Bank. The bill funds the request and retains the 
fiscal year 2005 prohibitions and restrictions on the expenditure of 
these funds, including a GAO audit of U.S. assistance.

[[Page 14551]]

Neither the request nor the bill includes any direct budgetary support 
of the Palestinian Authority.
  On the Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, the bill includes $2.695 
billion for the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the third year of this 
effort. This funding level is $131 million over the President's request 
and $502 million over the fiscal year 2005 level. The bill includes not 
less than $400 million, twice the amount requested by the President, 
for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis 
and Malaria. Mr. Chairman, no one in this body, no one in this country, 
should doubt the commitment of this Congress to fighting the global 
AIDS battle.
  Anti-corruption provisions. Following through on strengthening our 
oversight role, the bill includes a new anti-corruption measure, a 
provision that withholds 25 percent of the funds made available for the 
U.S. contribution to the World Bank's International Development 
Association, or IDA, until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that 
the World Bank has incorporated certain procurement guidelines, 
withdraws its proposals concerning increasing the use of country 
systems procurement, establishes a threshold for competitive bidding 
and, subjects competitive bidding provisions to public advertisement.
  On Iraq, the budget included a request for a total of $485 million 
for Iraq. Our bill includes no new appropriation for this request. We 
are not slighting Iraq. Instead, we assume these requirements can be 
financed from the nearly $5 billion that remains in unobligated funds 
previously appropriated in the November 2003 Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund in the emergency supplemental bill.
  On the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or ACI, the bill fully funds 
the budget of $734 million for the multiyear Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative, ACI. That is an increase of $9.3 million over the current 
fiscal year. The United States leads the international fight against 
coca and poppy cultivation overseas. The narcotics industry has become 
a source of funding for terrorists, especially in countries like 
Colombia and Afghanistan. As part of the war on terror, the bill funds 
the President's counterdrug initiatives for eradication, narcotics 
interdiction and alternative livelihood programs.
  On the Conflict Response Fund, the bill does not include the 
administration's request for $100 million for a Conflict Response Fund, 
but it does have a new provision that allows the Secretary of State to 
reprogram and transfer funds as necessary for the purposes identified 
for the fund; and in other legislation, funds for the administration of 
that office and that program are included.
  On Sudan, the bill includes $391 million, as requested, for 
assistance to Sudan, including $69 million for the terrible tragedy 
occurring in the western part of that country known as Darfur; but the 
assistance may only be given to the coalition government if it is in 
direct support of the comprehensive peace agreement with the southern 
part of Sudan. Development assistance to the government in the south 
and our humanitarian assistance in Darfur will continue unabated.
  In preparing this bill, we were also faced with decreases in some 
areas of the budget, including for some key non-HIV/AIDS health 
programs and in the development assistance account. We have restored 
most of those reductions, and in the case of development assistance, 
added funds for basic education. I believe our development assistance 
program is a key component of our national security strategy and is 
critical to a positive U.S. image in foreign countries.
  Basic education has become a signature issue for my ranking minority 
member, and I salute her for her commitment to this; but I will leave 
it to her to describe the details of our recommendation in this regard. 
Suffice it to say that I fully support her efforts to provide more 
educational opportunities to the impoverished youth of the world, 
especially women and girls.

                              {time}  1345

  This bill recommends $465 million for basic education activities, and 
that is an increase of $65 million over the amount provided last year.
  The bill also fully supports USAID's work to support the 
microenterprise lending. Report language accompanying the bill 
expresses the committee's expectation that USAID programs reach the 
largest possible number of microenterprises and recommends $200 million 
for this program.
  We continue an emphasis in this bill on helping developing countries 
build their capacity to participate in the international trading 
system. We have $214 million for trade capacity building efforts, an 
increase of $15 million over last year. Of this amount, $40 million is 
made available for labor and environmental capacity building activities 
related to the free trade agreement with the countries of Central 
America and the Dominican Republic.
  The bill fully funds the export finance agencies to promote U.S. 
investment overseas and create jobs in the United States' export 
sectors. The committee bill provides $311 million for these agencies, 
including the Eximbank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 
and the Trade and Development Agency, and $275 million of that is 
offset by collections.
  The bill provides $791 million for migration and refugee assistance 
programs, continuing the United States' leadership in the world for 
providing humanitarian responses to refugee crises. This amount is $27 
million over the 2005 level but $102 million less than the request.
  Finally, the bill mostly restores the large proposed reduction to the 
child survival and health program, providing $1.5 billion for these 
programs, an increase of $246 million over the President's request.
  We have had to reduce sums by almost $2.6 billion from the 
President's request to meet our allocation for this bill. Therefore, we 
could not provide funding for a number of new and expanded initiatives, 
though requested by the President or brought to this committee's 
attention by committee members and other Members of Congress and 
outside groups.
  The major reductions to the President's budget includes a cut of 
$1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I have 
already spoken of, $458 million from various programs in Iraq, and $300 
million from the President's proposed local food purchases. This latter 
recognizes the decision to maintain U.S. food purchases through the PL-
480 program funded in the agricultural appropriations bill. And, 
finally, the $100 million I spoke of from the President's proposed 
conflict are a transfer of funds instead of a new appropriation.
  I believe this is a balanced bill, one that provides important 
support for our most critical national security needs while 
substantially increasing funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS 
pandemic. It also embraces our support for overseas development 
assistance and humanitarian assistance activities. It meets the high 
priority needs of the President in these areas and accommodates 
congressional concerns as well.
  As I said, this bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and it 
should have the bipartisan support of this House. So, Mr. Chairman, I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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.

[[Page 14552]]

  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. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

[[Page 14553]]


  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona 
yielding to me for the purposes of a colloquy on an issue of report 
language that accompanies H.R. 3057, the foreign ops appropriation 
bill, and for his willingness to work with me through conference on 
this report language.
  Mr. Chairman, report language appears for a reason. It is meant to 
send a strong message to Federal agencies; in this case, the Export-
Import Bank. I am greatly concerned about the message this report 
language sends. I am worried it has the appearance of trying to 
encourage the approval of a loan that does not meet the statutory 
requirements.
  Before a loan should be brought before the board for a vote, it must 
meet the congressionally-mandated test for export additionality, 
foreign competition, and net benefit to the U.S. economy. If we want to 
consider changes to the statutory requirements, those changes should be 
addressed during the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank that is 
scheduled to occur next year.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the Senate in 
conference regarding the committee's intent of any report language 
addressing this issue.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Simpson) that I sympathize with his statement. He makes his case 
with passion and knowledge. I want to clarify my intent with respect to 
the language in the committee report referring to applications from the 
U.S. Export-Import Bank.
  The report language urged the Export-Import Bank to act promptly on 
requests for assistance. It also asked for the bank to report on the 
status of pending applications.
  The report further noted the committee's request for ``an explanation 
for any rejection of any requests for assistance, specifically 
applications affecting the semiconductor industry.'' This sentence 
could be misconstrued as prejudicing or prejudging possible 
applications for bank assistance.
  Let me be clear. It was not and is not my intention to prejudice or 
prejudge the outcome of any pending application at the bank. This 
language is not intended to influence in any way any matter that is 
pending before the bank or reflect negatively on any decision made by 
the chairman or any other board member regarding any pending or past 
matter.
  Loans brought before the bank must meet the bank's criteria for 
export additionality, foreign competition, and net benefit for the 
American economy. The Export-Import Bank has five full-time board 
members whose job it is to assess whether applications meet the bank's 
criteria for export additional-
ity, foreign competition, and net benefit to the U.S. economy.
  They are the ones who should make the judgments about which 
transactions the bank will support and those it would turn down. The 
committee report language in no way is intended to influence those 
judgments. I understand the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) still 
has some concerns with the language, and I will be happy to work with 
the gentleman and the Senate in conference regarding the committee's 
intent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, 
the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
  Let me begin by commending the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for 
his work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs. Every year he puts a great deal of 
effort into examining the issues thoroughly and giving sincere 
consideration to Members' requests. Thanks to his efforts, we have 
before us today an excellent bill.
  I also commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the 
ranking member. She and I have worked together on a number of issues 
over the years, and together we have achieved some important results.
  I also want to thank all of the staff for their hard work and the 
research they have done over the weeks and months to address the many 
issues in this bill. Their organization and discipline has made this 
year's process move more smoothly.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to exercise our 
oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively as 
possible. Oversight has been a primary focus of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations this year, and there are important provisions in 
this bill to help make our foreign assistance programs more 
accountable.
  This bill requires the administration and international organizations 
to set transparent goals and measure progress towards these goals in 
tangible ways. The bill also limits spending until certain reforms are 
implemented. Because of this oversight, the committee has been able to 
produce a bill that is $2.5 billion below the administration's request 
and still focuses on the important priorities.
  Assistance to the Middle East is always a central part of this bill. 
For fiscal year 2006, Israel will receive $2.28 billion in military 
assistance, $240 million in economic assistance, and $40 million to 
help resettle Jewish refugees in Israel. I strongly support all of this 
funding.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides $40 million for assistance 
to Lebanon, which is an increase of $5 million from last year. With 
Syria's military withdrawal from Lebanon and the recent elections, 
there is an opportunity for positive change. This extra funding will 
give the State Department and USAID some flexibility to take advantage 
of this opportunity.
  There are also a variety of important programs in the bill that 
provide support to reform efforts within the countries of the broader 
Middle East, including $85 million for the Middle East Partnership 
Initiative.
  Regarding Armenia, the bill provides $67.5 million in economic 
assistance. Unfortunately, Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to seal the 
transportation routes into and out of Armenia, so this funding is 
important to offset this economic blockade.
  The bill also maintains parity in military assistance to Armenia and 
Azerbaijan, which is critical to our overall policy toward the South 
Caucasus.
  There are other valuable programs in this bill, including the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation and funding to fight the scourge of 
HIV/AIDS.
  But in addition to what this bill does include, what is equally 
important is what this bill does not include.
  Specifically, this bill does not include any funding for the Global 
Environmental Facility. Plain and simple, this is a matter of 
accountability, and we cannot afford to waste money on organizations 
that refuse to implement good-government reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsive bill. It is the result of 
significant oversight. It is fiscally sound, and it focuses on 
priorities that will advance our interests. For all of these reasons, I 
strongly support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me 
in supporting it on the floor today.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for yielding me this time 
and wish a happy birthday to our chairman and thank the gentleman from 
Arizona for his leadership as we work for the world right here in this 
Chamber.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for 
helping us to fashion a bill that is fair. Yes, we could use more 
money. Our 302(b) allocations limit what we can do, but I think it is a 
perfect start. The Senate has $1.5 billion more to spend than we have 
in our bill, and I believe in conference we will see a better bill.

[[Page 14554]]

