Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. President, is it possible to ask at this hour for a Democratic Senator to sign one of these Democratic objections by unanimous consent? Is that within the House rules?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, although I have very serious concerns, I rise today in support of this conference report. It is not a perfect product, but I believe it is a compromise we can all live with. By passing this conference report, Congress demonstrates its commitment to the employment, education and health needs of all Americans. So much is at stake. I urge you to support it. I want to commend Chairman John Porter, Ranking Member Obey, my other colleagues on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee and the subcommittee staff for their tireless work to get us here today. I want to especially thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for working with me to address the needs of my constituents and all Americans. For some in America, the economy is booming and unemployment is at its lowest rate in 30 years. But there are others. In the congressional districts on the north side of the Chicago metro area, there are more jobs than people. In my district, the south side of Chicago and south suburbs, there are more people than jobs. And what about health care? While the economy was booming, the number of Americans uninsured or under-insured has increased by several million. We should not, and cannot settle for this! This conference report provides the opportunity for us to leverage our resources and the benefits of this booming economy, to ensure that no American is left behind. There may be some members of this House who disagree with the programs that Labor-H provides, but it is in our national interest to help those we represent receive skills training to move into an economy that is becoming less industrial and more service oriented. It is in our national interest to provide educational opportunities so every American has a strong foundation that will serve them as they pursue their dreams. But education in the head and money in the bank mean nothing if there is no health in the body. So it is most definitely in our national interest to ensure that every American has the health care they need by increasing investment in research, prevention and treatment. However, as I stated when I began, despite some of the positive aspects of this bill, there are four areas which I find problematic. (1) The FY 2002 advance for LIHEAP was eliminated. Advance appropriations for LIHEAP are vitally necessary so states like Illinois can properly plan before the summer and winter for any severe weather that puts some of our most vulnerable citizens at risk. No one ever wants to be put in the position of deciding between food for their children and heat for their homes. (2) The FY 2002 advance for the Child Care and Development Block Grant was eliminated. This is a missed opportunity to show ``family values,'' especially to parents who are making the transition from welfare to work. (3) The immigration amnesty provisions in the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the conference report are inadequate. In whole, the Latino Immigration and Fairness Act simply tries to bring fairness and justice to our nation's immigration laws by keeping families together, especially the families of Central American and Carribean refugees who fled civil unrest in their homelands. (4) Although I support the New Markets initiative attached to this omnibus conference report, I object to the charitable choice language because it allows for federally funded employment discrimination. Despite the fact that charitable choice provisions were included in legislation signed in October, I still believe civil rights and constitutional problems exist, and we should not overlook them. Even with these objections, I can think of 108.9 billion reasons to support this conference report. The budget authority for the Labor-HHS-Education bill is $108.910 billion. Education funding is $42.1 billion, a $6.5 billion or 18 percent increase over FY2000. Funding to train America's workforce is $11.9 billion, a $664 million of 6 percent increase over FY2000. Funding for the Department of Health and Human Services is $48.8 billion, a $6.6 billion or 16 percent increase over 2000. Specifically, this omnibus conference report contains: $2.9 billion to expand Youth Job Training Programs, $175 million or 7 percent over last year--which will train 812,000 disadvantaged youth, an increase of 78,000 over last year. $3.2 billion for Adult Job Training Programs, $63 million or 2 percent over last year--which will train 1.6 million adults who need skills training--223,000 more than were trained last year. $20.5 billion for NIH, a $2.5 billion or 14 percent increase over last year to expand the federal investment in biomedical research. $1.8 billion for Ryan White AIDS Programs, a $213 million or 13 percent increase; and $767 million for CDC AIDS prevention, an increase of $147 million or 24 percent. $350 million for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative, an increase of $99.1 million. $1.7 billion for Community Health Centers, an increase of $150 million or 15 percent; plus an additional $125 million for the Community Access Program. $185 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase of $37 million over FY 2000. $45 million for Historically Black Graduate Institutions, an increase of $14 million over FY 2000. Again, I want to reiterate my support for this omnibus conference report. I want to thank Chairman Porter and Ranking Member Obey and their staffs for working with me. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to see you retiring from Congress, but I want to congratulate you on the work you have done as a legislator, on your distinguished career and your dedication to public service. I wish you and your family well in your future endeavors.