tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 9, 2009 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
and food security programs and helping countries struggling with food shortages, supporting basic education needs, helping displaced people around the world with food, water, shelter and other basic needs and provides life-saving assistance during worldwide natural disasters. it also provides $450 million for the peace corps. this is a $77 million above the president's request which accelerates the president's commitment to expanding the peace corps, one of the most valuable programs our government can fund. the lack of capacity in our civilian agencies has resulted in an increased reliance on american troops to carry out diplomatic missions. beside placing an additional work load on our overburdened troops and taking their focus away from their critical core missions, it is not in the best interest of our nation to place diplomatic missions with our military. secretary clinton, secretary gates and the chairman of the
joint chiefs of staff have all stressed the need to increase the capacity of the state department and usaid. as such, the bill provides resources to hire 1,000 new state department personnel and 300 new you said personnel so our -- usaid personnel so we can restore our diplomatic capabilities that we shortchanged and underappreciated for far too long. finally the bill also improves and continues the democrat's commitment to oversight and accountability. it provides nearly $150 million for activities of the inspector general of the department of state and usaid as well as for the special inspectors general for both iraq and afghanistan reconstruction. in addition this bill reverses years of accounting gimmickry through supplemental appropriations. instead, it provides up had been
front, honest -- up-front, honest and transparent accounting of our national security initiatives. mr. speaker, this is a good bill. in these tough economic times, it is also a fair bill and most importantly this is a bipartisan bill that goes a long way toward restoring the strength and capabilities of the united states both here and abroad. i commend the chairwoman, mrs. lowey, for her admirable efforts in ensuring our needs are met both here and abroad and to ensure that the national security and foreign policy commitments of the united states remains strong for many days to come. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from california, mr. car dodea, for the -- cardoza, for the time. i'd like to thank chairwoman lowey and ranking member granger for their efforts on this
important legislation. this bill provides almost $50 billion in funding for a number of u.s. government programs and activities including the state department, the u.s. agency for international development, foreign, economic and military assistance, contributions to international organizations and international broadcasting programs. in today's world, foreign assistance is as important to our national interest as it is ethical. i'm pleased that the legislation recognizes our shared democratic values and our special friendship with israel and includes $2.2 billion in foreign military finanng programs assistance for that great friend and ally. our aid to israel is especially foreign as the ruthless tyranny in iran threatens to wipe it off the face of the map and rockets continue to rain down on israel from terrorist groups whether they be hamas or hezbollah. israel is a true friend and partner of the united states. and we must now more than ever show unwavering support for our
friend, not only through this legislation, but through every other available means. i'm deeply concerned about the funding provided in this legislation to the united nations relief and works agency. without determining that the agency does not have members of hamas on its payroll, u.n. agencies such as that, for example, such as the so-called human rights council, a club of tyrannies, do not deserve american taxpayer support, just like the useless embarrassment that is the organization of american states. there's some good things in this legislation, legislation provides $165 million in economic support funds, for example, for haiti, to help the authorities consolidate democratic gains and promote development. since the recent devastating storms hit haiti, i have called first on the bush administration and then on the obama
administration to grant temporary protected status to haitian nationals in the united states. i visited haiti last month and my visit reinforced my belief that t.p.s. for haiti is well overdue. again, i call on the obama administration to finally grant t.p.s. for hasheans. the obama administration needs to stop dragging its feet on this important issue. i wish to thank the appropriations committee for the $20 million in economic support funds for prodemocracy activities in cuba -- for cuba in this bill. that will support efforts for a transition to democracy and freedom in that western hemisphere, the only totalitarian dictatorship in the western hemisphere, through support for dissidents, independent librarians and others who risk their lives each day, struggling for freedom in that enslaved island. the only country in the western hemisphere where free elections have been denied to its people for over 50 years.
the legislation includes $1.4 billion for the millennium challenge corporation, m.c.c., assistance to foreign nations from that, m.c.c. is linked to greater responsibility from those nations. the new responsibilities of those of developing nations accept and exchange for the funds and ensure the assistance we provide does not go to waste and has the greatest possible impact on those who need the help the most. i've been a long-time supporter of the m.c.c., but last year i learned that one recipient country may not be keeping up their end of the bargain. a.p.r. energy, a florida company, has an ongoing contract dispute with tanzania which i understand tanzania has failed to resolve. i urge the tanzanian government to comply with both the contract with a.p.r. energy and their m.c.c. compact and expeditiously
resolve the dispute with a.p.r. energy pursuant to the law and the utmost transparency. i have concerns with the increased funding levels in two areas of the bill, the united nations population fund and international family planning. in the past, this united nations fund has been found to support or participate in programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. while the international family planning money doesn't go directly to fund abortions, it will go to organizations that promote and provide advocacy for abortions. i do not think this is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. even though the majority on the rules committee last night rejected the smith-stupak amendment on this issue, i continue to hope that the issue will be addressed in conference. i commend the committee, the appropriations committee, for recognizing many other important
foreign policy priorities in the bill. $21 million for the american institute in taiwan, for example, over $740 million for broadcasting through such important media outlets as the voice of america and radio for europe and radio liberty and radio and television. i also commend the committee for maintaining the greek language broadcasts in the voice of america and also for wisely providing assistance to promote as much as possible reconciliation to end the violence in sri lanka. mr. speaker, while i support the underlying legislation, i must oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. last month the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills. debate that historically was almost always considered under open rules, open debate process. today we are set to consider the sixth of 12 appropriations bills and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule, it severely limits the ability of all
members of this house to introduce amendments and have them debated. during yesterday's rules committee hearing appropriations ranking member lewis testified that there is still time to undo the majority's new precedent, restricting the ability of members to offer amendments on appropriations bills. he asked majority to reconsider the use of structured rules in appropriations bills, return to regular order, to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. he even offered his services to pursue members to not offer dilatory amendments which would hamper the ability of congress to complete its work on time. rules ranking member dreier and i also offered to help ranking member lewis rein in any err ant members. i really hoped that the majority would heed mr. lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the process along, if an open debate process was
returned to. however, majority instead once again blocked members from both sides of the aisle from offering amendments. mr. speaker, the majority has simply not understood the damage unnecessarily that it is causing this house by closing debate on appropriations bills, by breaking two century's of precedents. how sad. we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the chairwoman of the committee, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the rule and in support of h.r. 3081. this is a very good bill. it was drafted in a bipartisan manner and it should enjoy the support of members of both sides of the aisle. i know that my colleagues on the other side would have preferred an open rule.
however, there is much business that needs to be completed in the month of july and i believe this rule will allow us to complete our work in an expeditious manner. the rule makes in order a number of amendments from the minority including one from the ranking member of my subcommittee and one from the ranking member of the full committee. i hope that members on both sides will recognize the importance of this bill in protecting our national security and advancing our foreign policy. there were necessary compromises on both sides that allowed this bill to come forward today and i want to thank all the members of my subcommittee, republicans and democrats, for their contributions. most especially in closing i want to thank my ranking member, kay granger. unfortunately she called me this morning, that because of health issues she could not be with us. she was going to try to get here in time to cast the vote and i personally want to make it clear
to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because of the bipartisan approach this is a good bill, it's a strong bill and we're proud to present it to you. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. blunt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. blunt: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i join him in opposition to this rule. i think all of these deadlines that suddenly we've realized are there are not reasons to go away from the traditions of the house. like the gentleman, i applaud many of the efforts in the bill itself. certainly aid for our friend israel, the democracy, the pillar of democracy in the middle east, and hopefully other countries in that area will rally around that example. aid for israel's important in this bill. on the other hand, an amendment that i had that had 74 co-sponsors is a bill in the last congress that would limit funds transferred to any entity of the palestinian authority
until the president certifies that -- to the appropriate committees that the ruling fattah party has taken the clauses out of their constitution that call for the destruction of israel, would have added to this bill and would have added to this debate. it should have been allowed. i'm disappointed it wasn't. i'm also concerned that we didn't allow the amendment that i offered on the law of the sea treaty that simply would have prevented funds in the bill for being used for a contribution to the authority, a global entity that would be responsible for collecting taxes on u.s. energy companies for deep sea bed mining if the united states ratifies the law of the sea treaty. those are only two examples of many of the amendments that were offered, that were rejected. we should have found time to debate those and add them to the bill. i oppose the rule and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves.
the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: well, thank you, i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in strong support of the rule for the fiscal year 2010 state department and foreign appropriations bill, h.r. 3081. i sincerely want to thank the chairwoman and her staff for their diligent work on this appropriations bill. and for their efforts and their help in securing an additional $10 million for maternal health in the manager's amendment. i sincerely thank the gentlelady for her support and for her work and for addressing one of the most serious issues facing women on this planet. the need to act to address the global maternal mortality rate
and to save mothers' lives is very clear and the time to act is now. the recent words of the first lady of sierra leone are haunting. but for all too true for too many women in the world and their families and communities. she stated and i quote, we know too well that a pregnant woman in freetown has one foot in the grave, which is why many say goodbye to our mothers and sisters as they go into labor. mr. speaker, pregnancy is the time when we should be welcoming life into the world, not saying goodbye. for everyone woman's death we fail to prevent by boosting investments in maternal health programs we fail newborns who now face an increased risk of dying themselves. we fail the family, including children pulled from schools to support their families and pick
up the duties of the now deceased mother. we fail those communities by undermining economic development and poverty reduction efforts in the wider community. this investment into maternal health will save lives. we can and must continue to do what we can to reduce the needless suffering of millions of women around the world from childbirth and pregnancy related complications. too much is at stake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. moore: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. smith: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. stupak and i requested that an amendment reinstating the mexico city policy be made in order so that the full house would have the opportunity to vote up or down on this critically important issue. this year's foreign ops
appropriations bill increases population control funding by a whooping 40% over the 2008 levels to a record $648 million. our amendment would simply ensure that this huge allocation of taxpayer grant money not be awarded to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions on demand or lobby for abortion on demand in developing countries. today, most african and latin countries protect the lives of their unborn children and the real threat to those laws and policies are coming from the united states and european nongovernmental organizations and the money behind them. indeed, prior to january, mr. speaker, the pro-life mexico city policy guaranteed that unborn children in asia, africa, latin america and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the n.g.o.'s that we fund. every human life is precious,
mr. speaker, and sacred and worthy of respect. no one, no one is expendable. thus, family planning funds and the n.g.o.'s that they empower cannot be allowed to be the trojan horse for global abortion industry. on an encouraging note, americans agree with our efforts to reinstate the mexico city policy. the gallop poll recently found that a margin of 2-1, 65% to 35% americans oppose president obama's executive order reversing the mexico city policy. they support his other executive orders but not that one. another gallop poll found that for the first time 51% to 42% americans are identifying as pro-life. perhaps ultrasound technology is shattering the myth that an unborn child is not a person. mr. speaker, stripped of many things, abortion is violence against children and often harms
women emotionally and psychologically and physically. abortion methods either dismember the fragile body or poisons the infants or chemically induces premature labor, leaving the premature child to cope with his or her new environment. you know, in congress we often speak and enact laws and policies designed to reduce infant mortality, and that's a wonderful and necessary goal. can we not see or appreciate or understand that abortion is infant mortality? an unborn child's immaturity and dependence should in no way mitigate or nullify an unborn child's humanity. human rights ought to be about inclusion, not exclusion, especially of the weakest and the most vulnerable. finally, can we not see or
appreciate or understand that birth is an event and not the beginning of a child's life? and the stunning break throughs over the last three decades in treating unborn children who are diagnosed with diseases or disabilities only brings into sharp focus that the child in the womb can be a patient in need of benign interventions. not poisoned shots or razor sharp objects that kill, but medicines and procedures that cure. the mexico city policy holds children harmless in our family planning programs throughout the world. tragically, the rule before us precludes so much as a vote on the mexico city policy. mr. speaker, i truly believe that the right to life is the most fundamental human right issue on earth. unfortunately, abortion and the promotion of abortion is the
