DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 144
(House of Representatives - September 07, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H7125-H7135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                  Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 94 printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 874, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $35,300,000)''.
       Page 1140, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,300,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the opportunity to speak about my 
amendment to the State and Foreign Operations division of H.R. 3354.
  Mr. Chairman, we are facing some tough choices. Our Nation is nearly 
$20 trillion in debt. We are going to debate lifting the debt ceiling 
in the coming days. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue recklessly 
spending on duplicative and wasteful programs.
  The United States Institute of Peace is a perfect example of a 
duplicative program that must be reexamined. The Institute's charter 
states that the organization was established to promote international 
peace and the resolution of conflict among the nations and peoples of 
the world without recourse to violence.
  These are laudable and worthy goals, but it sounds a lot like the 
mission statement of another taxpayer-backed diplomatic organization, 
the United States Department of State.
  The State Department's operational mission is to create a more 
secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the 
American people and the international community. Why is Congress 
funding an independent think tank that supports the same mission as 
another Federal Government agency?
  The U.S. Institute of Peace is far from the only organization on the 
ground working to foster peace across the globe. Since its inception, 
the U.S. Institute of Peace has awarded thousands of grants to other 
peace organizations. There are also more than 150 colleges and 
universities offering peace studies programs across the United States.
  Why are we earmarking an additional $35.3 million in public funds to 
support a think tank that duplicates the State Department's mission, 
uses its public funds to support other peace-promoting organizations, 
and can raise millions of dollars in private funds to promote its own 
work?
  For this reason, Members on both sides of the aisle have supported 
ending this program. In fact, this same amendment was offered by a 
Democratic member from New York to an appropriations bill in 2011. The 
amendment passed with a strong bipartisan vote.
  The White House recently proposed eliminating Federal funding to the 
Institute noting that it duplicates not only other Federal programs but 
also nonprofit and private sector organizations.
  In addition to the duplicative nature of its work, the Institute's 
authorization has expired. The underlying funding contained in the bill 
is not even allowed under House rules.
  The authorization process is vital to ensuring that the American 
taxpayer is protected from waste. At the very least, we should withhold 
funding until the Institute is reauthorized.
  Our kids and grandkids are relying on us to find a solution to this 
problem rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, each and every one of us has a 
moral obligation to challenge ourselves to make this little piece of 
real estate that we call Earth better for generations yet unborn.
  USIP does good and great work by teaching people around the world to 
strive to create a society at peace with itself and its neighbors.
  We spend millions and billions of dollars on guns, bombs, and 
missiles. Can we spend just a few pennies, a few dimes, a few dollars 
on peace?
  This world, this planet is, not ours to hoard, waste, and destroy. 
Mr. Chairman, I ask you: What is wrong with supporting the way of 
peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence? What is wrong with 
teaching communities to respect the dignity and the worth of every 
human being? What is wrong with preventing conflict and keeping our 
military personnel safe and out of harm's way?
  Mr. Chairman, on the question of preventing war and on the challenge 
of keeping peace, there should be no price tag, but USIP does good and 
great work on a shoestring budget. It is a small agency which teaches 
the way of peace, the way of love. Their small staff help communities 
solve problems through dialogue rather than weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that we consider an 
amendment to abolish the U.S. Institute of Peace, but I hope this will 
be the last. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for the amendment and the committee for the opportunity. The 
U.S. Institute of Peace is intended to be a nonpartisan independent 
national institute funded by Congress, and I question both the 
nonpartisan nature of the Institute and the need, quite honestly, for 
the Federal Government to fund it now, at least $1 billion over these 
many years at $35 million a year, and, as the gentleman from Colorado 
said, in a duplicative effort.
  Nobody is against peace and nobody is against love. The question is: 
Do we need a State Department doing it at the cost of billions of 
dollars and then this other organization doing the exact same work at a 
cost of another $35 million annually when we are $20 trillion in debt 
and more, maybe up to $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities? And then 
to add insult to injury, regarding the nonpartisan independent nature 
that the taxpayers are forced to fund, on January 5th of 2016, on an 
episode of C-SPAN, Manal Omar, the acting vice president for the Middle 
East and Africa Center conducted a highly divisive,

[[Page H7126]]

partisan attack on then-leading Republican primary candidate Donald 
Trump and the Republican party as a whole.
  Some of her more egregious statements include: ``What Trump is doing 
is inciting violence, make no mistake about it. He has blood on his 
hands.'' And ``Trump and other Republican rhetoric have validated that 
type of violence against Muslims. It has given them an excuse to 
actually turn the negative rhetoric into violence.''

                              {time}  1600

  Her comments followed the violent attacks in San Bernardino and 
Paris.
  To my knowledge, no punitive action was taken against Ms. Omar, and 
she continues to serve as the associate vice president for the Middle 
East and Africa Center at USIP.
  I wrote the Institute a letter in that regard inquiring as to her 
status, whether there would be punitive measures taken for this obvious 
partisan and vicious attack on the Republican Party and the candidate 
that was then leading, and, of course, I didn't hear back until, oh, I 
don't know, 2 days ago, when we saw that there was an amendment to 
defund the U.S. Institute of Peace.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, to add insult to injury, this place spends $35 
million, including telling the American people what they should think 
about their politicians. That is not their mission, that is not what we 
are paying for, and that is why we should stop paying for it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that remarks in 
debate may not engage in personalities toward the President, including 
by repeating remarks carried elsewhere that would be improper if spoken 
in the Member's own words.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the State, 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful 
disagreement with my colleague who offered this amendment.
  The United States Institute of Peace works to help prevent, reduce, 
and resolve violent conflicts abroad. The Institute works alongside our 
military, our diplomats, and development experts in some of the most 
conflict-affected and fragile environments, including Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Tunisia, South Sudan, and Ukraine. Eliminating the U.S. 
Institute of Peace would hamper our efforts to stabilize these areas 
and to prevent further outbreaks of conflict.
  The Institute also works with local leaders and other partners to 
find solutions to religious freedom and to mitigate the rise of 
extremism and persecution.
  Let me point out, too, that the staffer the gentleman just mentioned 
in his remarks is no longer with the Institute. She is gone.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  As a former chairwoman of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, 
I worked very closely with the U.S. Institute of Peace. From firsthand 
experience, I can tell you how important their mission is. They send 
staff to some of the most volatile areas of the world to promote peace.
  For instance, in Afghanistan, the Institute facilitated peaceful 
elections in 2014, despite Taliban calls for violence.
  Also, in 2015, the Institute facilitated a local Sunni and Shia 
agreement in Iraq that averted bloodshed and let 380,000 
internationally displaced people return home.
  Let's not forget that it was under President Ronald Reagan that the 
Institute of Peace was created.
  Funding the Institute of Peace is an important investment. It is for 
these reasons that I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rothfus). The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. 
Institute of Peace gives people in conflict abroad the skills and 
techniques to solve their conflicts without resorting to violence.
  The Institute owes its creation to the many men and women who came 
before us and worked hard in its creation during the Reagan 
administration. One of the early founders and board members at the 
start was Father Ted Hesburgh, who many in this body knew as the 
president of the University of Notre Dame. Father Ted, as we all called 
him, sadly, passed away in 2015.
  Back in 2011, when the Institute was similarly threatened, he wrote 
this: ``. . . That Congress would seek to eliminate funding for the 
United States Institute of Peace is abhorrent and unthinkable.''
  ``. . . As a man of faith and reason, I know that we need to balance 
our budget. But I also know that you cannot balance a budget on the 
backs of our men and women in uniform. Nor can we take the risk of 
making our country less safe. We need the tools of diplomacy and 
peacebuilding to stop international conflict before it starts and to 
manage its aftermath.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an op-ed Father Hesburgh wrote, 
dated February 27, 2011.

