Government Spending

    STRONG FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH -- (Senate - August 02, 2006)

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senator from North Dakota gave a speech on the Senate floor on what he calls the wall of debt. My colleague said, ``We have cut revenue, cut revenue, cut revenue.'' Clearly, he misunderstands both the rationale and the economic effect of the tax cuts. I would like to take a few moments today to clear up several misconceptions.

   My colleagues know full well that the Senator's wall of debt is built of increased spending and runaway entitlement costs. Twenty years ago, entitlements accounted for 45 percent of the budget; soon, they will exceed 60 percent. Medicare alone is growing by almost 10 percent a year. In 30 years, the three big entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--if left unchanged, will consume the entire Federal budget, leaving no money for border security or education or any other necessary program.

   Our problem is not that Americans are undertaxed; our problem is that entitlement spending has run amok.

   In characterizing the tax relief provided in recent years, we do better to call it a ``Foundation for Economic Growth.''

   When Congress cuts tax rates, it leaves money in the private economy, where it can be used more efficiently. Being taxed at lower rates, Americans have more incentive to work, save, and invest, which fosters economic growth. Tax rate cuts implemented by Republicans have kept America competitive by leaving $1.1 trillion in the American economy, where it has given us more than 4 years of uninterrupted economic growth.

   To illustrate the effects that low tax rates can have on the economy, I recommend to my colleagues a study conducted by Dr. Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at Arizona State University. Dr. Prescott's study reveals an interesting fact. Based on labor marker statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans aged 15 to 64 worked 50 percent more than their European counterparts in France, Germany, and Italy. Fifty percent more. But this difference in output has not always been so. Two decades ago, France's labor supply, as measured by hours worked per employee, exceeded the American labor supply, as did several other European nations.

   Why is this? According to Dr. Prescott, this discrepancy in the labor market is attributable to taxes. When you lower the rates on individuals, people work harder and greater productivity results. As the United States lowered its marginal tax rates, Americans had a greater incentive to work hard, work longer, and be more productive, relative to the European nations, which kept higher tax rates.

   The results of Dr. Prescott's study are telling. Ultimately, a country must establish an efficient tax system with low tax rates to achieve maximum economic productivity. This is exactly what this Republican Congress has tried to accomplish: a tax system that keeps as much money as possible in the private economy, with individuals and businesses. In contrast, Democrats seem to want to keep as much taxpayer money in Washington as possible.

   If my colleague from North Dakota doesn't believe that our tax and economic policies are working, let me quote some figures from the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, released on July 11. These figures demonstrate that our tax and economic policies are fostering economic growth in the private economy and that all of this new economic growth is helping to bring down the budget deficit.

   From 2005 to 2006, Federal receipts are projected to grow by 11 percent, $246 billion, more than twice as fast as the economy itself. Since the tax relief was fully implemented in 2003, tax receipts have increased by 34.6 percent. The economy has grown for 18 consecutive quarters. The economy has created over 5.4 million jobs since August 2003. This is more than Japan and the 25 nations of Europe combined. That is combined. The unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is lower than the average of the last four decades. There have been 34 months of consecutive job growth. Progrowth policies and tax receipts will allow the deficit to be cut in half by 2008, a year ahead of the President's schedule. The projected budget deficit for 2006 has fallen from 3.2 percent of gross domestic product to 2.3 percent of GDP--and measuring our deficit in relation to the size of the American economy gives the most accurate assessment of how big or small the deficit is relative to other times in our history. The projected deficit of 2.3 percent of GDP registers at the 40-year average and is lower than the deficits in 17 of the last 25 years.

   Although our economy has made many steps in the right direction, we ought not be content to stop here. My colleagues and I will continue to work to reduce Government spending and to make the tax cuts permanent.

   The issue that prompted this debate over the deficit, to be clear about it, is not how to reform entitlements. It is legislation the Senate will consider later this week to reform the estate tax. On this, as well, my colleagues labor under some misconceptions.

   I want to take a moment to explain to them how many people will actually benefit from this legislation and to debunk some of the myths we are hearing about the cost.

   If Congress fails to reform the estate tax, the exemption amount will revert to $1 million and the rate will be 55 percent in 2011. According to an analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of Senator Baucus, in that year, 127,000 estates would be subject to the death tax--meaning that 127,000 estates would have a value of $1 million or more in 2011.

