Donald Payne

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would prevent the U.S. from paying its annual dues to the UN and UN agencies, and put our nation once again into arrears. Passage of it would also end ongoing peacekeeping operations in nations critical to America's national security interests, including Haiti and Sudan. Today the United States is in good standing at the United Nations after years of failing to meet our treaty obligations, and as a result, the U.S. is better able to advance our interests. Great nations keep their word, and by working with other countries in the UN, we can be sure that our nation does not go it alone. In making his argument for fiscal responsibility, Congressman Broun has picked the wrong target. In 2006, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study concluded that UN peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than funding a U.S. force. This point was backed up by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said that ``[UN Peacekeeping] is much more cost effective than using American forces. And of course, America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping missions, but somebody has to do them.'' In the last ten years, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has grown--with each and every one of them enjoying the active support of both Democratic and Republican administrations. There are now over 100,000 peacekeepers--the second largest deployed military in the world--serving in 14 missions in some of the most dangerous corners of the world. UN peacekeeping missions help end brutal conflicts, support stability, the transition to democratization, and bring relief for hundreds of millions of people. In 2005, The Human Security Report, a major international study on peace and war, judged that the global security climate improved dramatically since the 1980's, with genocides plummeting by 80 percent. The study attributed that decline to the explosion in conflict prevention, peacemaking, and increases in the number and complexity of UN peacekeeping missions. The UN force in Haiti has provided security and access for humanitarian aid since the devastating earthquake and before that, the UN kept the peace. In the 1990's, Florida faced wave after wave of illegal Haitians trying to escape from the failed state. Why would we abandon this mission? The UN force in Sudan was critical in supporting last month's referendum calling for independence and it continues to play a vital role in supporting South Sudan transition to a functional democracy. It's in our benefit to help South Sudan grant freedom to its people, and the UN is doing that. Right now the total cost to the international community for our peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Sudan is about $4 billion a year. An article in Foreign Policy just last month noted that a return to war in Sudan could cost the wider international community $30 billion. The UN is our main hope in preventing that from happening, so with passage of the amendment, we'd abandon the mission, possibly threatening stability in Sudan and potentially increasing our future costs. In both the above cases, it is very likely that if the UN were not there, U.S. troops would have to be and they would be the ones in harm's way. Instead, by supporting UN peacekeeping, we lessen the burden on our own forces and reduce our own expenditures. U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said last week, ``Those of us-- Democrat and Republican alike--who support the UN owe it to American taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are well and cleanly spent. But, equally, those who push to curtail U.S. support to the UN owe it to U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled by UN peacekeepers.'' I urge my colleagues to vote NO against the Broun amendment. It is not fiscally responsible--considering we are here today to vote on a bill to reduce costs, it makes little sense to vote for an amendment that would likely entail greater U.S. military expenditures.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution, which severely cuts critical funding for State and USAID and, if enacted would severely undermine U.S. development programs in Africa, U.S. National Security, and our domestic economy. The House bill provides State and USAID $43.2 billion. Development and diplomacy are the United States' first line of defense. Stable democracies and prosperous communities are less likely to pose a threat to their neighbors or to the United States. State and USAID work to help countries and communities in Africa and across the world to become more stable, democratic, and prosperous. When conflicts do arise, State and USAID work to transition countries from violence to stability to long-term development and to prevent struggling states from becoming failed states. Doing so reduces the burden on our military and enhances our diplomacy. The House bill would cut humanitarian assistance accounts by more than 40 percent below 2010 levels, devastating our ability to help victims of natural disasters and undermining U.S. leadership around the world. The International Disaster Assistance account allows us to respond to international disasters like the earthquake in Haiti and the flood in Pakistan. The House bill provides $429 million, taking this account back to 2008 levels--a 50 percent reduction to the 2010 level. This significant reduction will severely limit our ability to respond to natural disasters; we will simply be unable to respond to earthquakes and other disasters the way we did in Haiti. In Sudan, more than 1.6 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Darfur would not receive critical health care, access to water, or support with livelihood activities. Instead of reintegrating approximately 300,000 returnees to South Sudan in the wake of the referendum, USAID would be able to assist fewer than 150,000. In West Africa, proposed budget cuts would significantly hamper efforts to reduce and maintain acute malnutrition rates below emergency levels in drought-affected areas of Burkina Faso and Niger. The House mark will also end a cost-effective local and regional purchase program which enables the U.S. to feed hungry people by purchasing food locally at a significantly lower cost to the U.S. taxpayer. U.S. food aid continues to plays a critical role by helping people in need and supporting broader U.S. national security objectives