only violation of that right that has the audacity to call itself a right. i will be voting no on the rule as well as the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman is very sincere, and i appreciate his friendship and his words. i would just make one correction and that is that when he speaks of a 40% increase in this bill, what we are doing in this bill is increasing the transparency from a situation where all of the dollars that we're spending here were in the past few years put into supplemental bills and pretended like they didn't really count. we're taking that supplemental spending and putting it into a transparent process that we can all appreciate. mr. smith: would my friend yield on that point? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: the population
account was just under $464 million. it's now at $648 million. that is approximately a 40% increase. and then other moneys potentially could be going to these foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as well. like planned parenthood and others. so we have a very serious problem. they are our surrogates in other countries. they speak for us. yes, do family planning. our amendment would leave that intact, not touch the amount for family planning. we would argue that abortion is not family planning. it's the killing of an unborn child. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burton: i thank my colleague for yielding. you know, i think the american people would like to see us debate the issues that they're very concerned about on this
floor, and there are many issues we are not going to be able to debate because of this closed rule. i'd like to cite a supple of amendments that i would like to talk about that i think many would like to hear debated. one of them was a sense of congress bill or amendment that would expand the economic sanctions against iran. iran is a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons, and a sense of congress resolution saying we should put severe economic standards on them, sanctions on them and get our allies to do it is something we should have been debated in the past because i think the americans are concerned about this terrorist state and they want us to stop their nuclear program and to put pressure on them. another amendment would have prohibited funds from being used to establish diplomatic or commercial ties in or with iran until these changes are made, until they stop their nuclear development program, which threatens the middle east, oil supplies, our energy supplies and the whole world. and then finally, we had one
that dealt with putting pressure on terrorist organizations until they recognized israel's right to exist. i think all of us support israel, and we want to make sure israel's right to exist is guaranteed. so why wouldn't we want to have an amendment on the floor which said that the organizations that are trying to destroy israel should be put under extreme pressure to make sure that they recognize israel's right to exist? and then finally, one of the things that really concern me is the united nations is going to spend almost $900,000 in legal fees for the man who ran the food -- oil for food program, and it was a corrupt program. he was working with saddam hussein. the man has fled the country. he's been charged with bribery and wire fraud, and the u.s. federal and state prosecutors are looking for this guy. and they're using our taxpayer dollars to defend him, to help him with his legal fees. and when i said in this amendment is we should withhold
the amount of money that would go for his legal fees from our commitment to the united nations. and i think the american people would agree with that. so i can't understand why the chairman and the members of the rules committee didn't make these in order. i hope in the future they'll be a little more open minded about this because the american people want these issues debated in the people's house. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i want to just rise to thank chairwoman nita lowey and ranking member kay granger for their great work on this bill and focus on this bill's commitment to global development issues. i'm the chair of the terrorism subcommittee on armed services
and have been working very, very closely with our military. we attempt to combat terrorism and violent extremist groups throughout the globe. certainly there's a big military component to that. what we have increasingly learned in the military and elsewhere is we will never win that battle and that fight if we are not equally committed to global development. we've seen a major commitment in our central efforts, which is in pakistan and afghanistan. i applaud that effort, but also understand that this bill recognizes that it is broader than just pakistan and afghanistan. throughout the middle east, throughout africa, throughout southeast asia, failed and failing states are a major contributor to instability and the rise of violent extremist groups. getting our global development policy right is critical to stopping that effort. this bill makes that commitment. i also want to say that this is not just a matter of more money. it is a matter of improving the quality of our global development, of coordinating it, of figuring out what works and making sure that our programs are more efficient and more effectively delivered. and on that point, i also support the committee and support the foreign relations
committee and foreign affairs committee as well for putting pressure on the administration to make fundamental changes in the way we do global development, to make sure that it is better coordinated, more effective and works better. we have a lot of work to do on this front, but this appropriations bill reflects the priority of global development policy, funding it and supporting it if we are ever to be triumphant in our efforts to stop violent extremist groups and reduce instability throughout the globe. i thank you for this opportunity and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. mack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mack: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague, as well, for yielding time. i'd like to speak against the rule for this bill. a rule that shuts out our ability to offer amendments on the floor is an unprecedented abuse of the rules and debate on appropriation bills. why is the majority so afraid to hear what we have to say?
why is the majority so afraid of what we might have to offer? isn't this the place to have debate, real debate on the important issues that are facing the united states and the citizens of the united states? if you can't have the debate here on the floor of the house, where can you have it? this is where we should be debating the issues and changing the rules and the process does the people of this country a disservice. if i were able to offer an amendment to the foreign ops bill i would offer an amendment to make sure that aid to honduras is not cut off. mr. chairman, the administration has cut funding to the people of honduras because some have claimed that a military coup has occurred in honduras. instead of being responsible on the matter, the administration's got itself involved with the likes of chavez, morales, ortega and too quickly reacted in a knee jerk reaction.
and if i was able to offer an amendment, i would have fought hard to make sure that aid to honduras was not cut. this process makes a mockery of our democratic system, and i urge all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and support an open process but also support the people of honduras. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. pierriello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. pierriello: i rise to express my support for the state and foreign operations appropriations. we have a policy that balances might and right. having worked in afghanistan, i know firsthand the importance of diplomacy and the rule of law. our success internationally depends on the full funding and support of our military and of
our diplomatic corps. every crisis averted through good diplomacy, multinational cooperation and economic development reduces the burden on our military and our military families. this bill will also include support language for the city of hope project. this project is managed by the nonprofit teamwork ministries international, based in my district in maretsville, virginia. their work to help educate, nourish and train leaders of africa is a worthy investment to bring hope to communities and to nations around the globe. this is a great example of dedicated yet humble americans putting their value into action, being the face of our great of the of all nations to those who are suffering the most. i thank the team at the city of hope project and i thank the chairman for this great step forward for our country's security and its greatest values. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr.
souder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. souder: i thank my friend from florida. i rise in opposition to the rule. i think at a time when so many controversial decisions are being made in foreign policy we should have free and open debate. i continue my concerns about the lack of free and open debate. at the same time i'm going to support the underlying bill. but not without deep concerns. i have concerns about the spending in the bill, i have concerns about the administration's policy and about every country except canada and i have some reservations even in their policies with canada but at the end of the day and in particularly what my friend mr. smith from new jersey said, for those of us who have spent our entire lives working on the pro-life movement to be forced into choices with this mexico city policy combined with family planning is terrible. at the end of the day i stand with israel and the funding for israel. we'll have votes on other issues but this is really our only vote to supporting our friends in israel.
without this military funding to help provide superiority in technology and developing their military capability to keep their military superiority over friends -- over neighbors, who would wipe them from the face of the earth the second they don't have that superiority, they very possibly might not survive. i have concerned about this administration's policy -- i have concerns about this administration's policy on israel. it seems to me we're doing a lot of bullying on a government elected there, that they elect different parties, they have different positions and ultimately they have to make their decisions on what is best for them to survive. they are the best example of democracy in the region. they elect governments that make the different decisions and we stand with them because we believe it is in our best interest and our obligation to stand with israel, even if we may disagree with certain policies. so you i even have concerns with the administration's policies
regarding israel. but at the same time that fundamentally this is our israel vote, because i recognize the fundamental reason for the creation of israel, because i understand the persecution around the world and i understand why israel was recreated and re-established in 1948. i understand this anti-semitism and rising anti-semitism around the world and i understand the anger and commitment to the destruction of their very nation, i think it's important that with all the other difficult issues that we show bipartisan support in this way for our friends in israel who are in tough straits right now. so it's reluctantly think a vote for the bill but i will vote for the bill and oppose the rule i yield back -- rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr.
speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, my good friend, mr. payne. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. payne: i would like to extend my thanks to my colleague, chairwoman lowey, and congressman blumenauer, for their tireless work over the years to make safe drinking water and basic sanitation more accessible to the world's poor. in recent years we have strengthened the united states commitment to this cause not only by increasing the amount of monies but by -- for safe water and drinking water and sanitation, but also making sure that these monies are appropriately spent and in the proper countries. in line with the senator paul simon water for the poor act of 2005, the continual increase in funding has allowed usaid to hire new technical staff with drinking water and sanitation
expertise, to leverage increased government involvement, to increase matching funds available to n.g.o.'s and to conduct the range of tested and pilot approaches to increase water and sanitation coverage in individual host countries. it is essential that we continue on this upward trajectory and i applaud congresswoman lowey for making an additional $25 million available for this effort. water and sanitation have increasingly played a major role in how individuals interact with one another and how governments govern. today approximately one billion people lack access to drinking water and 2.6 billion live in environments where they do not have access to proper toilet facilities and human waste cannot be properly disposed, chronic water insecurities hinder economic and social development in places like zimbabwe, mexico and gaza.
the lack of access to safe drinking water has had dert mental ramifications for the -- detrimental ram physicians for the people who live there. home -- ramifications for the people who live there. people die each year for easily preventable diseases. i certainly commend congresswoman lowey and i would like to say that that is why congressman blumenauer and i introduced the paul simon bill and i urge its support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois, my good friend, mr. jackson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. cardoza for the time. i want to begin my comments by congratulating congresswoman lowey for drafting the bill
before us today. i also want to thank ranking member granger for working with the majority and i want to recognize both majority and minority subcommittee staff for their professionalism and tireless work in producing this bill. i rise today to voice my strong support of h.r. 3081, the state foreign relations and appropriations bill. there are a few things that we do on an annual basis that are more important and crucial to the success of u.s. foreign policy than passing this bill. u.s. foreign policy can only be successful if we make crucial investments in the three d's. defense, diplomacy and development. ideally, all three, defense, diplomacy and development, should be considered equal legs of the same stool. however, this is currently not the case. this year we're going to spend somewhere north of $500 billion for defense. this bill, diplomacy and development, only totals $48 billion. despite the fact that the allocation for this bill is $3.2 billion below the president's request and $1.2 billion below comparable fiscal year 2009 level, this is a well written and well measured bill. taking into account the concerns of both the majority and the minority.
however, i am worried about some of the amendments that have been made in order by the rule that would eviscerate some of the vital programs in this bill in the name of fiscal discipline. i am worried, mr. speaker, because yesterday in the developing world, nearly 15,000 to 20,000 people died of extreme poverty. today in the developing world, 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of extreme poverty. tomorrow in the developing world, 15,000 to 20,000 people will die of extreme poverty. extreme poverty, like malnutrition and disease, are claiming tens of thousands of lives every day, despite the fact that we know how to save many of these livings. the bill before us has the real potential to reverse these facts. look what has been done to date with our foreign aid. small pock eradication began in the 1960's. control of river blindness in the 1970's. increased child immunizations in the 1980's, initiatives to fight the begin request worm and leprosy in the 1990's and the
effort to end polio in this decade. mr. speaker, let me point out some of the highlights of this measure. this bill improves our diplomatic capabilities by funding 1,000 new foreign service professionals and improves our service capabilities by funding 300 new usaid personale. it provides funds for both our multilateral and bilateral peace keeping operations. it provides increases for global health programs that fight the scourge of hisk, t.b. and malaria. it provides development for programs, some of these funds are educating children and providing clean drinking water and sanitation around the world. the bill provides $224 million for liberia, a shining example of post conflict country that is now on the road to recovery instead of becoming a potential failed state and a potential haven for terrorists. now i understand that some of the members plan to offer amendments to cut key increases in programs in this bill. but this is pennywise and -- penny wise and pound foolish. our foreign policy is to be successful.