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2011]

                 The U.S. Can't Turn Its Back on Peace

                           (By Ted Hesburgh)

       Some would say that by the time you have lived almost a 
     century, you have seen it all. But what I saw the House of 
     Representatives do with its continuing resolution is beyond 
     the pale. That Congress would seek to eliminate funding for 
     the United States Institute of Peace is abhorrent and 
     unthinkable.
       Congress should know better: The last century marked the 
     most violent and destructive era in human history. Wars great 
     and small cut short the lives of more than 100 million 
     people. We learned a great deal from those wars and, 
     fortunately, we now have a vibrant and active field of 
     peacebuilding. As recent events have shown, there is hopeful 
     progress for peaceful management of conflict but more 
     violence is certain to come in a world where disputes are 
     fueled by religious intolerance, ethnic divisions, failing 
     states, terrorism, intractable territorial conflicts and the 
     uncontrolled proliferation of highly destructive weaponry. 
     The young field of international conflict management is just 
     beginning to bear fruit.
       Now is not the time, in the face of global adversity, to 
     cut peace. The United States must be a leader in nonviolent 
     international management. This conflict-ridden world needs an 
     organization committed to peacemaking: one that can deploy 
     teams of specialists to conflict zones; create and implement 
     methods of resolving disputes before guns are drawn; and 
     train leaders who can mediate conflicts and make civil 
     societies work. That is why Congress created the U.S. 
     Institute of Peace in 1984. President Ronald Reagan's wise 
     investment continues to pay dividends in the training and 
     education of peacemakers, facilitators, trainers and other 
     experts.
       As a man of faith and reason, I know that we need to 
     balance our budget. But I also know that you cannot balance a 
     budget on the backs of our men and women in uniform. Nor can 
     we take the risk of making our nation less safe. We need the 
     tools of diplomacy and peacebuilding to stop international 
     conflict before it starts and to manage its aftermath. We 
     have wonderful institutions in the State Department and the 
     Pentagon but they alone cannot deal with every foreign 
     affairs issue. There are times when you need nongovernmental 
     organizations, legislative agencies and the help of those who 
     have relationships on the ground in conflict zones to run 
     interference or to pave the way for officials. We must never 
     suffer from pride and hubris, thinking that only Washington 
     has the answers.
       All the global conflicts raging around us may have seemed 
     of little consequence to earlier generations. In the new 
     century, however, even small conflicts risk growing to a 
     scale that can destroy lives and economies around the world. 
     In the U.S. Institute of Peace we have an organization that 
     understands the sources of violence as well as the tools to 
     prevent international conflict.
       If the United States is serious about peacemaking, its 
     citizens and national leaders must defend the institutions 
     that are doing the hard work of transitioning societies from 
     war to peace. The U.S. Institute for Peace should have a 
     permanent home in the nation's capital from which to teach, 
     inspire and prepare current and future generations of 
     peacemakers--and to be a symbol of America's commitment to 
     reducing violent international conflict in the 21st century.
       We must, as a nation, show courage, steadiness of purpose 
     and commitment to core principles. We cannot afford the 
     alternatives.

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter

[[Page H7127]]

from many of our colleagues supporting the U.S. Institute of Peace.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 2017.
     Hon. Hal Rogers,
     Chair, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related 
         Programs, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nita Lowey,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, 
         and Related Programs, House Committee on Appropriations, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: We write in 
     strong support of the valuable contribution made by United 
     States Institute of Peace (USIP) to our country's strategic 
     interests abroad and encourage you to support $37,884,000 to 
     USIP for fiscal year 2018. This is the same level requested 
     by USIP in FY 2017.
       Founded by Congress in 1984, USIP applies cost-effective, 
     practical solutions in conflict zones around the world with 
     the mission of preventing, mitigating and resolving violent 
     conflict. USIP's work is grounded in its commitment to 
     education and training while honing best practices in 
     challenging environments.
       For example, in Iraq USIP has brokered peace agreements in 
     Tikrit and Kirkuk among tribal leaders in areas liberated 
     from ISIS. After ISIS' 2014 massacre of as many as 1,700 Shia 
     military personnel at former Camp Speicher near the city of 
     Tikrit, USIP and its grassroots Iraqi partners facilitated 
     dialogues among local tribal and religious leaders resulting 
     in an inter-tribal agreement that formed the critical basis 
     for the return by mid-2016 of more than 360,000 displaced 
     residents.
       At a time when current estimates place the cost of violent 
     conflict globally at more than $13 trillion, USIP serves as 
     an important element of the national security toolbox. The 
     U.S. government must have a full range of options for 
     preventing and resolving violent international conflicts. It 
     is critically important that Congress continue to support 
     USIP and its proven, successful record of reducing conflict 
     while advancing U.S. interests.
       We believe you share our understanding that USIP's work 
     helps reduce the impact of violent conflict in places where 
     American security interest are top priorities. As always, we 
     appreciate your previous support for USIP, and we look 
     forward to working with you during the FY 2018 appropriations 
     process.
           Sincerely,
         John Lewis, Joseph Crowley, Eliot L. Engel, G.K. 
           Butterfield, Alcee L. Hastings, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 
           Joe Courtney, Janice D. Schakowsky, Albio Sires, 
           Timothy J. Walz, Doris O. Matsui, Peter Welch, Sanford 
           D. Bishop, Jr., Bobby L. Rush, Al Lawson, Jr., Seth 
           Moulton, Keith Ellison.
         James P. McGovern, Denny Heck, Joseph P. Kennedy III, 
           Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, Elizabeth H. Esty, Alma 
           S. Adams, Mark DeSaulnier, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Earl 
           Blumenauer, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Scott H. Peters, 
           Brendan F. Boyle, Sander M. Levin, Michael E. Capuano, 
           Bill Foster, Mark Pocan, Susan A. Davis.
         Raul M. Grijalva, Nanette Diaz Barragan, Tony Cardenas, 
           Bradley Scott Schneider, Anthony G. Brown, Bonnie 
           Watson Coleman, Juan Vargas, Norma J. Torres, Jared 
           Polis, Stephanie N. Murphy, Sean Patrick Maloney, Julia 
           Brownley, Jerrold Nadler, Diana DeGette, Eleanor Holmes 
           Norton, Peter A. DeFazio, Elijah E. Cummings, Danny K. 
           Davis, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson.
         Gerald E. Connolly, Ben Ray Lujan, Barbara Lee, Gwen 
           Moore, Adam Smith, Steve Cohen, Paul Tonko, Eddie 
           Bernice Johnson, Judy Chu, John Conyers, Jr., John 
           Garamendi, William R. Keating, Coleen Hanabusa, Adam B. 
           Schiff.