by demonstrating the goodwill of the United States, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. food aid also supports domestic interests by the purchase of agricultural commodities from American farmers and the shipping of commodities abroad on U.S. ships. Reducing Title II food aid from the FY 2011 request of $1.690 billion to $1.003 billion forces dramatic cuts in food aid programs around the world, as well as decreasing purchases from U.S. farmers and the use of U.S. ships. This cut would require reductions in the largest emergency food aid programs, to include Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Given the average cost of emergency food aid of $44 per beneficiary, this would mean up to 15 million people might not receive such life-saving assistance due to the proposed reduction. The bill reduces funding for refugee relief by $670 million or 40 percent below 2010 levels, representing a shift in U.S. policy of historical, unprecedented and devastating proportions. This reduction will drastically reduce the U.S. ability to protect and assist refugees in places of critical national security, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. For example, a reduction of this magnitude jeopardizes U.S. support for 1.6 million Afghan refugees living in Pakistan and another 100,000 Afghan refugees returning to Afghanistan this year alone. Also, some 230,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India would be at risk. And, security in the Horn of Africa and supporting peace in Sudan would also be at risk as some 3,000-5,000 Somalis are fleeing into Kenya each month and 270,000 Darfuris in Sudan and Chad will go largely unassisted. The House proposal also makes deep cuts in Global Health programs and Development Assistance. Disease knows no borders. As such, USAID's programs to prevent and treat infectious diseases not only benefit the most vulnerable overseas, but also protect American citizens at home. Moreover, this Continuing Resolution would disproportionately cut programs that help the neediest people around the world by 25 percent versus an 11 percent reduction overall. The proposed CR level cuts the Global Health Initiative by $834 million from 2010 levels. While these cuts would have miniscule value in the goal of balancing the budget, they will have real, immediate, and devastating impact on the poorest. I am deeply disappointed by the Appropriators' choice to step away from America's long-term humanitarian interests in improving and preserving lives around the world by helping people lift themselves out of poverty. There is living proof across the world that less than 1 percent of the total federal budget has helped poor farmers learn to grow more food more efficiently, provided a lifeline to millions with HIV--including pregnant women whose babies can now be born HIV-free-- put millions of children under malaria-fighting bed nets by night and into schools by day, and strengthened America's friendships with millions of people, thus strengthening our own national security. The cut to the PEPFAR program is $513 million below 2010, a 10 percent reduction. At this level, the U.S. will be unable to provide treatment to more than 700,000 people in desperate need of life-saving HIV/AIDS treatment. The House bill cuts USAID health programs by $320 million (-13 percent) from 2010 levels and nearly 30 percent below the 2011 request. Reducing the USAID Global Health and Child Survival by this magnitude will have devastating effects on men, women, and children worldwide. Under the proposed CR levels, 5 million children and family members will be denied treatment or preventative interventions for malaria, leaving millions to die. Moreover, 43,000 children and family members with tuberculosis will be denied treatment, of which 12,000 will likely die. More than 16 million persons will be denied treatment for such debilitating conditions as blinding trachoma and onchocerciasisis. Efforts would be scaled back in at least 10 countries where we were on track to interrupt transmission within five years of up to four of the NTDs. USAID will be forced to sever agreements with four major pharmaceutical companies that donate hundreds of millions worth of drugs for NTD treatment programs. The bill would force USAID to scale back efforts in the 24 countries which collectively account for approximately one-half of all maternal and child deaths. 3,500 mothers will die, and more than 40,000 children under five--of which 16,000 are newborns--will perish in the absence of highly effective child survival interventions. More than 500 thousand undernourished children will be deprived of highly effective nutrition interventions (e.g., community management of acute malnutrition, micronutrient supplementation, and nutrition education leading to dietary diversity). Placing an all-account ceiling of $440 million on family planning and reproductive health in 2011 amounts to a 32 percent cut from FY 2010 levels. This would result in 1.2 million more abortions, 28,000 additional newborn deaths, and 4,000 additional maternal deaths--all stemming from denying 8.5 million women access to family planning services and by extension, 2.5 million additional unintended pregnancies. The House FY 2011 Continuing Resolution would reduce the Development Assistance account by nearly $750 million from 2010 levels, a 30 percent reduction, and $1.2 billion from the 2011 request (-40 percent). Absent deep cuts to other ongoing programs, in areas such as education, microfinance, and water, the House bill would virtually eliminate funding for the Feed the Future Initiative and the Global Climate Change Initiative. With world food prices at their highest since the 2007/2008 global food riots, and in view of the political volatility that food prices recently helped spark in the Middle East, it is more important than ever that the U.S. engage to improve long-term food security, and assist countries to avert short-term food crises. The recent events in Egypt that continue throughout the Middle East are a stark example of food insecurity's effect on stability. Decimating the President's Feed the Future (FtF) Initiative will mean that more than 4 million women, children, and family members--most small farmers--will go hungry this year, remaining desperately mired in poverty. More than 18 million will be at risk of chronic hunger over a five-year period. Ending funding for research and development under FtF will