if it is, we can't use stix, we also have to use carrots. we need to invest in diplomacy and development the same we way we do defense. i'm sure some will defend their amendments by saying tough economic times. we don't need to spend one dime overseas. these arguments, mr. speaker, are short sighted. the money we spend on development and humanitarian programs overseas is an investment in more stability, more security and more sustainability. it is an investment in our long-term national security interests, it's an investment in safer, freer and more democratic world. not only is there a strong rational reason to support this bill and oppose all of the amendments to cut these vital programs, there is a moral one as well . when we were debating the fiscal year 2008 foreign operations bill, chairman wolf, former ranking member, said it best when he said and i quote, i believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. and i say that this bill will help a lot of lives not only here but around the world. this is the work of the lord, frank wolf said. this bill, he said, is really to feed the hungry, to feed the
poor, the naked and the sick. almost a better title of this bill, frank wolved said, would be the matthew 25 bill. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, mr. speaker, and to look closely at some of these amendments because some of these amendments would cut the lord's work by 5% across the board. others would cut the lord's work by $1.2 billion and other amendmts yet, mr. speaker, eviscerate programs that are designed to help the poorest amongst the poor. support this bill, support this rule and support this measure. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, thank you for your courtesy and i'd like to reiterate again my gratitude both to chairwoman lowey and ranking member granger of this appropriations
subcommittee. and all of the members of the subcommittee. they've done great work. and when chairwoman lowey appeared yesterday in the rules committee it was really remarkable how on a bipartisan basis she received the commendation and admiration. of all of us and quite frankly i think in representation of the entire house. so i thank her. and she has a wonderful ranking member, kay granger, who also works extremely diligently in a way that has made the house also admire her deeply. i think we've had a good debate on the underlying legislation. i think it's most unfortunate that the tradition of two
centuries of open debate on appropriations bills has been broken. by the majority. and so, mr. speaker, i'll be asking for a no vote on the previous question on this rule so that we can amend the rule and allow an open rule. the rule that the majority has brought forth today will only cement the dangerous and unnecessary precedent that it has already set. so let's have an open rule. let's revert to tradition, let's return to an open process. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. diaz-balart: and i urge all of our colleagues and i'm sure that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with us that this unnecessary lessening of the house, this diminishing of each of t members' rights is most unfortunate. and so we should return as ranking member lewis said before the rules committee last evening, let's return, we're still in time, let's return to the tradition of two centuries and have an open rule and we pledge as ranking member lewis did last night before the rules committee full cooperation in consistent with that tradition after debate has begun on these appropriations bills that still
remain to be considered, to work out unanimous consent agreements, to limit time and allow the process to be finished in a timely way. so let's return to that tradition of two centuries and preserve the rights of each of the members of this house. so, mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on the previous question in order to return to those two centuries of tradition, to return to open rules on appropriations bills. and at this time i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend and colleague from florida for his words. i concede that it is quite unfortunate that we stand here today, where we stand here today with regard to what has transpired over the last few weeks. it's not the way we want things to operate in the people's house.
it's not the way my friends on the other side want to operate either. a trust and agreement have been breached. republicans have chosen to not be able to come to an agreement from our very first appropriations bill. there was a marker laid down with dilatory tactics which have prevented us or could have prevented us from attending to the people's business. while democrats have continued to try to legislate and move forward and do what the voters and those who elected us to do, we have seen there's been continuing obstructionist tactics. the state, foreign ops, gets to the heart of our national security interest and it's the most important appropriations bills we consider each year. this bill has no place for obstructionism and partisan
politics. that has to stop at the water's edge. we simply cannot risk the people's business coming to a screeching halt on such a critical national security measure. mr. speaker, for the good of this institution, we must put aside our political differences and find the common ground. but until that time we must also do what's necessary to continue doing the people's business and ensure that nothing stands in the way of providing for the safety and the security of this great nation. mr. speaker, simply put, the state-foreign ops appropriations bills funds the development priorities. it is a cornerstone of our national security. it is critical that we send a strong, united message that the -- to the world about the united states' foreign policy commitments, about our priorities, about supporting this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support today.
mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this rule and on the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to a question of the privileges of the house and offer the resolution previously noticed. the clerk: whereas on january 20, 2009, barack obama was inaugurated as president of the united states and the outstanding public debt of the united states stood at $10.627
trillion. whereas on january 20, 2009, in the presidential inaugural address he stated, those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits and do our business with the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. whereas on february 17, 2009, the president signed into public law h.r. 1, the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. whereas the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 included $575 billion of new spending and $212 million of revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787 billion. whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 will cost an additional $300 billion. whereas on february 26, 2009, the president unveiled his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2010. whereas the president's budget for fiscal year 2010 proposes
the 11th highest annual deficits in u.s. history. whereas the president's budget for f.y. 2010 proposes to increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by fiscal year 2019, more than doubling it from current levels. whereas on march 11, 2009, the president signed into public law h.r. 1105, the omnibus appropriations act, 2009. whereas the omnibus appropriations act, 2009, constitutes nine of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2009 which had not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year. whereas the omnibus appropriations act, 2009, spends $19.1 billion more than the request of president bush. whereas the omnibus appropriations act, 2009, spends $19.0 billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution for f.y. 2009.
whereas on april 1, 2009, the house considered house concurrent resolution 85, congressional democrats' budget proposal for f.y. 2010. whereas the congressional democrats' budget proposal for f.y. 2010, house concurrent resolution 85 proposes the sixth highest annual deficits in u.s. history. whereas the congressional democrats' budget proposal for f.y. 2010, house concurrent resolution 85, proposes to increase the national debt to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than compared to the level on january 20, 2009. whereas congressional republicans produced an alternative budget proposal for f.y. 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less than the congressional democrats' budget over 10 years. whereas the republicans' study committee proposed an alternative budget proposal for f.y. 2010 which improves the budget outlook in every single
year, balances the budget in f.y. 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion compared to the president's budget. whereas on april 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public criticism, the public convened the first cab a net meeting of his administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days. it represents just 1/40,000 of the federal budget. whereas on june 16, 2009, total outstanding troubled assets relief program, or tarp, funds to banks stood at $197.6 billion. whereas on june 16, 2009, total outstanding tarp funds to a.i.g. stood at $69.8 billion. whereas on june 16, 2009, total outstanding tarp funds to domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance
units stood at $80 billion. whereas on june 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of the united states was $11.409 trillion. whereas on june 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the outstanding public debt of the united states came to $37,236 .88. whereas, according to "the new york times"/cbs news survey, 3/5 of americans, 60%, does not think the president has developed a clear plan for dealing with the current budget deficit, conducted june 12 through 16, 2009, survey of 895 adults nationwide. whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process in the house of representatives. whereas before assuming control
of the house of representatives in january, 2007, congressional democrats were committed to an open and transparent appropriations process. whereas according to a document by congressional democrats entitled, democratic declaration, honest leadership, page 2 states, our goal is to restore accountability, honest and openness at all levels of government. whereas according to a development by congressional democrats entitled "a new direction for america," page 29 states, bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the rights to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. whereas on november 21, 2006, "the san francisco chronicle" reported speaker pelosi pledged to restore minority rights, including the right of republicans to offer amendments to bills on the floor. the principle of civility and
respect for minority participation in this house is something that we promised the american people, she said. it's the right thing to do. pelosi's all smiles through a rogue house transition, "the san francisco chronicle," november 21, 2006. whereas on december 6, 2006, speaker pelosi stated, we promised the american people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will. whereas on december 17, 2006, "the washington post" reported, after a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, pelosi is determined to try to return the house to what is -- to what it was in an earlier era, where you debated issues and you listened to each other's arguments. pelosi's house diplomacy, "the washington post," december 17, 2006. whereas on december 5, 2006, majority leader steny hoyer
stated, we intended to have a rules committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the house. hoyer says dems' plan unruffled by approps logjam, december 5, 2006. whereas during debate in 2005 on page h-4410, chairwoman louise m. slaughter of the house rules committee stated, if we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule. not just appropriation bills which are already restricted. an open process should be the norm and not the exception. whereas since january, 2007, there has been a failure to commit an open and transparent process in the house of representatives. whereas more bills were considered under closed rules,
64 total in the 110th congress under democratic control, than this previous congresses, 49 under republican control. whereas fewer bills were considered under open bills, 10 total in the 110th congress under democratic control, than in previous congress, 22 under republican control. whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68 in the 110th congress under democratic control, than in the previous congress, 9.22 under republican control. whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending reached its pencal in the house's handling of h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and rep lated agencies appropriations act -- related agencieses appropriations act, 2010. whereas h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act, 2009, contained $64.4 billion in
discretionary spending, 11.6% than enacted in f.y. 2009. whereas on june 11, 2009, the house rules committee issued an announcement stating that amendments for h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act, 2010, must be preprinted in the congressional record by the close of business on june 15, 2009. whereas both republicans and democrats filed 127 amendments in the congressional record for consideration on the house floor. whereas on june 15, 2009, the house rules committee reported house resolution 544, a rule with a preprinting requirement and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate. whereas on june 16, 2009, the house proceeded with one hour of general debate or one minute to vet each 1.07 billion dollars in h.r. 2847 in the committee of
the whole. whereas after one hour of general debate, the house proceeded with amendment debate. whereas just after 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one minute to vet each $3.02 billion in h.r. 2847, a motion that the committee rise was offered by congressional democrats. whereas the house agreed on a motion that the committee rise by a recorded vote of 179 yeas to 124 nays with all votes in the affirmative being cast by democrats. whereas afterwards, the house rules committee convened a special untelevised meeting to dispense with further proceedings on h.r. 2847, the commerce, justice, science and related agencieses appropriations act, 2010. whereas on june 17, 2009, the house rules committee reported house resolution 552, a new and restrictive structured rule for h.r. 2847, the commerce,
justice, science and related agencies appropriations act, 2010. whereas every house republican and 27 house democrats voted against agreeing on house resolution 552. whereas house resolution 5 52 made in order 23 amendments with the possibility of 10 more amendments out of the 127 amendments originally filed, whereas house resolution 552, severely curtailed pro forma amendmenters in purposes of debate. whereas the actions of the congressional democrats to curtail debate and the number of amendments offered to h.l. 2847, the congress, justice, science and appropriations act, 2010, effectively ended the process to deal with runaway federal spending in a positive and responsible manner. whereas congressional democrats continue to curtail the debate and the number of amendments offered on propings bills.
whereas the house rules committee reported house resolution 559, a restrictive structured rule for h.r. 2018, whereas house resolution 559 made in order 20 amendments out of the 59 originally filed, whereas on june 9, 2010, the house reported rule 573. whereas house resolution 573 made in order nine amendments with the possibility of five more amendments out of the 91 amendments originally filed. whereas on june 24, 2009, the house reported a restricted structured rule for h.r. 2996, the department of the interior, environment, and related
agencies act, 2010, whereas house resolution 578 made in order just eight amendments with the possibility of five more amendments out of the 105 amendments originally filed and whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being visited upon the house of representatives, now, therefore, be it resolved that, one, the house of representatives recommit itself to fiscal restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway federal spending. two, the house of representatives return to its best traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process without a preprinting requirement, and three, the house rules committee shall report out open rules for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder of the 111th congress. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from georgia wish to prese an argument why the
resolution is privileged? mr. price: i do. rule 9 of the house says questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the right ofse thus -- of the house collectively, its safety, dignity, and the intigity of its proceedings. the integrity of its proceedings. mr. speaker, clearly, clearly the unprecedented action that was been taken by the democrats in charge have disenfranchised every single member of this house. appropriations bills have been by tradition and previously by rule brought to the floor under what's called an open rule which mean this is a every single member of the house has an opportunity to affect the bill to represent his or her constituents. each of us represents basically the same number of folks, 650,000, 675,000. when members are not allowed to bring amendments to the floor
on the spending of their constituents' tax money, that disenfranchises those members. that's an affront to the house. it presents an indignity to the house. mr. speaker, i understand that the closed rule that was passed recently yesterday resulted in more closed rules on appropriations bills in this house of representatives by this leadership, by these democrats in charge, more than any in the history, not of this decade, not of this century, but in the history of this republic. mr. speaker, in the history of this republic. now i know my friend from california says that this is not the way we want things to operate. but mr. speaker, they control the process. they control the process.
they control this tyranny. mr. speaker, it is indeed tyranny. it's tyranny of the majority. it's what de tocqueville warned about over 150 years ago when he said that the majority can indeed shut down the rights of the minority. that's exactly what's happening, which is why this resolution ought to be a privileged resolution. because what it directs the rules committee to do is to return to regular order. return to a process that allows each and every one of us to represent our constituents. return to a process that mr. obey, then in the minority, on the appropriations committee, said, quote, we have gotten so far from the regular order that i fear that if this continues, the house will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the house that have given true mening to the term representative democracy. the reason we have stuck to
regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every member to participate. when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body in the world. mr. speaker, the tyranny of this majority, the tyranny of the folks in charge right now have resulted in an affront on this house. those actions, these actions have clearly violated the integrity of our proceedings and therefore i believe that this resolution qualifies as a privileged resolution of this house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rile. in evaluating the motion offered by the gentleman from georgia, the chair must be mindful ofs predidn'ts. that basic principle is a question of the privileges of the house may in the be invoked to proscribe a special order of visit for the -- of business
for the house. the chair directs the committee on rules to report a certain kind of resolution proposes a specialed or over business. under a long and well-settled line of precedent cullmy nating in a ruling of june 25, 2009, such a ruling can cannot qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. the chair holds that the rule is not privileged under rule 9 in consideration before other business. instead it may be added to the hopper. mr. price: i appeal the ruling. the speaker pro tempore: the question is -- >> i move that the appeal be laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. price: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their vote by he ex-- electronic device.
pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on h.res. 617, adopting h.res. 617 if order, suspending the rules and adopting house resolution 127 if order, and suspending the rules and adopting house concurrent resolution 131 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240, the nays are 179. with zero answering present. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on ordering the previous vote on house resolution 617 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 617, providing for consideration of the bill h.l. 3081, making appropriations for the department of state, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning
engage in offcampus bipartisan fun and cheer on the congressional women's softball team. >> i want to -- mr. hoyer: i want to announce to the house, because of the importance of the event, we're going to make sure the schedule accommodates the event. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker, with that i yield back. the question son adoption of the resolution. -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye have visit. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise, a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 423, the nays are stpwhrour. 2/3 having responded in th affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unthe unfinished business i question on suspending the rules and agreeing to h.con.res 131, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 75, house conresolution 131, resolution directing the architect of the capitol to engrave the pledge of allegiance to the flag and the national motto of "in god we trust" in the capitol visitor center. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from minnesota. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a
recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose do gentlelady from new york rise? the house will come to order. members will please take their conversations off the floor so we might resume work on the foreign ops appropriations bill. the house will come to order. members in the well and the aisles please take their conversations off the floor. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all mbers may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3081. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
pursuant to house resolution 617 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the hole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3081. the chair appoints the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole in the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3081 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending
september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for first time. the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. i'd ask all members to take their conversations from the floor so we may resume deliberations. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to present h.r. 3081, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs. i am deeply appreciative to my
ranking member kay granger for her key role in drafting this bill. this reflects our bipartisan priorities and is a better product as a result of our collaboration. after all the hard work that ms. granger put into this bill, i am deeply saddened that she is unable to be on the house floor with us today to see the passage of our bipartisan product. i would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my friend, ms. granger, and i know all of us wish for her speedy recovery. her presence is missed today on the floor but i know her thoughts are with us and i look forward to continuing to work closely with her as we move forward with the bill. the bill has also benefited from the input of our very informed and engaged subcommittee members. the bill totals $48.843 billion,
$3.2 billion below the request and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. including supplemental appropriations. the bill provides an upfront and transparent accounting of the resources needed to fund our foreign policy and national security interests, to end the reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund anticipated needs. let there be no doubt, this bill, which funds the u.s.'s diplomatic and development priorities, is a cornerstone of u.s. national security. it includes $4.7 billion for assistance to afghanistan, pakistan and iraq to help stabilize, strengthen and rebuild these critical countries. in conjunction with funding in the 2009 supplemental, the bill fully funds the u.s. commitments to our allies and partners in the middle east, including a
total of $2.775 billion in f.m.f. pursuant to the m.o.u. between the united states and our ally israel and our commitments to egypt and jordan. the bill provides $987 million to continue support for counternarcotics and alternate development programs in mexico, central america, the caribbean base and colombia and peru. the bill continues the congressional commitment to increasing the capacity of our civilian agencies to carry out diplomatic and development missions and provides resources to hire, train, support and provide security for 1,000 new department of state personnel and 300 new u.s. aid personnel. h.r. 3081 provides $7.6 billion for global health activities, including $5.7 billion for
global hiv-aids which is $150 million above the president's request, not less than $750 million will support the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria, and the bill includes $648 million for voluntary family planning services in the developing world, of which $60 million is for the united nations population fund. addressing pandemics and other health concerns overseas before they reach our shores is one of the best investments the united states can make to protect american citizens while saving lives overseas. to this end, the bill provides $75 million to address pandemic preparedness and response in addition to $50 million in the supplemental appropriations act of 2009. now, while i continue to be personally committed to permanently repealing the global gag rule, in the interest of
bipartisan cooperation, the bill does not change any provisions of law that restrict funding for abortion or otherwise condition family planning assistance. the bill increases funding for key long-term development priorities including $1.2 billion to improve access to quality, basic and higher education, and provide alternatives to madrases where youth are exposed to extremism. $1 billion for food security and agricultural development to respond to the global food crisis, over $1.2 billion in bilateral and multilateral assistance for clean energy, biodiversity and climate change initiatives and $310 million to expand access to safe water and sanitation. it includes $2.4 billion in refugee and disaster assistance to meet growing humanitarian
needs, including in pakistan and afghanistan. the bill also provides $450 million for the peace corps to jumpstart the president's pledge to increase the number of volunteers. finally, oversight is a bipartisan priority and in order to improve accountability, the bill provides a total of $146.5 million for the activities of the inspectors general of the department of -- general, of the department of state and u.s. aid as well as for the special inspectors general for iraq and afghanistan reconstruction. i want to take a moment to thank all of the staff that have worked so hard on this bill, especially our clerk and her team. i also want to thank ann, jenny and elizabeth on my staff for
their work and i would also like to thank our hardworking minority staff, including ann marie, the minority clerk and mike, jason and rachel for all their work. mr. speaker, the bipartisan foreign assistance package before you preserves our nation's interests. i urge my colleagues to give this bill our bipartisan support. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: thank you. i'm pleased to join chairwoman lowey at the beginning of the consideration of this bill, making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs. this bill funds programs that safeguard our national security and promotes u.s. interests abroad. it was first founded under the
auspices of the marshall plan, under the understanding that good diplomacy and development can dramatically reduce national security problems and troop deployments for the united states. i want to commend chairwoman lowey for her bipartisan work on this bill. she has listened to concerns of members on this side of the aisle and worked to address them. i also want to thank the staff, both on this and the other side of the aisle, for so many long hours of work on this. that's craig, steve, michelle and courtney. i also particularly want to thank ann marie, mike, alice and jason. i know that mrs. lowey and ranking member granger, who is out today, appreciate their personal office staff work on this bill, especially ann and rachel and i particularly want to thank my staff, particularly
rich goldburg. now, on this legislation we make one big key change and that is with regard to the international atomic energy agency's new report on the iran nuclear program and related responses of the united states to their report. they showed that after producing low enriched uranium at a rate of 40 kilograms per month over a 21-month period, iran has now increased its stockpile by 60% in just six months, doubling its rate to over 80 kilograms of enriched uranium per month. we know that iran's greatest weakness remains her economic dependence on foreign gasoline. and we can all agree that the united states taxpayers should not be asked to help increase the supply of gasoline to iran, especially now, especially after what we saw after the iranian elections. surprisingly, this is exactly
what our taxpayer dollars have been doing. in 2007 and 2008, the u.s. export-import bank approved two separate loan guarantees totaling $900 million, to expand the largest refinery owned by reliance industries limited, an indian company that provides roughly 1/3 of iran's daily import of gasoline. in effect, the u.s. taxpayer was underwriting the increased supplies of gasoline to iran. this bill includes the kirk-sherman amendment to prohibit further use of taxpayer dollars to guarantee or ensure or extend credit to any company that supplies gasoline to iran. i think that is a very important step that leads off to legislation that chairman berman and i put forward that we hope later in the year from the authorizing committee that will begin to truly squeeze iran and her needs for foreign gasoline. now, with regard to the overall bill, i am disappointed that we
have departed from the tradition of considering appropriations under an open rule. i first worked on the foreign operations bill of f.y. 1984. i was taught appropriations at the foot of chairman witten and natcher. it was under these historic chairmen that we always considered appropriations bills under an open rule, protected under clause 2 of rule 21, that only monetary amendments could be offered. now we've departed the tradition established by matcher and whiten. the rule that governs this bill makes in order eight of 80 amendments. a 90% death rate on what used to be an open rule. i suggest that the partisan pressures under speaker wright, under speaker foley were as bad or worse than now, but we are
responding with highly restrictive rules that i think hurt our committee in the long run. i hope that we can address this soon and return to what i would call the whiten-matcher tradition. now, let me return to the product, especially of chairwoman lowey and ranking member granger. the funds provides security assistance to our allies and support countries living in some pretty dangerous neighborhoods. there is another reality of this bill, and that is the financial crisis that we see and that we are helping countries through so that they do not collapse triggering some sort of new global economic downturn. the allocation given this subcommittee, $48.8 billion, is an amount when strictly compared to last year's base, is very high, but the administration has
pledged to eliminate the wartime supplemental spending in favor of a regular appropriations process. if it sticks to that plan, then funding levels in this bill appear to be much more reasonable and it includes programs for state and usaid operations that i support. i have to admit, though, that i remain in doubt whether the administration really will not request a supplemental next year. in fact, i probably would lay a dollar bet with anyone that we probably will see a supplemental. i hope not. chairman murtha has already suggested that supplemental funds may be needed to sustain our troops because of the 302-b allocation that his defense subcommittee received that in his view may not cover all of the f.y. 2010 needs. in that case, i would hope that we could restrict funding under this bill. now, i know mrs. lowey and ms. granger have worked together on a very good number of governance
provisions such as hiring and training of new staff funded by this bill, and a provision that launches a comprehensive review of roughly $8 billion in global health funding provided by this bill. too often we forget that the united states has made the largest commitment of health funding ever in the history of mankind. it's something that the united states hasn't yet received enough credit for. they also agree to language that closely mirrors the f.y. 2008 bill which prevents u.s. taxpayer dollars going to organizations that support or participate in involuntary or coercive family planning. the bill also includes amendments from several of my colleagues offered in full committee. particularly like a provision requiring the secretary of state to report to congress on deals brokered with foreign nations that receive detainees from guantanamo bay, crubea, like palau.
the june 10, 2009, "new york times" reported that the united states has agreed to provide palau with $200 million in returns for receiving 17 suspected uighur terrorists from guantanamo bay. now, according to the c.i.a. fact book, palau has a population of 27,796 people. its g.d.p. is only $164 million. under this -- under this commitment, then, the u.s. would be paying the republic of palau nearly $11.7 million per uighur terrorist. with average incomes in the united states of $56,000, $200 million would support incomes of over 3,500 americans or with tuition at $25,000 a year annually could put 7,000 students through college per year. $200 million also compares poorly to the cost of guantanamo bay itself. guantanamo bay as a total
facility costs just $54 million to build. this would be four times that amount for just 17 uighurs. there's also an amendment in this bill for new oversight and sunset restrictions on funding provided for the international monetary fund. and language for u.s. energy and environmental technologies. critical in the g-8 discussions right now and the upcoming copenhagen discussions in which china and india have pledged to have lng over all climate change and -- compulsary licensing over all climate change rules. i'm very happy that the house voted nearly unanimously on the larsen-kirk amendment to prevent that. now chairwoman lowey has described highlights of the bill. i will simply reiterate three very important items related to our national security.
this bill includes $1.4 billion for the expanded work of the millennium challenge corporation, a $525 million increase to support prosperity and security of our partners around the developing world, a very important program that underlines the key point, you can't have long-term development without policy reform. you can build a dam, but if the government steals everything, all you will have is an empty structure a few years later. the m.c.c. addresses to work that very problem in an effective way. when taken together with supplemental funds, this bill fully funds our security assistance request for our strategic allies in the middle east like israel, egypt and jordan, and continues the fight against illegal drug trafficking in this atmosphere. i think especially with ranking member granger's full backing, we have full money for mexico and central america by providing $7 million above the request, also for continued gains made in
colombia. in summary, this bill is focused on furthering the national interest and our foreign policy. it monitors the wise use of our tax dollars and achieves some fairly balanced solutions to some complex problems leading to what i hope will be a fairly bipartisan debate today. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has 24 minutes remaining. mrs. lowey: i'd like to yield to a distinguished member of the committee, ms. lee, for unanimous consent. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam chairman. i ask unanimous consent to put my statement in record and thank you for working to increase funding for two very important issues, support for the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, ma layera and also our tuberculosis program.