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members in this body 
to vote for peace and to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the comments of a single individual should 
not be an excuse to eliminate funding for an entire institution. My 
understanding is that individual has already offered her resignation.
  The United States Institute of Peace is one of the best tools the 
United States has to bring people together--government officials, civil 
society practitioners, and defense experts--to creatively solve 
problems that are some of the world's thorniest issues. Congress 
created USIP for this purpose in 1983.
  USIP applies practical solutions directly in conflict zones and 
provides analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace. 
USIP has specialized teams of mediators, trainers, and others in some 
of the world's most dangerous places, including Iraq and Afghanistan, 
equipping others with the skills necessary to prevent or resolve their 
own violent conflicts before they threaten the United States.
  In 2015, USIP facilitated a local Sunni-Shia accord and decree that 
averted bloodshed and let 380,000 internally displaced persons return 
home.
  In Burma, they trained civic leaders, government officials, and 
police to help achieve a peaceful 2015 election for a more democratic 
government during a delicate transition from autocratic rule to 
democracy.
  USIP works on the ground with local partners on the root causes of 
conflict that all too frequently result in America's military gains of 
diplomatic and development investments going to peace.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. To 
completely eliminate funding for the United States Institute of Peace 
would be a serious mistake.
  Let me thank Mrs. Lowey for the wonderful work she is doing here and 
John Lewis for his leadership. John is an American hero. I think we 
should listen to what John has to say.
  For anyone who doesn't know what the USIP does, it saves lives, lives 
of U.S. servicemembers, military personnel, and civilians around the 
world.
  The United States Institute of Peace stops conflicts before they 
start and works to defuse crises. The Institute provides conflict 
resolution teams and skills that are vital to our diplomats and our 
military forces serving in conflict zones abroad. They are often quiet 
successes, rarely grabbing headlines. After all, a war that doesn't 
happen won't draw near the attention of a raging conflict.
  Military leaders agree. On September 1, a distinguished group of 
retired three- and four-star flag officers who have served our country 
valiantly during some of its most challenging conflicts wrote to 
Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi expressing deep concerns about efforts 
here in the House to eliminate funding for USIP.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the letter.

                                                September 1, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As retired 
     three and four star flag officers who have served our country 
     during some of its most challenging conflicts, from Vietnam 
     to Iraq and Afghanistan, we are writing to express our deep 
     concern over proposed amendments to the current FY 2018 
     appropriations bill now before the House of Representatives 
     that would eliminate funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace.
       We serve on the Institute's Senior Military Advisory Group 
     which, in addition to advising USIP's leadership on current 
     and future conflicts, also guides Institute efforts to 
     partner effectively with our military in conflict zones. USIP 
     has a long and robust record of working closely with its 
     federal partners--including the Department of Defense--to 
     focus on national security priority areas where it brings 
     distinctive capabilities to bear.
       USIP works on the ground with local partners on the root 
     causes of conflict that all too frequently result in 
     America's military gains or diplomatic and development 
     investments going to waste. For example, in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Nigeria, and across the Sahel 
     in Africa, USIP engages at a local level to thwart ISIS' 
     ability to recruit and destabilize America's most important 
     allies in the struggle against extremism USIP's high impact 
     approach gives people the tools to help solve their own 
     problems so America is not drawn into these conflicts.
       No other agency provides these services, and USIP's 
     approach is highly cost effective. In Mahmoudiya, Iraq, for 
     example--a region so violent it was known as the ``Triangle 
     of Death''--USIP partnered with the Army's 10th Mountain 
     Division in 2007 to forge a tribal accord that halted attacks 
     on U.S. and Iraqi forces and drastically reduced casualties. 
     The Army was able to withdraw more than 2,800 troops--80 
     percent of its deployment in the region--thus saving more 
     than $150 million per month. That initiative cost USIP 
     approximately $1 million. A decade later, despite pressure 
     from ISIS, Mahmoudiya remains relatively calm, largely on the 
     basis of that peace accord.
       As citizens and former soldiers, we believe deeply in the 
     mission of the U.S. Institute of Peace as an essential 
     element of our national

[[Page H7128]]

     security architecture. Please ensure that it remains fully 
     funded and capable of continuing its critical work to further 
     U.S. interests and save lives in the world's most challenging 
     conflict zones.
           Sincerely,
     General George W. Casey, Jr., USA (Ret.),
       Chief of Staff of the United States Army ('07-'11).
     Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry, LT General, USA (Ret.),
       U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan ('09-'11), Deputy Chairman, 
     NATO Military Committee ('07-'09), Commander, Combined Forces 
     Command-Afghanistan ('05-'07).
     General Carter Ham, USA (Ret.),
       Commander, U.S. Africa Command ('11-'13), Commander, U.S. 
     Army, Europe ('08-'11).
     Ambassador Douglas Lute, LT General, USA (Ret.),
       United States Permanent Representative to NATO ('13-'17), 
     National Security Council, The White House ('07-'10).
     General Gregory S. Martin, USAF (Ret.),
       Commander, Air Material Command ('03-'05), Commander, U.S. 
     Air Forces in Europe ('00-'03).
     General Raymond T. Odierno, USA (Ret.),
       Chief of Staff of the United States Army ('11-'15), 
     Commander, United States Joint Forces Command ('10-'11), 
     Commander, United States Forces-Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom 
     ('10).
     General Charles F. Wald, USAF (Ret.),
       Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command ('02-'06).