  I want to highlight a few things about why I strongly support this 
bill. Everyone says it is not enough. It is never enough. HIV/AIDS is 
funded at the highest level it has been. I want to commend the 
leadership of the subcommittee. We are over a billion dollars more than 
the President requested for HIV and AIDS.
  The Sudan and peacekeeping operations there, we are going in the 
right direction. We believe with this money to help Sudan we will be 
able to see some stability in that region soon.
  I want to speak about the Middle East. I am a strong proponent of 
peace in the Middle East. We must have that, and our partners there are 
working for that.
  I recently visited Egypt on my second visit there, and found that 
Egypt, which I already knew, some 70-plus million people, is our 
strongest military ally in the region. Egypt purchases our weapons and 
does our training and also stabilizes the other countries: Israel, with 
3 to 4 million people; Jordan with 7 or 8 million people; Lebanon, 
Syria. The government of Egypt and President Mubarak are the 
peacekeepers and have been very instrumental in the Abbas-Sharon talks, 
as well as the Lebanon and Syria talks. So I would hope we continue to 
fund Egypt to work with Egypt to make sure that they keep their 
commitments to the Middle East as well as to this government. I am very 
confident that as we work together with Egypt and with the Middle East, 
we will hope to see peace as we work there.
  This bill also provides educational opportunities for thousands of 
young people all over the world who are unable to fund their own 
education. We know education is the difference between success and 
failure in young people's lives; and the better the education, the more 
options young people have.
  Mr. Chairman, let us continue to work to build a better, stronger 
world. The U.S. is the largest country, the strongest country in the 
world. I would not want to be anywhere else. We have a responsibility 
to build, to grow, and to be good foreign partners. I believe this 
foreign ops bill for 2006 continues that effort. I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on the foreign operations bill. It is not perfect, but it is certainly 
a good piece of legislation as it moves through Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill for FY 2006. As a member of the House 
Appropriations Committee, subcommittee on foreign operations, I want to 
commend subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, 
Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Member David 
Obey for fashioning a bill that reflects consensus and a commitment to 
supporting the needs of the global community.
  Our work on this bill was difficult given the limited 302(b) 
allocation that was imposed on the subcommittee. Despite the allocation 
constraints, the subcommittee members developed a bill that was roughly 
$2.5 billion below the president's request of $22.8 billion. Our bill 
recommends a funding level of $20.3 billion and includes a number of 
strong provisions.
  Our bill provides substantial funding for HIV/AIDS, including a plus 
up of $131 million above the president's request. The Global Fund is 
funded at $400 million, and is an increase of $200 million above the 
president's request. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 
(PEPFAR) is funded at $1.72 billion which is $150 million less than the 
president's request, and HIV/AIDS in the Child, Survival and Health 
(CSH) account is funded at $350 million, including $20 million in 
bilateral assistance to non-focus countries. Other HIV/AIDS funding 
totals $55 million. The level of funding in the bill reflects an 
awareness of the dimensions of the global pandemic and the necessity to 
commit resources to global communities that are being ravaged by the 
disease.
  I am also pleased that my colleagues recognized the importance of 
funding peacekeeping operations (PKO) in Sudan. The conflicts in the 
north/south and Darfur necessitate a financial and peacekeeping 
commitment to mitigate the proliferating violence, despair and disease 
that is rampant in Sudan.
  Given the prevailing tensions in the Middle East, particularly as 
those tensions relate to peace negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinians, I am pleased about the level of funding provided to 
support the Palestinian Authority (PA) and for our allies in Egypt and 
Jordan. Our funding to the region reflects the importance the committee 
attaches to supporting countries that are committed to the goals of 
democratization and fighting terrorism. I also want to remind my 
colleagues that it is imperative that we continue to send the message 
to our allies in the Middle East and the Gulf region that their efforts 
to aggressively support democratization and to provide military 
security are greatly appreciated and reflected in our ongoing financial 
support.
  Despite the good news in this bill, I want to stress my concern that 
U.S. foreign assistance comprises only 1 percent of our Federal budget. 
I believe more could be done around the world if our Nation did not 
have to contend with a spiraling deficit that continues to balloon 
because we are entrenched in a military engagement in Iraq that costs 
roughly $150 million per day, $5 billion per month and $60 billion per 
year. I am very dismayed by these figures because they highlight the 
reality that there is no prospect for the removal of our troops from 
harm's way in the near term.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, I believe, represents a good faith 
effort to address the foreign assistance needs of our global neighbors. 
And while I wish that more resources were available to support worthy 
programs, we were limited in our allocation. Given current economic 
realities, this bill represents a good faith effort to fund essential 
programs around the world. The Senate allocation for foreign assistance 
is $1.5 billion higher than the House figure, so I am hopeful that 
perhaps even greater levels of funding will be provided for other 
critical areas of need. I am pleased to support this bill and encourage 
my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 3057.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), an outstanding member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona on 
his birthday, rise in support of this bill, and compliment the ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for her work.
  This bill is vital to winning the war on terror. I am particularly 
happy that we have focused the soft power of the United States, USAID, 
the Board for International Broadcasting, et cetera, on key parts of 
Pakistan where the leaders of al Qaeda are hiding.
  I do want to strike one note of warning, though. In the last 2 years, 
we have witnessed an explosion of heroin production in Afghanistan. 
Last year, drug lords in Afghanistan made over $6 billion in drug 
profits with some of the proceeds supporting terrorist groups. Al Qaeda 
and the Taliban now depend on the sale of heroin to wage their war on 
terror. Two years ago, drug profits sustained just two terror groups. 
Today, drug profits sustain four terror groups.
  Last year, more drug money arrived in Afghanistan than it had in any 
other country, including Colombia, in history. Two years ago, only 8 
percent of Afghan heroin arrived in the United States; now it is up to 
12 percent, a 50 percent increase. Two months ago, the United States 
arrested Osama bin Laden's banker, Haji Bashir Noorzai, for attempting 
to smuggle $50 million of heroin into the United States. His attempt 
provides a stark warning that if Afghan drug dealers can smuggle heroin 
into the United States, they can also smuggle terrorists.
  To date, our program to reduce the Afghan heroin crop has failed. 
From a low of only a few hundred acres in 2001, the Afghan heroin crop 
topped over 200,000 acres last year.
  Alternative development programs for Afghan farmers are key, and we 
fully fund such programs to help farmers switch from poppies to the 
traditional products of Afghanistan, like wheat. But even the best 
legal crop can only command one-twelfth the price of heroin, so we also 
must fund enforcement programs.
  Congress approved $92 million in the fiscal year 2005 supplemental to 
provide helicopters for the Afghan police to catch drug lords. The 
program inside the administration is now adrift, and we have wasted 6 
months in designing a helicopter program to help Afghan police 
officers. Repeatedly, some in the administration have proposed cutting 
this program by half to fund other programs, proposing that we largely 
ignore the narcoterror threat in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan now teeters on the brink of becoming a 
failed narco-state. Violence against American and other NATO 
peacekeepers is

[[Page 14555]]

picking up, much of it funded by narcoterrorists. As our full committee 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), advised Secretary 
Zoellick, Congress is looking for strong action against Afghan heroin; 
and we want the fiscal year 2005 funding for the helicopter program to 
move forward, and an end to rumors that the administration is cutting 
the fiscal year 2007 budget for this activity.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished new member of the committee.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey). In working on this bill, we found agreement on an initiative 
that is very important to me, and I think important to our efforts in 
Africa in terms of combating some of the difficulties there, 
particularly related to HIV and the growing threat of AIDS.
  We have report language that accompanies this bill that the chairman 
and his staff were willing to agree to that would bring together a 
number of our more capable agencies, including the Centers for Disease 
Control, the USAID and others, and have them develop a plan to take a 
nonincremental approach at creating a healthier blood supply in Africa. 
In Africa, millions of people who have contracted AIDS have done so 
through tainted blood transfusions, particularly pediatric AIDS cases. 
The ranking member and the chairman and the staff have helped us move 
forward an initiative to focus on this problem. I rise to thank them.
  Secondly, the bill also talks about creating a more coordinated and 
comprehensive effort on infectious diseases and health challenges on 
the continent of Africa, particularly in the sub-Saharan region.
  Also, I have had a chance to speak to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) and his top staffer, Frank Cushing, on this matter; and I 
really appreciate the majority's willingness to look anew at some of 
these issues and think through how we can approach this matter in a 
creative way. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and his 
staff and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and her staff.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) has done well to craft a bill in a very difficult budgetary 
environment. It prioritizes funding for important programs. I believe 
his and the ranking member's efforts are appreciated.

                              {time}  1415

  I do, however, rise to express concerns about the Global Environment 
Facility, or GEF, whose funding is eliminated in this bill. As co-chair 
of the House International Conservation Caucus, I am keenly interested 
in conservation programs because I believe that how nations of the 
world manage their natural resources is a vital U.S. interest, 
impacting our efforts to help create a more secure and prosperous 
world.
  The GEF is the largest international funding source for programs and 
support good natural resource management around the world. In the 
roughly 15 years since its creation, the GEF has implemented 1,500 
projects in 140 countries, with biodiversity and habitat conservation 
being the largest single area of focus. Importantly, U.S. funding has 
leveraged at least $14 for every $1 we have contributed. I believe this 
model where our resources are matched many times over by other public 
and private donors is a good approach. However, I strongly agree with 
the chairman's push for reform at the GEF. The United States should 
always be pushing for transparency and accountability at multilateral 
institutions, and the GEF is no exception. As the chairman knows, at 
the request of the U.S. Treasury and other donor nations, the GEF has 
been working to implement a variety of management improvements. 
Currently, the GEF is in the final stages of adopting a major element 
in this reform process, a system of prioritizing its funding decisions 
called the Resource Allocation Framework.
  The Council of the GEF is meeting in late August in a special session 
to finalize the structure of this framework. The GEF Council recognizes 
the need for reform and is meeting in less than 2 months to complete 
work on the reform element most important to the U.S. Government.
  And I would respectfully inquire whether the gentleman agrees that 
the GEF's programs and projects are beneficial to conservation 
worldwide and to the United States, and assuming that a framework is 
finalized at the upcoming special meeting of the GEF, would that 
constitute sufficient progress on reform to have the gentleman revisit 
GEF funding in the conference?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California for raising this important issue. I also support 
international conservation efforts, and I applaud the gentleman for his 
leadership as co-chair of the International Conservation Caucus.
  I believe that the Global Environment Facility has done good work 
over the years to help conserve the environment and to address some of 
the more difficult international environmental problems that require 
international cooperation to be solved. Nevertheless, I have been 
concerned about the pace of reform within this organization.
  My purpose in eliminating its funding is to ensure that the limited 
amount of resources in this bill are used in the most efficient 
possible way. My goal is not to definitively end U.S. contributions to 
the GEF this year or in the future. However, until the final GEF 
reforms are in place, I am concerned that GEF funding is not being used 
optimally.
  I appreciate the unique role that GEF can play in international 
conservation, and I believe that a reformed and functioning GEF is 
worthy of support. If the GEF agrees to implement a performance-based 
allocation system at the August-September, 2005, Special Meeting of the 
GEF Council, then I would be willing and will be willing to work with 
the gentleman and the other body to help restore the U.S. contribution 
to the GEF during conference.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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

[[Page 14556]]

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. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today to speak on an issue that is probably best spelled out 
in The Los Angeles Times today by Sonni Efron, who is a writer for the 
Times. The Times article is entitled ``Drug War Fails to Dent U.S. 
Supply.''
  I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
commitment to international development and improving our national 
security by attacking the culture of poverty and injustice, which I 
think are the root causes of terrorism in this world. I would also like 
to thank the chairman for engaging in a debate with me during the full 
committee markup regarding the increased funding for alternative 
development in Colombia.
  I had offered an amendment in committee that would have shifted 
funding from the military and fumigation side of the Andean CounterDrug 
Initiative to funding more alternative development programs. My 
amendment would have shifted funds in five of the departments, which 
are like ``states'' in Colombia that are receiving little or no 
alternative development assistance; yet they are being heavily 
fumigated. While we are using all stick and no carrot in these regions, 
only spraying a farmer's crop but not providing for an alternative 
livelihood is not a sustainable solution to a coca growing problem in 
the Andean region.
  Given the chairman's commitment to work in conference to increase the 
funding for alternative development programs in Colombia and the Andean 
region as a whole, I withdrew my amendment in committee.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind the chairman of his 
commitment and thank him again for his efforts regarding the 
alternative development in Colombia, and I know the chairman has been a 
tireless supporter of development and security in Latin America. I look 
forward to working with him and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), ranking member, on these important issues and hope in 
conference that they can restore the funding that I am sure the Senate 
side will add to.
  I would like to close by referring everyone to this L.A. Times 
article today. I think it speaks to the point that America needs to 
focus on working itself out of jobs, not making people dependent upon 
American jobs to develop economic security in their own countries.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Jun. 28, 2005]

                   Drug War Fails to Dent U.S. Supply

                            (By Sonni Efron)