the chair: without objection. mrs. lowey: i'd like to yield for unanimous consent a distinguished colleague from new york, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this bill. and i request to revise and extend my remarks in support of this bill and particularly commend the lady for her leadership, the chairlady on the united nations population fund, which was denied funding for seven years under the prior administration and will save women's lives. and her focus on helping the women under the oppressive taliban regime in afghanistan with over $100 million focused on female n.g.o.'s and the security of our country and the help for our allies. a great bill. i appreciate your allowing me to revise and extend. thank you. the chair: without objection. mrs. lowey: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from minnesota, who has been an outstanding member of the committee and has made the bill as good as it is because of your
important work. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i applaud the chairwoman and the ranking member for both of their work in crafting a bill that everyone in this house can be proud to support. this bill commits about 1% of the total federal budget to confront all of the global challenges we face, poverty, conflict, fathom, drought, disease and global climate change. if we ignore these issues, they will threaten our way of life. this year's bill makes bold necessary investments in areas of global health, agriculture and climate change, and it puts america back onto the path of doubling the number of peace corps volunteers proudly serving our country. i look forward to working with the chairwoman and president obama to increase our investment in child survival and maternal health and to meet america's commitment to the millennium development goals. today, we start building a
safer, healthier world for america's children and all the world's children. i yield back. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 19 1/2 minutes. mr. kirk: i have no speakers at the moment if you'd like to continue. i'd like to three minutes to a distinguish member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i want to compliment the chairman and our ranking member for the hard work that they put in this good bill. i rise in strong support and there are a lot of reasons why i think you should vote for this bill, but let me just mention two. one is i think when you talk about foreign policy, it's really like a three-legged stool. part of it is defense, part of it is diplomacy and part of it is development. and you can't have one without
the other, the other two. and i think what this bill does is it brings into balance these three areas. when you have the appropriate diplomacy, when you have the appropriate folks to do the development, then you free up those in the defense to focus on their mission. and so i think this bill brings that into balance, and i think that's a good thing overall in terms of foreign policy, in terms of national security. and in particular, i like the millennium challenge corporation . someone who has a business background, i've watched this corporation grow. and this is the fifth year that we've had it in place. i think it's a great, great example of how we can provide foreign assistance in a smart way. no longer do we just simply write a blank check to some country and never know where the money's going to go or what the results are. we now enter into a compact, a contract, if you will, between the country receiving the money
and our country. if they want to build a power plant or build a dam or whatever, in return they agree to try to meet certain standards in terms of openness and democracy and transparency and accountability and human rights. and so they have an incentive to follow through on this contract. it's smart aid, in my view. it's the right way to give assistance. and i think this fifth year of the millennium challenge corporation is a very critical time because sometimes these contracts are entered into long periods of time. it's adequately funded this year. i think that's good. and for those reasons i encourage everyone to support this good bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to an outstanding member of our committee who has made major contributions and has made this bill a good bill that it is, mr. rothman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized for two minutes. mr. rothman: i'd like to thank chairwoman lowey for her amazing leadership and as well as to our ranking member, kay granger, who's not with us, and our fellow subcommittee members, including congressman kirk, who has taken the lead on the floor today for the great leadership efforts that they have shown and ensuring that this bill puts partisan differences behind and that this bill makes sure that we promote our nation's foreign policy and national security interests by funding economic development, health and education around the world and diplomacy. this bill also includes particular language that would improve transparency and accountability, mr. chairman, at the united nations relief and works agency for palestine refugees in the near east, commonly called unraw. for nearly 60 years they've
helped palestinians. as unare a has grown over the years, they have not taken nearly as enough steps to ensure it does not employ, affiliate or provide benefits to known terrorists. the problem with unraw is fundamental. there is a remarkable lack of available information. that's why i'm so grateful to chairwoman lowey and my colleagues for including in the bill requirements that the information available regarding textbooks teaching the next generation of palestinians be provided and more money being provided for that information. and to require the state department to undertake and review those educational materials and make sure there are no calls for hatred and intolerance, including anti-semitism in those textbooks provided to the palestinian refugees. it requires the state department to report on whether they are
complying with current u.s. law which states appropriately no american taxpayer dollars be directed to terrorists or to further terrorist propaganda. i stand in strong support of this bill. i thank my distinguished chairwoman and my colleagues for this wonderful bill, and i urge its passage. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: i just want to thank my colleague from new jersey for his leadership on this. unra is an organization that is utterly irresponsibly run. any corporation in america of unra size, which is $400 million a year, would have an outstanding independent audit, and yet unra hasn't had that and doesn't want that. the staff has met with republicans and democrats up here and admitted that they indeed do make martyr payments to people who have carried out attacks against people of israel. and then we've seen all the video of mortgager and rocket attacks being used from schools where the personnel clearly
could have prevented that. this bill helps increase the heat on unra, one of the least accountable u.n. agencies, and i really want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to an outstanding member of our committee, mr. israel, from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i thank the distinguished chairwoman, my extraordinary colleague from new york, mr. speaker, i am so pleased to rise in support of this bill. this is one of the finest state, foreign operations bills we've had in many years. i am especially indebted to the chairwoman for allowing me to include two provisions in this bill. one is language that i have been interested in for several years since visiting india on an energy congressional delegation, learning what india's doing with respect to renewable energy and learning that there were six women in the remote delta region who were lighting that entire
region, their entire village, with a solar panel. if you asked the department of defense what with we need in order to promote stability and security and affluence and prosperity, they will tell you we need a robust defense budget, something i agree with. but there they are doing it with a solar panel which charges solar land alternatives and so you have all the elements that you need for stability and security. you have the empowerment of women. you have a sustainable small business model and you have light. as a result of the chairwoman's support and the support of the ranking member, we have included $10 million to establish the solar villages initiative in the state department to recommend cate this project. i further want to thank them for their support of the national solidarity program in afghanistan. the essential lesson that afghanistan teaches us is that order cannot be imposed from above. alexander the great tried it, the british tried it, the soviets tried it, we can try it, but it does not succeed.
afghanistan is stable when order comes from the afghan people. when they are empowered to achieve their own solutions. and as a result of the chairwoman's support and the support from the minority, we have included $175 million for the multidonor national solidarity program which is the leading program rebuilding afghanistan. that allows local villages to secure some funding, to plan their own projects, to plan their own future, to bring women into governing councils, to establish those projects which will secure those villages and promote long-term stability and security. these are two programs among many which make this a product that both sides of the aisle can be very proud of. it is the best investment that we can make and i, again, thank the chairwoman for her support. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman because i have worked very
closely with him to support, i think, one of the key combat support elements of this bill, which is the national security program -- or national solidarity program of the government of afghanistan. we won the war in el salvador largely through the help of a program called mayor's in action -- mayors in action inhich we funded programs totaling between $5,000 and $10,000, as long as the community could come together and decide on which project. having government services and activities in support of the government quickly undercut the insurgency and helped win a counteru.s. is campaign there. based on the success -- counterinsurgency campaign there. based on the success of that and others, this bill provides $175 million largely through the leadership of the gentleman from new york. when i deployed to afghanistan in december, i spent quite a lot of time working with the minister who described how this program is now in hundreds of
villages throughout afghanistan. but they had a funding shortfall. and working with a general of the region south, we put together a plan so that this bill would fund a community development program right behind the advance of u.s. troops. it has been little noticed so far in this body that two weeks ago the united states marine corps launched an offensive in the key poppy growing region of afghanistan. and it was that funding shortfall which would have not enabled u.s. troops to have the money to do community development projects right in the wake of their advance along with the afghan troops -- troops. this legislation allows them to have those tools right away. so that the afghan people will see progress in community development right behind the battlefield. it makes our chances of success
much greater. it makes the sustainment and expansion of the afghan government much more likely and bottom line, i think it will save a number of lives, especially for those of our constituents right now workinging for what sometimes has been called uncle sam's misguided children, otherwise known as the united states marine corps. i yield to the gentleman on that who has worked with me so much on this. >> i thank the gentleman for his personal commitment and participation in this project. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i yield two the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for a colloquy. mr. lynch: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. as the co-chair of the house tasks for on terrorist financing and nonproliferation, -- task force on terrorist financing and nonproliferation, i rise to engage in a colloquy with chairwoman lowy. i'd like to confirm that the $57 million requested by president obama for nonproliferation,
anti-terrorism, demining and related programs in afghanistan will be fully funded. is it the chairwoman's intent that those critical security and humanitarian-related activities will be funded at the president's requested level? mrs. lowey: reclaiming my time, first i thank my friend for raising this important issue. yes, it is the committee's intent to fully fund afghanistan's nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs at the president's requested level. we agree these programs are vital to our success in afghanistan and as we develop the bill, our funding assumption was, unless otherwise noted, that the president's full request for afghanistan was met. i yield to the gentleman. mr. lynch: i thank you. is it also the chairwoman's view that the state department should ensure that -- these funds are used to support the ranger program such as export control,
border security, anti-terrorism assistance, terrorist interdiction activities, counterterrorism financing, humanitarian demining and destruction of small arms and other weapons? mrs. lowey: reclaiming my time, yes, it is the committee's intent to support these activities and i yield to the gentleman. mr. lynch: thank you. i want to thank the chairwoman for her courtesy and to the gentleman from illinois for his bipartisanship on this. and all of our critical efforts in afghanistan and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. kirk: i yield to the chairwoman if she's -- mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time?
you mr. kirk: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i continue to be pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, an outstanding member of the committee, mr. schiff. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the gentlewoman. i rise in strong support of the 2010 state foreign o prving s appropriations bill and congratulate my chair and friend for her leadership in crafting a bill that not only addresses critical national security needs, but does so in a cost-effective manner. after too many years in which diplomacy and smart power were shunted aside, this legislation is a reassertion of american leadership in helping to ensure a brighter, more peaceful future for america's children and for children around the world. i'm particularly concerned about somalia's renewed descent into chaos and the prospect that al qaeda, which is under increasing pressure along the afghan-pakistan frontier, will take advantage of the power vacuum in that country as it did in afghanistan during the
1990's. this must not be allowed to happen and the u.s. must be willing to work with the united nations, the african union and nongovernmental organizations to help stabilize somalia and create an atmosphere in which governance and security are again possible. this will be a long and difficult process and in the main it must be driven by the somalis themselves. but i was gratified that the bill includes aid above the president's request to foster economic growth and encourages the state department to continue its support of somali refugees in neighboring countries and most importantly provides $102 million to support both the african union mission in somalia and security sector reform within somalia itself. in this bill, even as we have provided funding for important initiatives like that, and we provided robust funding to increase the size of our foreign service and usaid professionals, to revamp aid to pakistan and better confront the threat to al qaeda, to provide crucial aid to middle eastern allies, to ramp
up our efforts to fight the scourges of malaria, hiv-aids and tuberculosis and fully meet our obligations to the united nations, mrs. lowey, ranking member granger and the staff of the subcommittee have also been mindful of the state of our economy at home. this bill is $1.2 billion or 2.4% below present spending and 3.2 billion or 6% below the administration's request. finally i'm very pleased the bill included $48 million in assistance to armenia and $10 million and maintains military assistance parody to both countries at $3 million and the imet assistance at $450,000 each. importantly, the report accompanying the bill references the policy of parity and military assistance provided to armenia and azerbaijan. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: it's also important to
note that this bill carries forward the kirk amendment that now prohibits any u.s. assistance to a palestinian authority, that includes hamas. a terrorist organization that's designated by the united states. both president clinton and president bush and i believe now president obama. unless that prohibition applies, unless every member of the palestinian government has publicly and in writing recognized israel's right to exist and renounce terrorism. there is over 20 united states citizens have been murdered directly by hamas. and having this provision included in this legislation, i think, is very important. also, this legislation reverses the administration's proposed cut for u.s. assistance to armenia. we provide $48 million in economic aid and $3 million in military aid for armenia, while maintaining military funding parity with azerbaijan.
and providing $10 million in assistance to -- the bill also includes a new requirement for the administration to consult with congress before exercising its waiver authority for assistance to azerbaijan, granted under section 907 of the foreign assistance act. now, according to the congressional research service, between 100,000 and 500,000 korean americans still have family living in north korea. almost all of them have never seen their loved ones since the end of the korean war and while many have not seen family members even since world war ii. in the absence of a diplomatic relations between the two countries, elderly korean americans are forced to contact their relatives without the protection of a u.s. embassy or help from the state department. families are at the mercy of a black market group of smuggling rings that control access to north korea.