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1880, the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act. This bipartisan legislation holds great promise for reducing the health status gap between our Nation's majority populations and our ethnic minority and medically underserved communities, helping to ensure that no American is left behind. Mr. Speaker, the bill's most central feature, section 1, which was H.R. 2391, which I proposed a year and a half ago, elevates the Office of Research on Minority Health at the National Institutes of Health to ``Center'' status and puts these health disparities on the exact same parity that exists with other prioritized health disparity issues at the National Institutes of Health. Despite the national economic prosperity and double digit growth for NIH, the health status gap amongst African Americans and other underserved populations is getting worse and not better. As a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I had the opportunity during our hearings to carefully review the program activities and priorities of the NIH and to question the researchers who carry out such vital work. The unsung hero of today's legislation, who is not a Member of Congress, but certainly the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan was before the Subcommittee on Appropriations in the Senate, and Dr. Sullivan shared with me testimony that he had recently presented to that Subcommittee on the Institute of Medicine study that demonstrated a disturbingly low level of support that is funding support for cancer research among minorities through the National Cancer Institute. To improve the response to minority health, Dr. Sullivan recommended that the Office of Research of Minority Health should be elevated to ``Center'' status because the existing structure at NIH did not adequately address or prioritize the issue of health disparities. After asking scores of questions to the NIH director and the directors of the Institutes and Centers during the last year's hearings about these disparities, I became more convinced than ever that the Office of Research and Minority Health needed to be elevated to ``Center'' status. Consequently, I worked with Dr. Sullivan and other health care professionals to fashion a bill that would do just that. And so, Mr. Speaker, today S. 1880, among other vital provisions of the bill, authorizes the director of the National Center, in collaboration with other NIH institutes and centers, to establish a comprehensive plan and budget for the conduct and support of all minority health and other health disparities research at NIH. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, passage of this bill is an important first step, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who played an important leadership role, including Senators Kennedy and Frist, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the unsung hero on the legislative side of this, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who walked this bill through a number of hurdles, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference report. This conference report is not a perfect product, but I think it is a good compromise and one that we can all live with. Passing this conference report is important to demonstrate America's leadership abroad. The aid provided in this bill can significantly improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Too much is at stake in this conference report; and despite some of its shortcomings, I urge Members' support for this conference report. I want to start my remarks by commending the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, and the other members of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the subcommittee staff for the work that they have done to get us here today. I want to especially thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me in the subcommittee to improve some sections of this conference report with respect to Africa and those countries that are not as fortunate as the United States. If the United States is to maintain its position as a global leader, we must act like one and assist those countries most in need. This conference report goes a long way in doing just that. There may be some Members of this body who disagree, but it is in our national interests to create opportunities and spread stability throughout the world by combating infectious diseases, poverty, working for conflict resolution, enhancing democratization, and fostering the conditions for economic growth. This conference report, Mr. Speaker, moves us in that direction. The budget authority for the Foreign Operations Conference Report was $14.8 billion. Even though this amount is just shy of the President's request, I think it does tremendous good. Consider this: this conference report fully funds the President's request for $435 million in international debt relief, it contains $315 million to combat HIV/ AIDS worldwide. In July of this year, this conference report was insufficient regarding the African Development Bank and the African Development Fund. I worked with the subcommittee markup, the full committee markup and floor consideration to ensure that these accounts were increased. I am pleased to say that this conference report includes $6.1 million for the African Development Bank and $100 million for the African Development Fund. This conference report includes $425 million for international family planning, and under the chairman's leadership, the conference report contains large increases for the child survival and disease account, more than $248 million over fiscal year 2000. Within this account, $60 million is included for tuberculosis, $45 million for malaria, $50 million for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented progress towards democratic rule and open markets. This is why I had hoped and continue to hope that the development fund for Africa would be included as a separate account. As a separate account, DFA funding would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and development priorities of our African partners. In July, when this bill was first being considered on the House Floor, I said, ``In turning our attention to some important regions of the world, we should not turn our back on others.'' This conference report demonstrates that the U.S. has not turned its back on the world. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member, and their staffs for all of the work that they have done and for listening to and addressing my concerns. Again, I want to reiterate my support for this conference report.