expose wheat crops--including here in the United States, and in Afghanistan and Pakistan--to the threats of U.G. 99 wheat stem rust strain. In just five out of our 20 focus countries, nearly 6.5 million small farmers, mostly poor and mostly women, will remain in the grips of hunger and poverty, unable to grow enough food to feed themselves and their families. Alternatively, spreading the 30 percent reduction across the Development Assistance Account would have significant negative effects on many congressional priorities including interventions in basic and higher education, microfinance, rule of law and governance, trade, and financial sector reform. Microfinance institutions in nearly 30 countries around the world will be forced to significantly scale back operations or shut their doors as funding dries up, resulting in 600,000 fewer women accessing financial services to sustain their businesses and contribute to the economic livelihoods of their families and communities. Over 20,000 Afghans will no longer have the tools they need to begin or sustain a microenterprise in the midst of the conflict, increasing the risk that they will turn to other, illicit economic livelihoods, like poppy production, to feed their families. As many as 300,000 rural microenterprises and over 600,000 smallholder farmers will no longer be able to access the vital services and growing markets they need to generate cash income, break the cycle of subsistence agriculture, and chart a pathway out of poverty. A 30 percent cut in Development Assistance for water would mean that than 700,000 persons will be deprived access to clean drinking water and sanitation which, according to WHO, is one of the largest causes of mortality in the world--diarrhea-related disease kills nearly 2 million every year, 90 percent of whom are children under 5. Out of the approximately 64 million children benefitting from our education assistance worldwide, over 19 million will lose access to schooling opportunities. 10 million girls will be deprived access to basic education, causing further social and financial marginalization. I urge my colleagues to vote NO on the Continuing Resolution and any amendments that would strip critical and life saving programs in Africa and the developing world.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. I rise today in opposition to Amendment No. 262, introduced by our colleague Representative Latta of Ohio, should it be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 1. Amendment No. 262 would eliminate all funding for international family planning programs in the proposed FY 2011 Continuing Resolution. This devastating cut would have severe immediate and long term impacts on women and their families in the world's poorest countries. Contrary to the rhetoric we are hearing from some of our colleagues, U.S. international family planning assistance in fact helps to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions in the developing world. According to Population Action International, cutting this funding would result in: 7.8 million more unintended pregnancies; 3.7 million more abortions; 87,000 additional newborn deaths; and 12,000 additional maternal deaths. Moreover, this amendment would turn back the clock on U.S. investments in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The integration of family planning and HIV/AIDS services is a vital and cost-effective way to prevent HIV infection, including through mother-to-child transmission. At the same cost, family planning services can avert nearly 30 percent more HIV-positive births than use of the nevirapine prophylaxis by HIV-positive pregnant women. A recent study found that, although PEPFAR has been associated with a reduction in HIV-related deaths, trends of increasing adult prevalence rates continue unabated. However, preventing unintended pregnancies, which is an international pillar of preventing mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programming, continues to receive insufficient attention in AIDS programs. The Guttmacher Institute noted in their report Hiding in Plain Sight: The Role of Contraception in Preventing HIV that helping HIV-positive women avoid unwanted pregnancies not only lowers the rate of new infections, but does so at a relatively low cost. I hope that you will join me in opposing this amendment, should it be offered. [From the Guttmacher Policy Review, Winter 2008] Hiding in Plain Sight: The Role of Contraception in Preventing HIV (By Susan A. Cohen) As Congress embarks on the process of reauthorizing the U.S. program to fight HIV and AIDS, and as other global donors recalibrate levels and allocations of funding for HIV/ AIDS programs, prevention seems to be making a comeback. At the inception of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) five years ago, both the funding and the programmatic emphasis tilted heavily toward treatment. Yet, the rate of new HIV infection continues to outpace the world's ability to deliver antiretroviral therapy, despite recent advances in access to such medications. A public health consensus is emerging, therefore, in favor of realigning the balance between treatment and prevention efforts. Refocusing the priority on prevention is long overdue, as is an acknowledgment, especially within Congress, that HIV prevention cannot be accomplished with a disproportionate emphasis on abstinence. Indeed, preventing the sexual transmission of HIV requires going beyond the necessary but hardly sufficient strategy of ABC: abstain, be faithful, use condoms. It also requires increasing AIDS awareness through counseling and testing programs, investing in programs promoting the empowerment of women and girls, and increasing access to male circumcision. Other critical prevention interventions include ensuring a clean blood supply and clean medical injections, needle exchange programs for intravenous drug users and preventing the ``vertical'' transmission of HIV from a pregnant woman to her newborn infant. Largely overlooked as an HIV prevention strategy, however, is the simple and low-cost act of helping HIV-positive women who do not want to have a child to avoid an unintended pregnancy through increased access to contraceptive services. Ward Cates, president for research of Family Health International (FHI), has dubbed contraception the ``best-kept secret in HIV prevention,'' and certainly, the significant contribution of unintended pregnancy prevention toward reducing