this legislation urges the state department policy coordinator for north korea to make the issue of divided american citizen families who have their relatives in north korea a priority. and to establish a coordinator for this issue. one last thing i want to highlight, as the united states draws down our troop commitment to iraq, we have tremendous concerns about safe and secure and sustainable homes and businesses for iraq's embattled christian minority. this bill provides a historic $20 million dedicated to religious minorities in iraq, a big step forward for building anen to mouse administrative region for syrians in the plain. it's an important group that we should be concerned about, especially as the united nations -- united states leaves iraq and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i
yield myself two minutes for a colloquy with the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. i'm pleased to yield to ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: i thank the chairwoman and applaud her leadership on behalf of women's health. no one in congress has done more to prioritize the needs of women and children in our foreign assistance spending. as you well know, madam chairwoman, every minute somewhere in the world, a woman dies during pregnancy or child birth. in the poorest regions, one out of 22 women will die for these causes compared to one in 4,800 in the united states. mothers routinely face death or injury as a result of uncontrolled bleeding, seizures, hyper tensive disorders, birth obstruction. a pregnancy should be a joyful time in a woman's life, not a death threat. the good news is that practical interventions exist.
we just need to leverage the necessary resources and sufficiently focus our assistance on maternal health. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentlewoman's time has expired for her kind words. healthier mothers will enjoy safer pregnancies and child births, enabling them to better care for their children, bolesering maternal health initiatives can help reduce the four million newborn deaths each year in the developing world. the committee has directed u.s. aid to undertake the detailed review of the maternal health portfolio. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. ms. woolsey: i thank you, madam chair woman. i look forward to working with you on this issue to ensure that not one more mother has to replace a birth announcement with a death notice. thank you very much. mrs. lowey: i reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 11 minutes. mr. kirk: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: we rarely do this under this legislation, but we also have an important tradition of highlighting human rights cases, especially if they are set a particularly dangerous precedent. and one of the most concerning precedence is the ones set by the government of egypt. when they imprisoned kareem amir, who is the first blogger ever to be arrested for what he wrote on his internet blog calling for reconciliation between muslims and jews on his personal blog. he was convicted. he's currently serving in prison, and it is a particularly dangerous precedent to have set that merely what you may write in your internet blog will land you in jail. it's interesting to me, too, of
all of the muslim countries around the world egypt set the precedent and of all the countries that could have set the precedent of freedom of speech on the internet, it was the largest recipients of foreign assistance under this act. we do have to highlight abdeel kareem solomon, his full legal name, and his time in jail a very dangerous precedent under egyptian law and one that should be highlighted here. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i yield, mr. chairman, two minutes to the gentlelady from california for the purpose of a colloquy.
the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i'd like to thank mrs. lowey, who is a great friend, and i want to thank her staff for their diligence in working with us. you've been absolutely more than wonderful. and on an important issue. my intention today is to confirm that the $20 million provided by the subcommittee for religious minorities in iraq is intended to focus on the needs of the nevina plains region. will it focus the syrian christians of the plains region since that is the primary location of these displaced persons? i yield to the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. lowey: yes. the committee is aware that the region is home to the ethoreligious minorities in iraq. ms. eshoo: is it the chairwoman's view that the state department should ensure that
these funds should support range of programs, such as microenterprise development, agriculture, capacity building, economic development, education institution capacity building, health care advancement and demock are aization programs, including the dialogue on the unit? mrs. lowey: yes, it's the committee's intent to support these type of activities. ms. eshoo: and would the chairwoman support the funds to nongovernmental organizations that are already working tirelessly in the region, such as the dominican sisters, the syrian society, the hamarabi human rights organizations and other groups that provide services to all people on a nondiscriminatory basis? mrs. lowey: yes, there are a number of organizations that have provided health, education and other assistance in the region and should be considered as potential alternatives to governmental entities. i except the state department to
continue to use a competitive bidding process to ensure that the most appropriate and effective organizations receive u.s. government assistance. ms. eshoo: i can't thank the chairwoman enough for her support of funding to alleviate the plight of these ancient people so critical to the future of iraq, her efforts are going to help hundreds of thousands of displaced ethno-religious minorities. and i know that our colleagues, congresswoman jan schakowsky, congressman gary peters, and certainly congressman frank wolf thank you for your leadership and for your attention to this issue that matters to so many. god bless you. mrs. lowey: and i thank the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. eshoo: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished minority whip, mr. cantor.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the legislation before us provides $2.22 billion worth of vital security assistance to the state of israel, our most dependable ally in the middle east. the funding in this bill will help ensure israel maintains its qualitative military advantage in the region. that means israel can defend itself against the threat posed by iran and against iranian terrorist proxies, hamas and hezbollah, both sworn to israel's destruction. a strong israel means a more stable middle east. a weakened israel only gives momentum to the radicals in the region determined to harm u.s. interests. joint cooperation with israel has also yielded tangible
benefits to america since israel is a leader in methods of fighting terrorism and preventing civilian casualties in terrorist attacks. mr. speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that israel is a pillar in the national security interest of the united states, and it is in my opinion essential that we provide this assistance to israel because it is in the best interest of the united states, and that's why i support this legislation, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fattah: thank you, mr. chairman. let me congratulate the chairwoman. i served on this subcommittee for three years, and this is an extraordinary bill. i think it's the best foreign operations bill, and more than a
couple of decades in this house and on range of issues. i'm only here to speak about one. i want to thank the chairwoman for her continued support and notice in the bill and in the accompany report the effort around africa. in sub-saharan african, there were no safe blood centers. now 35. it would not have happened without the chairwoman's support and understanding the correlation and nexus between malaria and blood transfusions and therefore increases in aids when you have unsafe blood used in those transfusions. i want to thank her and congratulate her on a great bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: i want to highlight a key provision of this bill. section 72006, which withholds
10% of the funding under this legislation for the board of international broadcasting. this is service that the chairwoman and i helped sponsor and gelt rolling because -- get rolling because of our perception that there was little broadcasting service and outside information in the main language of northwest pakistan and afghanistan of pashtun. but they were putting them on the taxpayer-funded radio, giving him a platform just six days after the secretary of state put him on the rewards for justice terrorism list for his crimes against a number of terrorist targets, including the prime minister of pakistan. and so i really want to thank chairwoman for including this, because we've sent a clear signal that we want open and free communication with accurate news, but we do not give platforms to terrorists on the
rewards for justice list of the state department. i yield back. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i am very pleased to yield two minutes to a leader in this congress who understands the importance of water in addition to bicycles and has been a tireless advocate for a whole range of important causes, my good friend, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, as i appreciate her leadership in being able to advance a cause that's near and dear to both of our hearts. mr. chairman, i will speak for two minutes. in the course of that time there will be 10 children around the world who will die needlessly from water-borne disease.
we have been working over the course of the last five years for the united states to exercise its appropriate leadership to try and eliminate this tragedy. i deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done. indeed, in the manager's amendment it takes an increase from last year and has a further increase of $25 million, meaning $335 million to help implement our water for the poor act. the world's number one public health problem. mr. speaker, we have a million people -- a billion people -- excuse me -- who lack both sanitation and clean drinking water without which children cannot learn in school. the sick, including those with hiv-aids could not take their medication. stable societies could not be built, and millions needlessly continue to die. entirely preventable tragedies. trapped countries in poverty and
diminish our own development and security efforts. it's no coincidence, for example in the middle east in north africa it's the most water-stressed region in the world and has some of the most complex security issues. our own state department has said securing fresh drinking water is a significant part of the middle east peace process, and one that brings people toppingt rather than dividing them. i deeply appreciate the chairwoman and her staff for working with me and my colleague, don payne, who has been tireless in advancing this issue. i hope that thed a m, with the leadership of secretary clinton, will join in this effort so we can make the progress that poor people around the world deserve and that we all need. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: we're waiting on another speaker.
if the majority would -- mrs. lowey: i'm going to continue to reserve. mr. kirk: shall we close this? mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased -- the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. mr. kirk: i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. eddie bernice johnson. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me thank chairman of the committee, the ranking member, for their work. i rise today in support of a provision in the manager's amendment to increase the amount of funds available for human rights and democratic initiatives of the u.s. department of state and the u.s. agency for international development.
specifically, the democracy fund in this appropriations bill will be in large helping countless people across the globe. i'd like to thank my colleagues, the honorable nita lowey, and the honorable kay granger, for accepting my amendment, and i commend them for their hard work on this bill. this really is an important bill. at this moment in history, i cannot help but be reminded of particular problems we are facing internationally. . although we have developed a high standard of living in our own country, so many people across the globe cannot think about democracy because frankly, they're so busy trying to survive and they don't share the same love and comforts that we take for granted in the united states. basic human rights are our democracy and we seek to live in
a stable and peaceful world. i work with women from around the world trying to help build a culture of peace in this world. so this really is a very important part of it for me. the democracy fund does just this. it gives countless people a way to identify with a country of democracy. so, madam chairman, i ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting the manager's amendment which seeks to expand and encourage democratic and human rights initiatives globally. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mrs. lowey: does the gentleman have any more speakers? mr. kirk: we are prepared to close. mrs. lowey: if not, i am prepared to close if he wishes to yield back the balance of time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: this bill contains one
last program and i will close. and that is called the near east regional democracy program. used to be called the iran democracy program and i hope that is what it does. we are providing $40 million for this. and it's very important to look, following the subpoena presentation of democracy in iran. we are particularly concerned about key minority groups there. they represent 40% of the country, including the leading candidate for president, whose vote was subpoena ressed, the kurds that we worked with in northern iraq, and significant iranian military presence is there. and i want to pay particular attention to the plight of the bahai. it is located in my district, but this was a faith that was founded in iran. there are 330,000 bahais in iran
right now. under this regime, we have now seen they have been told to register their businesses and place of address. that this is the bureaucratic machinery that we have seen in other countries in other uniforms before. it is the machinery of oppression and potentially worse. we have seen now that just following the time that president ahmadinejad claimed that he had won the election, remembering of course that in 150 iranian cities, the votes totalled more than the number of people living in those cities, that just following their claim to have won the election after only two hours of counting the ballots, that he moved against the bahai leaders putting them on trial for their lives in that country. the near east regional democracy program can help us build alternative voices in that country, all the more important.
let me close on this bill by saying that this bill has one key and major component, which is assistance to the state of israel for us. in my view, land for peace generally means no land and even more war, as we saw with israel's withdrawal from gaza where an area that used to be used for agricultural produce is now used for mortars and rockets against southern israel. my worry is that we might have any of that kind of advent you arism if we seek stability in southern lebanon and especially on the west bank. this legislation underscores our commitment to the israeli air force, to their missile defense system and especially their army, to at least encourage the states in that region to make sure that no advent you arism like we saw especially in 1973 can move forward against our
best allies in the middle east. my hope is that we have very strong commitment for this on the floor today and in the united states senate, because i think this bill more than any other makes any potential conflict in the middle east less likely. and that is good for us all. with that, i recommend passage of the bill. i want to commend our chairwoman and ranking gaitly missed, ranking minority member, kay granger, for bringing us a bill that adheres to the key principle that i try to follow at every possible turn, and that is the passage, bipartisan should end at the water's edge. in my service in the united states military, i generally found when we were being shot at, they weren't shooting at democrats or republicans, they were shooting at american
citizens and the united states has bipartisan interest overseas and this bill fulfills this. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: as we close this debate, i want to thank kay granger, the ranking member of this committee, who has been an invaluable partner in creating what we think is a very, very good bill. i also want to thank mr. kirk's leadership, not only in the committee, but certainly in your role in presenting this bill today. we really have an outstanding subcommittee. and again, it's because of the subcommittee members and the staff on both sides, which i acknowledged in my opening statement and the big ranking member -- not that he's so big -- the ranking member of the committee and the can chair of the overall appropriations
committee, mr. obey. everyone contributed to making this a really important bill. and i just must say in closing that to me, it's a real privilege to be a chair of this committee, to wake up every day and know that you can contribute to the great challenges we have internationally. and every day, we are presented with additional challenges that we have to face. and as the leader of the free world, the united states of america has a key role to play. and i know that all the members of this committee understand our responsibility. so this is a good bill. i appreciate your support. i hope we can get support from the majority of members on your side of the aisle and our side of the aisle, because this is an important bill. and as we move forward, it's extremely important that all of us support these efforts.
so i thank you again. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule the bill should be considered for amendment under the five-minute order. no amendments will be considered except in parts a and b and offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debated 10 minutes, shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. amendment in part b may be offered only in the appropriate part of the reading. the clerk: be it enacted the following sums are appropriated for the fiscal year 2010, namely, title 1, department of state and related agencies, department of state, administration and foreign affairs, diplomatic including transfer of funds, $8,229,000.