       Washington.--The Bush administration and congressional 
     allies are gearing up to renew a plan for drug eradication in 
     Latin America despite some grim news: The $5.4 billion spent 
     on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in the availability 
     of cocaine on American streets and prices are at all-time 
     lows.
       United Nations figures released this month show that coca 
     cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2 percent in 
     2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive 
     increases in Peru and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan 
     Congressional Research Service said last week that the anti-
     drug effort had had ``no effect'' on the price or purity of 
     drugs in the United States.
       The findings have fueled skepticism in Congress, where 
     conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against 
     continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union called the 
     anti-drug program a ``boondoggle.''
       Nonetheless, a House committee last week approved the 
     administration's request for $734.5 million for next year as 
     part of a foreign aid bill. Debate on the bill could start as 
     early as today. President Bush also may unveil a renewed 
     multiyear commitment to South American anti-drug efforts this 
     year when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. 
     ally, is expected to visit.
       ``We are heading in the right direction and we are 
     winning,'' the federal drug czar, John P. Walters, told 
     Congress last month.
       ``Plan Colombia''--a six-year effort by Washington and 
     Bogota to eliminate drug trafficking, end more than 40 years 
     of armed conflict with rebels and promote economic and legal 
     reform in Colombia--expires this year. The Bush 
     administration wants to continue it, a senior State 
     Department official said.
       ``You adjust your tactics and you adjust your resources,'' 
     the official said. ``There's no inclination on the part of 
     our administration to give up just because it's tough.''
       Negotiations with Bogota over details of a successor 
     program to Plan Colombia will begin next month, the official 
     said.
       Administration and some congressional officials say Plan 
     Colombia has had some striking success. Killings, massacres 
     of villagers and other attacks blamed on drug trafficking all 
     have fallen sharply since 2002, and kidnappings have fallen 
     by half, according to Colombian Defense Ministry figures, 
     even though this year has seen a resurgence of violence.
       Drug crop eradication and drug interdictions are cutting 
     into the profits of Colombia's right-wing paramilitaries and 
     leftist rebels, Walters told Congress last month.
       Walters testified that ``cocaine production in the Andes 
     has declined by 29% since 2001, and Colombia's opium crop was 
     cut in half from 2003 to 2004.'' He said the reason that 
     price and availability had not been affected was the lag of 
     six months to a year between the time when the coca plant was 
     harvested and when its cocaine was available on American 
     streets.
       The reports call the administration's assessment into 
     question. Whereas cocaine production fell 11% in Colombia in 
     2004, it soared by 23% in Peru and 35% in Bolivia, according 
     to the report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Overall, 
     coca cultivation in the region increased 2%, the U.N. study 
     said.
       ``The [U.N.] numbers are devastating,'' said Adam Isacson 
     of the Center for International Policy, which has argued that 
     eradication campaigns must be accompanied by large-scale 
     development efforts that offer peasants alternative 
     livelihoods.
       ``The spraying, when it isn't accompanied by any 
     alternative development, doesn't seem to discourage [coca 
     farmers] from trying again, because there just aren't a lot 
     of other good choices out there,'' Isacson said.
       Peasants have responded by planting even more coca, hiding 
     it under trees and among other crops, and turning to 
     varieties that produce a higher yield, the U.N. report said.
       Whether or not the anti-drug effort is succeeding, the U.S. 
     foreign aid budget is under new scrutiny, especially with the 
     war in Iraq costing more than $4 billion a month and a $379-
     billion deficit looming for 2006. Colombia, the fifth-largest 
     recipient of U.S. aid after Iraq, Israel, Egypt and 
     Afghanistan, could be a target for cuts.
       The Congressional Research Service tallied State Department 
     and Defense Department spending on the Andean Counterdrug 
     Initiative at $5.4 billion since 2000. Though the anti-drug 
     program aids Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Panama and 
     Venezuela, Colombia has received most of the money, about 
     $4.5 billion. ``While there has been measurable progress in 
     Colombia's internal security, as indicated by decreases in 
     violence, and in the eradication of drug crops, no effect has 
     been seen with regard to price, purity and availability of 
     cocaine and heroin in the United States,'' the research 
     agency report said.
       The report said Colombia was no closer to ending its 
     decades-long armed strife. The conservative National 
     Taxpayers Union last week called for the program to be cut 
     back or killed.
       ``By all measurable criteria, Plan Colombia's effectiveness 
     is dubious,'' said Paul Gessing, governmental affairs 
     director of the anti-tax group. ``It's a big taxpayer 
     boondoggle.''
       Liberals also contend that the program is wasteful. Rep. 
     James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) plans to offer an amendment to 
     the foreign aid bill that would slash $100 million in U.S. 
     military and security aid to Colombia.
       One senior U.S. government policy advisor, who spoke on 
     condition of anonymity out of fear he would be excluded from 
     administration policy discussions, agreed with many of the 
     critics.
       ``It's a complete waste of money,'' the advisor said. ``You 
     have to ask yourself, why are we in Colombia?''
       He added: ``The bottom line is not how much they produce or 
     how much we eradicate, the bottom line is, is there enough 
     supply to meet the demand [in the United States], and there 
     always is. . . . The traffickers are always one step ahead of 
     us.''
       Plan Colombia began under the Clinton administration 
     primarily to fight drugs. But after the Sept. 11, 2001, 
     attacks, the Bush administration has emphasized counter-
     terrorism and regional security.
       While some conservatives wish to cut funding for Colombia, 
     many Democrats want to spend less on its military and more on 
     rural economic development. Democratic critics also wonder 
     whether the U.S. has an exit strategy for Colombia.
       Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel), a former Peace Corps volunteer in 
     Colombia, said the U.S. effort there violates a key principle 
     of international aid: ``Work yourself out of a job.''
       After five years of U.S. funding, American military 
     advisors are still training Colombian troops and American 
     companies are still being paid to maintain expensive U.S. 
     Black Hawk helicopters, Farr said.

[[Page 14557]]

       ``Look at how much attention is being paid to building 
     local capacity in Iraq so we can leave,'' Farr said. ``This 
     is where we're failing in the war on drugs, because we're not 
     developing the capacity of these countries to handle their 
     own problems.''

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking 
member and the chairman for this bill.
  It is easy for some people to vote against foreign ops until they 
understand what it is. There are four legs of a table: the military 
foreign ops, intel, and homeland security; and probably a fifth now 
with the rising cost of fuel, energy.
  Foreign ops is critical in that security table. Why? If we think 
about the position of the Palestinian-Israeli issue with Sharon, for 
the first time, I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) 
speak that we have hope in the Middle East, hope. If we take a look, it 
is easy to think about cutting certain countries, but think of what a 
thin edge they are on right now. Look at Indonesia with its problems, 
how they help us. Look at Saudi Arabia that is moving more and more 
toward a moderate state. Do they have problems? Yes. Look at Egypt, and 
it would be easy for someone to come up and have an amendment to cut 
them. But in Saudi Arabia I sure do not want ``King Osama bin Laden,'' 
or in Indonesia, if we look at the thin thread. Or Pakistan. In 
Pakistan take a look at Hamboli; KSM, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was a 
guy who planned 9/11. We just caught Abu al-Libbi, who is the guy who 
took Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's position. And they have stopped major 
events and attacks within the United States because of our foreign 
operations bill.
  Look at Sudan. They ethically cleansed probably as many people as 
Saddam Hussein or in Kosovo or Bosnia, and that brings world peace.
  But even worse, look at the HIV threat. There are more deaths in HIV 
in Africa than during the plagues, and if we support that, A, it makes 
a safer America, but it also protects and stabilizes Africa itself.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. This is an important bill. The United States is the leader of the 
free world, and, frankly, the United States is far behind many in the 
industrialized world in investing in the peace and security of the 
international community.
  Mr. Chairman, for several years, however, I have expressed serious 
concerns about the amount of dollars that we give to Egypt. Egypt is a 
friend and an ally. Egypt is number two in terms of the dollars that we 
invest, both in military and economic aid. However, Egypt has one of 
the largest and most modern militaries in the Middle East, with 
approximately $2.4 billion in annual defense spending. More than half 
of that funding, $1.3 billion in this bill, is provided by the United 
States.
  Notwithstanding that, however, I do not believe that Egypt and its 
leadership is conducting itself in a way consistent with its alliance 
with this country. Nearly one out of five Egyptians live in poverty; 
yet we give very little economic aid, relatively speaking. Roughly half 
of Egypt's adults are illiterate. Unemployment is in double figures, 
and the country has a per capita income of just $700 per year.
  In this context, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the United States 
provides almost three times the amount of military assistance to Egypt 
than we provide in economic assistance, $1.3 billion to $495 million in 
this bill.
  That is not my principal concern. My principal concern is the 
relationship between the extraordinary investment that America makes in 
Egypt and the lack of cooperation as it relates to some of their 
policies not only on the military side, but on the human rights and 
discrimination side.
  Regional stability and the efforts to stem the development of 
terrorist organizations are served not only by providing for Egypt's 
military strength, but also by ensuring prosperity and economic 
opportunities for the people of Egypt, and having Egypt cooperate in 
bringing down the level of hatred, discrimination, and prejudice in its 
own country and in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we 
would make that message clear to our friends in Egypt.
  I offered an amendment in committee. That amendment would have 
shifted $40 million from military assistance to the economic 
assistance. That, in my opinion, would have had the effect of educating 
more Egyptian children, bringing more Egyptians out of poverty, perhaps 
investing greater amounts in the economic development and job creation 
seen in Egypt. That would, in my opinion, have been a very positive 
step forward.
  My friend, the chairman of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations 
urged me not to do that. And as a result of his urging, I withdrew that 
amendment.
  One of the reasons I withdrew that amendment is because Egypt is an 
important ally. But I would hope that our Egyptian friends would 
address the issues of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic/
Christian, prejudice, and destabilization within their own country and 
within the Middle East. We need to continue to send that message.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Let me just say at first that this bill is a well-crafted bill that I 
support within the confines of the amount of money that the majority 
has chosen to give us to work with.

                              {time}  1430

  I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary bipartisan work that has 
taken place here, and I want to thank our chairman and his staff for 
reaching out to us in the minority to include our priorities as well. I 
think this is a real bipartisan effort, and I am grateful for that.
  I also want to acknowledge the support of our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I want to thank our chairman, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for all their support of the 
foreign operations bill this year and over the years.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans believe that America spends 10 to 15 
percent of its budget on foreign aid. That is simply not the case, 
though. We only spend about 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid, and 
that 1 percent is very well spent.
  We use that money, that foreign assistance, to help fellow 
democracies stay strong and secure. We help struggling democracies who 
are undergoing tough times because of the neighborhood they live in or 
because of their own economies. We also help people who want to be free 
and live in a democracy help create democracies.
  Why do we care about democracies, other than being Americans and we 
believe everyone has a right to live free? Because we know that 
democracies are good trading partners and they do not go to war against 
one another. So there is a very practical reason for our foreign 
assistance program.
  Beyond that, of course, is the humanitarian obligation, the moral 
obligation that we have to help people in need. Virtually every major 
religion in the world acknowledges our moral obligation to help poor 
people and those in need of charity and compassion.
  So for all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe this foreign aid 
bill is important. I do regret that the Global Environmental Facility 
is not being funded under this bill, and I look forward, as the 
chairman suggests, to that money perhaps being included in conference. 
That would make this bill complete. Then, of course, if there were as 
much money as the other body is

[[Page 14558]]

