Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart and sincere condolences for the victims of yesterday's tragic earthquake. Yet another natural disaster has devastated this country and its people. My heartfelt sympathy and prayers go out to the people of Haiti, those injured and unaccounted for, including Americans and U.N. personnel, and those who have lost loved ones. I commend the swift response by the Obama Administration, especially USAID, the State Department, and DOD, as well as the international community to quickly mobilize humanitarian and disaster relief in a complex humanitarian disaster. The devastation this earthquake has wrought is particularly tragic for the people of Haiti, who have endured not only destructive storms and hurricanes, but crushing poverty and political turmoil. Americans and people around the world have answered the call to support Haiti with time, talents, and charitable assistance in Haiti's great time of need. I stand committed to help the Haitian people recover from this disaster through emergency and humanitarian assistance as well as through long-term development assistance. I'm hopeful that a unified coordinated effort, in collaboration with the Haitian people, will result in a successful effort to rebuild their beautiful country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill's expansion of economic sanctions against Iran and businesses and the refined petroleum and energy sectors collaborating with the regime. I strongly support this bill's expansion of economic sanctions against Iran and businesses in the refined petroleum and sectors collaborating with the regime. Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons technology and defiance of international law are a great threat to world stability. This bill sends a critical message: the American people and this Congress have little patience for Iran's foot-dragging, and there will be serious consequences for the Iranian government if its nuclear efforts are not halted. The 2010 foreign aid bill includes a measure to curtail Ex-Im's cooperation with foreign companies that significantly contribute to Iran's refined petroleum industry. And passage of H.R. 2194 will lay the groundwork for even tougher sanctions on Iran. I thank the Gentleman from California for his efforts, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman for his important work on this bill. I am very pleased to present Division F of the fiscal year 2010 omnibus, which includes $48.764 billion in appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs. At $1.235 billion, or 2 percent below fiscal year 2009 enacted levels including supplemental appropriations, and $3.28 billion below the President's fiscal year 2010 request, these funds support the U.S. diplomatic and development priorities, a cornerstone of U.S. national security. To address security imperatives, it includes $4.5 billion to help stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; in conjunction with funding in the 2009 supplemental, full funding for our commitments to allies and partners in the Middle East, including a total of $2.775 billion in FMF for Israel, $1.3 billion for Egypt, $300 billion for Jordan; a provision to prevent the Export-Import Bank from entering into any deals with foreign companies that significantly contribute to Iran's refined petroleum industry and gives the Secretary of State authority to exempt countries cooperating closely with the United States to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; $873.6 million for counternarcotics and alternate development programs in Latin America. This bill continues the congressional commitment to increase diplomatic and development capacity with resources to hire, train, support, and protect 700 new Department of State personnel and 300 new USAID personnel. The bill increases funding for key long-term development priorities, including $7.7 billion for global health activities including $5.7 billion for global HIV/AIDS; $1.1 billion to improve access to quality basic and higher education; $1.1 billion for food security and agricultural development; over $1.25 billion in bilateral and multilateral assistance for clean energy, biodiversity, and climate change initiatives; and $315 million to expand access to safe water and sanitation; and $2.57 billion for refugee and disaster assistance. Finally, to improve accountability and oversight, the bill provides $149 million for the Inspectors General of the Department of State and USAID and the Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan foreign assistance package before you preserves our Nation's interests. I'm also pleased this appropriations package invests in worthy initiatives in our communities that will improve health, education, law enforcement, environment, and infrastructure in New York and around the Nation. So I urge my colleagues to give this bill our bipartisan support.