the perinatal transmission of HIV has gone virtually unrecognized. Yet, a revitalized and more robust effort focused on HIV prevention cannot afford not to fully capitalize on the critical role of contraceptive services in fighting AIDS. The Need for Progress on Prevention Women of reproductive age comprise more than half of the 33 million people currently living with HIV around the world. The vast majority of these women live in Sub-Saharan Africa, and thus, it is not surprising that 90% of the 2.5 million children younger than 15 living with HIV live there as well. Almost all of these children became infected through their mothers during pregnancy, birth or breastfeeding. An HIV-positive woman about to give birth can dramatically reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to her newborn by delivering in a hospital or a primary care setting where she and her infant can receive even a single dose of the anti-retroviral drug nevirapine. However, the challenges to delivering even this seemingly simple prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) service are substantial, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pregnancy itself does not usually drive women, especially those in rural areas, to facilities where they could receive pre-natal care and, potentially, an HIV test. In addition, many pregnant women may not want to know their HIV status for fear of public disclosure and the stigma that often results. Considering the difficulties of delivering services to HIV-positive pregnant women, and the simple fact that most women who are HIV- positive do not know it, it is not entirely surprising that only 11% of all theoretically eligible women in poor countries are benefiting from any PMTCT intervention. And without intervention, about one-third of babies born to HIV- positive women likely will become infected. A long-standing goal of global prevention efforts, therefore, is to ramp up PMTCT efforts so that more pregnant women are tested and that those who are positive receive the treatment that they and their infant will need. PMTCT programs justifiably enjoy broad political support and are certain to continue to be a funding priority within the U.S. global AIDS effort. The United States does recognize the importance of at least establishing linkages between PMTCT and family planning programs, since PEPFAR requires family planning counseling and referral as one of four elements comprising the minimum package of services for preventing mother-to-child transmission. However, a high-level consultation sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO} and the United Nations Population Fund in 2004 went considerably further, concluding that investing solely in narrowly defined PMTCT programs will not succeed in dramatically reducing the incidence of perinatal transmission. Rather, the Glion [Switzerland] Call to Action on Family Planning and HIV/AIDS in Women and Children emphasized that all four elements of the WHO approach to preventing HIV infection in infants are essential. PMTCT programs are key, but so are primary prevention of HIV infection in women; the provision of care, treatment and support for women living with HIV and their families; and prevention of unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV. Of these, the significant role that unintended pregnancy prevention already plays--and the much greater role it potentially could play--in averting new cases of HIV has been least recognized and supported. According to a 2007 Guttmacher Institute study, one in four married women in Sub-Saharan Africa is sexually active and does not want to have a child or another child in the next two years, but is not using any method of contraception. As a result, unintended births are common, and occur in the very countries that are a focus of PEPFAR--countries in which HIV prevalence is high and 60% of all adults living with HIV are women (see table). Indeed, research into the HIV/AIDS health care system reveals that the unmet need for contraception among HIV- positive women and women at high risk of HIV is even greater than among women in the general population. According to a study published in JAMA in 2006, 84% of the pregnancies among women in three PMTCT programs in South Africa were unintended. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported earlier this year that 93% of the pregnancies among pregnant women receiving antiretroviral therapy in Uganda were unintended. And according to FHI research from 2006 of women in HIV counseling and testing clinics (where most women are HIV-negative but are at high risk for HIV), substantial majorities in Kenya (59%), Tanzania (66%), Zimbabwe (77%) and Haiti

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to amendment #287, introduced by our colleague Rep. McClintock of California. Amendment #287 would eliminate all funding for the Inter American Foundation in the proposed FY2011 Continuing Resolution. This devastating cut would have severe immediate and long term impacts on the most vulnerable communities who share the same hemisphere as the United States. The United States has a vested interest in assuring that the poorest communities have the resources to organize, develop, and advance. The IAF works to promote economic opportunity, reduce poverty and foster civic and social inclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean, consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. Without such proactive measures in international economic opportunity and development, the United States would cripple its own internal interest in the areas of drug trafficking, immigration, and maintaining its role as a promoter of democracy globally. There are many adverse consequences if programs like IAF ceases to exist. Studies show that farmers and agricultural workers of poverty-stricken communities migrate far from their families to make a living, and in many Latin American countries, like Colombia, this often means driving small farmers into illicit coca cultivation. Cutting IAF funds will aid in forcing men and women into the dangerous, yet lucrative work of narcotics production just to provide basic needs for their families. There is a myth that foreign assistance using public funds is ineffective and inefficient. That is farther from the truth. IAF is a conduit to creating future allies; future business partners, and future collaborators. Investing in self-help solutions which enable the