designating for this foreign assistance, that would be even better.
  But this is a good, bipartisan bill, because foreign assistance is in 
America's vital national interest, and also because it is the right 
thing to do.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time. I want to commend her and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
for their fine work on this balanced and bipartisan bill.
  Under tight budgetary restrictions, they have crafted an important 
bill which addresses the priorities that affect the developing world 
while also shoring up our global allies. I thank the chairman and 
ranking member for supporting priorities of mine, including the Asian 
University For Women that is located in Bangladesh, and increased 
funding for Peace and Reconciliation programs in this legislation as 
well.
  One of the groups included in the Peace and Reconciliation program is 
Project Children and Cooperation Ireland. Many of my colleagues have 
taken on interns from this program, and the young men and women from 
the north of Ireland have benefited greatly from these internships. As 
progress in the peace accord remains unsteady, we in the United States 
must continue to support programs that bring together the future 
leaders of the north of Ireland and show them their differences are not 
insurmountable. I hope the House conferees will work with the Senate to 
see that this program is funded during the conference committee.
  This bill also includes $34 million for the U.N. Population Fund; but 
as has become a norm under this administration, the restrictions on 
providing this important funding will not be released by this 
administration. The administration seems determined to hinder the 
health of women around the world; and while I am troubled that this 
detrimental policy continues, there is much good in this bill, 
particularly when you look at the Middle East.
  I strongly support the increase of $60 million to the State of Israel 
for a total of $2.3 billion in foreign military financing and economic 
aid in this bill. I believe the United States must do more, though, to 
combat the anti-Israeli and Western stances taken by our supposed 
allies like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia still has not lived up to the 
test of the President's ``you are either with us or against us.'' It is 
time for this administration to start treating Saudi Arabia like the 
supporter of terrorists that they are. We must take a stand in this 
House and let the Saudis know that their time of extremism is over, 
because we will not stand for it anymore.
  Mr. Chairman--I want to commend my colleague Chairman Jim Kolbe and 
my good friend Nita Lowey for their work to craft a fair and balanced 
bipartisan bill.
  Representing one of the most diverse Congressional districts, I know 
how important U.S. foreign assistance is to nations around the World 
and I have seen the success of our assistance firsthand.
  Under tight budgetary restrictions they have crafted an important 
bill which addresses the priorities that affect the developing world 
while also shoring up our global allies.
  I was proud to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member on several 
initiatives that are important to my constituents and their families 
overseas.
  I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for supporting priorities of 
mine including the Asian University for Women that is located in 
Bangladesh and increased funding for the Peace and Reconciliation 
programs in this legislation.
  One of the groups included in the Peace and Reconciliation program is 
Project Children and Cooperation Ireland.
  Many of my colleagues have taken on interns from this program and the 
young men and woman of the north of Ireland have benefited greatly from 
these interns.
  As progress in the peace accords remains unsteady, we in the States 
must continue to support programs that bring together the future 
leaders of the north of Ireland and show them that their differences 
are not insurmountable.
  I hope the House conferees will work with the Senate to see that this 
program is funded during the conference committee.
  I believe these types of programs are a step in the right direction 
to help solve some of the problems that we face around the world.
  This bill also includes $34 million for the United Nations Population 
Fund, but, as has become a norm under this administration, the 
restrictions on providing this important funding will not be released 
by this Administration
  The administration seems determined to hinder the health of women 
around the world.
  While I remain troubled that this detrimental policy continues there 
is much good in this bill, particularly when you look at the Middle 
East.
  I strongly support the increase of $60 million to Israel, for a total 
of $2.3 billion in foreign military financing and economic aid in this 
bill.
  As Prime Minister Sharon begins the courageous disengagement plan of 
removing Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip, this funding is more 
needed than ever to help Israel's security and shore up civil society 
programs in the Palestinian Authority.
  As we continue to support our friend Israel from outside threats, I 
believe it is time to start to rethink the way we provide aid to Egypt.
  In the House International Relations Committee recent markup of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act the way aid is given to Egypt was 
changed by our Chairman and Ranking Member.
  Egypt is at peace with all of its neighbors and I see no external 
threats against them that warrant the need for keeping military 
assistance constant.
  The real threat in Egypt is from within, the limited amount of 
freedom that exists for her people as the level of poverty increases is 
a dangerous mix.
  The Government of President Mubarrak has shown that it is quite quick 
to throw dissidents into jail, discriminate against the Catholic 
Minority, tolerate anti Semitism and anti Zionism in the official 
press, throw gay Egyptians into jail and some of my colleagues say this 
is ok, that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.
  The United States must do more to help end this dangerous mix before 
the problem creates instability.
  Egypt has been a strong friend and ally and has done much to help 
bring about a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict but 
we cannot allow that to cloud our judgment.
  I believe the United States must do more to combat the anti Israeli 
and Western stances taken by our supposed allies like Saudi Arabia.
  Saudi Arabia has still not lived up to the test of the Presidents you 
are either with us or against us.
  It is time for this administration to start treating Saudi Arabia 
like the supporter of terrorists they are.
  We must take a stand in this House and let the Saudis know that their 
time of extremism is over because we will not stand for it anymore.
  I also commend my colleagues for holding this Administration 
accountable on their lack of distribution of funds in the Millennium 
Challenge Account. The MCA created with great fanfare, has not lived up 
to the expectations set by this Administration.
  I will hope that during the next few months of the Conference this 
Administration will work with Congress to insure that the MCA reaches 
the potential it was created under.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3057, the 
FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
  I am pleased that the bill includes $55 million in funding for Afghan 
women, including $5 million for the Afghan Independent Human Rights 
Commission. This funding builds upon funding for Afghan women and girls 
included in an amendment that I offered to the FY04 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  Over the past four years, the United States has invested in the 
reconstruction and development of Afghanistan both because it is the 
right thing to do and because it is critical to our security.
  Afghan women were brutally oppressed by the Taliban regime, but they 
have been reclaiming their role in society, in part because of critical 
U.S. assistance provided to Afghanistan. Millions of girls are 
attending primary schools, equal rights for women are guaranteed in the 
constitution, and approximately three million women voted in the 
election held last year. These victories are especially important given 
that women comprise 55-60 percent of the total Afghan population and 
should be a driving force in Afghanistan's economic and political 
viability.
  However, while women are vastly better off than they were, many 
continue to endure many hardships including targeted violence,

[[Page 14559]]

limited mobility, illiteracy, and the highest rate of maternal 
mortality in the world. By improving health care facilities and by 
giving women access to the skills and opportunities that they need to 
become partners in creating Afghanistan's future, we will ensure that 
women will no longer be second-class citizens.
  While I hope that all the aid for Afghanistan will help women, I 
commend the Appropriations Committee for continuing to recognize the 
needs of Afghan women.
  I also am pleased that the bill includes $34 million for the life 
saving work of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA is a 
global leader in providing reproductive health care, including family 
planning services to the world's poorest women. UNFPA helps women 
undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely and helps women and men to plan 
their families and avoid unintended pregnancies and protect themselves 
from HIV/AIDS infections.
  UNFPA also is a leader in addressing the reproductive health care 
needs of women in emergencies. Humanitarian crises are often 
reproductive health disasters. Complications of pregnancy and 
childbirth are the leading causes of death for displaced women of 
childbearing age, and UNFPA takes the lead in providing supplies and 
services to protect the reproductive health of people in crisis. Most 
notably, UNFPA has played an instrumental role in helping to save the 
lives of women in Afghanistan by providing mobile health facilities as 
well as rebuilding maternity hospitals. The Afghan government was so 
grateful for this assistance they gave UNFPA a symbolic donation of 
$100 to support their work.
  As we are all aware, for each of the last three years, President Bush 
has refused to release the funding that Congress has appropriated for 
this vital program due to this Administrations' unproven assertions 
that UNFPA supports coercive abortion in China. It has been estimated 
that the loss of each year's funding could prevent 2 million unintended 
pregnancies; nearly 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 
60,000 cases of serious maternal illness; and more than 77,000 infant 
and child deaths. The Bush administration's refusal to release these 
funds puts at risk the very lives and health of women and children in 
the world's poorest regions.
  It is my hope that this year, President Bush reconsiders the impact 
of his decision and releases the life-saving funding that this chamber 
is wisely approving today.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005, which funds programs and activities carried out 
by the Departments of State, Treasury and Agriculture, the United 
States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation, and the Export-Import Bank, among others.
  This measure is the tenth appropriations bill to be considered under 
the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, and provides for the foreign 
operations and export financing needs of our nation, clearly national 
priorities in a time of war.
  I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels 
established by the conference report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
  H.R. 3057 provides $20.3 billion in appropriations for Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for fiscal year 2006. 
The bill provides $571 million in funding above fiscal year 2005, but 
it is $2.6 billion below the President's request.
  The bill provides $1.25 billion less then requested for the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation, $478 million less in Economic Support 
Funds and $146 million less in Foreign Military Financing funding. In 
addition, the bill recommends no funding for Iraq--a reduction of $459 
million--as over $5 billion in funds previously appropriated for Iraq 
relief and reconstruction remain unobligated and could be used to fund 
the requirements presented in the fiscal year 2006 request. H.R. 3057 
also provides no funding for the World Bank's Global Environment 
Facility until it adopts a performance-based allocation system--a 
reduction of $107 million from fiscal year 2005.
  H.R. 3057 provides a record level of $2.7 billion in funding to 
combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria: $131 million more than 
requested by the President land $502 million, or 23 percent, more than 
provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $2.3 billion is provided 
specifically for HIV/AIDS programs. The bill also fully funds the 
President's request of $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel, $1.8 
billion in assistance for Egypt, $1 billion in assistance to support 
reconstruction and democratization activities in Afghanistan. In 
addition, $437 million in funding is provided for International 
Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, an increase of $111 million, or 
34 percent, over fiscal year 2005.
  H.R. 3057 does not contain any emergency-designated budget authority 
or advance appropriations, but it does include a rescission of $64 
million in previously enacted discretionary budget authority.
  With total fiscal year 2006 appropriations equal to its allocation, 
the bill conforms with the budget resolution. Accordingly, the bill 
complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits 
consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the 
budget resolution.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 3057.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that 
I support H.R. 3057, and intend to vote for it in its current form. I 
also want to recognize the majority and minority subcommittee staff for 
their dedicated and professional work in meeting the demands of all 
subcommittee members despite scarce resources.
  However, in a forum such as this, I would be remiss if I did not 
raise the following issues that I have consistently raised over the 
last several years in every relevant hearing, mark-up and floor debate 
of this committee.
  Yesterday, around the world, 15-20 thousand people died of extreme 
poverty. Today, around the world, 15-20 thousand people will die of 
extreme poverty. Tomorrow, around the world 15-20 thousand people will 
die of extreme poverty. Extreme poverty, like malnutrition and 
disease,--not conflict--are claiming these lives.
  The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill has a real opportunity to 
turn around these numbers. Look at what has been done to date. Smallpox 
eradication begun in the 1960s. Control of river blindness in the 
1970s. Increased child immunizations in the 1980s. Initiatives to fight 
Guinea worm, trachoma and leprosy in the 1990s. And the effort to end 
polio in this decade. Measurable results produced with the dollars the 
Foreign Operations subcommittee provides.
  But more can be done.
  There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter, a member of 
the Foreign Ops. subcommittee, was fond of saying, ``Noblesse oblige, 
the belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those 
less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 48, Jesus simply says, ``To 
who much is given, much is expected.''
  We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on 
our military than the entire world combined with the sole mission of 
protecting this country, its citizens and advancing U.S. interests.
  We protect this country and advance U.S. interests by embracing the 
three Ds to a successful foreign policy: diplomacy, democracy and 
development. However, looking at all of FY 06 discretionary spending, I 
think we have been strongly emphasizing diplomacy and democracy and 
only given cursory treatment to development.
  Providing significantly more resources to development would only 
further the dollars we spend on defense. Last year, Vice Admiral Lowell 
Jacoby of the Defense Intelligence Agency said, ``a number of factors 
virtually assure a terrorist threat for years to come . . . Despite 
recent reforms, terrorist organizations draw from societies with poor 
or failing economies, ineffective governments and inadequate education 
systems.''
  I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. Given the circumstances, 
this bill is a tremendous effort. Chairman Kolbe, Ranking Member Lowey 
and the subcommittee staff have put forward a laudable product.
  But more should be done.
  I keep hearing members of this committee and the House leadership say 
that this is a tight budget year. This tight budget year was not 
created by immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a tough 
budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it is 
going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to 
have a bad harvest because he didn't plant any seeds. Mr. Chairman, 
when Congress approved the FY '06 budget resolution we didn't plant any 
seeds. The budget allocation given to this subcommittee is not a 
natural disaster like a drought. This disaster was of our making.
  In Matthew chapter 6, verse 21 , Jesus said, ``For where your 
treasure is, there will your heart be also.'' If this verse is true, 
what does it say about us, about Congress, about our government that we 
pass budget resolutions each year that spend almost $400 billion on 
defense, and hundreds of billions on all kinds of tax cuts for the most 
well off, yet we can't even match the President's request for 
international development. I have a masters in theology from the 
Chicago Theological Seminary and have read my bible from cover to 
cover, and nowhere does it say, ``only take care of

[[Page 14560]]