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, USIP is neither a Republican nor a 
Democratic institution. The Institution was created in 1984 by 
bipartisan legislation signed into law by President Reagan. Since then, 
USIP has saved the United States billions of dollars by investing in 
peace. Let me share just one short example of the incredible work that 
USIP has done.
  After 52 years of war and more than a quarter million lives lost, 
Colombia's armed conflict ended with the signing of a peace agreement 
last year in Cartagena. The peace agreement was reached, in no small 
part, thanks to the incredible work of the United States Institute of 
Peace and its chief of operations in Colombia, Ginny Bouvier. Under her 
leadership, USIP trained female mediators, religious organizations, 
Afro-Colombian leaders, and many others in methods to support peaceful 
resolution of conflict.
  Ginny recently passed away, far too young, at the age of 58, but I 
would like to believe that her legacy of peacebuilding in Colombia can 
live on through continued congressional support for USIP.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
harmful amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Engel

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 95 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 880, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $209,000,000)''.
       Page 898, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $209,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking my colleagues and 
fellow co-chairs of the House Tuberculosis Elimination Caucus, Mr. 
Young of Alaska and Mr. Gene Green of Texas. I am grateful for their 
support of this measure and for their work to combat tuberculosis 
around the world. This bipartisan amendment would help move that work 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, America's investments in global health are not 
handouts. Combating disease around the world isn't just some pet 
project to make us feel good about ourselves. When we invest in global 
health, we are investing in our own security and leadership on the 
global stage. After all, infectious diseases don't respect borders, and 
when we fail to fight a dangerous illness or respond to a pandemic 
overseas, we risk having to respond once it reaches our shores.
  At the same time, healthier communities are more protective, more 
stable communities. Healthier countries are stronger partners on the 
world stage. And when the United States helps to advance those 
conditions, we are showing the world what kind of country we are, what 
American values demand of us.
  The reality is we should be investing more in these efforts. One area 
where we need a lot more support is in the fight against tuberculosis.
  TB kills more people worldwide than any other infectious disease. 
This is especially heartbreaking, Mr. Chairman, because we know how to 
prevent TB, and we know how to cure it. We know how to cure it, and 
people are still dying. That is just unfathomable.
  Yet, in 2015, 1.8 million people died from this disease, 10.5 million 
more became infected. One in ten TB patients is also HIV positive, 
making tuberculosis the top killer of people living with HIV. Countries 
with a high prevalence of TB can see their GDP shrink by 4 to 7 
percent.
  The World Health Organization tells us we need an additional $2 
billion every year to control tuberculosis. My amendment would help to 
make up part of that shortfall, ramping up USAID's global health 
programs by $209 million. That would bring our investment in TB 
assistance to $450 million.

                              {time}  1615

  These efforts have a proven track record, Mr. Chairman. In the 
countries where we are working on the problem, incidence of TB has 
dropped by nearly one-fifth since 2000, more than twice as fast as 
countries where we haven't been involved. That is tens of thousands of 
precious lives saved, and we played a major role in that.
  My amendment won't wipe out this disease, Mr. Chairman, but it will 
save lives, it will build on past successes and move us in the 
direction of putting a stop to this killer once and for all.
  I ask all Members to support this bipartisan amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, this amendment would cut funding 
for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs 
account by $209 million. That is a 16 percent reduction in the fight 
against narcotics.
  There is already money in the bill for TB, $241 million, which is the 
same as current levels, and that exceeds the last Obama request and the 
first Trump request for TB. It also includes another $1.35 billion for 
the Global Fund to fight a combination of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB, 
which includes additional funding for TB programs. So there is already 
money in the bill for TB.
  This would cut the International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement Affairs account by $209 million, a 16 percent cut, when it 
is not really needed.
  Funding for this account supports counterdrug and law enforcement 
activities, strengthens the rule of law, and increases border security.
  Mr. Chairman, I just came back with my subcommittee from a trip to 
Ukraine and Georgia, and I understand by seeing it firsthand the 
importance of our assistance that helps governments combat corruption 
and improve the rule of law.

[[Page H7129]]

  A portion of this funding also helps partners in our own hemisphere 
fight drug trafficking and violent crime before it reaches the border 
of the United States.
  Undoubtedly, every agency can do more with more, but the allocation 
for this bill was cut by 17 percent from last year. And rather than cut 
every account by 17 percent, we deliberately and carefully considered 
each program, and directed the funding recommendations to reflect our 
priorities. Among those priorities is funding for TB, which is held at 
last year's level. This means, of course, that other accounts and 
programs took a disproportionately higher cut to make that possible.
  I know the gentleman wants more funds for TB, and I sympathize with 
him in that desire. I can assure him that preserving last year's level 
of funding puts TB in a very rarefied position in this bill, because it 
is treated well.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, let me just say that I hear what the chairman 
is saying. I certainly am a strong supporter of international narcotics 
funding, but the question is: Where do you put the money?
  The International Narcotics funding account is well funded and even 
has money in the pipeline from previous years. Meanwhile, TB control is 
hugely underfunded and continues to kill more people worldwide than any 
other disease. That is why the funding is necessary. So by passing my 
amendment, we can save thousands of lives from this preventable, 
curable disease.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague from New 
York's amendment. TB is the biggest killer of people worldwide, yet the 
current strategies for combating the disease are not keeping pace with 
the burden and complexity.
  In an increasingly connected world, TB will increase its threat to 
U.S. citizens directly. Without investments in new technologies and 
building the systems to diagnose and treat active infections, we risk 
failing even further. Already, scientists estimate 2 million children 
have been infected with multidrug-resistant TB. We can and should be 
doing more to fight this known disease.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this 
amendment to increase funding of bilateral tuberculosis (TB) 
assistance, and I want to thank Representatives Engel (D-NY) and Green 
(D-TX) for joining me. The three of us are Co-Chairs of the 
Tuberculosis Elimination Caucus and have long worked toward that goal. 
This includes domestically, such as in the State of Alaska, which 
suffers from high per-capita TB rates in the United States, but also 
internationally.
  The U.S. Agency for International Development does a tremendous 
amount of work across the globe providing aid. One of its most 
important battles is against TB, which kills more people worldwide than 
any other infectious disease. In 2015 this amounted to 1.8 million 
people dying, out of the 10.4 million affected. This is more than HIV 
and Malaria combined. To make things worse, TB is preventable and 
curable.
  Imagine if the Centers for Disease Control came out and said next 
year there is going to be a new disease. That this disease is going to 
infect over 10 million people and kill almost 20 percent of them in 
just one year. I imagine we would take it very seriously.
  This is not an old world disease. TB is real and it is deadly. 
Pandemics of infectious disease in recent years have shown us the need 
to combat them ahead of time, not wait until it arrives at our shores. 
We have come a long way in combating TB, but more work needs to be 
done.
  This amendment makes that possible and I urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 96 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 889, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,500,000)''.
       Page 898, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, this bill inexplicably defunds UN 
Women.
  What is UN Women?
  UN Women was created by the United Nations in 2010 to direct 
activities on gender equality issues. The organization helps meet the 
most urgent needs of women and girls by supporting women's full 
participation in their country's political, economic, and social life.
  So as I said, this bill inexplicably takes away funding, $8.5 
million, that we are trying to get back from this very important 
program. I think this defunding of this is wrong, it is unwise, it is 
immoral.
  Let me tell you what happens when we abandon the UN Women, because 
this is what we are walking away from: providing services for survivors 
of human trafficking. We are walking away from registering women to 
vote and participate in their political system, including women in the 
peacemaking process. We are walking away from combating child bride 
kidnapping and fighting child marriage. That is what we are walking 
away from today.
  I know we have a lot of issues here in this country. We have been 
battling the hurricanes, and I know our hearts go out to all those 
impacted.
  There is something else that has been going on in this world for 
years now, which is the greatest humanitarian crisis that we have seen 
since World War II, and that is what is happening in Syria. You have 
millions of people fleeing into neighboring countries, running away 
from rape, from murder, from chemical attacks.
  What is the United States doing?
  Oh, well. We are abandoning the Muslims, we are trying to build the 
walls, while we have great allies like Jordan, for example, who have 
now taken in over a million Syrian refugees, including this very young 
girl who was at a program that I had an opportunity to visit when I was 
in Jordan at a facility run by the UN Women where they are working with 
women to give them skills, to teach them.
  This young girl fled her home in Syria under rocket fire, leaving her 
family, her brother killed, and fleeing to Jordan, where she is now 
learning to be a journalist. We are defunding programs like that in 
this bill.
  So we are putting so many women's lives at risk, like Zaad, the girl 
I just talked about, leaving women and girls vulnerable to sex 
trafficking, poverty, homelessness, and hunger; and we say we want to 
try to bring stabilization to these regions across the world.
  Let me tell you what research shows. Research shows that when women 
are empowered, economies grow and societies are more stable with less 
violence. And our own U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, said:

       We want to make sure that our governments support girls and 
     support women, and we should encourage every country to 
     support these basic rights.

  So what are we doing today?
  We are defunding UN Women. As I said, it is inexplicable and it is 
wrong. I think it is actually idiotic.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who 
I think can elucidate even more on this subject.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, who has certainly 
worked with many women, and women who focus on the needs of women 
around the world, and I thank her very much for this very important 
amendment, and that is why I am rising in support of my colleague's 
amendment.
  One of the deficiencies of the fiscal year 2018 State and Foreign 
Operations bill we are considering is the treatment of international 
organizations that serve U.S. interests and help our own resources 
reach farther and deeper. My

[[Page H7130]]

colleague raises the important contribution of UN Women and of U.S. 
support for its work.
  UN Women ensures that the critical role of women is part of the 
international dialogue and that the effects of policies are considered 
on both women and men before they are implemented.
  UN Women works in complex environments like Afghanistan with the 
treatment of women and their involvement in the economy and political 
systems.
  There are these reasons and so much more as to why I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and UN Women. I really am urging 
my friends on the other side of the aisle, as this process continues, 
that we look to renew the funding.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I respectfully withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House 
Resolution 500, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to 
strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to engage the gentleman from 
Kentucky in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, CB&I, is a major 
international engineering procurement and construction firm with 
headquarters in The Woodlands, Texas, where I live. Their headquarters 
is a mere mile from my home.
  The company employs nearly 34,000 people across the United States, 
and more than 1,000 people in the Eighth Congressional District of 
Texas.
  CB&I built a world class petrochemical refinery in the Republic of 
Colombia for Colombia's state-owned company, valued at nearly $8 
billion.
  A commercial dispute has arisen as a result of construction of the 
refinery. And in an attempt to gain leverage, entirely unfounded and 
unprincipled criminal charges have been filed against current and 
former CB&I executives, both of whom are U.S. citizens.
  Is it the intent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the Secretary 
of State should report to the Committee on Appropriations on any 
efforts by the Colombian Government to use its criminal process against 
any United States citizen to advance commercial or political 
objectives?
  Is it further the intent of the committee that the Department of 
State should engage with Colombia to examine and report on allegations 
by United States citizens of procedural or substantive due process of 
law violations relative to commercial disputes?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing 
this issue to our attention. The committee takes seriously reports of 
Americans abroad being treated unfairly, denied due process, or being 
used as political pawns.

                              {time}  1630

  Colombia is a friend and ally of the United States and an important 
trading partner. We expect the Government of Colombia to ensure our 
citizens are treated fairly in their courts. The committee will follow 
up on this matter with the Department of State to ensure our Embassy is 
engaged on this issue. And I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
matter to our attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Hastings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 889, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 902, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $81,600,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the members of this committee for 
allowing the opportunity to present this amendment. The extraordinary 
work of Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Rogers, as well as Mr. Frelinghuysen and 
other members of the Appropriations Committee, are deeply appreciated 
by all of us.
  This amendment adds an additional $12 million to the Economic Support 
Fund to increase assistance to the Ethiopian-Israeli community.
  Through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, our Embassy in Tel 
Aviv is already engaged in a number of valuable partnerships with the 
Ethiopian community in Israel. These programs are commendable, and I 
hope that their funding remains robust.
  My amendment would extend a modest amount of aid toward a different 
subset of the community, Ethiopian-Israeli youth.
  Israel's Ministry of Education recently completed a long-term review 
to determine how to best meet the needs of the community. The plan that 
was presented and adopted included approximately $20 million for 
programs to improve integration of the Ethiopian community into Israeli 
society, focusing principally on education and, more specifically, 
language and math skills. Israeli organizations that have focused on 
this area for years have had great successes.
  My first visit to Israel was, rather ironically because of today's 
events, with Mrs. Lowey and other Members. During that period of time, 
we visited one of the areas where Ethiopian Jews were being absorbed. 
And since that time, I have followed actively Israel's continuing 
courageous concerns with reference to those from not only areas that 
are right there, but as far away as Ethiopia.
  They work with American philanthropic organizations such as the 
Jewish Federations of North America, and private stakeholders, but, 
even with the new government funding, do not have sufficient resources 
to meet the needs of these communities.
  Supporting this type of programming would be a logical and effective 
way to continue improving upon our country's bilateral relationship and 
would build upon programs that are already implemented on the ground.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this matter, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. As I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, 
the bill before us today contains $3.1 billion in a Foreign Military 
Financing program funded for Israel, which fully funds the last year of 
the current memorandum of understanding with Israel.
  This amendment would reduce the Foreign Military Financing program 
account by more than $80 million. In addition to Israel, this account 
provides funds for Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Colombia, and Ukraine. The 
President's budget request proposed deep cuts to this account, which we 
clearly rejected in the committee mark.
  I should also note that the bill already provides over $6 billion for 
humanitarian assistance. I do appreciate the gentleman's desire to help 
the Ethiopian-Israeli community, but I cannot support an $80 million 
cut to security assistance. So I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Hastings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 98 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.