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is a disappointing distraction from the bill before us. Under current law, no taxpayer funds can be used to cover abortion. While I believe abortion should be legal and safe, I have worked for years with colleagues on both sides of this issue to also make this procedure rare. If we want to reduce abortions, we should provide women health coverage for reproductive care, contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies, and prenatal care to ensure healthy pregnancies. This amendment threatens the rights and health of women to seek a legal procedure covered by the premiums they will pay out from their own pockets. The underlying bill would uphold current law which states that no Federal funds can support abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and reprehensible amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. Over the last eight months, I have communicated with tens of thousands of my constituents in Westchester and Rockland Counties in meetings, conference calls, round-tables, telephone town halls, and neighborhood office hours. Among people from of all walks of life--small business owners, doctors, patient advocates, and seniors--one constant is the passion which most agree on the need for health care reform despite different opinions on how best to achieve reform. Since 2000, personal premiums have more than doubled. Since 1987, the cost of the average family health insurance policy has risen from 7 percent of the median family income to 17 percent. In 2007, 60 percent of all U.S. bankruptcies were due to medical costs. The U.S. is on track to spend nearly $33 trillion on health care over the next decade. The financial security of our families, businesses, and our overall economy depends on meaningful health care reform. That's why I will support this bill today to: Provide health coverage to approximately 36 million Americans, including 39,000 residents in my congressional district. Help small businesses who are struggling to provide coverage to their employees while exempting 86 percent of the smallest businesses from the requirement to do so. Ensure that reform is fully paid for while exempting 99.7 percent of all American households from paying a health care surcharge. Guarantee additional protections to those who have insurance, including ending discrimination for pre-existing conditions; limiting annual out-of-pocket costs; and preventing health insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you become sick. Improve and strengthen Medicare. Now, this bill is not perfect. I am deeply disappointed that the House approved language which puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money. If we want to reduce abortions we should give millions of women health coverage so they can get regular reproductive care, contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies, and prenatal care to ensure healthy pregnancies. Despite this damaging provision, we must move forward in improving health coverage for those who have it, providing coverage for those who don't, and controlling costs throughout the system. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. LOEBSACK Mr. Speaker, this August and September I held 16 town halls across the 2nd District of Iowa. I heard from countless Iowans about the need to change the current health care system. Though some disagreed with provisions in the original House proposal, almost everyone agreed that the fact that a family in Iowa pays an extra $1,100 per year in premiums to support a broken system was unacceptable. So I am proud to be a part of a Congress that decided the status quo is no longer acceptable. Iowa families want stable health care coverage that can't be taken away, they want greater choices, and they want to know that if they get sick they won't be forced into bankruptcy. The Affordable Health Care for America Act answers these calls to action and I'm proud to support a bill that is good for Iowans. This legislation keeps what works in the current system and fixes what doesn't. If you like your current health insurance and you like your doctors you can keep them. If you don't have health insurance, you will be able to acquire it. In fact, some of the greatest changes from the original House proposal to the bill we are considering today are the immediate reforms. We aren't saying wait for coverage, we are saying the status quo is not fair and we will no longer tolerate it starting right now. There will be help for hardworking families now. The revised bill immediately creates an insurance program with financial assistance for those who have been uninsured or denied coverage because of pre- existing conditions, and fills the gap until the Health Insurance Exchange is up and running. The bill immediately prohibits health insurance companies from rescinding coverage. If you find out you are sick one day, you don't have to worry that your health insurance will be taken away the next. The revised legislation also immediately prohibits health insurers from utilizing lifetime limits on benefits, and extends COBRA eligibility to permit individuals to remain in their COBRA policy until the Health Insurance Exchange is up and running. America's Affordable Health Care for America Act also makes immediate changes to improve the health and well being of our seniors. The legislation begins closing the Medicare Part D Donut Hole in January. There will also be an immediate 50 percent discount for brand name drugs in the donut hole. In addition to the immediate benefits, this legislation takes a comprehensive approach to long-term reform. I am a native Iowan, and since I came to Congress I have been committed to fixing the broken Medicare payment system. The geographic disparities in the system have caused problems not only for providers in my District, but also for the patients. I have always been proud of how hospitals in my District have achieved so much under the constraints of the current Medicare payment system. With some of the lowest reimbursement rates in the country, they provide some of the highest quality care. However, the current system is broken and now I'm proud to say that the Affordable Health Care for America Act reforms Medicare payments so that they are based on the quality of services rather than the quantity of services. This fix benefits not just Iowa, but all of America. I also want to mention another provision with direct benefit to Iowa