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished legislator, a paragon of virtue and a national treasure--Congressman Sidney Yates from my home state of Illinois. I am deeply saddened by the news that Sid Yates died last night. I join my colleagues in taking the time to honor this truly remarkable man for his invaluable contribution to this nation. During this time of sorrow for his family, I want them to know that I hold them in my heart and in my prayers. Mr. Yates was first elected in 1948, and for four decades served as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I am honored to now fill his seat. As the member who coined the appropriations moniker ``College of Cardinals,'' he spent 20 years as Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Sidney Yates was a staunch advocate for the arts, and a defender of the environment. He embodied all that is just and virtuous about public service. Through his exemplary tenure, Sidney Yates typified what it truly means to be called, ``the honorable.'' Mr. Yates was considered to me, generous with his time and extremely helpful to me as a new legislator. On December 14, 1995, Mr. Yates introduced me after I took the oath of office, and continued to serve as a guide and teacher. As the Dean of the Illinois delegation, his courageous and principled stands on issues and legislation were inspirational--this despite great pressure to do otherwise. I believe I speak for every member of this body when I say we will continue to be guided by the light of Sid Yates' leadership, public service, experience and wisdom. I will miss my good friend and trusted mentor.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. My amendment increases funding for the African Development Bank by $3 million to a total of $6.1 million, the original request by the administration and the amount approved by the Senate. I am not completely sure about the reasons that the House continues to short fund the African Development Bank, but let me tell my colleagues why I think the House should support my amendment. Five years ago, the African Development Bank was in serious trouble. Management was in disarray, and they had exhibited poor financials. What a difference 5 years has made, however. Since then, the United States has led top-to-bottom reform with new management, a total rewrite of the Charter, scrubbed balance sheets and restructuring of capital and voting shares. Steady and determined United States engagement in the institution, including erasing our arrears, has gained us the leading voice in the leading African Development Institution. In recent years, the primary United States objective with the African Development Bank has been to support and promote fundamental management and operational reforms. Specific reforms achieved include a complete reorganization with significant staff cuts, including the replacement of 70 percent of its managers. Senior officials, including board members, are now subject to term limits, and the private sector development unit has been upgraded. Independent units for Risk Management, Financial Control, Procurement, and Environment were created and staffed while major progress has been made and achieved in reforming the bank's procurement system. The proportion of total arrears to outstanding loans has been significantly reduced through a stronger arrears clearance policy, and a disbursement of new bank resources to the African Development Bank is tied to reform implementation. On top of all of this, an information disclosure policy that was developed in partnership with the NGOs is now in place. What a change in just 5 years. To ensure local interest as well as our own national interest, new protective procedures are in place. There is now increased nonregional ownership of the bank to 40 percent, with new voting rules requiring a 70 percent supermajority on major issues. These changes guarantee that key actions can be blocked and no substantive decision can be taken without substantial nonregional support. Financial rating. These changes have resonated throughout the financing and bond rating community. All recent evaluations of the AfDB by private rating agencies, Moody's, Standard & Poors, Fitch/IBCA, acknowledge that the institution has been through an in-depth reform following the management shuffle implemented by President Kabbaj in 1995. President Kabbaj has implemented major reforms affecting nearly all areas of the bank: credit policy, asset-liability management, development of lending activities. As a result of these reforms, the credit rating agencies have raised the AfDB's rating for its highly rated nonregional shareholders. To quote the Fitch/IBCA rating agency, ``These reforms help restore the confidence of the shareholders, notably in non-African countries which . . . now attach increasing importance to the Bank's capacity to remain economically viable.'' Another quote states, ``Moody's rates the long-term debt of African Development Bank AAA . . . At these levels, the AfDB is rated at the top of Moody's rating scale. . . .'' The United States has a major stake in the successful development in Africa and is now engaged more intensively than ever. The African Development Bank, through hard loan operations and concessional financing, is uniquely positioned to help advance our interests and economic development in the region. United States investment in the Bank produces significant leverage: historically for every one United States dollar paid in capital, the bank has loaned about $120. What an amazing return. Steady and determined United States engagement in this institution, Mr. Chairman, including erasing our arrears, has gained us the leading voice in leading the African development institution. In light of solid progress on this wide-ranging reform agenda, the United States has agreed to participate in the 8-year, $41 million, 5th General Capital Increase for the Bank authorized by Congress in fiscal year 2000. We have seen that active United States engagement has produced sweeping reforms in Bank operations to strengthen its balance sheet, internal governance, and effectiveness. At a time when an effective United States role in Africa has never been more important, our support of the African Development Bank is a modest, but essential, investment in our future. We need to deliver upon our commitments.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment of the gentleman from California, which is designated to strike $4.9 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is obviously critical to the next amendment because it stands fundamentally as the offset of the next amendment that I am offering to be considered. So I am hoping that we are able to determine the status of the Royce amendment because it does have implications for subsequent amendments.