[[Page H7131]]

  

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 889, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 902, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $72,600,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds $20 million to the 
Economic Support Fund for the purpose of providing critically needed 
humanitarian aid to peoples persecuted by ISIS. These groups include 
Yazidi survivors of sexual slavery, as well as Christian, Shabak, and 
other religious and ethnic minorities.
  Footnote right there, Mr. Chairman. I found it interesting in the 
past few weeks that the Rohingya in Myanmar, formerly Burma, are, 
literally, expelled from their country. While I, as well as others, am 
proud of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the extraordinary work that she did, and 
her Nobel Prize, I am puzzled by the continuing conduct which mimics 
genocide in that area, and this is not about that, but I would be 
remiss if I didn't mention it.
  There are a lot of examples I could highlight to stress the 
importance of this amendment, but I want to focus briefly on the 
Yazidi. The crimes committed by the Islamic State against the Yazidi 
are amongst the most horrible we have heard of--mass executions, 
organized kidnapping, child soldiers, and sexual slavery. At the height 
of its power, the Islamic State sold girls and women in the open at 
slave markets.
  In a recent article titled ``Freed From ISIS, Yazidi Women Return in 
`Severe Shock,' '' The New York Times quotes Dr. Nagham Nawzat Hasan, a 
Yazidi gynecologist who has treated over 1,000 of the rape victims. He 
describes the victims as virtually ``unconscious'' and ``in severe 
shock and psychological upset.''
  Thousands of women remain enslaved, and those who have escaped or 
been rescued, for them, the road to recovery is daunting.
  As we debate how best to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in 
humanitarian aid, we must ensure this community is provided with 
support. Time is of the essence, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Florida for raising this important issue. The plight of religious 
and ethnic minorities persecuted by ISIS has been, and remains, a 
priority for this committee, including the need for psychosocial 
support services to those affected by the crisis. That is why ample 
funding has been provided to assist communities affected by ISIS, 
including persecuted religious and ethnic minorities.
  The fiscal year 2017 Security Assistance Appropriations Act provided 
over $1 billion for programs to counter ISIS and address the needs of 
those affected by ISIS. Funding was also provided in the fiscal year 
2017 regular appropriations bill.
  Finally, we included language on this very issue in the fiscal year 
2018 bill, including designating $10 million for programs to protect 
vulnerable and persecuted religious minorities. The amendment, however, 
would reduce the Foreign Military Financing account by more than $70 
million. This account funds our friends and allies like Israel, Egypt, 
Jordan, Tunisia, Colombia, Ukraine. The President's budget request 
proposed deep cuts to this account, which we clearly rejected in the 
committee mark.
  In short, we have already addressed the gentleman's concerns, and I 
cannot support such a large cut to security assistance.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of this 
distinguished committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my 
colleague who is always there to speak out against injustice and to 
help respond to the tremendous challenges we have. I was as shocked as 
the gentleman had been, frankly, on the recent actions in Burma or 
Myanmar, and I look forward to addressing that with him as well.
  The reports from the ISIS-controlled areas are truly horrific, 
especially for the women and children who have been most vulnerable to 
the horrors of ISIS control. In these cases, support for the emotional 
and mental recovery of victims is as important as the standard 
humanitarian assistance of food, shelter, and water.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to address 
these issues because we have to speak out and act and respond to these 
horrors.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 889, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 1140, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, yesterday, we voted $8 billion for the 
tragedies in the Gulf Coast. I wake up this morning and I find out we 
are supposed to vote for another $8 billion, which is fine. But I 
think, as a result, we should also look extra hard to find ways to see 
if, in the bill as it passed out of the Appropriations Committee, maybe 
we can spend a little less somewhere.
  I have a very modest suggestion for cutting a little bit of spending 
here. I would like a 1 percent reduction in the Economic Support Fund. 
This was in the Trump budget, combined with another fund, and subject 
to a 40 percent cut, I think because President Trump wanted to make 
good on his promise to put America first.
  I realize political reality is such that we will not get the 40 
percent cut that President Trump wanted, but I ask for a small, 
approximately 1 percent, cut of $12 million.
  Part of the money of the Economic Support Fund goes for universities 
abroad. Sometimes these universities have, like our own universities, a 
little bit of an anti-American, perhaps anti-Israeli bent; and for that 
reason, I think there is no question but that we should eagerly look 
forward to the chance to cut the spending in the Economic Support Fund 
by 1 percent, particularly in light of the fact that we have now a $20 
trillion debt and, particularly, because later today, I bet, after 
spending $8 billion yesterday, we are going to go for another $8 
billion today.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for support for this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H7132]]

  

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the overseas scholarship 
programs are popular among our Members because most of these programs 
support American educational institutions abroad.
  Students that participate and receive an education based on American 
values help shape their societies. They are more likely to embrace 
democratic principles, counter extremism, and foster greater economic 
opportunity. These programs are an important part of the so-called soft 
power of America.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, we love the chairman. We just feel that we 
are kind of broke here, and a 1 percent cut on something going for 
programs abroad would not be out of line.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 101 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as the 
designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 896, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 907, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, first I would just like to thank 
Subcommittee Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, along with the 
full committee and Chairman Frelinghuysen and their staff for their 
willingness to help with this amendment, as well as for all the hard 
work that they have done in putting together this important funding 
bill.
  I also want to recognize Congressman Donovan, who is not able to be 
here today, but I offer this amendment along with him because it does 
seek to increase funding for the U.S. African Development Foundation by 
$15 million, bringing it up to the $30 million that it was awarded back 
in fiscal year `17.
  The U.S. African Development Foundation is an independent U.S. 
government agency that excels at doing development differently. It uses 
small grants to focus on ventures in the fields of food security, 
healthcare, education, and technology. Our taxpayer money is maximized 
to its full potential, as host African governments invest a share of 
their own money in this grant program. These grant programs are leading 
to self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship in countries that are plagued 
by conflict across the world.
  In fact, the Center for Global Development has ranked the USADF 
second only to the Millennium Challenge Corporation on the maximizing 
foreign efficiency scale.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. African Development Foundation represents the 
very best of modernized foreign assistance because they are so 
innovative, and I am honored to support it. I hope the rest of my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the 
gentleman's concern, but not enough to support his amendment. As he 
knows, the administration proposed to close the United States African 
Development Foundation.
  Given the significant reduction in our subcommittee's allocation, it 
would be very easy to agree to the administration's request. The bill 
before us, however, does not close the foundation, but instead doubles 
the requested amount.
  If our conference allocation is more generous, then perhaps we can be 
more generous with the foundation. Until then, however, the bill, as 
reported out of committee, strikes, I think, the appropriate balance of 
assistance and diplomacy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands amendment No. 106 will not be 
offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 107 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Yoho