poor to help themselves ultimately creates an intimate bond between nations. As our world becomes more competitive in everything from education to science to defense, we must not cut ourselves off from future relationships by cutting developing countries off from aid today. One of the many countries that would be affected by this cut is Haiti. Haiti is a nation that suffered one of the greatest devastations in history, with a 7.4 magnitude earthquake that killed over 200,000 people, affected over 2 million Haitians, and destroyed their capitol, Port au Prince. While much aid has gone towards immediate disaster relief, the United States seeks to gain enormously by supporting sustainable solutions that IAF currently helps fund. IAF provides grants for the Haitian Partners for Christian Development--an organization that continues its services as a business incubator, which includes reaching women entrepreneurs and supporting them with business endeavors. Such seed money literally produces economic leaders which are necessary to shape the Haiti of tomorrow. Through a single grant, IAF also has a project which provides farmers displaced by the 2010 earthquake with agricultural training and technical assistance, as well as give education scholarships to 100 displaced children, and distributes food to another 150 quake victims. With all the tremors the people of Haiti still are enduring, IAF is essential to ensuring these survivors do not experience a social aftershock due to cutting funding that ultimately has long-term benefits for both Haiti and the United States. Being the leaders in international economic empowerment today is a wise investment for tomorrow. I urge you to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose amendment #380, proposed by our colleagues Mr. Reed and Mr. Graves, which eliminate the State Department Democracy Fund and the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). The Human Rights and Democracy Fund funded by the Democracy Fund appropriation, finances innovative projects across the world to support the long-standing bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goals of defending human rights and advancing democratic values. Continued HRDF programming is vital to U.S. national security because democratic governance fosters more stable countries and regions, and free nations are more peaceful towards other democracies. Democracy promotion funding, started under President Reagan, has grown to its current consistent level of $70 million. Sustained congressional support for HRDF is critical. Promoting democracy and human rights is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy goals and the advancement of our national interests because it is the most effective long-term way to strengthen international stability. By reducing regional conflicts, countering terrorism and terror-supporting extremism, and extending peace and prosperity, the U.S. protects liberty and justice and the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. The Human Rights and Democracy Fund is the foundation for U.S. support for democracy and human rights across the globe. With HRDF, the U.S. addresses the most egregious of human rights abuses, open political space in struggling and nascent democracies and authoritarian regimes, promote religious freedom and tolerance, support civil society, protect at risk populations, and further global internet freedom and corporate social responsibility throughout the world. With HRDF, the United States was able to help counter extremism by supporting at risk populations in the Middle East, thereby reducing breeding grounds of future terrorists. DRL was able to provide thousands of Haitians with internet and radio access in the immediate aftermath of the Hurricane there. The Human Rights and Democracy Fund is enabling the U.S. to implement innovative programs across Africa. In Morocco, the Democracy Fund supports justice sector institutions to develop alternatives to pre- trial detention of youth offenders that enable rehabilitation outside of prison. To stem gender-based violence (GBV) in the war-torn region of eastern Congo, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) initiative provided legal assistance to victims of sexual violence. As a result, 296 GBV survivors received legal counseling and 212 survivors received psychological counseling; 98 criminal complaints were filed against suspected perpetrators; and an unprecedented 25 rape convictions were secured. In Sudan, in response to widespread violence against women in Darfur, DRL used Democracy Fund appropriations to provide critical services and community outreach to survivors of gender-based violence. Through the establishment of women centers, tens of thousands of women received an array of services, including literacy classes, health education, income-generating activities and treatment for sexual violence including medical, psychosocial, and case management services. Without HRDF, victims will lose valuable avenues for recourse, civil society activists will become increasingly isolated, women will become more vulnerable, and truth-telling journalists will be quieted. DRL would not be able to support efforts to push the Chinese government to more actively disclose food and drug safety information that directly affects the well-being of the American public; foster critical advances in the rule law, including criminal justice reform; support the growth of the NGO sector and its advocacy on behalf of the marginalized in society; or widen space for religious freedom. Without HRDF, DRL would not be able to help male civic and religious leaders be a powerful voice for the rights of women in Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to support democracy and human rights in the developing world by voting NO on the Reed/Graves amendment #380.