   But if Congress approves estate tax reform, at least 115,000 estates each and every year that would otherwise be subject to the tax--estates that are valued over $1 million, but less than $5 million--will be spared from this tax on productivity, once the reform proposal is fully effective in the year 2015. Under the proposal the Senate will consider later this week, we will be left with about 11,500 estates each and every year that will still be subject to the death tax.

   The official Joint Committee on Taxation estimate for the cost of death tax reform is $267.6 billion over 10 years. Some of my colleagues have used incorrect information generated by liberal interest groups to argue that this underestimates the cost of the proposal, since it does not begin until 2010 and is not fully phased in until 2015. Thus, they claim that the cost of the death tax reform would be $808 billion over the 2012 to 2021 timeframe. They claim that it would cost $1 trillion over the same period ``when the associated increases in interest payments on the debt are included.''

   There are several reasons this logic is faulty. First, Joint Tax has estimated that the proposal will cost $39.186 billion in 2012--the first year of the bogus 10-year $808 billion estimate. So if you assume that it will cost that amount, plus an increase for economic growth, each year thereafter, it could not possibly add up to $808 billion for that 10-year period.

   Using actual Joint Tax estimates--the estimates we are required to use around here--you can see that once the proposal is phased in, the annual cost will increase by roughly $5 billion as a result of economic growth. Thus, using actual JCT estimates through 2016 and then assuming that the cost will increase by $5 billion each year, the total cost between 2012 and 2021 would be around $627 billion, not $808 billion.

   Second, JCT does not produce estimates further ahead than 10 years because anything beyond that range is thought to be too speculative to be even close to accurate. We simply cannot predict how much revenue the proposed changes will bring into the Government's coffers that far down the road. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax have had enough trouble accurately estimating revenue collections one year out, let alone 10. For example, reducing the long-term capital gains tax in 2003, as estimated by the budgeteers at the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, would cost $27 billion in 2004. It actually brought in $26 billion that year. If official estimators have difficulty producing accurate revenue estimates in the short-term, we should heed their warnings about not betting the farm on estimates that go beyond 10 years.

   Finally, as I said, Joint Tax is the official revenue-estimating body of Congress. Whether we like their estimates or not, at the end of the day we all know that is the estimate we all must rely on.

   I hope these facts will bring a little perspective to the debate we are having over the deficit, the effect tax cuts have on the economy and, more to the point this week, the debate over what is really a moderate and responsible proposal to reform the death tax--a proposal that deserves broad, bipartisan support.

30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2006)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honor to come before the House. As you know, those of us that are in the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor to share not only with the Members but the American people about what is happening under the Capitol dome here, or what is not happening.

   We want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come to the floor again: Leader Pelosi and Mr. Steny Hoyer, our whip, and also the chairman, Mr. Jim Clyburn, and our vice chairman in assisting us in moving towards a stronger message to the American people.

   I am so glad to be here with my good friend and colleague in the struggle for the truth and to make sure that we move America forward in many areas, even though we are serving in the minority here in the Congress. I think our constituents and also the American people, Mr. Speaker, look for us to use every avenue possible to be able to make their lives more secure, to be able to make sure we stand up on behalf of their health care, that we make sure that future generations have a better environment than what they have right now.

   So with that, Mr. Ryan, it is so good to come back to the floor with you again, sir. We usually come to the floor and it is dark outside. It happens the sun is out; and as you know, the Congress is recessed for the week, but we are still here working, sir.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you, my friend. One quick piece of business that has been mentioned several times here today is the countdown to the Bush prescription drug tax.

   Now, for those Members who do not remember, the Republican Congress voted this boondoggle a few months back, told us it was $400 billion before we cast a vote on it, and it ended up being $700 billion. The real number was actually hidden from Members of the United States Congress before they voted.

   What happens is through this bill seniors have until May 15 to sign up for the prescription drug plan, and if they do not sign up by May 15, they are going to be penalized with the Bush prescription drug tax, which means that there will be an increase in monthly premiums by 1 percent for every month they do not sign up. So if they do not sign up by May 15, they will not be eligible to sign up, I think, until January of 2007 to begin again. That means there will be a 7 percent increase if seniors do not sign up by May 15.