the poor if it fits into your annual budget resolution.''
  Noblesse oblige Mr. Chairman.
  In 1984, referring to Marxist-ruled Ethiopia, President Ronald Reagan 
said, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' I would also add that a 
hungry child doesn't know a 302(b) allocations from a point-of-order.'' 
All he knows is that he is hungry.
  Again, I plan to support this bill.
  But more needs to be done.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
support for the Global Environment Facility. The Global Environment 
Facility, GEF, is the primary financing mechanism for addressing global 
threats to the environment. After only a little more than a decade, the 
GEF has already established an outstanding record for cost-effective 
assistance to developing countries struggling with critical issues such 
as land-degradation, toxic pollution, energy efficiency, the 
elimination of ozone depleting chemicals, and the difficult task of 
facilitating sustainable development.
  The GEF puts money into countries whose stability matters to us, and 
our participation in the GEF builds partnerships and a sense of 
cooperation with other donors in tackling global environmental issues. 
In addition to furthering U.S. interests, the GEF deserves support for 
the simple reason that it works. In the Middle East, for example, the 
GEF is crossing borders, bringing countries together to protect vital 
water and wetland resources.
  U.S. leadership has played an important role in the GEF both as its 
leading donor and as a powerful voice for reform. Largely because of 
the United States, the GEF is now more effective, transparent and 
accountable than ever before. The institution has already met most of 
the reform criteria we have put forward, and the governing Council is 
nearing a compromise on the issue of performance-based allocation. 
Reaffirming our commitment in the current budget cycle will also send a 
positive signal for the next phase of GEF operations in which U.S. 
leadership will remain critical.
  Clearly, I appreciate the tough decisions that this subcommittee has 
had to make with the allocation they were given. But we cannot allow 
the GEF to fail on our watch. I would like to thank Chairman Kolbe for 
his consideration in giving the GEF Council the opportunity to adopt 
pending reforms and, if they do so, in being willing to work to restore 
funding in conference for the GEF. I would also like to acknowledge the 
good work of my fellow cochairs of the International Conservation 
Caucus, Clay Shaw, John Tanner, and especially Mr. Ed Royce, for their 
good work on this issue.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
support for this bill, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006.
  A strong foreign operations budget enables the U.S. to confront 
national security threats such as international terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as strengthen 
relations with other countries, address challenges like the genocide in 
Darfur, help safeguard human rights, and address problems such as 
hunger and AIDS.
  I am especially pleased with the strong and continued support in this 
bill for our close ally, Israel. This bill provides $2.5 billion in 
assistance for Israel, including $2.3 billion for military grants, and 
$240 million in economic assistance.
  As Israel takes bold steps to promote the peace process by 
disengaging from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, relinquishing 
security control of West Bank towns, and releasing hundreds of 
Palestinian prisoners, this funding will be essential to Israel's 
security and economic well-being.
  This bill also includes an important provision expressing the sense 
of Congress that Arab League countries should immediately end the 
boycott against Israel and its trading partners, and calls on President 
Bush to consider a country's participation in the boycott when 
determining whether to sell U.S. weapons to the country.
  The bill also withholds U.S. funds for the International Red Cross 
headquarters building in Geneva until the organization recognizes the 
Magen David Adom Society as the national humanitarian society of 
Israel. Finally, the measure includes $40 million for the resettlement 
of refugees from the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Ethiopia 
to Israel, provided through the Migration and Refugee Assistance 
Account.
  To uphold our commitment to the only true democracy in the Middle 
East and America's closest ally in the war on terror, Congress must 
ensure Israel has the means necessary to defend herself.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides these funds and reaffirms our 
dedication to Israel's well being, and for that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act for FY 2006.
  The United States should be the world's leading peace broker rather 
than its largest arms dealer. Unfortunately, about one-quarter, or 
about $5 billion, of the funding for this foreign operations 
appropriations bill is direct military aid and more than $2.5 billion 
are ``Economic Support Funds,'' which are often used for security 
operations. Supplying so many weapons to other nations does more to 
promote war than it does to enable peace.
  To be fair, there are positive provisions in this bill. For example, 
it increases funding for family planning programs and the United 
Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. Regrettably, this good news is 
tarnished by another provision in the bill that gives President Bush 
the power to unilaterally withhold funding from the UNFPA initiative. 
For several years, President Bush has withheld these funds claiming 
that UNFPA plays a role in the coercive abortion practices of the 
Chinese.
  Despite that rhetoric, UNFPA does not provide funding for abortions 
or abortion services. It works to prevent the need for abortions by 
educating women in other countries on the many advantages to services 
such as contraception and disease prevention. UNFPA is the largest 
internationally funded source of population assistance to developing 
countries. For over three decades, the UNFPA has provided billions of 
dollars of assistance to more than 150 countries for voluntary family 
planning and maternal and child health care.
  I am also disappointed that the bill fails to fund the Global 
Environmental Facility, GEF. The GEF is the largest single funding 
source for projects to improve our global environment.
  I also oppose provisions in this bill that have removed all 
conditionality on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and Guatemala. 
Indonesia continues to abuse the human rights of its people and 
Guatemala has violated numerous agreements stipulated in its domestic 
peace accords.
  What message is this Republican Congress sending the world? On the 
one hand, President Bush sends Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a 
tour of the Middle East touting democracy. On the other hand, this 
Republican Congress is allowing brutal regimes to get military aid 
without any restrictions.
  I cannot vote for this legislation. The large amount of military aid 
and the lack of commitment to promoting democracy and international 
family planning initiatives force me to vote against it. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against this ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the 
underlying bill. I thank the Chairman for allowing an amendment in 
committee, by my colleague from Missouri, Ms. Emerson, which reverses 
the Treasury Department's ruling against the definition of payment of 
cash in advance--a ruling that hinders rice exports to Cuba.
  Since this Treasury Department ruling, rice exports to Cuba have been 
down 66 percent. Since the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act that was passed in 2000, rice sales to Cuba had grown 
to $64 million a year and last year's rice imports from the U.S. 
amounted to 160,000 tons. According to the President of Cuba's Food 
Agency, Cuba expects to import 750,000 tons of rice this year. We need 
to make sure this is American rice and this amendment went a long way 
to ensure this. This amendment stops the Treasury Department's 
roadblocks in shipping American rice to Cuba.
  The Cuban people will eat rice. If we will not sell it to them, they 
will get it elsewhere, from countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and 
China. I appreciate the hard work Ms. Emerson, the U.S. Rice Producers, 
and the U.S.A. Rice Federation have done toward reversing these trade 
restrictions. American rice is the best in the world and our Government 
must encourage rice trade instead of preventing such trade.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect, 
but I think it deserves to be passed.
  The bill provides important resources to help our allies in the 
struggle against international terrorism and against the narcotics 
trade. For example, it includes economic assistance for Afghanistan at 
the requested level of $430 million, $205 million above last year's 
level, but includes a new provision that withholds $225 million of the 
total until the Secretary of State certifies that the national and 
local governments in Afghanistan are fully cooperating with the U.S.-
funded narcotics eradication and interdiction efforts. The bill also 
includes $220 million for military assistance for Pakistan to support 
their efforts in hunting terrorists along

[[Page 14561]]

the Afghan border, as well as $347 million--$111 million above last 
year--for International Narcotics Control.
  Some of the other high-priority items in the bill include much-needed 
assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria--$131 million 
more than the President's request and $502 million more than in fiscal 
year 2005.
  The Peace Corps is funded at $325 million, $8 million above fiscal 
2005, and the bill includes provisions to provide for a greater role in 
oversight of U.S. taxpayer contributions to international 
organizations.
  Of course, the bill is far from perfect, and I do not agree with all 
its priorities. I voted for a number of amendments that would have 
improved it and regret that not all of them were adopted.
  I also voted against some amendments, including two that dealt with 
the sensitive subject of extradition from other countries of people 
accused of crimes in the United States.
  One of those amendments, by my Colorado colleague, Representative 
Beauprez, calls for cutting off any assistance to a country that 
refuses to comply with a request to extradite a person charged with 
killing a police officer in the United States.
  Killing a policeman is a very serious matter, and I am a cosponsor of 
a bill (H.R. 2363) to authorize much more severe penalties for such 
fugitive killers of a peace officer--including any Federal, State, or 
local police officer.
  However, I voted against the Beauprez amendment after receiving a 
communication from the District Attorney in Denver. He is currently 
working to complete the extradition from Mexico of a fugitive wanted in 
connection with the murder of a Denver police officer and has indicated 
that Congressional threats to reduce assistance as a way to bring 
pressure on the Mexican authorities run the risk of being 
counterproductive. I am not opposed to using leverage, including our 
foreign assistance programs, to insist that other countries extradite 
wanted fugitives, but the District Attorney's comments persuaded me 
that adoption of the amendment at this time could make it harder for 
the District Attorney's efforts with Mexico to succeed.
  On balance, while the bill is not all that I would wish in all 
respects, I think it deserves approval and I will vote for it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of international wildlife 
conservation efforts and the Global Environmental Facility, GEF.
  Protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most 
important duties I have as a Member of Congress. We simply won't have a 
world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
  I support maximizing the GEF's resources, leveraging the highest 
possible contributions from the other donor countries, and 
demonstrating U.S. leadership on international environmental issues.
  The GEF is the primary financing mechanism for important 
environmental work around the world, helping developing countries 
address the many environmental challenges associated with ending 
poverty and enhancing economic development. 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, and has 
provided more than 4,000 grants directly to community groups and non-
governmental organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion 
to the GEF over this same time frame.
  Because other countries' contributions are indexed to the United 
States' level of support, we have the ability to either gather great 
resources for the global environment or greatly limit the international 
response to issues such as tropical forest loss and the decline in 
coral reefs worldwide.
  Funding the GEF is a good investment. Choosing to make the highest 
commitment to the GEF will truly help define American leadership on 
environmental issues to the rest of the world.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3057

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE

                Export-Import Bank of the United States

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any 
     country, other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in 
     Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act, that has detonated a nuclear explosive after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428, as 
     amended, sections 1(a) and (b) of Public Law 103-428 shall 
     remain in effect through October 1, 2006.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
for the purpose of entering into colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on 
Appropriations regarding the fiscal year 2006 budget for 
counternarcotics programs in Peru.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on International Relations 
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I have been extensively 
involved in United States counternarcotics efforts in Central and South 
America. As a result, I was deeply disappointed to see that the 
President's fiscal year 2006 request for the Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative for Peru is 16 percent below last year's enacted level. The 
President's budget aims to reduce the U.S. assistance for Peruvian 
counternarcotic eradication and interdiction from a level of $62 
million enacted in 2005 to a request of $54 million in 2006, and 
reduces alternative development funds from a level of $54 million to 
$43 million.
  I believe this is absolutely the wrong time for such a cut and such a 
low level of funding, if enacted, will only jeopardize the gains we 
have made in Peru in the areas of coca eradication, interdiction and 
alternative development.
  In 2004, with the assistance of the United States, Peru eradicated 
almost 10,000 hectares of coca, of which 7,500 hectares were eradicated 
manually by the Peruvian police, and another 2,500 hectares were 
voluntarily eradicated by Peruvian communities in exchange for 
community development programs. Moreover, alternative development 
programs supported legally grown crops on almost 20,000 more hectares 
of Peruvian farmland.
  Historically, Colombian narcotraf-
fickers sent cocaine base from Peru to Colombia for conversion into 
cocaine HCL, but in recent years the traffickers have relied more on 
coca cultivation and base production in Colombia. But the traffickers 
in Colombia are under increasing pressure from the Colombian 
Government, thanks to the successes of Plan Colombia.
  So far we have successfully avoided a so-called ``balloon effect'' 
from the successes of Plan Colombia in terms of seeing Colombian 
traffickers substantially shifting cultivation of narcotics crops back 
to Peru. But there are warning signs, indications that coca cultivation 
is starting to spring up outside the traditional cultivation zones in 
Peru that point to this happening if we do not take steps to prevent 
it.
  Additionally, there is good intelligence that appears to indicate an 
upward trend in terms of poppy cultivation in Peru regarding heroin. I 
have spoken to officials in Peru, and they are deeply concerned about 
these warning signs, as well as the emerging opium threat.
  Recent Ministry of Peru data indicates that Peru now may have 1,400 
hectares of opium crops, mostly in the north near the Ecuadorian and 
Colombian borders, and there are strong indications that opium latex is 
now being moved by Colombian drug dealers through Ecuador into Colombia 
for processing into heroin. A recent seizure

[[Page 14562]]

of 4,440 kilos of opium in Peru, nearly half a ton of opium, 
potentially 40 kilos of processed heroin, shows just how serious the 
growth of opium is becoming.
  Taken as a whole, I believe, as do my colleagues in Peru, that this 
data indicate that enacting drastic cuts for Peruvian counternarcotic 
efforts at this time would seriously undermine Peru's coca eradication 
efforts in the long term and the ability of Peru to implement a similar 
opium eradication program.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the government and, more importantly, the people of 
Peru have recognized the dangers of narcotics to their society. Public 
polls last year consistently found that Peruvians see narcotics as the 
second most serious problem in the country after the state of the 
economy. The people of Peru have taken a courageous stand against the 
drug traffickers; and like the people of Colombia, they are taking 
their country back from the criminals and terrorists. Now is not the 
time to reduce U.S. support for their efforts.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from Arizona to hear his views 
about this funding.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am 
happy to respond. I want to thank the gentleman for his stalwart 
efforts in fighting narcoterrorism in Latin America. I share the 
gentleman's concerns and thank him for raising this issue here today.
  Since 2002, Peru's budget under ACI has decreased slightly each year, 
but the decrease in the 2006 request was for an astounding 16 percent. 
Therefore, the committee included language in the House report 
rejecting these cuts and directing that not less than $61 million be 
made available for eradication and interdiction for Peru and not less 
than $53 million shall be available for alternative development and 
institution-building in Peru.
  When the committee proceeds to conference negotiations with the 
Senate later this summer or fall, I commit to the gentleman that we 
will push for this funding in the final agreement.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. I really appreciate his hard work in this effort. We can 
count on the gentleman, I know.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word to engage the 
Chairman in a colloquy for the purpose of discussing the international 
narcotics control in methamphetamine.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, Members of both sides of the aisle joined 
me in affirming this body's strong support for combating international 
methamphetamine trafficking. Today, I would like to thank the Chair and 
ranking members for their work on the foreign operations approps bill 
and for supporting the State Department's international narcotics 
control and law enforcement efforts above the FY 2005 level, 
particularly the $40 million in programs for Mexico.
  As you know, the effects of international methamphetamine trafficking 
have invaded our communities and homes. SONDCP reported earlier this 
year that approximately two-thirds of meth production comes from large 
labs increasingly from Mexico. The trade also has origins in China, 
India, Germany, and the Czech Republic in the form of precursor 
manufacturing.
  Recently, the Oregonian reported that only nine factories manufacture 
the bulk of the world's supply. We simply must get a handle on this 
situation in order to stop the sweep of this drug across this country 
and prevent it from infesting our areas.
  I see mention in this bill report language on poppy cultivation and 
heroin trafficking. However, I do not see any explicit language on the 
importance of controlling the importation of meth precursors such as 
sudafedrine and efforts to train international customs officials to 
better control these imports.
  Has the chairman considered addressing this issue in report language 
of this legislation?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. The report language does not specifically raise the topic 
raised by the gentleman from Washington. I am certainly glad that he 
has taken this moment on the floor because of his interest in this 
issue, and I agree with him about the importance of our 
counternarcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico.
  He correctly points out that the bill includes $40 million in 
international narcotics and law enforcement assistance for the country 
of Mexico. Part of this represents a restoration of funding to last 
year's level. The President had only requested $30 million for this 
purpose in this year's bill.
  So I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Washington as we 
move forward with this bill with the Senate and in conference. We can 
work together to make sure that the issue of methamphetamine 
trafficking as it relates to Mexico is forthrightly addressed in the 
administration's request or in the final budget account. In 
representing a district right along the border, I understand fully the 
importance of this issue.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to work together 
on this and appreciate the time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago this April, the breakaway British colony 
of Rhodesia emerged from years of guerilla conflict as the new nation 
of Zimbabwe. The United States and many other Western nations were 
hopeful that Zimbabwe's new President, Robert Mugabe, who came to 
prominence as a guerrilla leader in the 1970s, would moderate his 
Marxist views and build a better future for all Zimbabwe citizens.

