Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word, then.

Mrs. LOWEY. I appreciate it. You have been very, very helpful. Thank you.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would like to make a few additional points because, previously, I did discuss the amendment in greater detail, and I thank the chairman for his consideration. There are a couple of important things. As to the $1 billion to the block grant funding, I think it is important that we look at the breakdown: $192.6 million for law enforcement training and exercises; $55 million for Operation Stonegarden grants, which is overtime costs; and $85 million for FEMA to administer the grant programs, which is the Department of Homeland Security estimate. This brings the funding total down to $667.1 million before the block grant even begins to be distributed to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, UASI, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, Interoperability, Port Security, Transit Security, and Citizen Corps. SHSGP is written in such a way that it doesn't have to even be funded; but if it is, there are minimum funding requirements for each State and territory--.35 percent of total funds for FY12. Given that SHSGP provides funding to each State, there is no scenario under which the Secretary does not fund this program. That is mandatory. So the minimum funding level that can be provided for SHSGP and that can comply with the statutory requirement is $125.4 million. This would leave just $551.7 million remaining for UASI, MMRS, Interoperability, Port Security, Transit Security, Citizen Corps. Now, I discussed previously when I introduced my amendment that there are tremendous needs for responding to the recent disasters all around this country that are really unheard of--the tornadoes, the floods, the loss of life. People have to rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives. It is essential that we appropriate that additional money, and it is also essential that we respond to the threats which are still out there. People will say bin Laden is gone, but there is an entire network that we have to be concerned about. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can respond adequately to both disaster needs and the needs of our UASI areas with regard to terrorist response for the grants. Let me conclude by thanking you, after sitting here for 6 hours, maybe 8 hours today, for allowing me to offer this amendment after being late for 10 seconds. I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate the support, and I do hope we can pass it and respond to the real needs out there for both disasters and the terrorism threats that are within our communities.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Later today, the House will continue its extreme assault on women's health. H.R. 3 would prevent small businesses and families from receiving tax credits for private insurance coverage that includes safe and legal health procedures; allow hospitals to deny lifesaving care to women; if audited, potentially require victims to prove to the IRS agents they were raped. Most troubling, in the report accompanying the bill, radical Republicans want to limit the exception for rape victims who can access full legal health services to only forcible rape victims. This bill to limit women's health services is a shameful distraction from the public's top priority, creating jobs.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal challenges our nation faces are the result of the irresponsible policies of the Bush administration and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as necessary measures that continue helping our economic recovery after the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. The high federal deficit is not, as some claim, due to over-investment in Head Start, schools, roads, bridges, medical research, or other critical priorities. The federal government must operate more efficiently, eliminate waste, and find cost-savings and efficiencies that jeopardize neither vital services on which Americans rely, nor critical investments in our economic growth. The administration and congressional negotiators made progress toward that end in this bill. We were successful in restoring funding for critical programs like Head Start, Pell Grants, public broadcasting, and Title I aid to local schools, and that the damage was mitigated for programs like family planning and medical research at the National Institutes of Health. The draconian cuts prescribed in H.R. 1 for these and other vital initiatives would have hurt our ability to grow the economy, create jobs, and compete in the future. I commend President Obama and Senator Reid for refusing to give in to Republican demands to de-fund Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs, which would have denied millions of women access to contraception, breast exams, Pap tests, and other critical health services. While the bill is a significant improvement over H.R. 1, it is far from perfect. Among its flaws, I am extremely disappointed that the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) have been slashed by 18 percent and 24 percent, which will hurt New York's preparedness. It is shameful that my amendment to restrict UASI funding to 25 at-risk, densely populated cities, passed by the House of Representatives, was removed, allowing the program's recipients to continue to balloon and further dilute this already insufficient account. A unified House position and common sense should have been enough to convince the Senate to provide the most at- risk areas like New York adequate anti-terror funds before areas that face minimal threat. I call on Secretary Napolitano to use her authority to limit the number of grant recipients to 25 and will introduce stand-alone legislation today to make it a statutory requirement. Many will reject this agreement on the grounds that the cuts are not severe enough while others will oppose it based on what they consider excessive reductions. However, to govern is to make tough choices, and I am working with my colleagues in a responsible and bipartisan way to protect vital services and investments in our future while reducing spending. My vote in support of this bill is not an endorsement of cuts to many important programs I believe are beneficial to economic growth, health, education, and public safety, and I will continue fighting against drastic and irresponsible proposals like H.R. 1. As difficult as it was to reach agreement for 2011 spending levels, the challenges ahead are even greater. Moving forward, Democrats and Republicans must work together to eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending while protecting investments in our future and essential services like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. The House should be debating legislation to create jobs, not procedural tricks to repeal health reform and increase our deficit. Under this resolution, pregnant women and cancer survivors could lose coverage when they most need it. Young adults would lose coverage on their parents' plans. Seniors would pay higher drug costs. Businesses and families would not receive tax credits for affordable coverage; and accountability for large insurers to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on health benefits would end. Vote against this resolution in order to preserve vital consumer protections in health reform, reduce costs, and decrease the deficit.