   This is a complex plan, a complicated plan; and we are rushing and forcing our seniors to make a decision. So we just want to put a little X here on Thursday, March 30, a couple days before the Final Four begins, so our seniors know that the countdown is on and

they have several weeks before this President will levy a tax on them.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

   Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, many Members of the House had an opportunity to witness a strong message again of commitment towards security; and those of us that are in the minority party have been working very, very hard to increase security here in the United States, especially homeland security. We are going to talk a little bit about that today. And I think when we were here, I know when we were here the night before last, we talked about the fact that just because the majority side says that we have security does not really mean we have security.

   The majority side has said that we are going to make sure that we are fiscally responsible, but we found out later and we know now that the Republican majority has put us into record-breaking deficits.

   If I can, just to start this off, Mr. Speaker, because I like to use visual aids and I know we are going to talk about security, but I think it is important because folks just feel we may come to the floor, the 30-Something Working Group comes to the floor, we go in the back room, we just dream up things to say, and this is not the case because, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there is so much bad news overwhelming the good news as it relates to future generations and this generation on how we are going to function as Americans and as a country.

   No other time, I must add, before I bring this chart up, has the country been in the fiscal situation that it is in right now as it relates to foreign countries owning our debt.

   Now I want to put this up, and I think it is important. You have seen this chart before. We have said that this chart may very well be in the National Archives one day because it will document that there were Members on the floor identifying to other Members on the majority side because they voted for this to happen. No other time in the history of the country have we borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign Nations in just 4 years. Matter of fact, we were not able to do it in 224 years, Mr. Speaker. We were not able to do it in 224 years; $1.05 trillion just for President Bush and the Republican Congress, it says right here below this picture because we cannot leave the Congress out because he could not do it all by himself. You have 42 Presidents here going back to the First Continental Congress, 224 years, and there they were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion.

   Well, folks may say, well, Congressman, we are at war; Congress, 9/11. Guess what, these 42 other Presidents had the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, a number of other wars in between. They had all of these issues that were challenging America, but they never sold America off to foreign nations.

   Let us talk about who those foreign nations are, and I think it is important again. This chart here has nothing to do with the weather. It is a silhouette, Mr. Speaker, as you can see of the United States of America. Who are we selling our debt off to? Who are we indebted to now? Because before this President and this Republican majority took over, we were talking about surpluses.

   I am speaking here as a Democrat from the party that, guess what, we balanced the budget. We told folks that we would balance the budget and that we would cut down on spending, and guess what, we did it. But, you know, once again you have the other side, the Republican majority, saying: Trust us, we are fiscally responsible. Some folks may say the folks on the Democratic side, they like to spend money. Well, who is spending now?

   China, Red China, many people in your district in Ohio are training people to go to China to do their jobs. Meanwhile, they are trying to make ends meet, and they are a part of the millions of Americans without health care, and Red China, we owe them $249.8 billion. They bought our debt to that point, and we owe them.

   Japan, the little small island of Japan. They own $680.8 billion of our debt. Those are the big numbers.

   UK, they own $223.2 billion of our debt.

   This is not by the Democrats now I must add, and I challenge any Republican that wants to come down here right here, right now. This is not the WWF cage match. I want them to come here right now and explain to us, how is this positive for Americans in the future and right now?

   Korea, $66.5 billion that they own of the American apple pie.

   Canada, $53.8 billion of the American apple pie.

   Germany, some of our veterans, $65.7 trillion.

   Taiwan, the small island of Taiwan, $71.3 billion.

   And OPEC nations, now Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting because OPEC nations, we are talking about Saudi Arabia, we are talking about Iraq, we are talking about Iran, who we have real issues with, OPEC Nations, they are a part of the American apple pie; $67.8 billion of our debt we owe them.

   Now, anyone, Mr. Speaker, who has been in a financial situation before and has made youthful indiscretions on spending knows when a creditor calls you and they call in the tab for this payment, they disrespect you from the beginning. They do not call up and say, Mr. Ryan, I am calling from whoever the lender may be, when do you think that you can return payment? No, they call you Tim, because they disrespect you from the beginning.