                              {time}  1445

  Zimbabwe's people also had high hopes. The country had considerable 
natural wealth and, despite years of bitter warfare, many in the 
business community opted to remain, providing crucial economic 
stability. Zimbabwe's people were determined not to share in the fate 
of so many of their neighbors, who had also emerged from colonialism 
amid fanfare and high expectations.
  Now, after a quarter century of tyrannical and frequently bizarre 
misrule by Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe is shattered. Its inflation rate is the 
highest in the world, unemployment estimates range up to 80 percent, 
with seven in 10 Zimbabweans living below the poverty line. Zimbabwe 
has one of Africa's highest HIV/AIDS infection rates, with more than a 
quarter of the adult population infected.
  While the Mugabe regime has frequently resorted to Draconian internal 
security laws and plain old thuggery to suppress and divide the 
Zimbabwe opposition, Harare's intimidation tactics have taken an 
especially nasty turn in the last 3 months since the country held 
parliamentary elections at the end of March.
  Those elections, which were won by Mugabe's ruling party, were 
fraudulent and widened the schism between Zimbabwe's urban masses, who 
tend to support the opposition, and rural voters, who make up the bulk 
of the ruling party supporters.
  To punish his opponents, Mr. Mugabe's government has waged a 6-week 
campaign, revealingly called ``Operation Drive Out Trash,'' against 
opposition strongholds in Zimbabwe's cities. Tens of thousands of 
bewildered families have been forced into the open of the cold winter 
after police torched and bulldozed their shanty town homes on the 
flimsiest of pretexts. Street markets were also targeted and left 
smoldering in ruins.
  Last week, the government, in a nation facing severe food shortages, 
moved on to vegetable gardens planted by the poor in vacant lots around 
Harare. Authorities claimed the gardens threatened the environment.
  International human rights groups say at least 300,000 people have 
lost their homes by conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the 
figure as high as 1.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that many of our colleagues share my anger and 
my

[[Page 14563]]

sorrow at a state of affairs that is beginning to look eerily like 
Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975. I have no desire 
to cut U.S. aid that goes to help the people of Zimbabwe and their 
struggles against HIV/AIDS and one-party rule, but I feel that we 
cannot stand by and watch Zimbabwe become a failed State.
  I am especially frustrated by the failure of the African Union and 
SADC, the Southern African Development Community, to confront the 
horrors going on in Zimbabwe. I hope that the AU will, at the weekend 
summit in Sirte, Libya, take a firm stand against the Mugabe regime's 
excesses, and I urge President Bush to make it clear at next week's G-8 
meeting that South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, who has refused to 
confront Mr. Mugabe and we hope Mr. Mbeki will take a strong and 
unequivocal stand against the Zimbabwe regime.
  Will the chairman work with me and the chairman of the full Committee 
on International Relations and other interested Members in developing 
policies that continue to assist the Zimbabwe people while putting 
additional pressure on the Mugabe regime?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I share my colleague's 
abhorrence regarding the rule in Zimbabwe, and he has outlined it, I 
think, extraordinarily well. Through his mismanagement and outright 
oppression, he has driven Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of 
southern Africa, into the greatest source of instability in the region. 
I want to make it clear that no funding, no funding from this bill will 
be used to support Mr. Mugabe's government.
  The bill does include $15 million to help the people of Zimbabwe. I 
feel strongly that this assistance is critical and must be sustained. 
Over $11 million of this is for HIV/AIDS and other health programs. 
Most of the rest is used to help strengthen citizen groups and other 
organizations, so one day the people may have an effective voice 
against Mr. Mugabe and his cronies.
  Democratic change must be driven by the people. As we have seen in 
Georgia and Ukraine, our democracy programs can be effective in 
supporting that process. And, the people of Zimbabwe must not feel that 
the international community has given up on them.
  While I feel strongly that our assistance to the Zimbabwean people 
must be sustained, I will be happy to work with the gentleman to find 
ways to increase pressure on President Mugabe.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last year I joined the chairman and the ranking member 
here on the floor to send a clear and, I thought, bipartisan message 
that it is not in the national interest, nor in the national security 
interest, of the United States to slash our development funding to our 
neighbors in our own front yard here in the Western Hemisphere.
  Yet, I find myself here once again to send the same exact message. To 
be frank, it makes me question whether the administration was listening 
to what Congress said last year.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 
and as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and as an 
American, I was outraged when the President, in his proposed fiscal 
year 2006 budget, slashed core development funding to Latin America by 
over 12 percent.
  In his fiscal year 2005 budget, Latin America was the only region in 
the world, the only region in the world, to be cut in both total 
economic and development aid, and total narcotic and military aid. In 
his fiscal year 2006 budget, the President once again broke his pledge 
to the people of the Western Hemisphere. So much for looking southward, 
not as an afterthought, in U.S. foreign policy, an integral part of a 
forward-looking vision we were promised, this certainly is not it. So 
much for being an amigo, a friend of Latin America.
  And, if we look below the broad 12 percent cuts, we find even more 
disturbing trends. Under the administration's proposed budget, basic 
education funding would be cut by over 20 percent and adult literacy 
funding would be cut by 28 percent, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 
budget. In the midst of the debate on CAFTA, the President cuts 
development assistance funding to El Salvador by over 30 percent, and 
child survival and health funding to the Dominican Republic by over 18 
percent. This will only exacerbate the gap between those who have and 
have not.
  At a time when Latin American presidents are being toppled left and 
right by crowds frustrated with the failure of government to provide 
them with adequate education, housing, and health care; at a time when 
anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the hemisphere; at a time 
when our hemisphere is growing smaller, when infectious diseases move 
throughout the hemisphere, when crime penetrates borders, when 
terrorists may use failed States as safe havens, these cuts are the 
wrong policy for the United States of America.
  Let me be clear: a stable, safe, and prosperous neighborhood is in 
the national interest and national security interest of the United 
States. It is in the national interest of the United States to increase 
demand for U.S. goods in a region of 500 million people by enhancing 
economic development. It is in the national interest and national 
security interest of the United States to create greater economic 
growth in Latin America so that people will not seek to leave their 
homes out of despair. It is in the national interest and national 
security interest of the United States to increase stability in our 
hemisphere, because chaos and insecurity creates unwanted opportunity 
for terrorists and criminals throughout the region. That is the 
reality.
  So I want to take this opportunity, as I express these frustrations 
and these criticisms, at the same time to commend the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ranking 
Member Lowey) for their bipartisan effort on this issue, particularly 
for including language which restores funding specifically to Central 
America directly in the bill text, since similar report language in our 
statements on the floor have been ignored in the past. I also hope our 
friends in the administration understand that the report language 
disagrees with the deep cuts to development assistance for the entire 
hemisphere.
  I believe that we should restore all development funding that was cut 
to the hemisphere, not just to Central America. It has been static for 
so many years, and then we cut it in addition to that. It is woefully 
inadequate for the national interest and security interest of the 
United States.
  But I do not believe that restoring funding to fiscal year 2005 
levels is

[[Page 14564]]

enough. In fact, that would be an overall decrease, even then, since 
there is no increase that accounts for inflation.
  So I hope that we can move in a different direction. I know that 
Hispanic Americans in this country are increasingly paying attention to 
this issue. We are going to hear a lot of debate about Central America 
and the Central America Free Trade Agreement at the same time we are 
eviscerating the very programs that can help create stability and 
opportunity within the hemisphere.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point to the membership on both 
sides of the aisle. As has been the case with most appropriation bills 
this year, we are trying to work our way to a unanimous consent 
agreement that will limit time for discussion of amendments to this 
bill in such a way that we can finish this bill today.
  Right now, the unanimous consent agreement which is being worked on 
would result, if you take into account the debate time plus the 
slippage time that occurs between each speech, we would probably be on 
the floor for about 6 to 6\1/2\ hours, not counting vote time. That 
means that we would be very lucky to finish this bill by 10 o'clock 
tonight.
  We are being asked to do so earlier if possible so that we can finish 
the transportation bill by debating it on Wednesday and Thursday, 
trying to avoid a Friday session before the July Fourth break.
  We are getting, frankly, crossed signals from Members. Some Members 
want to see to it that we get out by Thursday; other Members want to 
see the time on their amendments extended. We cannot accomplish both 
goals at the same time. So I ask Members to choose for themselves what 
they want, whether they want to be here Friday or whether they would 
like to reach a reasonably congenial agreement on time limits so that 
we can finish this bill at a reasonable hour tonight and finish the 
remaining appropriation bill by Thursday.
  But this is really up to Members. We cannot control what Members 
offer on the floor; all we can do is deliver the bad news.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the United Nations 
Population Fund. Regrettably, the underlying bill continues the Bush 
administration's policy of prohibiting the use of U.S. funds to pay for 
vital family planning services for millions of women around the world.
  As we all know, UNFPA is the single largest global source of 
multilateral funding for maternal health and family planning programs. 
It works to provide support to over 150 countries by helping with the 
delivery of healthy babies, providing prenatal care and educating men 
and women about HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases so 
people can live healthier lives.
  This fund helps women and families in 30 countries in Latin America 
and the Caribbean and many more in Asia, Africa and Arab countries. In 
Nicaragua, Central America where my mother was born, families and poor 
women in particular struggle for survival. Infant mortality rates there 
are three times higher in the lowest income group and almost half of 
all Nicaraguan girls become pregnant by the age of 19. These infant 
mortality rates and teen pregnancy rates demonstrate the need for 
maternal health care and family planning services through this fund.
  Also, the underlying bill continues the global gag rule which 
prohibits U.S. funding to any private or nongovernmental or 
multilateral organization that uses its own funds to directly or 
indirectly perform abortions abroad except in instances of rape and 
incest.
  Restoring the UNFPA funding could prevent 2 million unintended 
pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 
nearly 66,000 cases of serious maternal illnesses and more than 77,000 
infant and child deaths.
  We must work together to restore this funding and improve the lives 
of women all over the world.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I may not be able to be here during the debate on an 
amendment for veterans, and I wanted to speak to it. I want to offer a 
little history, but I think it is a balanced history from both sides. I 
remember when President Clinton's budget on the veterans, the VFW, the 
American Legion, Vietnam veterans, all rallied against the budget 
because it cut veterans health care. We worked with the other body, 
both of us on both sides of the aisle; and even some of those that 
voted with President Clinton on his budget voted with us to restore 
that health care by $1 billion.
  We have increased veterans health care by 16 percent. But it is not 
enough. There is a shortfall and we must attend to it.
  Historically, this body works with the other body in conference and I 
believe that some of those dollars will come forward, maybe not what we 
all want, but I believe some of those dollars will come together for 
veterans health care.
  I remember in 1993 when my colleagues occupied the White House, the 
House and the Senate, veterans COLAs were cut. Military COLAs were cut. 
And there was a tax increase on the middle income.
  In 1994, when Republicans took the majority, together with 
Republicans and Democrats, many of the same Democrats that voted with 
the President on his budget restored the military COLAs. We worked 
together to restore the veterans COLAs. And I would have to say 
probably on this side we will take a little more credit for restoring 
and reducing the tax on the middle class.
  We have worked together, although we have not got what we want on 
concurrent receipts. For 40 years my colleagues on the other side did 
not address concurrent receipts. And we have. But at the same time, 
when it has been addressed under a Republican majority, then the 
Democrats have come forward and helped us.
  Two different sessions we have passed bills on concurrent receipts 
together. And now there is a bipartisan commission going forward to see 
what direction we will write down.
  I look at TRICARE for life, which we worked together on.
  Subvention. I did not write the subvention bill, but my veterans in 
San Diego, California wrote that bill and put it forward, basically, 
where you can use Medicare dollars at VA health care.
  The Filipino Veterans Equity Act. One of the gentlemen on the other 
side I very rarely vote with. But we worked together to restore the 
promise that was made to our Filipino veterans back during the 
MacArthur days, and we have worked together on that as well.
  You do not have to look far to see where we come together, and I do 
not think any Member on either side of the aisle can look at another 
one and say,