in this legislation. According to a 2008 Institute of Medicine report, Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce, in the near future, the nation will be aging dramatically, leading to an increase of older adults from 12 percent of the U.S. population in 2005 to almost 20 percent by 2030. As the population ages, their health care needs will increase, and they will need additional supports. In the same report, it's stated that meeting the demand that is expected in coming years will require expansion of the roles of many members of the health care workforce, including technicians, direct-care workers and informal caregivers, all of whom already play significant roles in the care of older adults. I was very pleased to have language included in this bill that takes much needed steps towards meeting these workforce demands, as well as other projected long-term health needs. The provision encourages the identification, promotion, and implementation of investments in the long-term care workforce and assists States in developing comprehensive state workforce development plans. It also creates a Workforce Advisory Panel which will identify core competencies for long-term care workers and recommends training curricula and resources for these workers. The bill also creates a demonstration project to evaluate the Panel's recommendations. In addition, this legislation improves assistance to family and informal caregivers, and improves the dissemination of information to seniors regarding their long-term care health insurance options. In a recent guest column in the Des Moines Register, John Hale from the Iowa Caregivers Association, highlighted the efforts that Iowa has already undertaken on long-term care workforce shortages and spoke about the national need to address these issues. Mr. Hale stated that, ``Access to coverage does not equal access to care.'' I could not agree more. Federal support is essential in helping all states continue to look at both workforce shortages and the core competencies that should be required of those in the field. I have said many times in the past weeks and months that quality health care is the key to patient outcomes. I am glad this legislation takes much needed steps to support our long-term care workforce. There are many more important provisions in this legislation and in the coming days, weeks, and months I look forward to discussing this bill, and what it does for Iowans, with my constituents. I look forward to voting for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and abolishing the status quo.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I support health care that helps senior women afford their medications through Medicare.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong support of the bill, and I want to thank Chairman Frank for bringing this very important bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, deceptive credit card practices allow one hidden fee to snowball into ballooning interest rates and into $1,000 balances that many families, which are struggling to get by, cannot afford. When the President signed the Credit CARD Act into law, some companies tried to beat the clock by imposing predatory finance charges on consumers. That's why I am so pleased that, in working with Chairman Frank and with Congresswoman Maloney, I introduced legislation accelerating the implementation date. The enactment of this bill will protect our constituents who cannot afford to be hit with abusive new fees or interest rate hikes. It will also accelerate other consumer protections, including a provision I cosponsored to require additional disclosure on the dangers of making only minimum payments. So I really do want to commend the chairman and the gentlewoman from New York for their important work. I urge their support. As far as my constituents are concerned, this bill can't be passed soon enough.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly, OSU, whose extraordinary life of service as an educational leader and visionary, a champion for social justice and interfaith understanding, and a mentor to thousands of women and men will be celebrated by the Alumnae/i Association of the College of New Rochelle on Saturday, November 7, 2009. Sister Dorothy Ann, the 11th president of the College of New Rochelle, died suddenly on March 27, 2009, ending her 60-year affiliation with the college, from which she had graduated in 1951. At the time of her death, she was in her 6th year as Provincial Prioress of the Eastern Province of the Ursulines of the Roman Union, the order of Roman Catholic nuns that she had entered in 1952. Sister Dorothy Ann started her 25-year tenure as CNR president in the early 1970s, at a time when many all-women's colleges across the country were foundering. She gave new life to CNR by establishing its School of New Resources to educate adult students on six branch campuses in urban New York City neighborhoods. A commuter student from the Bronx, who had attended CNR on a scholarship, Sister Dorothy Ann saw the School of New Resources as furthering the original mission of the college to make higher education more accessible to those who weren't being well served. Two other schools were also established at CNR during her presidency--the School of Nursing and the Graduate School--earning her the unofficial title as ``second founder'' of the college. Her immeasurable talents as an effective, inspiring, tenacious and energetic leader soon brought her expanded roles in higher education. In 1978, she was named the first woman chair of the Commission of Independent Colleges and Universities of the State of New York, and 9 years later, became the first woman