   I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to find ourselves in a situation where these countries are going to start disrespecting the United States of America, not because of something they did. It is because we have had a Republican Congress that has been the rubber stamp Congress for the President of the United States and not doing what they should be doing in Article I, section 1 of the Constitution, and that is a fact. They have been rubber stamping everything that the President has wanted.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is President Bush's Congress.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is President Bush's Congress.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is his Congress. They toe his line.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. And the bottom line is, it is like having, Mr. Speaker, a board of directors of a bunch of people like bobble heads going up and down like this: What do you want, Mr. President? You want to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires? We are with you. You want to give subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits while the American people are paying through the nose for oil and for gas prices? We are with you all the way. All the way, Mr. President, you can count on this Republican Congress because we are going to do it.

   Hey, guess what, we are going to put it on the credit card. And folks used to say future generations. This is dealing with right now, and so just because you see a majority stands up there and they have this big chart behind them saying fiscal responsibility, we want to cut the budget in half, the deficit in half; that is not true.

   So that is the reason why we are here on this floor today. That is the reason why we are sharing with the American people, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned if I was a Republican Member of Congress because I can tell you right now, as a Democrat who represents Republicans, Democrats, Independents, I represent Americans. They are all coming to me. They are not coming up to me and saying, hey, I am a Republican and I have got to stick with Republicans because I am Republican. No, they are saying I am an American and I am concerned about what is happening in Washington, D.C.; I am concerned about the fact that I am going to have to pay more for my grandchild's education because we have not done what we are supposed to do in the fiscal way to make sure that we are there; we do not cut student opportunities so they can train themselves for the next generation. I am concerned, Congressman, that the Congress is not investing in innovation so that we can have engineers, we can have scientists, so that we do not have to raise the visa rate to be able to bring folks in from another country to take U.S. jobs because we have CEOs that are begging us for the opportunity to have an educated and ready-to-go workforce, and we cannot provide it because these kids cannot get into schools, but meanwhile, we are standing up for the billionaires in this country, and we are standing up for bad policy in this country.

   No one is questioning the whole issue as it relates to Iraq. You heard one of our Members just got back, said this is what we need on the ground in Iraq. We go to Iraq. We fought for our troops to get them what they need. The bottom line is we have to govern, and the reason why you see all of these scandals and all of the wasted money, Mr. Speaker, is that the Congress is over here doing this.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Bobble heads.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Bobble heads on the other side of the aisle saying, we are with you all the way.

   So when they say we stand up to the President every now and then, that is not what the Constitution says, Mr. Speaker. The Constitution says that we are the House that represents the people of the United States of America. If they are in a wheelchair, walking upright, if they are white, they are black, Hispanic, whatever the case may be, we are charged to represent them, and when we are making history in all the wrong areas, borrowing from foreign nations in 4 years more than in the 224 years of 42 Presidents, and folks are not alarmed? We are far beyond politics right now, Mr. Speaker. We are in a situation to where either we have some folks on this floor that are willing to lead on behalf of the American people, no longer sell our debt off to foreign nations that we have issues with, or we are just going to continue to go down this fiscal track, slippery slope, until we get to a situation to where we are not going to be the superpower that we have been in the past of the work that these the other Presidents and other Congresses have done.

   I will be doggone if I am a Member of a Congress where we are not trying to bring about the paradigm shift to get us back on the fiscal track and make sure that we do the things the way the American people elected us to do it when we come up here.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You are exactly right. Article I, section 1, of the United States Constitution creates this House of Representatives. It does not say we are going to have a king. It does not say we are going to have a President. That all comes later. Article I, section 1, of the Constitution creates this body, and when things get so turned around that this body is rubber stamping everything, this is President Bush's Congress. They have done every single thing that he has asked and everything that is supposed to be up is down statistically, and everything that is supposed to be down is up.

   Now, since President Bush has been in and President Bush's Congress, they have raised the debt limit by $3 trillion. Basically what happens is the CEO, the President, the Treasury Secretary, they come to Congress; they come to the board of directors and say, hey, we need to go out and borrow more money for the business. So the Congress time and time and time again says, sure, keep going, we will not even ask any questions as to where you are spending it.