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair, under the Higher Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate in the federal student aid programs. In July 2010, the Department of Education published a proposed rule to enforce this statutory requirement. While I share the Department's desire to ensure that federal financial aid dollars are spent wisely and that students are not taken advantage of, my concern is that the proposed rule does not accurately address this purpose and the consequences have not been fully considered. Rather than using actual measures of educational quality such as job placement and graduation rates, the Department is promulgating a regulation that defines ``gainful employment'' through a complex matrix that examines the student loan debt-to-income ratio of graduates to the student loan repayment rate of graduates in the programs. The proposed rule would also require the US Department of Education to approve every new program created at a proprietary institution prior to the start of the program. This proposed rule needs to be further developed and possible unintended consequences considered. In the midst of our economic crisis and high national unemployment rate, there remains a group of employers who struggle to find workers with skill sets required for today's changing job market. These employers have, in some cases, partnered with community and career colleges to build a 21st century workforce. Today, more than 6 million non-traditional students--including single parents, displaced workers, and low income individuals--are enrolled in community colleges and another 2.8 million in career colleges to develop the skills necessary to advance in the 21st century workplace. Yes, there are ``bad apples'' among career preparation programs, who are taking advantage of vulnerable populations. In fact, before coming to Congress, I was at the forefront of an effort to close a beauty school in New Jersey which had done a disservice to students in the area. For this reason, again, I share the concern of many regarding the abuse of Title IV funds as well as any institutional action which would cause a student academic failure or financial harm. However, I also know that many good career colleges and community college programs exist that remain strong partners in the effort to meet the President's goal of leading the world in the percentage of college graduates by 2020. My concern is that the Department's rule, while addressing poor quality programs, will have a negative impact on high quality programs as well. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to provide for the reevaluation of the proposed metric system and full consideration of its impact.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would prohibit any United States assistance to a country that opposed the position of the United States in the United Nations. If passed tomorrow, this amendment would prohibit assistance to over 130 countries including Cote D'Ivoire, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Jordan. (It prohibits assistance to countries whose recorded votes at the UN were the same as the United States less than 50 percent of the time. This amendment does not take into account the voting realities of the UN. It only focuses on recorded votes or non-consensus issues. But the fact is, similar to the workings our own Senate, a significant amount of votes--or consensus resolutions--are adopted by the UN. According to the State Department's Voting Practices in the United Nations, when consensus resolutions are factored in as votes identical to those of the United States, average overall General Assembly voting coincidence of all UN members with the United States in 2009 was 84.3%. So, in reality, most member states are agreeing with the position of the United States. Finally, if the logic of this bill was utilized in our own Congress, how could we ever reach bipartisan agreement? Because a Member does not support your bill, would that mean you would never work with them on anything again? Or, if the Texas delegation to the House voted against a transportation appropriation, should they receive no money to build roads? I urge my colleagues to vote NO on this amendment. Voting Practices in the United Nations 2009 (Report to Congress submitted pursuant to Public Laws 101-246 and 108- 447, Mar. 31, 2010.) I: Introduction This publication is the 27th annual Report to the Congress on Voting Practices at the United Nations. It is submitted in accordance with Section 406 of Public Law 101-246. This law provides, in relevant part: ``The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a full and complete annual report which assesses for the preceding calendar year, with respect to each foreign country member of the United Nations, the voting practices of the governments of such countries at the United Nations, and which evaluates General Assembly and Security Council actions and the responsiveness of those governments to United States policy on issues of special importance to the United States.'' This report reviews voting practices in the UN Security Council and General Assembly (UNGA) in calendar year 2009 and presents data in a variety of formats. All Security Council resolutions for the entire year are described, and voting on them is tabulated (Section II). The report also statistically measures the overall voting of UN member states at the 64th General Assembly in the autumn of 2009 in comparison with the U.S. voting record (Section III). It also lists and describes UNGA resolutions selected as particularly important to U.S. interests, again with tables for regional and political groupings (Section IV). It then presents all data by country (Section V). Finally, an annex is included to present the voting patterns on General Assembly resolutions relating to Israel and opposed by the United States. The Security Council and the General Assembly deal with a full spectrum of issues--including threats to peace and security, disarmament, economic and social development, humanitarian relief, and human rights--that are considered critical to U.S. interests. A country's behavior at the United Nations is always relevant to its bilateral relationship. Nevertheless, a country's voting record in the United Nations is only one dimension of its relations with the United States. Bilateral economic, strategic, and political issues are at times more directly important to U.S. interests. VoTING COINCIDENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES On non-consensus issues, i.e., those on which a vote was taken, the average overall General Assembly voting coincidence of all UN members with the United States in 2009 was 39 percent, up significantly from 2008, when it was 25.6 percent, and more than twice the figure from 2007 (18.3 percent). When consensus resolutions are factored in as votes identical to those of the United States, a much higher measure of agreement with U.S. positions is reached--84.3 percent in 2009. (See Section III--General Assembly--Overall Votes for additional comparisons.)