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. The right wing's failed radical attempt to block funding for Planned Parenthood has now devolved to procedural games instead of a renewed focus on creating jobs. Federal law prohibits Federal dollars for abortion, and family planning saves taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 spent. If Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, they would increase these investments instead of demonizing those who provide affordable access to Pap tests, breast exams, routine gynecological exams, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides. Vote ``no'' on this assault on women's health.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ralph M. Baruch, who will receive the WNET Distinguished Service Award, and to honor his pivotal role in American broadcast media. Ralph Baruch has led a truly remarkable life. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, he fled as a young child from Nazi Germany to Paris. He again sought exile from France during the war and on a three-month journey through France he heroically transported his grandmother over the Pyrenees Mountains. From an early age, Ralph understood the vital power of the free media to ensure a just and fair world. Following his immigration to the United States in 1940, Mr. Baruch began his long and distinguished career in communications in radio then joined the DuMont Television Network in 1950. As television became a force in the American lifestyle, he began a long stint at CBS in 1954, then co-founded Viacom International Inc. and served as President and CEO from 1971 to 1983. During his tenure, he played a role in establishing or acquiring some of the most popular cable networks in the nation including Lifetime, MTV, Nickelodeon, The Movie Channel, and VH-1. Events during Ralph's formative years were perhaps the most poignant in history in demonstrating the influence of media and the suppression of information on society. Perhaps that is why he sought to ensure an open government and freedom of the press throughout his career, including by co-founding C-SPAN. He believed strongly in the public's right to a real-time connection to our government's proceedings and in the responsibility of our citizens to actively participate in our government. C-SPAN has grown to provide unprecedented unedited coverage of government events throughout the nation as well as cultural and educational opportunities, like literary discussions and materials for teachers and students. Mr. Baruch has already been honored with numerous awards for his leadership including an induction into the Cable Hall of Fame in 2006, cable television industry's highest honor, the Vanguard Award, their Chairman of the Year Award, and the International Radio & Television Society's Gold Medal. Mr. Baruch has also donated his time to a number of important positions in his community to support public television and to promote the history of broadcast media. He served as vice chairman of Carnegie Hall, a Trustee of the Museum of Television and Radio, and a member of the New York City Cultural Affairs Advisory Commission under former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. He currently serves on the board of Thirteen and as a Trustee of Lenox Hill Hospital. Mr. Baruch has balanced his distinguished career and philanthropic work with an equally impressive family life. He and his wife Jean have four daughters, Eve Baruch, Renee Baruch, Alice Baruch, M.D., and Michele Baruch Jeffery. Mr. Baruch is the author of an autobiography, Television Tightrope--How I Escaped Hitler, Survived CBS and Fathered Viacom, published in April 2007. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring a national broadcast media icon, Mr. Ralph Baruch.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ruth and Stephen Hendel of Larchmont, New York, recipients of the Jewish Theological Seminary's 2011 Louis B. Marshall Award. This award recognizes their commitment to principles to which Louis Marshall adhered as the Chairman of the Board of JTS from 1904 to 1929: exemplary ethics and communal commitment. In addition to helping strengthen our community and economy through their demanding careers--Stephen in business and law and Ruth in theatre production--the Hendels have worked to ensure equal opportunity for all. Their contributions have enhanced education programs, including at JTS, where both are actively involved. Stephen takes a unique interest in supporting rabbinical students while Ruth takes an active role on Chancellor Arnold M. Eisen's Arts Roundtable and on the Advisory Board of the Library to help expand students' access to cultural and literary works. The Hendels' contributions to the New York arts community extend far beyond professional commitment. With a long list of production credits on and off Broadway, the Hendels co-conceived and co-produced the critically acclaimed musical Fela!, which was nominated for eleven Tony awards. The Hendels sought to highlight continued oppression and civil rights struggles around the world in their production, which chronicles the life of a legendary Nigerian musician who inspired a generation in his pursuit of human rights and freedom. They also serve on boards of several important arts organizations. Mr. Hendel is on the boards of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, New Group, Culture Project, St. Ann's Warehouse, Afropop.org, and the African Museum for Art, and serves on various advisory committees at Yale University. Ms. Hendel serves on the boards of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, LAByrinth Theater, The Play Company, and the Yale School of Drama Advisory Board. In addition to their substantial contributions of their time and talents to JTS, Ms. Hendel received a Very Important Parent Award from the Board of Jewish Education and together they have been honored by Westchester/Fairfield County's Crohn's and Colitis Foundation and the Westchester Jewish Center of Mamaroneck. Married for thirty-three years, the Hendels have three adult children and a son-in-law--Abby and Guy, Sam, and Joe--and one grandson. The Hendels' commitment to community service and investment in the arts is greatly appreciated and extolled. I urge you to join me today in recognizing their outstanding achievements.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute and appreciation of Geraldine Ferraro, who blazed a trail for all women, especially in government, and dedicated her life to public service. Gerry and I shared many priorities, many of which were grounded in our similar experiences. As a former PTA president in Queens, New York, I felt a unique kinship with Gerry, who taught elementary school in Queens. In these capacities, we came to better understand the struggles families faced, the unmet needs of children, and the opportunities-- and, indeed, our responsibility--to exercise our precious rights to improve our communities for all our fellow citizens. One of only three women in her law school class, she advocated for women and children in countless pro bono cases in family court, including during the years she spent at home raising her own children. Gerry's sense of commitment to justice and opportunity for abused women and children was rivaled only by her success. In the Queens District Attorney's office, she led the Special Victims Bureau, prosecuting domestic violence, child abuse, and sex crimes. She gave voice to thousands who desperately needed an advocate and improved the quality of life and safety for all New Yorkers. Then as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Geraldine Ferraro fought day-in and day-out in the continuing struggle for women's rights, especially in the workplace. Before any of us knew the injustice Lilly Ledbetter faced in a tire manufacturing plant 900 miles from New York, Gerry was working to ensure women received wages, benefits, and pensions equal to their male counterparts. She laid the groundwork for the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay legislation we passed only two years ago. The first Italian-American and the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro crystallized for millions of women and girls that gender should be no obstacle to public service and national leadership. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and other strong women in government have benefited from the foundation she laid as the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 1984, and she inspired countless women to pursue elected office and assert their power as voters and active civic participants. Thanks to her efforts, the United States is stronger and more representative of our diverse and vibrant population. Her leadership did not end when she left the halls of Congress. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, she was a highly effective voice for women and families not just in the United States, but worldwide. She donated a great deal of her time and talent to highly respected charitable organizations and causes. Once diagnosed with multiple myeloma, she fought her illness for 12 years with the same tenacity and determination that were the hallmarks of her professional career. I was privileged to be part of honoring Geraldine with the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee's 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award. She stirred the hundreds of women packed into a New York City ballroom with her words of inspiration, her grace, and her commitment to advancing the health and well-being of others, even as she faced the fight of her life. In 1984, Geraldine proudly proclaimed as the Vice Presidential nominee, ``America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.'' She didn't just believe this in her gut; she did everything in her power to ensure that, through equal opportunity, every girl and boy throughout the United States and around the world has the means to pursue their dreams of a productive and successful life. I was privileged to know Geraldine Ferraro, and she leaves a proud legacy of courage, principled advocacy, and greater opportunity. All Americans owe her a debt of gratitude for her service and leadership.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, we all agree that we must get our fiscal house in order, which is why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 billion from the President's 2011 budget request in December. We must evaluate every program and determine whether it merits taxpayer funding. I have significant reservations about some of the cuts included in H.J. Res. 48, particularly eliminating funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, which was created nearly 50 years ago and is the only source of ongoing infrastructure assistance for public broadcasting stations. Its competitive grants require a local match, resulting in a successful public-private partnership, and it is the only source of emergency funding for stations with facilities devastated by disasters. Funding has already been cut by more than half since 2004, and it is a mistake to eliminate it. Instead of continuing their quest to dismantle public broadcasting, the authors of the bill should have found savings by ending taxpayer- funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars. However, while I may not support every cut, it is imperative that Congress do everything it can, and reach common ground whenever possible, to avoid a government shutdown. We cannot allow for the possibility of seniors going without Social Security checks or veterans losing access to the health benefits they have earned. The 7-month continuing resolution the House passed in February is a dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. With no better options, we must adopt this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government operating while we negotiate spending for the remainder of the fiscal year that will continue economic growth.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition. 170 million Americans use public media for vital news. Sixty-one percent of voters who support deficit reduction also support funding for public broadcasting. Yet the assault on public broadcasting continues, when jobs and the economy should be our top priority. This outrageous bill would prohibit public radio stations from using Federal funds to acquire any radio programming from any outside source. That means that your local stations may not be able to air quality programming. We were not sent here to silence ``Prairie Home Companion,'' ``Car Talk'' and ``Morning Edition.'' Let's stop trying to put Diane Rehm out of work and focus on putting more Americans back to work. Reject this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we must get our fiscal house in order. That is why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 billion from the President's 2011 budget request in December. We have a responsibility to our constituents to evaluate every program and determine whether it merits taxpayer funding. Although I will vote for it, I do not support every cut in the underlying bill. We must make targeted reductions that make our government more efficient while prioritizing critical investments in innovation if we are to remain a global leader. Instead of reducing our deficit by eliminating education programs, we should find savings by ending taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars. However, it is imperative that Congress do everything it can, and reach common ground whenever possible, to avoid a government shutdown. We cannot allow for the possibility of seniors going without Social Security checks or veterans losing access to the health benefits they have earned. The seven month continuing resolution the House passed in February is a dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. We must adopt this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government operating while we negotiate spending for the remainder of the fiscal year that will continue economic growth.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that none of us are making a statement that the U.N. can solve all the problems in the world. But I want to reiterate again a comment that my good friend Mr. Moran made: If we are going to put a cocoon around our country and operate in isolation, we will be less successful in dealing with the extraordinary challenges that we are facing today. And I would like to say to my good friend Mr. Kingston, I'm not quite sure that we would be more successful in dealing with slaughters and genocide without the U.N. We are working very hard with our colleagues and our friends around the world to try and find solutions. And I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining.