chair of the National Association of Colleges and Universities. Sister Dorothy Ann's influence and impact were also felt in other arenas, on the local, national and even international scene. In 1974, she became one of the first members of the Executive Committee of the Inter-Religious Council of New Rochelle, and maintained that association until her death. Shortly thereafter, convinced that the violence in northern Ireland had to be stopped, she not only hosted Nobel Peace Prize winners Mairead Corrigan Maguire and Betty Williams several times at the college, but also served as the first president of a New York-based group formed to finance the Northern Ireland Peace People. And in 1995, she was appointed by President Bill Clinton as a member of the official U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Her achievements and contributions to numerous organizations and causes won her wide recognition, with honors including induction into the Westchester County Women's Hall of Fame and honorary degrees from six U.S. colleges and universities. But far more meaningful and lasting are the heartfelt tributes from the thousands whose lives she touched-- and improved--through her landmark efforts to expand educational opportunities and increase understanding among peoples of all faiths, races and cultural backgrounds. I urge you to join me in honoring Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly's remarkable legacy of service and commitment to making this a better world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall vote No. 790, 791, and 792 on October 20, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 790: ``yea''; rollcall No. 791: ``yea''; rollcall No. 792: ``yea.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, and I want to thank our chairman, Chairman Price, for his strong leadership on this bill. Assistance for our first responders is one of the most effective tools to protect our homeland, as evidenced by the Federal Government and the New York Police Department's discovery of the plot to bomb the city's subways last month. The bill provides $4.17 billion to invest in that partnership, including the Urban Area Security Initiative, the only grant program for high-risk cities. The conference report increases funding for it by $50 million. All too often our brave first responders have to rely on communications methods that resemble the time of Paul Revere. The conference report provides $50 million for new technology through the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant, which I fought very hard with the chairman to create. To help prevent illicit radiological material from entering New York, the bill provides $20 million for securing the cities, the same level for equipment procurement as in FY 2009, and I look forward to working with the chairman and the subcommittee to ensure that the program is fully implemented. In addition to aiding our first responders, the bill tackles a number of pressing issues, including providing $1.5 billion to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens, bolstering border security with more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents, and securing our airports and transit system by providing $678 million more than in FY 2009 for the Transportation Security Administration. So I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues' support.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleagues, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sue Myrick for organizing this very important Special Order hour tonight. Recognizing breast cancer awareness month is about more than issuing a proclamation or delivering a speech. It is about honoring the women who have fought bravely against breast cancer and committing to finding a cure so that they and other women can live healthy lives. These women and their families have created a community of hope for those who struggle every day--with courage and dignity--with this terrible disease. They are mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, and advocates whose strength and tenacity have driven us toward significant progress in treating breast cancer. Improvements in treatments coupled with advances in early detection and screening methods have increased the survival rates for women to 98 percent when breast cancer is detected in its earliest stages. But this remarkable achievement can not stop us from ensuring this terrible disease is cured once and for all. Government can't cure cancer, but it can put the resources in the hands of scientists who will. That's why I have made funding biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health a top priority in Congress. It is hard to believe, but when I was first appointed to the Appropriations Committee in 1991, the federal government was spending just $133 million on breast cancer each year. In the last decade, however, that investment has increased dramatically--to more than $1.3 billion between spending at the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Defense. Furthermore, last year, legislation I authored with Representative Sue Myrick to study the link between the environment and breast cancer was enacted into law. In addition to fighting for more research into the causes and best treatments for breast cancer, I have also spearheaded the effort to substantially increase and accelerate research into early detection technologies. Mammography screenings are a woman's best chance for detecting breast cancer early, and when coupled with new treatment options, can significantly improve a woman's chances of survival. However, experts and scientists agree that we still have not found the 21st century early detection method we need. I am pleased that the National Cancer Institute is spending close to $55 million per year to research better screening methods for breast cancer spurred by my legislation, the Better Screening for Women Act. The federal commitment to cancer research has enabled us to make enormous strides in our understanding of this complex disease. The investment we make in research and education today will improve care for each and every cancer patient, and move us closer to the day when we eradicate cancer.