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my understanding under the unanimous consent request last night is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) was entitled, under the agreement, to speak on his amendment for 10 minutes and that this was the appropriate location for that amendment and the discussion this morning.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman would not object to the gentleman from California's unanimous consent request, because that unanimous consent request would have provided the necessary offset for my amendment that would have made my amendment in compliance with the gentleman's stated prior reasons for his objections. Because the gentleman has objected, I have no choice but to concede the point of order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we began this debate by saying that this was a bad bill, but now the bad bill has become not only a terrible bill but terrible disposition expressed by the majority about Africa and its ability to handle the resources associated with providing for what the President of the United States has indicated a threat to the national security of the United States. What this bill fundamentally says in light of the gentleman's disposition is that lives in the Middle East somehow are just a little bit different or a little bit more precious than lives in Africa. There are 5,000 Africans who are dying every day associated with the AIDS disease and the AIDS crisis. The export earning potential that we passed, the by-product of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the debt service is designed to save health care and reprioritize issues like education and health care on sub-Saharan Africa's continent. That is what is so critical indeed in this bill. A number of my colleagues have come to the floor of the Congress today and said, yes, AIDS is a problem; yes, all of these other problems exist in the world, but what we have to recognize is that a significant portion of this bill confronts very critical negotiations that are occurring at Camp David. Well, I sure hope someone at Camp David is talking about AIDS in Africa because Time magazine, Newsweek magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, everyone has said that the number one plague confronting the world is AIDS on the continent of Africa and for this Congress to play a blind eye and to ignore that fact is a disgrace. We ought to do something about it in this bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on the work that they have done on this bill. I want to especially thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me in subcommittee to improve some sections of the bill with respect to Africa and those countries that are not as fortunate as the United States. However, if the U.S. is to maintain its position as a global leader, we ought to act like one and assist those countries that are most in need. We should create opportunities and spread stability throughout the world by combating infectious disease and poverty and working for conflict resolution, enhancing democratization and fostering the conditions for economic growth; that is in our national interests. However, this year's budget for this bill for which the chairman just spoke is below the President's request and below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Moreover, I am deeply disappointed and disturbed that this subcommittee did not get more money to help demonstrate its leadership abroad, especially in some of the accounts that fund Africa and Latin America. In this bill, Africa would receive about $97 million less than last year and $267 million less than the President's request. In percentage terms, funds for Africa are cut by 14.6 percent, while the overall cut to this bill is 10 percent below the President's request. Africa does receive funds from other accounts like the Economic Support Fund, the Foreign Military Financing, the International Monetary and Education and Training, and Debt Relief. However, inclusion of those figures would show a greater reduction from the request as cuts have been made in all of those accounts. While the overall request has been reduced by 10 percent, the amounts requested to address the problems of debt relief in Africa and Latin America, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Asia and Africa, poverty alleviation and access to family planning have been cut disproportionately. Consider this: the bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million in pending requests for debt relief and a moratorium for countries who receive debt relief from obtaining new loans. It will not even provide enough resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, who have all met necessary conditions to obtain debt relief. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal said, ``One year after President Clinton and other world leaders vowed to write off $50 billion in debt owed by deserving poor nations, that effort is in danger of collapsing, largely because Congress, this subcommittee, has not paid the share of the U.S. tab.'' That is quite disgraceful. The bill contains only $202 million of the $244 million requested to combat HIV/AIDS. The staggering impact of this disease on health and development of affected nations has made it imperative that the U.S. provide more resources to combat the pandemic. In fact, so serious is the AIDS crisis in Africa that the U.S. has declared it a national security threat. The bill before us reduces funding for lending to poor countries by drastically cutting funding for the International Development Association, the African Development Bank and Fund, and the Asian Development Fund by 32 percent below the requested levels. Overall cuts to all programs in the bill which benefit Africa and Latin America are 15 percent. The $541 million requested for family planning programs has been cut to $385 million, which is 29 percent below requested levels. The bill also contains objectionable language on the Mexico City policy, which seeks to impose undemocratic restrictions on foreign organizations. Recently, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill signaling a new relationship with Africa. To make this relationship a reality, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Additional funding needs to be made and provided for the African Development Fund and the African Development Bank and the Development Fund, for Africa needs to be made into a separate development assistance account. Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented progress towards democratic rule and open markets, and with the Development Fund for Africa included as a separate account, funding would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and development priorities of our African partners. Although there have been many concerns in the past about management of the African Development Bank, I know that strides have been made. I feel it is unwise to completely underfund the bank at this time when they are working diligently to address the management problems. I am encouraged that the African Development Fund received an allocation, however. Mr. Chairman, in turning our attention to some of the more important regions of the world, we should not turn our back on others.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago this Congress was filled with ambassadors who proclaimed that they wanted trade not aid. Why is that? Because, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the economic elite of every country are really the primary beneficiaries of the global economy. But it is not trade that is ravaging the people of sub-Saharan Africa and South America, HIV and AIDS are. More than 60 percent of the export earning potential of these countries associated with trade is being used for debt service. It is not being used for health care or for education. My colleague from Massachusetts made that very clear. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear what we believe the problem to be, because we heard a number of our colleagues from the other side come to the floor and talk about responsible governments in sub-Saharan Africa. We spent billions here in America educating people in English and in Spanish about HIV and AIDS. There are 1,500 languages in sub-Saharan Africa, and they cannot possibly educate their people about the devastating disease and maintain these debt payments. We spend billions to educate 280 million people in America. There are 750 million sub-Saharan Africans, and they cannot educate themselves and make these payments. There are 5,000 sub-Saharan Africans who are dying a day in the villages, in the cities. The disease to many of them is not HIV or AIDS, it is surrounded by myth and superstition. Why? Because there are hundreds of religions in sub-Saharan Africa. And so every time, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues argue that at some point in time in the near future we will address debt relief and we will condition that debt relief upon no future loans, we are actually making it more and more difficult for sub-Saharan Africans to educate their own people about the nature of the problem. That is why some of us have called for unconditional debt forgiveness. But even if the Congress of the United States, Mr. Chairman, does not support unconditional debt forgiveness, the conditions should be placed upon that debt forgiveness on the use of those resources for the education, the health care, and the housing of their people.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, then I would like to make a motion that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, do the rules of the House provide an opportunity for the reader to have relief over the next hour?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us on these critical issues. When the chairman mentioned the word reprogramming, as it is specifically laid out in the context of the report, is the chairman, one, talking about reprogramming of the appropriated amount of $500 million? That is, possibly taking money from some other peacekeeping force. Or is the gentleman talking about an additional appropriation that is towards the President's request for additional peacekeeping missions?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Crowley and Mr. Serrano, for bringing this very important amendment to the people.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the various speakers on our side of the aisle just how complicated this bill is for sub-Saharan Africa. Not long ago, this Congress voted on a new relationship with sub- Saharan Africa, the Crane-Rangel bill, 309 yeas, 110 nays, to establish a new premise for relating to sub-Saharan Africa. Trade, not aid, was the mantra that was offered by Democrats and Republicans in this Congress to establish a new relationship with sub-Saharan Africa. Now the rubber meets the road in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill where, when it comes to providing not only trade but providing sustainable development and peace in a region that wants to work its way out of its economic condition and provide economic hope for its people, the United States government, through this report, has determined that funding peacekeeping missions in sub-Saharan Africa is not worth our time or worth our money. It does not say that about Kosovo. It does not say that about U.N. missions in other parts of the world. It specifically singles out in this bill Africa for no peacekeeping resources. At the conclusion of World War I, President Wilson proposed a League of Nations to keep World War I from ever happening again. Because it did not pass through the political process in our country and around the world, quickly we found ourselves involved in World War II, which led, at the conclusion of World War II, to the idea of a United Nations. Why a United Nations? The United Nations, with all of its problems, was brought into existence as an early warning system for Hitler. It was the early warning system in the latter half of the 20th century to determine if another fascist, another tyrant, another totalitarian regime began moving, not only on U.S. interests but on world interests. That is why peacekeepers came into existence, as an early warning system to provide people in the world an opportunity to rally behind an international governing body that could indeed determine that undemocratic practices were taking place somewhere in the world. So what does this bill do? It challenges that very basic premise. It says that $100 million of this particular bill, unless the U.N. balances its budget like we are balancing our budget, should not go looking for despots or tyrants. It says that peacekeeping should not be done in Africa, do it everywhere else in the world. It would be one thing if the chairman and the distinguished committee could hide behind, could hide behind this amendment, but the reality is that it cuts Africa.