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Broun amendment would withhold U.S.- assessed contributions to the U.N., directly contravening U.S. treaty obligations and national security interests. It would isolate the U.S., cripple U.S. diplomatic efforts globally, weaken our leadership within the U.N. to advance crucial foreign policy priorities. The U.N. is critical to advancing U.S. national security interests, and the Broun amendment would impede our ability to influence crucial counterterrorism actions at the U.N. Security Council, including concrete steps targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, global action addressing the conduct of regimes such as North Korea and Iran, on which the Security Council has acted forcefully in recent years, imposing the most comprehensive sanctions ever on these regimes, U.N. missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which play crucial and growing roles in both countries, supplementing U.S. efforts and reducing our burden. U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are an indispensable tool, have saved untold lives, averted dozens of wars, and helped restore or establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries. The Broun amendment would put the U.S. on a dangerous path to isolationism. We learned on September 11, 2001, that we are not immune from events that take place halfway around the world. There are enormous challenges that we all must face together, and the United States cannot close its borders and think that we can protect our own security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to effectively withdraw from the U.N. because it would endanger our national security. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Stearns amendment because it would exacerbate security vulnerabilities at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The United Nations Capital Master Plan addresses a number of serious life safety and security concerns to staff, diplomats, and visitors. The U.N. receives approximately 5,000 accredited delegates annually from around the world and 300,000 tourists, about 40 percent of whom are Americans. Almost 4,300 people work at the U.N. headquarters complex, including 1,280 Americans. The U.N. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old, is not compliant with New York City building and life safety codes or modern security requirements. The major building systems are inefficient, beyond their useful life, increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. For example, the life safety systems are a great concern, including inadequate sprinkler and alarm systems and the lack of an automatic shutdown of ventilation systems in the event of a fire. Hazardous materials, such as asbestos, are still present in the facilities. Providing the U.N. with safe and functional headquarter facilities will enable the organization to operate more effectively is what we all want. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, while I have serious misgivings about the funding levels for FEMA first responder grants in the CR, my amendment ensures that one program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, is restored to its intended purpose. By limiting UASI recipients to the 25 highest-risk cities, we will restore its original purpose--addressing the unique planning, equipment and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas in order to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from, acts of terrorism. Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI has ballooned to 64 regions, many of which are neither high-threat, nor high-density. Rather than provide the highest possible funding to our most at-risk targets, FEMA made UASI a virtual earmark account. FEMA wastes resources, disregards Congressional prerogatives, and dilutes resources available to truly high-risk areas. For instance, despite a $50 million increase for UASI since Fiscal Year 2008, the New York City area receives less funding despite the grave and growing threats it faces. We need look no further to Faisal Shazad's failed plot to detonate a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010 or the 2009 arrest of Najubullah Zazi for his role in an attempted bombing of the New York City subway system to understand the disproportionate threat New Yorkers face. Just last week in fact, Secretary Napolitano testified before the Homeland Security Committee that we are at our most ``heightened state'' of terrorist threat since September 11th. Now is the time to provide the most targeted cities with the resources they need and deserve. If the CR is adopted and the same number of UASI recipients remains, the New York City region would stand to LOSE nearly $15 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone--this is totally unacceptable. To my new colleagues who came to Congress pledging to make government more efficient, this is your chance. Don't let the CR pass with the same number of UASI recipients, shortchanging the top terror target in the country by a $15 million decrease in funds. While the horrific World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and 2001 were in New York, they were aimed at the United States and all Americans. We all have a responsibility to ensure our most targeted regions are adequately prepared. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.