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. As we mark the eighth anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks on our country, we are reminded of the adage that ``time heals all wounds.'' At Ground Zero, bulldozers are laying the foundation for new towers, while millions carry on their daily routine. Many who lost spouses have remarried, finding comfort in new love. Infants have grown into children and children into adults, with thoughts that dwell on the future, rather than the past. For this we should be grateful. No one should live in the perpetual shadow of grief. And yet the wounds are still raw. New Yorkers still perceive the skyline of Manhattan as maimed and incomplete. We are still gripped at certain moments by memories of loved ones that are unbearably painful. We are still at war, bearing the unfinished burden of rooting out the perpetrators and instigators of evil. And as a Nation, as a people, we understand that the innocence shattered on that awful morning 8 years ago can never be fully restored. Our challenge then, as Americans, is to honor the loss and heed the lessons of 9/11, while also affirming at every opportunity the optimism and confidence that always defined this great Nation at its best. In this body, we do this by remaining strong and steadfast in our determination to confront terrorists and their sponsors, using the full spectrum of American power as an instrument of justice. We do this by, together with the firefighters, police officers, emergency workers and intelligence officers, committing to the hard work of securing our land against those who would do violence, ensuring that our transportation networks and energy facilities, our ports and our bridges are defended by more than feckless hope. We do this by refusing to give up our liberties out of fear, knowing that a retreat from our founding values does more harm to America than any external enemy ever could. And we do this by pursuing the age-old American vision of a world lifted by freedom, knowledge and prosperity in which all men and women have the tools to build just and decent societies that live in peace with their neighbors. It has been my duty and honor to serve and to serve those goals as a Member of the United States Congress. In tribute to all those who lost their lives 8 years ago, to all those who have lost their lives in Iraq, in Afghanistan in the time since, and to all those whose lives are still shaped every day by memory and loss, let us together commit to upholding these responsibilities until our work is done. Thank you. May God bless America, and may God bless all people of goodwill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, this week, we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Over a third of a century ago, more than 200,000 Cypriots were driven from their homes and forced to live under foreign occupation. We are at a critical juncture in the pursuit of peace and prosperity for all Cypriots, and I urge all parties to move toward a peaceful resolution and reunification effort that will build a more united and prosperous Cyprus. There is a strong view that any solution to the Cyprus problem must include a bicommunal, bi-zonal federal State of Cyprus. The international community has stressed that this should include a single sovereignty and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described by the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. I welcome the renewed interest in the efforts for a lasting solution. Under initiatives undertaken by President Christofias since his election in 2008, there is a movement which I hope will finally lead to a comprehensive solution to the problems facing Cyprus. The leaders of the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot communities have demonstrated a strong commitment by holding more than 35 rounds of direct talks starting on September 3, 2008, and continuing on a regular basis. These ongoing reunification talks between the two Cypriot leaders offer real opportunity to advance peace and work toward a just and lasting reunification. If there is commitment to establishing one prosperous Cyprus in which all people benefit from good relations with the international community and membership in the EU, we must resolve to do everything we can to make this goal a reality. I am confident the Cypriots' desire to reunify their country, to bring peace and prosperity throughout the region, and ultimately to stand up for what they believe in, will prevail. I sincerely hope a solution to reuniting the island of Cyprus will be reached under a government that safeguards basic human rights and democracy and respects the fundamental freedoms of the people as a whole.