[[Page 14565]]

you do not care about veterans; you do not care about our military; you 
do not care about our Guard and Reserve. That is just not true.
  Some people vote against military issues. Maybe their district has 
got extreme poverty and it is a way of funding their issues and their 
problems. It does not mean they do not care about the military itself.
  The Republican budget looked at many years of substantial increases 
and almost every account, including veterans, including education and 
health care. But we decided to get our arms around the deficit.
  Many of my colleagues on both sides talk about the deficit and the 
debt. If we, as Members, or you, Mr. Chairman, if you have got a 
checkbook and you spend more than you are going to take in, you are 
going to be bankrupt, and you are going to have less in the future to 
spend. For us to get our arms around this budget and still fund our 
priorities, I think we will when we come together with the other body.
  A classic case of savings: the welfare reform bill passed many years 
ago which was lauded by President Clinton as one of the best bills to 
help people in this country. I also happen to agree with him.
  But at the same time we have gone through these increases, we have 
been fighting the war on terror. If you look at Kadafi, his nuclear 
weapons are in the United States today. And even more important, we 
have found the black market that supported North Korea, Pakistan, 
India, and others. What kind of value is that to us, not just to our 
veterans, but our military and our homeland security?
  I mentioned a minute ago Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Hambali and Abu 
Halibi, the people that were actually planning raids on the United 
States. Now, those people are all made up of military that then become 
veterans, and we owe them a priority.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to 
engage with me in a colloquy. And I take this opportunity to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for all of the fine work that 
she has done on this appropriation. And I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the concern and care that he has 
shown for Africa and on this issue of HIV/AIDS over the years. And I do 
appreciate it.
  But I rise today to talk about the fact that back in 2003, January 
2003, the President made a commitment. If you recall in his State of 
the Union address, he said he was going to provide $15 billion over 5 
years. That is $3 billion a year for global HIV/AIDS programs.
  In the past year, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or 
as it became known as PEPFAR, has been underfunded significantly. I do 
appreciate the work that you have done. But in fiscal year 2003, we 
only received $1.6 billion for global HIV/AIDS programs.
  In fiscal year 2004, only $2.3 billion was provided for those 
programs. We have done better in 2005, receiving $2.9 billion.
  So the total funding for the last 3 years is only $6.8 billion. 
Congress would have to appropriate $8.2 billion over the next 2 years 
to complete the commitment for $15 billion for the 5-year commitment.
  Why do I push this? I push this because every year 3 million people 
die of AIDS. Every year 5 million people become infected with AIDS. 
Over 25 million are living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and over 
7 percent of the adults in sub-Saharan Africa are infected by this 
deadly virus.
  So while I thank you, I guess the question I am asking is can we do 
more and can we even save this funding that is in the budget, given 
that one of your Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is talking 
about cutting it?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and 
for her kind remarks about my support for HIV/AIDS funding. It is a 
commitment that I share with the gentlewoman from California. I believe 
very strongly in the importance of this. In fact, when I became 
chairman of this subcommittee, I said there were three primary things 
that I wanted to do, and this was one of them.
  I think the gentlewoman is forgetting something, and that is there is 
funding in another appropriation bill for international AIDS, largely 
in CDC and NIH, in the Labor-HHS bill. When you add those amounts in, 
this year, we are at $3.2 billion total funding for HIV/AIDS and 
international programs, so we are above. If you take the $15 billion 
over 5 years that the President talked about, $3 billion would be a 
level funding. We started off below that. This year in the third year 
we are above it. We are not only on target to meet the $15 billion; we 
will be above that by the end of the fifth year. So we are moving 
clearly in that direction. And I believe that we are showing our 
commitment.
  We are $131 million this year above the amount requested by the 
President. We are $502 million above the amount that was appropriated 
in 2005. That is just in our particular appropriation bill.
  So I do share the gentlewoman's concerns about this, and I believe, 
however, that we are moving very strongly in that direction. And 
perhaps the gentlewoman from New York would like to add something.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was referring to the 
PEPFAR portion of this. It was my understanding that the $15 billion 
commitment was above and beyond the other programs that you are 
alluding to. But I do appreciate that.
  Mr. KOLBE. If the gentlewoman would yield just for one clarification, 
I think the gentlewoman is mistaken on that. The $15 billion was a 
total for all HIV/AIDS programs, not just the PEPFAR's program. So when 
you look at all the programs that were already under way in bilateral 
programs, things being done in NIH and CDC as well as in the new PEPFAR 
program, the global fund, all of that, we will be well above, I think 
we will be considerably above the $15 billion.
  Ms. WATERS. Well, I understand that and I appreciate the gentleman 
correcting my thinking relative to where the money was to come from, 
because in the AIDS activist community, we were all under the 
impression that the PEPFAR fund alone would produce the $15 billion. 
But we will certainly take that information.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, continuing this colloquy, just so you have 
the numbers correct here as we see them here: in 2004, total 
appropriations for international AIDS programs was $2.4 billion. In 
2005 it was $2.9 billion; and in 2006, the current year that we are 
funding, it is $3.2 billion. That gives you a total of $8.5 billion 
which means that we have $6.5 billion left to do in the next 2 years in 
order to reach the $15 billion. That would be slightly less, actually, 
than $3 billion a year to meet that. So I do believe we are on target.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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,

[[Page 14566]]

about 15 percent of the total need, is not representative of what we 
are capable of doing.

                              {time}  1515

  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.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
commitment. The gentleman has demonstrated his commitment to this issue 
as much as anyone, more than most in the Congress of the United States. 
And I am going to review the numbers and take his representation of how 
that funding has come together and have further discussions with the 
AIDS community. They are so concerned because since the President's 
commitment, over 7 million people have died. And also we will have an 
amendment coming up today from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and 
although I do not want to preempt the gentleman's presentation, I would 
hope the gentleman would join me in helping to put that down because 
that would undermine all the work that he has done.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  My purpose in going through those numbers was simply to illustrate 
that we are meeting this commitment, not as the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) suggested, not that it is enough. There is not 
enough. We are not doing enough. But I think we are meeting the 
commitment we did make. This is a pandemic of absolutely unprecedented 
proportions, and we need to be doing a lot more in Africa, in the 
Caribbean, in Southeast Asia, now in countries like China and in Russia 
where it is growing with great rapidity. So there is a lot more that 
needs to be done. I thank the gentlewoman for highlighting that and 
providing the clarion call today for this country and for the AIDS 
community around the world to respond to this need in this pandemic.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $125,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2024, for the disbursement of 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants 
     obligated in fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act or any prior Act appropriating funds for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for tied-
     aid credits or grants may be used for any other purpose 
     except through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph are made available 
     notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945, in connection with the purchase or lease of any 
     product by any Eastern European country, any Baltic State or 
     any agency or national thereof.


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses for members of the Board of 
     Directors, $73,200,000: Provided, That the Export-Import Bank 
     may accept, and use, payment or services provided by 
     transaction participants for legal, financial, or technical 
     services in connection with any transaction for which an 
     application for a loan, guarantee or insurance commitment has 
     been made: Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection 
     (b) of section 117 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, 
     subsection (a) thereof shall remain in effect until October 
     1, 2006.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Hooley

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Hooley:
       Page 4, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) that I am prepared to accept this amendment.
  I have concerns about a large cut in Ex-Im Bank expenses, but I 
certainly agree that the need in Mexico is very great to fight 
methamphetamines, and I certainly am prepared to accept this amendment.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to 
accept this amendment. I will be extremely brief.
  Methamphetamine has traveled across this country. It is a huge 
problem. There are many children who are being referred to other people 
because of methamphetamine. In my State, 75 percent of the crime that 
is committed is because of methamphetamine.
  We know that roughly 200 tons of pseudoephedrine is needed to produce 
all the meth sold in the United States. This pseudoephedrine from 
Mexico can produce half of our Nation's supply of this deadly drug. 
Again, we need to do everything we can to fight the spread of 
methamphetamine.
  My amendment would provide the State Department with additional 
resources. With so much of meth in this country coming from Mexico, we 
must take action to stop the production and importation of this 
dangerous drug. As any cop in America will tell you, meth is destroying 
our communities. This should be one of the top foreign policy items on 
our bilateral agenda.
  I thank the gentleman for accepting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss foreign aid, American tax 
dollars that are going to the Palestinian Authority.
  The problem the Palestinians have has nothing to do with money. The 
problem is a complete failure of their leadership. The United States 
has provided an average of $85 million a year per year since 1993. Not 
counting inflation, this comes to over a billion dollars. We have 
provided direct aid to the Palestinian Authority on three occasions, 
$36 million in 1994, $20 million in 2003, and another $20 million again 
in 2005.
  Since 1975 we have given over $1.2 billion of assistance for the West 
Bank and the Gaza. Between 1994 and 1998 American taxpayers gave $65 
million to expand economic opportunity in the Palestinian controlled 
areas and $85 million to help the Palestinian people establish their 
own government.
  Before Congress decides to spend another $150 million, I would just 
like to know exactly what the Palestinian Authority has done with all 
of this money. With all of the money the United States has spent, with 
all of the international aid, the Palestinian people still live in 
squalor. After decades of aid and billions of dollars, it boggles the 
mind that there is no economic self-sufficiency and no improvement to 
the quality of life.
  How is that possible? Because it is not about the money. It is about 
the Palestinian Authority failing to do what any responsible government 
would have done with several billion dollars, build infrastructure, 
improve health care, provide economic opportunities, improve education, 
and move the Palestinian people into the 21st century.
  The money is not going into housing. Palestinians continue to live in 
wretched conditions in refugee camps with corrugated tin roofs and 
dilapidated ramshackle huts. The money is not going to schools. If it 
was, Palestinian children would not be rioting in the streets. They 
would be sitting in classrooms being trained as the next generation of 
doctors and engineers who will lead their people in the 21st century 
instead of being trained as terrorists and suicide bombers.
  Palestinian education is little more than anti-Israel, anti-Semitic 
and anti-American rhetoric. The Palestinian

[[Page 14567]]

Authority continues to be financially corrupt and morally bankrupt and 
that is why the Palestinian people turn to Hamas, the most dangerous 
terrorist organization on the planet, to get their basic needs met.
  The problem is not a lack of money. The Palestinian leadership is 
either unable or unwilling to provide for basic needs of its people. It 
is either unwilling or unable to lift them out of poverty. It is either 
unwilling or unable to prepare them for statehood and self-sufficiency.
  Until they disarm the terrorists and dismantle the terrorist 
organizations, Abu Mazen and the Palestinian leadership are sentencing 
their people to continued misery, continued hopelessness, continued 
anger and continued self-loathing. Year after year, generation after 
generation.
  The problem is a lack of Palestinian leadership, a lack of vision, a 
lack of hope for the future, not a lack of money. Mr. Chairman, if our 
money has not been doing any good, why are we giving more? Until we get 
some answers we should not give another penny to the Palestinian 
Authority. As a matter of fact, we should be asking for a refund.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Overseas Private Investment Corporation


                           Noncredit Account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $42,274,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered 
     administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.