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen, our distinguished chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, for anchoring this evening's Special Order on the budget. Her leadership and continued diligence in addressing the issues that confront our Nation in general, but African Americans in particular, are imperative to our progress as a Nation. Recently, Republican House leadership introduced a continuing resolution containing the largest spending cuts in history. Subsequently, President Obama unveiled his FY 2012 budget to support the Nation's competitive growth while making difficult decisions to address our economic deficit. I rise today to urge my colleagues to remember that, as we consider these spending proposals, in addition to our economic deficit, we have a job deficit, which continues to worsen, in part, by an ever-growing educational deficit. They work together. While we must work to rein in spending, we must not cut funding to the extent that our development and growth in the areas of education and employment will be hampered if we do that. One of the challenges in addressing unemployment has been the rapid decline in certain occupations and industries and in our labor market's inability to meet the demands of new occupations and industries. More than two-thirds of workers in occupations and industries that are growing have at least some postsecondary education compared to one- third of workers in occupations and industries that are declining. The demand for postsecondary education, as well as the rapid increase in baby boom retirements, is predicted to result in a shortage of more than 14 million college graduates by the year 2020 in this country. In addition, military recruiters are likely to experience a shortage in traditional high school recruiting due to the high school dropout crisis and low student proficiency levels. Among high school graduates, about one in five does not meet the minimum standards necessary to enlist in the U.S. Army today. These facts highlight the reality that our growing education deficit is a greater long-term threat to our Nation's well-being than any other challenge we face today. The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment shows 15-year-old students in the U.S. are performing about average in reading and science and below average in math. Of the 34 developed countries assessed, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math. While these scores are all higher than those from 2003 and 2006, they are far behind our global competitors, which include South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in China, and Canada. Our domestic assessment results paint a similar picture. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that as of 2009 only about 33 percent of our Nation's fourth-graders are proficient readers. These low proficiency levels continue to fuel our dropout crisis on the high school and college levels. Nearly 7,000 students drop out of high school in our Nation daily, and about one-third of first-year American college students are required to take at least one remedial course. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of these students are underrepresented minorities. Further threatening our global standing is the higher education deficit in the science and technology fields. In 2000, Asian universities produced 1.2 million science and engineering graduates. European universities produced 850,000, and the United States produced 500,000. In an economy dependent upon an innovative workforce, in addition to addressing our national high school and college graduation rates, we must increase our level of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field graduates. To do so, we need an innovative agenda to develop the potential of all students, especially unrepresented minorities, who have represented the bottom of the academic achievement gap in this country for too long. For this reason, and as I conclude, I commend the President for his proposed investments in education to support early learning, to improve schoolteachers and leaders, to improve science, technology, engineering, and math education, and to promote college access and completion. However, I strongly oppose the nearly $5 billion reduction proposal from the Republican House leadership in the area of education. Cuts to teacher and school leadership programs, as well as Head Start, Pell Grants, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers are counterproductive in our effort to strengthen our national competitiveness. I am also gravely concerned about proposed cuts to programs that stimulate job growth, that assist the working poor, that address health disparities, and that increase diversity. I strongly oppose cuts to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, training and employment services, community health centers, low-income home energy assistance programs, and neighborhood development initiatives. These cuts and others disproportionately impact our most vulnerable population. While I understand that our economic crisis calls for difficult budgeting constraints, I believe this should be a shared responsibility, not an overhaul of the Nation's economic crisis at the expense of our most vulnerable populations and our global competitiveness as a Nation.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, while it is my hope that the Andean Trade Preference Act has promoted trade between the Andean countries and the United States and in so doing it has acted to limit drug production, I and many of my colleagues remain deeply concerned over certain recent conduct by the Peruvian government with reference to its treatment of U.S. investment in Peru. I would ask that a letter my colleagues and I recently sent in regard to this matter be made a part of the record. And I would hope our Government would work diligently to protect the interests of our U.S. citizens in this regard. I would hope before Congress is asked to extend this Act again, the Peruvian government will have addressed this concern so that it will not be an issue when a further extension is requested. February 8, 2011. Hon. Hillary Clinton, Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC. Hon. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary: We are writing you to raise a serious concern relating to the treatment of a U.S.-based company by the Government of Peru. We understand that this company has received disparate treatment by that Government and is apparently the subject of a possible expropriation. We understand that the Department of State is aware of this situation and that it has already expressed its concern to the Government of Peru. As we understand it, Doe Run Peru (``DRP''), owned by the Renco Group, a U.S.-based holding company, owns a smelter in Peru that has been in operation for almost 100 years, though DRP has only operated the smelter since 1997. At the time that DRP acquired the smelter from the Government of Peru, DRP agreed to assume certain environmental upgrade costs associated with the smelter, and the Government of Peru assumed soil remediation costs for cleaning up the surrounding community. We understand that by 2009 DRP had invested $315 million in meeting the terms of the agreement, and, during this same period of time, and up until this date, the Government of Peru has spent nothing to fulfill its obligations. While DRP has proposed good faith negotiations, to date the Government of Peru has refused to enter such discussions. Though DRP has completed eight and a half of the nine environmental commitments contained in the 1997 agreement, DRP has indicated its willingness to take further and additional steps, but for whatever reason the Government of Peru refuses to enter such negotiations. We urge the Treasury Department and the State Department to work together on this matter as it raises very serious issues, particularly since the U.S. provides major funding to the Inter-American Development Bank that in turn is quite active in Peru. A de facto expropriation would raise questions about the appropriateness of further IDB investment in Peru. We would hope that your two Departments would communicate on this matter with the IDB and express the concerns of this Government and the consequences that might flow from an expropriation by the Government of Peru. Sincerely, Donald M. Payne, Member of Congress.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Proponents of this bill contend that the current health care law will destroy jobs, but CBO estimates of $230 billion support the fact that it is the repeal being debated today, not the health care law, that would harm jobs and drain funds from potential job-building appropriations. Essentially what is being repealed are the protections afforded to taxpayers through the recently enacted health care legislation, the relief given to American taxpayers who were for so long paying the bills for uncompensated health care costs--which we never hear mentioned over there--and the progress our country made last year to come out of the dark ages as one of the only three developed countries in the world that do not provide universal health care. Forty-eight hundred seniors in my district and over 1 million seniors in the country were relieved last year by the doughnut hole rebate. But repeal would reintroduce that stress. Nearly 44 percent of non-elderly constituents in New Jersey and 134 million Americans nationwide have preexisting conditions. Repeal would reintroduce the hopelessness these Americans felt in the past as health coverage denied and stole their ability to access quality health care. Repeal would remove nearly 1.2 million young adults from their parents' health care plan--including my grandson who's 23 and is on his mother's plan--and remove their ability to take preventative measures now to avoid becoming a burden to the system. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. So as we think about the tragedy of so many outstanding Americans who have lost their lives, I implore each and every one of us to continue in the spirit of unity, support, and love that often overflows during tragic events. May we continue in such spirits to prevent further acts, for we all know that only love drives out hatred and only good drives out evil.

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of this senseless tragedy and to the family of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. I hope and pray for her quick recovery. And to the people of the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona, we know what you're going through: the life of a 9-year-old who wanted to be a student council representative and was elected to that, Christina Taylor Green; Federal Judge John Roll, father and grandfather; Phyllis Schneck, a former Jerseyite who still loved the New York Giants who, as you may know, play in New Jersey; Gabriel Zimmerman, commander of outreach, who did such a great job for her; and two 76-year-olds, Dorothy Morris and Dorwan Stoddard, who shielded his wife so that she would live. I thank the leadership for bringing forth this resolution, first acknowledging the victims of the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, and also condemning the act of violence which was a product of hatred that threatens the democracy of this Nation in which all can participate and in which intimidation and threats of violence cannot silence the voices of any American. Congresswoman Giffords, her staff members, and constituents were exercising this very privilege on Saturday, January 8, as well as the right afforded to all of us under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is ironic that gun violence has, throughout our history, brought down leaders--Abraham Lincoln, 150 years ago, who said all people should be free; our President, John F. Kennedy in 1963, during that time; his brother, Bobby Kennedy, 5 years later; Mohandas Gandhi, who brought India into independence; Tom Mboya, a Kenyan who talked about a united Africa; Yitzhak Rabin, who, if he had lived, I think there would be peace in the Middle East; and then, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King.

Mr. PAYNE

Mr. PAYNE. ``Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under United States shall be appointed an elector.''