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Tiahrt and their staffs for their hard work in crafting this bill. Overall, this is an excellent bill which includes increases for critical programs such as Pell Grants, NIH, family planning services, GEAR-UP, TRIO and after-school programs, just to name a few. Despite the positive provisions before us, I'm disappointed that the bill eliminates the Safe and Drug Free School and Communities State Grants. The community-based coalitions in White Plains, Ossining, Larchmont, Port Chester and Ardsley, to name a few, are working tirelessly to reduce drug and alcohol use among young people. I hope I can work with the chairman to restore funding for this program as the bill moves through the process. Despite this concern, the bill takes big steps towards addressing some of our Nation's most pressing challenges. I am proud to support it, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit an article highlighting the life and work of Margaret Sanger authored by Dr. Ellen Chesler, distinguished lecturer at Hunter College of the City University of New York and Director of the Eleanor Roosevelt Initiative on Women and Public Policy. Margaret Sanger, who lived from 1879 to 1966, was a nurse, educator, birth control pioneer, women's health activist, and founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually became Planned Parenthood. Her commitment to improving the health and lives of women was a testament to her belief that all women are entitled to basic health care and the ability to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately control their own destiny. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize Margaret Sanger for her tireless efforts on behalf of women and for fighting for those unable to fight for themselves. Margaret Sanger--Setting the Record Straight (By Ellen Chesler) Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger went to jail in 1917 for distributing simple contraceptives to immigrant women from a makeshift clinic in a tenement storefront in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. When she died nearly fifty years later, the cause for which she defiantly broke the law had achieved international stature, and she was widely eulogized as one of the great emancipators of her time. A visionary thinker, relentless agitator, and gifted organizer, Sanger lived just long enough to savour the historic 1965 US Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established privacy protections as a framework for legalizing basic reproductive rights. Elderly and frail, she watched Lyndon Johnson finally incorporate family planning into US public welfare and foreign policy programs. She saw the birth control pill developed and marketed by a team of doctors and scientists she had long encouraged and found the money to support. She saw a global family planning movement descend from her own international efforts. The years since have not been as good to Sanger's reputation, even as they have witnessed measurable progress for women in achieving reproductive freedom. Today, outside of a small minority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in parts of the Muslim world that are now high-profile exceptions to the global norm, a typical woman bears no more than two children over the course of several years and spends another 30 to 40 years avoiding pregnancy. More than 60 million women around the world use oral contraception daily, a dramatic increase since organized interventions began. The right of women to plan their families remains at least for the time being enshrined in the US constitution and in international human rights law, where it is widely recognized as a necessary condition to improve women's status, and in turn to sustain democratic institutions, promote social and economic progress, and help sustain fragile environments. Still, universal standards for women's human rights offer no sure cure for violations that persist with uncanny fortitude and often unimaginable cruelty in so many places around the world. Harsh fundamentalisms are resurgent in many countries, where women's bodies remain an arena of intense political conflict, as a perhaps predictable response to the social dislocations resulting from changing gender roles and to the larger assaults on traditional cultures from the many real and perceived injustices of modernization and globalization. Even back at home in the United States, decades of substantial progress by women have fuelled a fierce backlash. Wih an intensity that few would have predicted in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as America's first pro-choice president, a powerful conservative minority has eroded abortion rights along with funding for family planning at home and abroad, while dollars have surged instead for abstinence programs known to be ineffective and often harmful. We have tolerated the impunity of daily campaigns of intimidation and outright violence against courageous providers of contraception and abortion, culminating most recently in the tragic assassination of Dr. George Tiller of Kansas. Planned Parenthood affiliates have been repeatedly targeted, and Sanger herself has become a collateral victim of this frenzy, her reputation savaged by opponents who deliberately misrepresent the history of birth control and circulate scurrilous, false accusations about her on the Internet. A particularly harsh example of this campaign of distortion and outright misrepresentation came in response to recent Congressional testimony by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton was chastised for her unwavering support of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health rights and services for women and for having accepted with pride the highest honour of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, its Margaret Sanger Award, a prize bestowed in the past on some of this country's most distinguished supporters of reproductive justice, beginning with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. This statement is offered in response to false accusations about Margaret Sanger made on that occasion. It