   They raised the debt in June of 2002 by $450 billion; May of 2003 by $984 billion; November of 2004, $800 billion; and just 2 weeks ago, we did it again by several hundreds of billions of dollars. Almost $9 trillion is the limit the United States can go and borrow.

   As the gentleman from Florida said, we are borrowing it from the Chinese, the Japanese, OPEC countries. Can you imagine, we are going to the oil producing countries to borrow money? Are they not getting enough of our money right now? I think they get plenty of our money, Mr. Speaker.

   Now, what did the Democrats try to do to stop the insanity? We have a little provision here that was implemented in the early 1990s, and it basically said if you want to spend money, you have got to go find it somewhere. You have either got to raise revenue or you have got to cut spending from another program in order to bring it into balance. It is called pay-as-you-go, just kind of like you do at home.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. If a family had this kind of situation where they had debt and they were trying to catch up on that debt, the first thing when you get out of that or you get a second mortgage or you get some sort of loan to consolidate your debt, the first thing that lending officer says is, to do what? Cut your credit cards up.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because from this point on, you can only buy what you can afford, not just continue to put it on the credit card because you are going to continue to go into the hole.

   Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is a great point, and I thank the gentleman.

   So, in this Congress, the Democrats have tried to reimplement this pay-as-you-go system because Bush's Congress, Bush's House, Bush's Senate, President Bush, they got rid of the PAYGO requirements. They said we did not need them anymore, and the Democrats, time and time, you know, we hear a lot about, well, what is the Democrats' plan? This is the Democratic plan: We want to implement PAYGO rules back into the United States Congress to rein in this spending. John Spratt from South Carolina, our ranking Democratic member on the Budget Committee, tried to put a substitute amendment in on the 2006 budget resolution, and that amendment failed. Zero Republicans voted to reimplement the PAYGO rules.

   We tried again with another Spratt substitute amendment, H. Con. Res. 393. I am not making this up. This happened. It is in the Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker. The Members can go and look and check it out. It failed 194-232. Zero Republicans voted to reimplement the PAYGO rules.

   Mr. Thompson from California tried; Mr. Stenholm, a former Member from Texas, he tried. Mr. Moore from Kansas, he tried. We have been trying to implement fiscal restraint on Bush's Congress, and they refuse to accept it time and time again.

   Now, the funny part about it, and not really funny ha-ha, just funny peculiar, is that this is the same outfit that campaigned in 1994, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. They wanted to enshrine balanced budgets into the U.S. Constitution and make a constitutional amendment. Now, 12 years later, they are the most fiscally irresponsible group that has run the show in the United States Congress.

   Time and time again, when Democrats have tried to rein in spending, we keep butting our heads up against the Republican majority, President Bush's bobblehead Congress that just continues to say ``yes'' to every single thing that they do.

   I remember, too, my good friend from Florida, time and time again we heard about how government needs to be run like a business. And you know what, put me in. Sign me up. I agree. I think it should be run like a business. But when you apply this scenario to a business model, we are the board of directors, the United States Congress, and the majority in particular. The President is the CEO. So if the CEO keeps going back to the board to say, hey, we want to go borrow more money, the board should at least ask some questions, like, Where are you spending it?

   And when you hear where they are spending it, in Iraq a $1.5 billion a week, and then Halliburton, who is getting the contracts in Iraq, is inflating prices and has been fined already for inflating prices, basically bilking the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, is what that is called in laymen's terms; yet there is no oversight. Where is the $9 billion dollars in Iraq. Where is it? You got it. No, I don't. You don't have it? He's got it. Wait a minute, I don't have it. Nobody knows where it is, $9 billion.

   This is not an operation that is being run like a business, especially in Iraq. Then we look at what happened when Katrina hit. That operation, FEMA, was certainly not run like a business, because you don't put a horse lawyer in charge of an emergency management operation. That is the bottom line. You put people in who will respect the operation and respect what needs to be done.

   So if all this is happening, we've got to make some changes. And if it is General Motors, the American people do not have a vote as to who is on the board or who is the CEO of the company. But, fortunately, my friend, in the United States of America, the American people have the opportunity to pick a new board, and in November of 2006 the American people are going to have an opportunity to pick a new board.