mrs. lowey: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part a, amendment number one, offered by mrs. lowey of new york. mrs. lowey: i yield myself as much time as i may consume the chair: ms. lowey and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. lowey: my amendment makes several provisions to the bill. it would increase funding by $25 million and democracy programs by $10 million. it would provide $300,000 for the implementation of the u.s.-brazil joint action plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality, increase funding for maternal health programs by $10 million, ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars for increasing funding for oversight of state department and usaid programs by
$8 million. these would be offset by the capital investment fund and usaid's capital investment fund. the amendment would also restrict foreign military financing to sri lanka but the base bill includes up to $1 million for demining activities upped the nonproliferation, demining and related programs, to continue the work with the sri lanka government to high displaced people return to their homes. this amendment includes a restriction on first class travel by employees of agencies funded by this act. i'm pleased to have worked with representatives blumenauer, cuellar, jim marshall and gwen moore to address these concerns and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i resevere the balance of my time.
the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: seek time in opposition. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: i rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. there are many parts of the amendment that i support, like moving funds away from accounts that receive significant increases from the stimulus bill in order to increase funds for safe drinking water and sanitation programs. unfortunately, i oppose this amendment for what it represents. we are continuing the movement away from bipartisan consideration of amendments, because it aps that the new -- appears under the practice of the rulls committee is to put them in one group under the chairman's egis, so it looks like we have a balanced list of amendments offered, but really a much larger number of democratic
amendments are being considered. this is a very troubling practice that has now entered into the appropriation bills. once again, i would put out under clause 2 of rule 21, the only amendments allowed under our rules on the floor are money amendments that cut or rearrange funds, not policy amendments. that gives awesome power to the committeen both sides to limit debate on this bill. it's very odd that in all the consideration of appropriation bills before, we haven't made this a standard practice, like is happening now. i'm also concerned that under this amendment, we are cutting off fmf funding -- mrs. lowey: i just want to note kay granger's amendment is not a money amendment but a policy amendment as well. mr. kirk: i stand corrected. under the rule that's allowed, we didn't need rules for appropriations bills. and i would reate rate that the
bill come under a rule and i'm worried about this amendment because it cuts off fmf, foreign military financing for sri lanka. the elected democratic government was fighting the tigers, registered as a terrorist organization by the state department. their victory over the tigers will bring human rights and democracy to the whole country and remove the need for any kind of military operations, which could tempt either side to hurt civilians. the victory of the sri lanka military against the tigers will bring law, rule of order and democracy to that country. we are now sending a sing national that a democracy, -- signal that a democracy that is
fighting and will win, cut off financing by the united states. if we ever had a rebel terrorist organization operating in our country, maybe like the confederate states after our victory, it would be odd indeed to see some country cutting off funding for us and that's what we did in our civil war. and i would say that a cutoff now is an odd signal when i would expect that the record of human rights, respect for the individual, rule of law and especially democracy will definitely go up now that the government of sri lanka controls all of their territory. mrs. lowey: i just want to emphasize again that we are providing up to $1 million for de-mining activities for the government of sri lanka to help the displaced population return to their homes and in addition to the terrorism that occurred
on the part of the tigers, we have many civilians that have been displaced. and i think it's essential that the government of sri lanka respond to that challenge and help those people return to their homes. i know we will continue to follow this issue and to be sure that the policy that is in place adjusts to the actions that the government takes. i yield back the balance of my time. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself such time as i may have remaining. i think with this amendment, it would have been better to handle under a different procedure. there are many good parts of this amendment. i particularly love the part about no first class travel and hope that goes into the final bill. i would urge in conference to
reconsider sending the signal that we are sending to sri lanka. the general signal should be when a democratic government engages a terrorist organization, we support the democratic government. when that democratic government wins against that terrorist organization, we should support them. that means that we should support all the aspects of that government that can effect good order and return to normalcy, which means helping refugees and the government and also maintaining a good relationship with that democracy that just did a good thing in making sure that the world has one less terrorist organization. so i would urge opposition to the amendment. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman of new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote.
pending that, i make a-pound ofed orer that a quorum is not present. the chair: under clause 6 of rule 16, further procedures on the motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: pambings b -- part b, amendment number two, offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the chair: mr. buyer a and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. buyer: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buyer: i think it's clear that the government is feeling the burden of a shrinking economy, empty pocketbooks and economic uncertainty. the american people are hurting and we're continuing to lose jobs. the obama administration and the congressional leadership
promised it would create jobs immediately and gave assurance that unemployment would not rise above 8 pk. in june alone, almost half a million jobs were loss, driving unemployment to 9.5% the highest level in almost three decades. i believe the american people know we cannot tax and spend, nor bail our way out to a growing economy. so what are we doing here today? we are continuing this practice of reckless spending. now, what's clever is, there's a release sent out by the chairman of the appropriations committee that said, it appears as though perhaps maybe we're cutting, actually, this bill is cutting foreign spending no it's not. what has to be clear here is, you've got to be careful in this appropriations language, called enacted level of spending. when you look at in 2008, as we go into 2009, we had a continuing resolution.
when from the c.r. we go into the omnibus, then supplemental spending now into the 2010 bill. we have this 33% increase. so what i'm doing, i look at three specific accounts here in foreign operations and i'm saying, ok, fine, keep your increases, but let's try to hold the line with regard to our federal spending. i have great respect of the men and women that represent our country and foreign -- in foreign service abroad. they are serving on america's outboasts and i salute them. and they deserve the best the nation can provide to them. what i oppose is the continued habit of reckless and seemingly endless spending this bill represents. so in the interest of our nation's financial integrity at stake, i thaufer amendment that cuts $2.2 billion from the bill to remedy this bloated increase. the amendment reduce there's accounts to match their fiscal year 2009 enacted funding levels, number one, the diplomatic and consular program account, relouis -- reduced by
$1.2 billion. second, the operating expense of usaid by $33 million and the global health account by $22 million this represents a total savings of money not borrowed against our children and grandchildren's future. with that i reserve the balance of my time. choim for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? mrs. lowey: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lowey: ms. granger and i worked hard to make sure this amendment is sound. many of us in this chamber have said time and time again the state department and usaid have to start leading u.s. government efforts to address the global threats of the 21st century, including preventing and responding to conflict. as a new administration sets
priorities, develops strategiesing creates greater efficiencies and harmony in our foreign policy this requires an expansion of people and resources. the proposed cuts in this amendment to usaid's operating expenses and the department of state's operating accounts strike at the very heart of the bill's efforts to strengthen our civilian capacity. this amendment would have a devastating impact on usaid and the department of state's ability to carry out the diplomatic development and reconstruction mission. for usaid operating expenses, the amendment would halt support for over 200 existing personnel, including in afghanistan, pakistan, and sudan. putting the u.s. government missions in those countries in jeopardy. the amendment would stop the construction of secure and safe facilities for usaid employees in nearly 30 countries overseas.
halt the hiring of 350 new foreign service officers as planned in the development leadership initiative, which is intended to rebuild the civilian development work force. within the department of state's operating account, the amendment would eliminate 328 million to add $1 -- to add 1,000 foreign and civil service officers to fill the 12% vacancy rate of the 260 diplomatic posts worldwide and to fill urgently needed positions here in d.c. eliminate $213 million to add nearly 300 diplomatic security positions to better protect and secure diplomatic and security personnel, redeucely nearly $700 million funding to regularalize diplomatic operationses in iraq, usaid is a global leader on health and the proposed cuts would hamper
their ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. the proposed cut in this amendment could result in 18.3 million women being without access to voluntary family planning services which could lead to an estimated 5.5 million additional unintended pregnancies. 300,000 additional under 5 deaths per year and 15,000 additional maternal deaths per year and approximately 800,000 people in four high-burden countries going without planned multidrug resistance tuberculosis diagnostic and treatment services. congress must strengthen civilian agencies to respond to foreign policy crises and not cut core programs in our diplomacy and development initiatives as this amendment seeks to do. so i urge my colleagues to vote
no on this amendment. i yield back. i reserve the balance. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buyer: the gentlelady's comments don't address the reason i brought this amendment. i will use two words you used -- you just used, to the gentlelady. jeopardy and devastate. that's exactly what congress is doing to america's economy if we do not get our fiscal house in order. o.m.b. this isn't my quote, this is o.m.b. in may, o.m.b. projected if we continued this type of spending the federal debt will grow to $23.3 trillion in 2019. that's within 10 years.
$23 trillion. i think the american people are getting numb to these numbers. now to get a billion dollars if i take, excluding corporate income tax receipt, every individual working in my congressional district, if i take their federal income tax revenue, i can get $1 billion. that's just $1 billion. i think about all the hard work and labor of people in my congressional district of indiana, that's $1 billion. you throw numbers around here as though it's just nothing. it's just money. it is more than money. it represents the hard labor of people and they give it to us and make sure we spend in it a fiscally responsible manner. at -- at a time when america's economy is hurt you plead to me in response, mr. chairman, the plea here is that all members should weep and cry about the challenges that are all around the world. what about the challenges in america? that's what i'm talking about.
you know, we're engaged in a two-front war. actually, multi-front war. but in two fronts right now in afghanistan and iraq. i appreciate the leadership of our ranking member and what he's doing but don't stand here on the floor and say we need more money for family planning, code word, for us to pay for abortions overseas. no. this is a moment in time, and i am going to ask for a recorded vote on something like this, because i want a signal to be sent to the american people, take a look at this vote. that's what i'll say to america. watch this vote. do we have what it takes to cut $2.2 billion or not? i'm even sayg, guess what, i'll take your 33% increase that you had over the baseline. i'll just take us to the 33% increase. and america, watch what this congress will do. will they be fiscally responsible if your -- fiscally
responsible with your dollar or will they continue the reckless policies of this congress. with that, i yield back. i urge everyone to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i want to respond to my friend, the gentleman, mr. buyer. i agree and i think most of us in this congress agree we have to get our fiscal house in order. however, we put this bill together in a bipartisan way and i again regret that ms. granger, who worked so hard on this bill, couldn't be here with us today. i want to make it very clear that cutting funding for our diplomats who are serving our great nation in very difficult patients of the world, whether it's pakistan, afghanistan, whether it's in iraq, and i could go on and on, is irresponsible. so i think it's fine to say that we have to put our house in order, however, i'd like to
remind you that in the past administration, national security, diplomacy and development were considered the three pillars of our national security. diplomacy, development, and defense, excuse me. diplomacy, development, and defense were considered the three pillars of our national security. so just to say we can cut $1 billion here and $1 billion there and not to have the consequences, have great impact on the security of our people who are fighting for our nation, i think is irresponsible. so again, i ask for a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. buyer: i ask for a recorded
vote, mr. chairman. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 4, be considered as read. the chair: without objection, so ordered. clerk will read. the clerk: page 46, line 5. united states emergency refuge and migration assistance fund, $75 million. independent agencies, peace corps, including transfer of funds, $450 million to remain available until september 30, 2011. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak on my amendment. the chair: the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment
number six, printed in house report 111-193, offered by mr. stornse of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: the gentlelady talked about bipartisanship. this is a bipartisan amendment. the president requested $373 billion be al-- $373 million be allocated to the peace corps under the state foreign operations bill and related appropriations. . all my amendment does is we fund the peace corps at the level that the president requested. it is a president obama-stearns amendment, which he's saying, i think we can get it done, the peace corps fund and i think
you'll agree with me. obviously, the president must agree, because that's what he has allocated. in 2009, the peace corps was funded at $340 million. the president has requested $373,440. so this is an increase of $33 million. so there is an increase and percent, right there, i agree with him. let's go ahead and approve it this afternoon at what the president requested. now, i support the peace corps. but i think what you have done is allocated $450 million, which is almost $77 million increase from what president obama has requested. that's $110,000 above the fy 2009 level. so what you're trying to do is increase the peace corps by 33% over last year's level. and frankly to the gentlelady
from new york, with the economy the way it is, the peace corps is in 76 countries. certainly the money that we're spending overseas could be used in this country. so i think president obama has tried to be conservative in saying, let's allocate $373 million rather than your number of $450 million. so i think again, the severe economic crisis, all of us agree we must consider carefully how we use taxpayer dollars and don't want to send them overseas when we can use them here in the united states. mr. buyer mentioned we are spending federal tax dollars and putting ourselves in deeper debt. our debt stands at $12 trillion. my amendment will demonstrate a positive step towards fiscal responsibility and also staying in line with what president obama has requested.