investigates Sanger's core beliefs and major contributions and reexamines, in the face of so much continued controversy, her unquestioning confidence in the power of medicine and science to shape human conduct and alleviate suffering, a confidence that fuelled her interest in trying to make birth control serve as a tool of both individual liberation and social betterment. Sanger's contribution and legacy Margaret Sanger's fundamental contribution was in claiming every woman's right to experience her sexuality freely and bear only the number of children she desires. Following in the footsteps of a first generation of educated women who had proudly forgone marriage in order to seek fulfilment outside the home, she offered birth control as a necessary condition to the resolution of a broader range of personal and professional satisfactions. The hardest challenge in introducing her to modern audiences, for whom this claim has become routine, is to explain how absolutely destabilizing it seemed in her own time. Even with so much lingering animus toward changes in women's lives around the world, it is difficult to inhabit an era in our own history when sexuality was considered more an obligation of women than an experience from which to derive contentment, let along pleasure. It is hard to remember that well into Sanger's own time motherhood was accepted as a woman's principal purpose and primary role. It is even harder to fathom that American women just a century ago, were still largely denied identities or rights of their own, independent of those they enjoyed by virtue of their relationships with men, and that this principle was central to the enduring opposition they encountered in seeking access to full rights of inheritance and property, to suffrage, and most especially to birth control. This unyielding principle of male ``coverture'' defined women's legal identities even with respect to physical abuse in the family, which the U.S. Supreme Court condoned in 1910, denying damages to a wife injured by violent beatings on the grounds that to do so would undermine the peace of the household. Re-examining this history in the context of the recent expansion of civil and human rights to incorporate women's rights underscored Sanger's originality as a feminist theorist who first demanded civil protection of women's claims to reproductive liberty and bodily integrity, in and outside of marriage. As a result of private arrangements and a healthy trade in condoms, douches, and various contraptions sold largely under the subterfuge of feminine hygiene, the country's birth rate began to decline long before she came on the scene. But it was she who invented ``birth control'' as a comfortable, popular term of speech, and in so doing gave the practice essential public and political currency. It was she who first recognised the far-reaching consequences of bringing sexuality and contraception out in the open and claiming them as fundamental women's rights. She won legal protection for birth control, and by winning scientific validation for specific contraceptive practices, she also helped lift the religious shroud that had long encased reproduction in myth and mystery, thereby securing medical and social science institutions--as much as houses of worship--as arbiters of sexual behaviours and values. And from this accomplishment, which many still consider heretical, a continuing controversy has ensued. When Sanger opened her clinic and deliberately staged an arrest in 1916, she challenged anachronistic obscenity laws that remained on the books as the legacy of the notorious anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, whose evangelical fervour had captured late 19th century Victorian politics and led to the adoption by the states and federal government of broad criminal sanctions on sexual speech and commerce, including all materials related to contraception and abortion. Her critique, however, was not just of legal constraints on obscenity, but also of legal constraints on women's place. In this respect, she also helped inaugurate a modern women's rights movement that moves beyond traditional civil and political claims of liberty to embrace social and cultural ones. She understood that to advance women's rights it is necessary to address--and the state has an obligation to protect--personal as well as public spheres of conduct. It must establish broad safeguards for women and intervene to eliminate everyday forms of discrimination and abuse. from the past to the present Observing the contorted politics of sexuality in recent years only reinforces one's sympathy for Margaret Sanger's predicament as a wildly polarizing figure in her own day and clarifies the logic of her decision after World War I to mainstream her movement by identifying reproductive freedom, not just as a woman's right, but also as a necessary foundation for broader improvements in public health and social welfare. Her decision to adopt the socially resonant content of ``family planning'' over birth control, when the Great Depression encouraged attention to collective needs over individual ones and when the New Deal created a blueprint for bold public endeavours, was particularly inventive, and in no way cynical. Nor as some of her harshest critics have since have charged, did she ever define family planning as right of the privileged, but as a duty or obligation of the poor, any more than we do so today when we call for increased public expenditure on it as a matter of simple justice. To the contrary, Sanger showed considerable foresight in lobbying for voluntary family planning programs to be included among the benefits of any sound public investment in social security. Had