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 110 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division G (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     made available in support of the United Nations Human Rights 
     Council, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner 
     for Human Rights, or the United Nations Relief and Works 
     Agency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Yoho) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, this is a simple, straightforward amendment that 
would limit the taxpayers' burden of hundreds of millions of dollars to 
the bodies at the United Nations that work against America's interests 
and the interests of our ally, Israel.
  Since its reformation as the Human Rights Council about 10 years ago, 
this U.N. agency has operated with a singular focus to isolate and 
delegitimize one of America's closest friends and allies, Israel.
  In fact, Israel stands alone as the only Nation to have an entire 
agenda, Item 7, devoted solely to it.
  Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, but one would never 
know that if you only saw what came out of the Human Rights Council. In 
fact, while Israel is targeted repeatedly for unwarranted criticism, 
some of the world's worst human rights abusers are ignored.
  When the body that was created to promote and protect global human 
rights has its agenda driven by the very worst human rights abusers, 
you have to stop and ask: How does this make sense? And why should the 
United States continue to legitimize this agenda by remaining part of 
that body?
  The same goes for the U.N.'s Office for High Commissioner for Human 
Rights, which serves as the secretariat for the Council.
  There is an endemic and systemic anti-Israeli bias and agenda at the 
Council, and it is the High Commissioner's Office that serves and fuels 
this agenda. In fact, this is the office that is currently putting 
together the BDS blacklist for the Council, and the High Commissioner 
has signaled his intent to publish this list. This effectively puts the 
Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner at the forefront of the 
anti-Israeli boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. There is 
simply no justification for the American taxpayers to fund this sort of 
activity aimed at isolating and delegitimizing our ally, Israel, and 
harming our national interests.
  There is also no justification for the American taxpayers to support 
our participation at a body that enables human rights abusers. When 
Cuba, Venezuela, China, Saudi Arabia, Burundi, and others are allowed 
to sit on the Human Rights Council and dictate

[[Page H7133]]

its direction, you know that the body has strayed far from its mandate.
  In fact, these countries use the Council to actually shield 
themselves from criticism, turning the body meant to promote and 
protect human rights into a tool for the world's worst despots to hide 
the atrocities that are coming at home.
  Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen's amendment No. 110 to the State and Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho) for taking leadership on this as well.
  This amendment would prohibit funds from contributing to a number of 
United Nations agencies that endlessly single out our ally, the State 
of Israel, for poor treatment.
  There are numerous issues with these agencies, but as for UNRWA, the 
very size of the agency is an underlying problem. UNRWA was created to 
address the short-term needs of refugees, but it has perpetuated the 
problem.
  As of July 1, 2014, UNRWA had 30,252 employees for 5\1/2\ million 
registered persons in a number of Middle Eastern countries and 
territories, compared to the U.N. High Commission for Refugees staff of 
7,700 in 2013, which provides support for 42.9 million refugees in more 
than 100 countries. The proportion is just way out of scale when you 
compare those kinds of agencies. UNRWA is out of control.
  Additionally, UNRWA's grounds have been used to store rockets. Israel 
has been fired upon from UNRWA facilities, and UNRWA has employed 
individuals affiliated with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. 
These are just a few examples of how U.N. agencies have mismanaged 
funds. It is unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars contribute to 
this problem.
  I thank the Congressman and Congresswoman for offering this important 
amendment, and I hope that my colleagues support it so that the United 
Nations can get to helping individuals who need it the most.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, by passing this amendment, Congress will send a 
very clear message to these agencies and to the entire U.N. that the 
status quo is no longer, that we want to see the reforms that we want 
to address now before we return to full participation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment in an effort to change the status quo at the U.N. by starting 
with the most egregious of the entities, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, the agencies listed in this amendment are by no 
means perfect, and on multiple occasions I have condemned some of their 
actions, both publicly and behind closed doors. But I do believe we 
lose the ability to influence both agencies' agendas towards the United 
States' priorities if we cut off all U.S. funding.
  Despite my past criticisms of their significant shortcomings, I 
continue to believe that each of these agencies plays a pivotal role in 
providing critical services for the Palestinian people. We should never 
lose focus on helping the people who need aid the most.
  We should also think strategically about U.S. interests. The United 
Nations Relief and Works Agency is an effective alternative to Hamas. 
Each year, the agency provides health services to more than 3 million 
individuals, and education to half a million students in the West Bank 
and Gaza. Cutting off funding will simply strengthen Hamas by driving 
countless individuals into Hamas-controlled schools and services.
  Additionally, the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for 
Human Rights highlight the voices of the oppressed and underserved 
globally and have elevated the rights of women and sexual assault 
victims.