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, when you start talking about our stakeholders here, and who is a stockholder in the United States of America or a stakeholder that has stock, you

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? -- (House of Representatives - March 29, 2006)

   (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the Republicans who were fiscally responsible? I think they must have left town after President Bush came to Washington in 2001.

   In January of that year, thanks to the fiscal policies of the Clinton administration, we were expecting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over 10 years. Instead, thanks to the fiscal policies of President Bush and the Republican ``Rubber Stamp'' Congress, that $5.6 trillion surplus has been turned into a $3.3 trillion deficit.

   President Bush has yet to propose a balanced budget, and yet the Republicans do not seem to mind. They keep signing off on the budget proposals, ignoring fiscal discipline.

   Because of their reckless borrow-and-spend policy, Republicans were forced to increase the debt limit earlier this year for the fourth time in 5 years, raising it to nearly $9 trillion. We are currently borrowing more than $600,000 a minute, much of it from foreign countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.

   Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans are serious about fiscal discipline, they will stop rubber-stamping President Bush's failed fiscal policies.

FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - November 18, 2005)

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Thursday night, on the eve of Veterans Day, we passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill with near unanimous, bipartisan support. I commend my colleagues for their cooperation on this bill which is so critical to America's security.

   I especially recognize Senator MITCH MCCONNELL for his steady leadership.

   Diplomacy and foreign policy are essential pillars of our national security. They reflect America's values, principles, and vital interests.

   This $21 billion appropriations bill promises to promote democracy, stability, and prosperity, and strengthen America's security here at home and around the world.

   It also promotes America's leadership in the arena of international aid. Targeted foreign assistance is an invaluable instrument for spreading democratic values, and improving the health and welfare of our neighbors close to home and around the world. It can promote economic growth and opportunity in even the poorest of nations.

   The Foreign Operations appropriations bill includes several provisions that advance these efforts. I would like to take a moment to share some of them.

   The defeat of Global HIV/AIDS is one of the world's greatest humanitarian challenges. In many countries, an entire generation of productive adults has been wiped out by this one, tiny, malicious virus. The funds set aside to battle the HIV/AIDS virus target relief where it can do the most good and make the biggest difference.

   Under this legislation, America is committed to providing $2.82 billion for Global HIV/AIDS relief. That includes: $2 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative; $250 million for HIV/AIDS from the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund; and a $450 million contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

   By providing this desperately needed help, we save lies, strengthen alliances, and promote peace and stability.

   I have often talked about humanitarian aid as a currency for peace. The Foreign Operations appropriations bill wisely sets aside targeted funding for global health programs to advance that cause.

   A1ong with tackling the Global HIV/Aids crisis, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill supports the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. These funds help reduce child mortality and morbidity, and combat other, serious public health problems.

   One of the most important public health crises this bill addresses is the lack of clean, drinkable water in many regions of the world.

   Every 15 seconds a child dies because of a disease contracted from unclean water. Fully, 90 percent of infant deaths can be attributed to this one, basic cause.

   1n total, water-related disease kills 14,000 people a day. That is over 5 million people a year, not counting the millions who are debilitated and prevented from leading healthy lives.

   Cholera, typhoid, dysentery, dengue fever, trachoma, intestinal helminth infection, and schistosomiasis can all be prevented by simply providing clean, drinkable water and proper sanitation.

   Funding for the Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act, which I cosponsored earlier this year, will go a long way to providing this simple, but profound necessity.

   In addition to providing Foreign Operations needed and targeted humanitarian aid, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill advances the critical work of stopping the spread of WMD.

   We are working closely with our friends and allies to secure stockpiles of WMD-related materials and technology and to make sure our allies have the ability to protect these sensitive materials.

   The Foreign Operations appropriations bill provides over $410 million toward our nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining efforts.

   One of the gravest threats we face is the threat of WMD falling into our enemy's hands.

   We cannot, we must not, let this happen.

   Ultimately, the goal of each and every one of our foreign operations programs must be to promote America's security and America's values. And as the last century taught us, our security and our values must go hand in hand.

   Whether for humanitarian, diplomatic or security purposes, effective foreign assistance advances our vital interests and protects the homeland.

   The United States remains committed to eliminating poverty, expanding prosperity, and strengthening domestic institutions abroad.

   And by doing so, we advance our security and prosperity right here at home.