so with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i claim time in opposition and i would like to remind my good friend, mr. stearns, that the peace corps is also a job-creating program. these are our young people who are going abroad to serve our country. so it is also a job creation program for our young people. the peace corps, which is funded at $450 million in this bill has long been one of america's most effective tools in directly reaching citizens of other countries, demonstrating firsthand the best of american values and generating goodwill for our nation around the world. just last year, peace corps volunteers helped train 148,000 teachers, health care workers, other professionals overseas. their efforts improved the lives of over two million people in developing countries, including countries that are vital to our national security interests.
in recent years, the peace corps has been chronically underfunded. last year, the agency was forced to cut 500 new positions. funding the peace corps at the $450 million lays the groundwork toll fulfill the president's pledge to increase the number of peace corps volunteers at a responsible pace. in addition, the bill calls for the g.a.o. to conduct a management review to ensure that every dollar is well spent and every vol untear's effort -- volunteer's effort well placed. we have heard from 200,000 peace corps volunteers. and i'm sure there are others in florida calling for this increase. the gentleman from florida may have heard from some of the nearly 7,000 peace corps current and former volunteers from the state of florida. i hope my colleagues will support me in opposing this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: it's obvious that the gentlelady from new york does not gee with her president. her president has offered a figure. he said he thinks this will do the job, and you obviously don't agree with him. i'm a little surprised that your president indicates that he thinks the job can be done. using your argument, you want to increase spending so we can have jobs for people in america to go overseas. and the question is, simple question for you is, why not let these people have jobs here in the united states? why not take the money, give the jobs to the people in the united states and don't have to go overseas. it is cheaper to give a job to a student, a person here in the united states than to send them overseas to these 76 countries that we've allocated it for. and it is easier although gist particularally. if the democrats will look at this, why aren't you agreeing
with the president and why do you want to spend more money overseas? reserving the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to sam farr a former peace corps worker. mr. farr: i rise in strong support of this and the president has not endorsed your position. he has not asked us to cut this amount. the reason is there are 12,000 americans that applied for peace corps jobs that can't be filled. there are other countries that want peace corps and we can't pand the program because there isn't enough money. this is the most effective foreign aid program, most effective domestic program. if we are going to curtail violence in the world, we have to do it through initiating what's best in america, by sending more peace corps vol un tears. to the people who applied for the jobs, this $450 million is
what president obama said in his campaign speech that he wanted to double the peace corps. you can't double it without putting more money in it. i object to your opinion that president obama is opposed -- supports your amendment. he does not. and neither does people in this house or the other house including i would like to submit for the record, senator christopher bond's letter asking for $450 million. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: president obama certainly doesn't endorse your plan because he did not propose $450 million. he proposed a lot less. he proposed a 10% increase. you proposed a 33% increase. and really, although the president hasn't called me up, frankly, i have endorsed his. i have endorsed his legislative initiative, what he's proposed, 10% increase. i think this is fair.
i'm asking you folks to recognize what he proposed is fair and why not adopt my amendment and let it go at that. why do you want to increase it 33% and send these jobs overseas when we can keep them here. again, i ask you to explain to me why you don't agree with the president's request? i reserve. mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to a former peace corps worker -- a great advocate of the peace corps and distinguished member of the committee, betty mccollum. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. mccollum: i'm very proud of my staff and the other staff and members who have served peace corps who are in this house. mr. chair, today, peace corps, one of america's most successful foreign policy initiatives is at a crossroads. since 1961, over 200,000 americans have served our country by helping others around
the world. today, peace corps needs to be re-energized. peace corps is not capable of meeting demands of all ages who want to serve. peace corps is at a crossroads. we have the opportunity here today in this moment to reinvigorate peace corps for the next new century, but going to take leadership from congress. the president's request simply was not enough, even though the president does propose to double and increase and fully fund peace corps. we have the opportunity to do it today. chairwoman lowey is leading with $450 million to put the agency back on track to double those numbers. president bush spoke in this chamber and president obama spoke to, too in his inaugural address. we have the opportunity to make history today and support the peace corps. the chair: the gentleman from
florida. mr. stearns: the gentlelady says the peace corps is not meeting the demands around the world. i think the american taxpayers want the people to meet the demands of the american people here at home. with that, i yield back. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the the gentleman from ohio, mr. driehaus, who is a former peace corps volunteer. degree degree i am a former peace corps volunteer and the money was spent wisely. i don't know if the sponsor is familiar with the peace corps, but we spend $25 a month on a peace corps volunteer. that's what the salary is. find me a job anywhere elsewhere american dollars are better spent on foreign policy than for $25 -- 225. you didn't elled yield to me. the total cost of the peace corps is less than two f-22 fighters. 1.5 planes.
that's what we spend to send hundreds of thousands of americans across the globe to help people better understand this oons. that is what we spend, less than two f-22 fighters. the peace corps is critical to this united states. that is why the obama administration did not, did not object to this funding increase because they know it is the right thing to do. it is the most cost effective foreign policy we have and i urge my colleagues to support the peace corps and reject this amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. stern mr. stearns: i demand a vote. the chair: he further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will esuspend. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent that the remained ore they have bill, through page 26, line 19, be considered as read. the chair: without objection, the clerk will relead. clip section 7041, none of the funds made available may be obligated to finance any assistance to saudi arabia unless the president certifies saudi arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment made in order by the rule. chip clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 1, offered by mr. weiner of no. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. weiner: i thank the chair and i thank the body for its
patience allowing me to run over to offer my amendment. he -- let me begin with a noncontroversial statement. the american people thabbed body of their representatives believe there is should be no money or taxpayer dollars going from the people of the united states of america to the kingdom of saudi arabia. i can say that with some confidence because in fiscal year 2007, 312 members said so. in fiscal year 2006, 293 members said system of i can say that with some certitude because the bill we have before us says that no money in this bill will go to the kingdom of saudi arabia. yet despite the fact that we in this house keep expressing that sentiment loudly and clearly, for reason this is a would be mysterious any place else but washington, money continues to flow. that has to stop. the reason it happens, by the way, is because we always feel the sense that we have to include language in the bill,
offering an exemption, a loophole you can drive a truck through that says unless the president says so. well, i have news for you, my colleagues. democrat and republican alike, presidents seem to develop a love affair with the notion of saudi arabia based on what they say. they say they want to be friends to the united states. they say they want to be a fulcrum against terrorism. they say they want to be a moderate force in the middle east, and yet, year after year we see evidence that they do the opposite. we know this, for example, by reading human rights reports over the last several years, that see more and more stores like the one of a 75-year-old woman being sentenced to be lashed nearly to death for having the audacity of being in the home of two unrelated men. we know based on research done this week by my office that they continue to teach hate in their textbooks now. things like, things that teach ninth graders to say things like, the hour of judgment will
not come until the muslims fight the jews and kill them. if there is a jew behind me, come kill him. this is what ninth graders are being taught. we know, for example that all -- that 15 of the 19 homicide bombers that attack mid-city on september 11 were saudis and we also know, based on evidence that came out in the lawsuit against the saudi government that that was -- that these were agents that were not acting in -- apart from the saudi government but in many cases were intertwined my amendment does something simple. it takes the very good work of the chair of the subcommittee that says no money and takes out the loophole because to be honest, even if the administration certifies something, i can tell you already that the united states department of international control strategy said in february of this year that the saudis were responsible for laundering money that continues in their words to be a significant jurisdictional source for terrorism, finance -- for terrorism financing
worldwide. if you believe there should not be money going to the saudising like i guarantee your constituents do, you have to vote yes on the weiner amendment. if you want to kind of have it both ways, you get to vote but want the money to go, vote no i believe overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way in this house, we have made it clear. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: it's important to get the facts out as to what this foreign assistance. is this is simply american to to the saudi joint military training. this is an opportunity for americans around saudis to work in concert so that we can continue to build a bridge with our historic ally so we can be in a better position to influence saudi society and learn from them what they have to offer. the fact is, is that this particular amendment does not
bring america safety, doesn't bring it security, it brings it the opposite. this new administration, this new congress is about opening a new era of foreign policy a new page of diplomacy, that is smarter, more respectful of other countries, more appreciative of our allies. saudi arabia is one of the most important allies in the middle east. king abdullah is one who proposed the arab peace initiative, endorsed bethe -- by the arab league. president obama expressed support for this initiative in the early days of his presidency. i would go on but i want to yield time to a distinguished member of -- from florida, congressman ander who is here today to offer his views on why this amendment is not good. but before i yield to the gentleman, let me say that the 2008 u.s. state department country report on terrorism stated that -- praised saudi arabia in saudi
counterterrorism practice, credited saudi cooperation with u.s. counterterrorism efforts as significant and characterized saudi anti-terrorism as aggressive, directly count to -- counter to what the gentleman says it's doing. i urge members not to tolerate prejudice but to try to build a bridge of understanding with the rest they have world. i yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. anders: i think we ought to reject this, i think it's the wrong policy. every year the state foreign policy operations subcommittee includes a little bit of foreign assistance for saudi arabia. usually less than half a million dollars. sometime nrs military training, the last couple of years, mr. weiner offered an amendment saying we want to restrict the flow of foreign
assistance unless the president waives that. he offered that amendment in 2007, it passed. it had the language that the unless the president deems it in his wisdom. it passed again in 2008. it has that language. it's in the bill today. it says that no foreign assistance will be paid to saudi arabia unless the president waives that provision. now he wants to go a step further and take out that provision that he's always had before and say, under no circumstances, no circumstances can the president find that there might be a need for foreign assistance to saudi arabia. i don't think he wants to do this to this new president who we all hope somehow, some way can negotiate around the world do, a great job of foreign affairs, national security, give him that option, why would you want to tie his hands in his first year? no matter what he thinks, no
matter what he thinks is important to the national security of america, he's not going to have the opportunity to exercise his presidential authority. i think that's a step too far. i think it's wrong. i think we should reject the amendment. mr. weiner: i guess the question is, what are we doing here? i think what we're doing with this entire bill is saying what we, the representatives of the country, who have the pow our the -- of the purse, think should and should not be in the bill. what's the purpose of doing that if year after year after year despite the preferences of this congress, member -- presidents, democrat and republican alike, say, we don't really care what members of congress say. what is this exercise for? why not have just one giant waiver authority on everything and say, we don't want to tie his hands. we do want to tie his hands. 319 of us say, we do want to tie his hands. if it wasn't abused year after year, i wouldn't be standing here. mr. crenshaw: why did you put, every time the amendment you
always offer, no foreign assistance unless the president wants to waive it? that's what you've always said. that's what we did this time. now you want to go one step further. all i'm saying is you got what you wanted. why don't we leave it like it is? mr. weiner: the last time when it passed the house and died in the senate, i had the waiver struck in fairness. mr. ellison: i'd like to reclaim the time. i want to thank the gentleman from florida. i actually want to just submit that i see the gentleman has a poster board up there and it's extremely unfortunate that poster board, i would submit to the american people is extremely upsetting to me because first of all, it has to do with something called hadith, it's disputed, not necessarily even authentic. i will not yield. i didn't yield, mr. chairman, and i will not yield and so that is the kind of thing that
will promote prejudice and religious bigotry and i'm very ashamed for this body that he would do what he's doing right now. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. weiner: i will respond. do you know whose words these are? this is the saudi arabiaian department of education teaching to its ninth graders. i did not write this i did translate it. but i did not write it. if the translation is incorrect, the gentleman will be the first to point that out. but i will say this. the simple question is this for my colleagues. if you want to aid to go to saudi arabia if as the gentleman says, you somehow believe they need our foreign assistance, one of the most richest kingdoms on our blood money, that there is on earth -- mr. crenshaw: will the gentleman yield? mr. weiner: if he believes our paying $80 a bafrle for oil when the saudis would do nothing to help us with it is a good idea, vote no on this.
but don't say it's because you don't want to tie hands. what we want to do here is tie the president's hand to finally live up to what this congress has said which is not a dollar, not a she tell, not a pound, -- a shekel, not a pound, not a dime of our tax dollars going to them. i think the gentlelady has it exactly right no money. you can't have it both ways. you can't say, yes i want no money, but i want there to be no wiggle room. we want there to be no wiggle room. we want no money going to this nation, they say one thing and do something else. we all know it. 319 of us and maybe with some help around here, we'll get closer to 419 of us, have said enough is enough. year in and year out. bring me that over quickly here, i'm running out of time. 2004, 217 said no more money.