                              {time}  1700

  As human rights are increasingly threatened around the globe, now is 
not the time to walk away from these agencies. I oppose the amendment 
because I strongly believe that here in Congress we must do all we can 
to preserve and advance U.S. interests and influence. This amendment 
would diminish U.S. influence at a time when our Nation's global 
standing is already slipping.
  Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to take this time briefly to address the concerns the 
gentleman from Florida has raised with regard to these organizations, 
many of which I share. That is why the base bill includes some pretty 
tough conditions on these organizations. In fact, these conditions have 
never been stronger with regard to the U.N. Human Rights Council.
  No funds can be provided until the Secretary of State certifies to 
Congress that participation in the Council is, one, in the national 
security interest of the United States and, two, the Council is taking 
significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item and 
increase transparency in the election of its members to the Council.
  We raised these issues, Mr. Chairman, with Ambassador Haley when she 
appeared before our committee. We all know she is actively engaging in 
these matters, and our conditions give her additional tools which she 
can use to get the Council to make some real reforms.
  Next, the bill prohibits funds for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency 
until the Secretary can certify to the Congress that this organization 
is conducting regular inspections of its installations to ensure they 
are only used for humanitarian purposes and that the content of 
educational materials does not induce excitement. These conditions 
provide Secretary Tillerson with leverage to demand accountability and 
reform.
  Also, we should be mindful that the President is reengaging with 
Israel and the Palestinians on a Middle East peace deal, which we all 
know is difficult and a very complicated task. Prohibiting funds to 
UNRWA at this time may have an adverse impact on those delicate 
processes the President and his team have before them.
  This committee has and will continue to follow these issues very 
closely. It is a top priority, and the tough conditions in the bill 
reflect that.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, cutting off funds to UNRWA would force it 
to shut down. If UNRWA shuts down, they will not be able to operate, 
and all of the services that it provides will fall to the predominant 
power, which is Hamas. I don't think this is what the gentleman wants.
  The fact of the matter is UNRWA, right now, provides education, food, 
shelter, and a whole host of services in very dire conditions. Over the 
last number of years, we have seen 90 percent of the tap waters not fit 
for human consumption, rolling blackouts 20 to 22 hours a day, and 
UNRWA, in this context, is making sure that necessities like education 
and economic opportunity exist.
  It would be counterproductive to cut off UNRWA because somebody is 
going to have to help the refugees.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As stated, now is not the time to walk away from the U.N. Human 
Rights Council. This amendment would do nothing to change the agencies 
for the better. It would only weaken our ability to influence the 
advancements we want to see. We can't be leaders if we are not at the 
table.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H7134]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 112 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Gaetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 113 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish to introduce amendment No. 113.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division G (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to any of the following:
       (1) The Dalal Mughrabi High School for Girls-Gaza.
       (2) The Dalal Mughrabi High School for Girls-Hebron.
       (3) The Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School for Girls-Hebron.
       (4) The Shadia Abu Ghazaleh School for Girls-Gaza.
       (5) The Shadia Abu Ghazalah High School for Boys-Jabaliya.
       (6) The Khalil Al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) Elementary School for 
     Girls-Hebron.
       (7) The Martyr Khalil Al-Wazir Elementary School for Boys-
     Hebron.
       (8) The Martyr Khalil Al-Wazir Elementary School for Boys-
     Jenin.
       (9) The Abu Jihad High School for Boys-Jenin.
       (10) The Abu Jihad High School for Boys-Hebron.
       (11) The Salah Khalaf Elementary School for Girls-Gaza.
       (12) The Salah Khalaf Junior High School-Gaza.
       (13) The Martyr Abu Iyad School-Rafah.
       (14) The Salah Khalaf School-Tulkarem.
       (15) The Martyr Ahmed Yassin School for Boys-Jenin.
       (16) The Martyr Abdullah Azzam Elementary School for Boys-
     Jenin.
       (17) The Abu Ali Iyad High School for Girls-Qalqilya.
       (18) The Martyr Nash'at Abu Jabara High School for Girls-
     Tulkarem.
       (19) The Abu Ali Mustafa Elementary School for Boys-Jenin.
       (20) The Abu Ali Mustafa Elementary School for Girls-Jenin.
       (21) The Mustafa Hafez Elementary School for Boys-Khan 
     Younis.
       (22) The Mustafa Hafez School-Gaza.
       (23) The Martyr Izzat Abu Al-Rubb High School-Jenin.
       (24) The Martyr Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam High School for Boys-
     Yaa'bad.
       (25) The Martyr Izz Al-Din (Al-Qassam) Elementary School-
     Jenin.
       (26) The Martyr Osama Al-Najjar School-Khan Yunis.
       (27) The Kamal Adwan High School for Boys-Rafah.
       (28) The Martyr Saa'd Sayel Elementary School for Boys-
     Nablus.
       (29) The Amin Al-Husseini Elementary School-El-Bireh.
       (30) The Hassan Salameh Junior High School for Girls-Gaza.
       (31) The Hassan Salameh Elementary School-Gaza.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not advance the interests of the United States 
to fund schools that incite terror and hate throughout the world. 
Thirty-four of those such schools exist in Judea and Samaria, the area 
currently controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and this amendment 
would defund 34 schools that are named after terrorists, killers, and 
Nazi collaborators. I will provide a few examples.
  Dalal Mughrabi led the coastal road massacre by hijacking a bus. She 
killed 37 people, including 12 children, and injured another 70. Three 
schools are named after her. Two students attending one of these 
schools were interviewed on March 27, 2014. They said: ``Dalal Mughrabi 
is a great leader. She walks among us, and I'm personally proud to 
attend the Dalal Mughrabi School.''
  A second little girl who attended that school said: ``My life's 
ambition is to reach the level of the martyr fighter Dalal Mughrabi.''
  Khalil al-Wazir headed the PLO terrorist organization's military 
wing. He planned attacks that killed over 125 Israelis. Five schools 
are named after him.
  Salah Khalaf led the Black September terrorist organization. He 
planned the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and 
the murder of two American diplomats in the Sudan. Four schools are 
named after him.
  Abdullah Azzam was cofounder of al-Qaida, the mentor of Osama bin 
Laden, known as the ``Father of Modern Jihad.''
  Abu Ali Iyad was the head of the Fatah military in the 1960s. A high 
school for girls carries his name.
  Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi collaborator during World War II. He 
moved to Berlin where he served as a Hitler associate. In Yugoslavia, 
he was designated a war criminal. When the Nazi offered to free some 
Jewish children, Al-Husseini prohibited their release, resulting in 
5,000 Jewish children being sent to the gas chambers. An elementary 
school is named after him.
  Hassan Salameh was also a Nazi operative. He was sent by the Nazis 
during World War II to poison the water supply in British-controlled 
areas near Tel Aviv. Two schools are named after him.
  Mr. Chairman, I care deeply for the education of our youth, but we 
have to demand that curriculums be reformed so that the schools that 
American taxpayers fund do not promote hate.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I also applaud the leadership of 
Representative Gaetz on this important amendment No. 113 to the State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill.
  This commonsense amendment prohibits American taxpayer dollars from 
supporting Palestinian elementary schools that are named for 
Palestinian terrorists who have murdered innocent human beings. Many of 
these terrorists have murdered children who are no different than the 
very children in the schools named after them.
  Dalal Mughrabi, as was mentioned earlier, a Palestinian terrorist, 
blew herself up on a bus in 1978, killing 37 Israelis, including 13 
children. Her name is plastered on countless elementary schools, summer 
camps, and memorials around Palestinian Authority-controlled 
territories in Israel.
  I applaud Denmark, Norway, and other countries that have frozen funds 
from U.N.-affiliated Palestinian organizations that name their 
buildings after terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi.
  The United States Congress should have undivided moral clarity on 
this issue in this year's appropriations bill. We cannot use taxpayer 
dollars to fund Palestinian incitement to murder innocents, and that is 
why I introduced legislation to stop sending American aid to the 
Palestinian Authority until they end their practice of financially 
supporting terrorists and the families of terrorists. We must end U.S. 
contributions to the PA's campaign of incitement wherever we find it.
  I thank Mr. Gaetz for offering this important amendment, and I hope 
it passes with unanimous support, as it should.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114 
printed in part B of House Report 115-295.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 115 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-295.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 116 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-295.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 118 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-295.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lamborn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3354) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2018, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[[Page H7135]]

  

                          ____________________