                            Program Account

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $20,276,000, 
     as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, to be derived by transfer from the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation Non-Credit Account: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall be available 
     for direct loan obligations and loan guaranty commitments 
     incurred or made during fiscal years 2006 and 2007: Provided 
     further, That such sums shall remain available through fiscal 
     year 2014 for the disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans 
     obligated in fiscal year 2006, and through fiscal year 2015 
     for the disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated 
     in fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized to 
     undertake any program authorized by title IV of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 in Iraq: Provided further, That funds 
     made available pursuant to the authority of the previous 
     proviso shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       In addition, such sums as may be necessary for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the credit program may 
     be derived from amounts available for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the credit and insurance programs in the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation Noncredit Account and 
     merged with said account.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      Trade and Development Agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $50,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 2006, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:


           United States Agency for International Development

                Child Survival and Health Programs Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, for child survival, health, and family planning/
     reproductive health activities, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, $1,497,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That 
     this amount shall be made available for such activities as: 
     (1) immunization programs; (2) oral rehydration programs; (3) 
     health, nutrition, water and sanitation programs which 
     directly address the needs of mothers and children, and 
     related education programs; (4) assistance for children 
     displaced or orphaned by causes other than AIDS; (5) programs 
     for the prevention, treatment, control of, and research on 
     HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, polio, malaria, and other infectious 
     diseases, and for assistance to communities severely affected 
     by HIV/AIDS, including children displaced or orphaned by 
     AIDS; and (6) family planning/reproductive health: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available for nonproject assistance, 
     except that funds may be made available for such assistance 
     for ongoing health activities: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, not to exceed 
     $250,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such 
     purposes, may be used to monitor and provide oversight of 
     child survival, maternal and family planning/reproductive 
     health, and infectious disease programs: Provided further, 
     That the following amounts should be allocated as follows: 
     $347,000,000 for child survival and maternal health; 
     $25,000,000 for vulnerable children; $350,000,000 for HIV/
     AIDS; $200,000,000 for other infectious diseases; and 
     $375,000,000 for family planning/reproductive health, 
     including in areas where population growth threatens 
     biodiversity or endangered species: Provided further, That of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading, and in addition to 
     funds allocated under the previous proviso, not less than 
     $200,000,000 shall be made available for a United States 
     contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis 
     and Malaria (the ``Global Fund''), and shall be expended at 
     the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for 
     projects and activities: Provided further, That up to 5 
     percent of the aggregate amount of funds made available to 
     the Global Fund in fiscal year 2006 may be made available to 
     the United States Agency for International Development for 
     technical assistance related to the activities of the Global 
     Fund: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, $65,000,000 should be made available for a 
     United States contribution to The Vaccine Fund, and up to 
     $6,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Operating 
     Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development'' for costs directly related to international 
     health, but funds made available for such costs may not be 
     derived from amounts made available for contribution under 
     this and preceding provisos: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations may be made available to 
     any organization or program which, as determined by the 
     President of the United States, supports or participates in 
     the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under this Act may be used to pay for 
     the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or 
     to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions: 
     Provided further, That nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to alter any existing statutory prohibitions 
     against abortion under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against 
     abortion: Provided further, That in order to reduce reliance 
     on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available 
     only to voluntary family planning projects which offer, 
     either directly or through referral to, or information about 
     access to, a broad range of family planning methods and 
     services, and that any such voluntary family planning project 
     shall meet the following requirements: (1) service providers 
     or referral agents in the project shall not implement or be 
     subject to quotas, or other numerical targets, of total 
     number of births, number of family planning acceptors, or 
     acceptors of a particular method of family planning (this 
     provision shall not be construed to include the use of 
     quantitative estimates or indicators for budgeting and 
     planning purposes); (2) the project shall not include payment 
     of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial reward to: 
     (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a family planning 
     acceptor; or (B) program personnel for achieving a numerical 
     target or quota of total number of births, number of family 
     planning acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of 
     family planning; (3) the project shall not deny any right or 
     benefit, including the right of access to participate in any 
     program of general welfare or the right of access to health 
     care, as a consequence of any individual's decision not to 
     accept family planning services; (4) the project shall 
     provide family planning acceptors comprehensible information 
     on the health benefits and risks of the method chosen, 
     including those conditions that might render the use of the 
     method inadvisable and those adverse side effects known to be 
     consequent to the use of the method; and (5) the project 
     shall ensure that experimental contraceptive drugs and 
     devices and medical

[[Page 14568]]

     procedures are provided only in the context of a scientific 
     study in which participants are advised of potential risks 
     and benefits; and, not less than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development determines that there has been a 
     violation of the requirements contained in paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), or (5) of this proviso, or a pattern or practice of 
     violations of the requirements contained in paragraph (4) of 
     this proviso, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a report containing a 
     description of such violation and the corrective action taken 
     by the Agency: Provided further, That in awarding grants for 
     natural family planning under section 104 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall be discriminated 
     against because of such applicant's religious or 
     conscientious commitment to offer only natural family 
     planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall comply 
     with the requirements of the previous proviso: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this or any other Act 
     authorizing or appropriating funds for foreign operations, 
     export financing, and related programs, the term 
     ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning assistance, 
     shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, consistent 
     with local law, of information or counseling about all 
     pregnancy options: Provided further, That to the maximum 
     extent feasible, taking into consideration cost, timely 
     availability, and best health practices, funds appropriated 
     in this Act or prior appropriations Acts that are made 
     available for condom procurement shall be made available only 
     for the procurement of condoms manufactured in the United 
     States: Provided further, That information provided about the 
     use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are 
     funded from amounts appropriated by this Act shall be 
     medically accurate and shall include the public health 
     benefits and failure rates of such use.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pitts:

     Amendment to H.R. 3057, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Pitts of 
                              Pennsylvania

       Page 7, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $750,000,000)''.
       Page 8, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $750,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $750,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $750,000,000)''.

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for his work on these 
complicated issues but I rise to raise an issue that we just heard 
about from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and which we have 
heard about in past years from the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos). I think the time has come to say enough is enough.
  Since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. 
foreign assistance. Each year Egypt receives about $2 billion in 
economic and military aid. The money goes to support our strategic ally 
in the Middle East. But I think this money is largely misspent today on 
a nation that refuses change and excuses oppression.
  The State Department tells us that Egyptian police routinely use 
torture to extract confessions and detain suspects without charge or 
trial. Egyptian authorities harass and imprison opposition party 
candidates on trumped up charges. The government is engaged in an 
unwarranted and dangerous military build-up. It oppresses religious 
minorities. It violates human rights. It obstructs democratic reforms. 
It censors the media. In fact, the media is controlled by the 
government there and they permit a lot of anti-Semitism and hate 
speech. It continues to arrest Christian converts who leave Islam. I 
could go on and on.
  Egypt is an ally. But we can no longer afford to excuse oppression 
with the rhetoric of stability and the politics of fear.
  We can no longer afford a wholesale subsidizing of such huge 
violators of basic human rights and basic freedoms.
  My amendment would take some of the money that we spend to underwrite 
the Egyptian military and send it to programs that fight malaria by 
increasing USAID's Child Survival and Health Account for other 
infectious diseases, particularly malaria. Malaria kills as many as 3 
million people each year. Up to 90 percent of these deaths occur in 
Africa and 90 percent are children under the age of 5. And though it is 
difficult to accurately assess the scale of the disease, the WHO 
estimates that 40 percent of the world's population is at risk of 
malaria, and there are between 350 and 500 million clinical cases every 
year.
  Malaria disproportionately affects the poor. Fifty-eight percent of 
malaria deaths occur in the poorest 20 percent of the world's 
population, a higher percentage than for any other disease of major 
public health importance.
  Reducing Egypt's military subsidy by $750 million will serve to send 
a strong message. Money sent to a nation, even a strong ally like 
Egypt, that refuses to make the necessary political, democratic and 
human rights reforms should be redirected to a place that better 
represents our values. In this case I can think of no better use for 
this funding than to treat and prevent malaria in Africa.
  According to the CBO, this transfer will result in a savings of $400 
million in FY 2006 in net outlays. A vote for this amendment is a vote 
for more responsible Federal spending. It is a vote for American 
values. It is a vote for kids. It is a vote against the status quo of 
Egypt's dictatorship.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Our 
assistance to Egypt has been longstanding and Egypt remains an 
important ally in the Middle East.
  I would be among the first in this body to admit my concerns about 
Egypt's actions or sometimes their lack of actions when it comes to 
building programs of democracy in that country. And we have had a lot 
of discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee levels 
regarding ways to address these concerns.
  I accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) to fence $100 million of our economic assistance to Egypt and to 
put an earmark around those or to fence it so they could be used 
specifically for democracy and education programs. That is the first 
time that we have ever done that in this earmark for Egypt.

                              {time}  1530

  I think that sends a very strong message to Egypt. So this amendment, 
however well-intentioned, is not going to be constructive.
  The relationship that we have with Egypt goes back 2 decades. We 
should not forget that prior to the Camp David agreement Egypt and 
Israel engaged in several wars and Egypt was an ally of the Soviet 
Union. That changed when President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister 
Begin negotiated a peace agreement in 1978 with the help of the United 
States.
  As part of that agreement and in an effort to bring stability and 
security to the region, the United States agreed to provide major 
economic and military assistance packages for both Israel and Egypt. 
Six years ago, the Committee on Appropriations under the leadership of 
my predecessor, former Congressman Sonny Callahan, initiated a policy 
to begin a phase-down of economic assistance for both Israel and Egypt. 
This resulted in a decision to phase out Israel's economic assistance 
by $120 million per year over 10 years, while increasing military 
assistance by $60 million. Egypt's economic assistance declines $40 
million per year with no increase in military assistance.
  The agreement reached 6 years ago modifying the Camp David funding 
formula was agreed to by the parties involved, including the 
administration. An amendment that would help to impose a new funding 
regime, a new funding formula on this money, this carefully balanced 
money that goes to the partners in the Camp David accords, not as a 
result of any discussion or negotiations with them, but by unilateral 
action by this body, would undo the delicate balance of economic and 
military assistance and would be diplomatically disastrous for the 
United States.
  It would not be wise for Congress to disrupt any cooperation that 
exists between Israel and Egypt by cutting the military assistance to 
Egypt; and I can assure my colleagues, this is certainly not supported, 
though I do not speak for them, I feel quite certain in saying

[[Page 14569]]

this is not supported by the Government of Israel.
  Mrs. LOWEY. 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.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as this amendment is considered, I think it would be 
useful to remember what the committee has done with respect to our 
assistance to Egypt. As the gentleman from Arizona has indicated, the 
committee adopted an amendment offered by me which earmarked ESF funds 
for Egypt, doubling the amounts spent on democracy, governance, and 
human rights and providing additional funding for education within that 
account.
  The amendment earmarked $50 million in ESF for democracy, governance, 
and human rights and $50 million for education. Both categories were 
projected at about $25 million in the administration request. So this 
essentially doubles that amount.
  The reason for that has already been stated. We were looking for a 
way to send a clear signal to Egypt that we find their human rights 
record to be an embarrassment without thoroughly upsetting the 
administration's ability to continue to negotiate in that region, to 
try to move what is left of the peace process forward.
  I have no idea whether the administration will be sufficiently 
serious about the issue. I have no idea whether or not they will be 
successful if they are serious, but I do just want to say one thing. I 
think every Member of this House would like to be able to vote for this 
amendment because we like where the money would be put; but we also 
have a responsibility, regardless of party, to try to see to it that in 
the attempt to send messages we do not blow things up in different 
regions of the world.
  So I have absolutely no doubt that this amendment would produce a 
most irresponsible result in the region, but I think it will be 
interesting to note who supports the administration's position on this 
roll call and who does not. I intend, for one, to watch very carefully 
to see whether or not the leadership of the President's own party is 
going to be sticking with the President or not, and whether they do or 
not will send an interesting signal to those of us on this side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding.
  Indeed, this issue was discussed extensively in our full committee. 
There is little doubt that the committee, in a totally nonpartisan way, 
is interested in sending this message; and we are laying the foundation 
here to reflect the reality that America is at its best when we express 
ourselves overseas in as close to a bipartisan way as possible.
  I must compliment the gentleman for his own statement at this time, 
but also in the full committee. I think we laid the foundation to let 
people in the Middle East know how serious we are about a clear 
message, and this message will be carried forward to the conference 
with other body as well.
  So I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say, I would be most curious 
to know what the administration is clearly saying on this subject. I 
have just received a message which indicates that the administration is 
pleased with the language in the committee bill. I hope that they 
continue to clarify their position to make clear exactly where they 
stand on this amendment. If they do not, they will be the ones who have 
to explain the consequences.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 326, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                                AYES--87

     Akin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Crowley
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney

[[Page 14570]]


     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McHenry
     Melancon
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Rogers (AL)
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Watson
     Weiner

                               NOES--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Brown (SC)
     Capito
     Clyburn
     Doolittle
     Etheridge
     Hayes
     Higgins
     Hunter
     Kingston
     Linder
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Michaud
     Mollohan
     Ortiz
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ross
     Spratt
     Wolf

                              {time}  1605

  Messrs. WAMP, MARSHALL, ROHRABACHER, OWENS, BUTTERFIELD, HYDE, 
THOMPSON of California, GREEN of Wisconsin, CULBERSON, and Ms. ESHOO 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Messrs. LoBIONDO, HEFLEY, GOODLATTE, 
UDALL of Colorado, UDALL of New Mexico, FRANKS of Arizona, CANTOR, 
FRANK of Massachusetts, BURTON of Indiana, SERRANO, TOWNS, and Ms. 
McCOLLUM of Minnesota changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was at Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center visiting Army Specialist Matt James, a constituent from 
Virginia's 10th District, who was wounded while serving in Iraq, and I 
missed the vote on rollcall 326.
  Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 
326, the Pitts amendment to H.R. 3057, Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3057) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________