the New Deal included public health and access to contraception in its social welfare package, as most European countries were then doing, protracted conflicts over welfare and healthcare policy in the years since in the United States might well have been avoided. Where she went wrong was only in failing to anticipate the force of the opposition her proposal would generate from a coalition of religious conservatives of her own day, including urban Catholics and rural fundamentalist Protestants to whom Roosevelt Democrats became captive, much as Republicans have become in recent years. What is a good deal harder to deconstruct and understand is Sanger's engagement with eugenics during these years, the then still widely respectable and popular intellectual movement that addressed the manner in which biology and heredity affect human intelligence and ability. Like many well-intentioned secularists and social reformers of her day, Sanger took away from Charles Darwin the essentially optimistic lesson that men and women's common descent in the animal kingdom makes us all capable of improvement, if only we apply the right tools. Eugenics, in the view of most prominent progressive thinkers of this era, from university presidents, to physicians and scientists, to public officials, held the promise that merit would replace birthright and social status as the standard for mobility in a democratic society. In this respect, the most enduring bequest of eugenics is standard IQ testing. Its most damning and unfathomable legacy is a series of state laws upheld by a 9 to 1 progressive majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1929, including Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who in the landmark decision of Buck v. Bell authorised the compulsory sterilisation of a poor young white woman with an illegitimate child, on grounds of feeble-mindedness that were never clearly established. This decision, incidentally, was also endorsed by civil libertarians such as Roger Baldwin and civil rights advocates, including W.E.B. Dubois of the NAACP, both of whom Sanger counted among her supporters and friends. For Sanger eugenics was meant to begin with the voluntary use of birth control, but many conservative eugenicists of the day actually opposed the practice on the grounds that the fit should procreate. Sanger countered by disdaining what she called a `cradle competition' of class, race or ethnicity. She publicly opposed immigration restrictions which grew out of conservative interpretations of a eugenics that reinforced racial and ethnic stereotypes she opposed. She framed poverty as a matter of differential access to resources, including birth control, not as the immutable consequence of low inherent ability or poor character, a view some conservative eugenicists embraced. She argued for broad government safety nets for social welfare and public health, including access to safe and reliable contraception. And she proudly marshalled clinical data to demonstrate that most women, even among the poorest and least educated populations, embraced and eagerly used birth control voluntarily, when it was provided them. At the same time, however, Sanger did on occasion engage in shrill rhetoric about the growing burden of large families among individuals of low intelligence and defective heredity. Her language had no intended racial, ethnic, or class content. She argued that all women, no matter where they are situated, should be encouraged to bear fewer, healthier children, but her words have since been lifted out of context and tragically misquoted to provoke exactly the kind of intolerance she opposed. Moreover, in endorsing the Supreme Court's decision about compulsory sterilization, and also on several occasions the payment of pensions or bonuses to women of low intelligence who would with this inducement agree to the procedure, Sanger quite clearly failed to consider the fundamental rights questions raised by such practices or the validity of the aptitude assessments on which determinations of low intelligence were based. Living in an era indifferent to the firm obligation to respect and protect the rights of individuals whose behaviours do not always conform to prevailing mores, she did not always fulfil it. The challenge for historians has been to reconcile these apparent contradictions in her views. Sanger was actually an unusually advanced thinker on race for her day, one who condemned discrimination and encouraged reconciliation between blacks and whites. She opened an integrated clinic in Harlem in the early 1930s and then facilitated birth control and maternal health programs for rural black women in the south, when local white health officials denied them access to the New Deal's first federally funded services . . . She worked on this project with the behind the scenes support of Eleanor Roosevelt, whose progressive views on race were well known but whose support for birth control was silenced by her husband's Catholic political handlers, at least until he was safely ensconced in the White House for a third term. Historically specific circumstances of this complexity, however, are hard to untangle and convey, and this in large part explains why Sanger's legacy has been so easily distorted by contemporary abortion opponents who believe they can advance their own ideological and political agendas by undermining her motives and her character. America's intensely complicated politics of reproduction has long ensnarled Margaret Sanger and all others who have tried to discipline it. Birth control has fundamentally altered private and public life over the past century. No other issue has for so long captivated our attention or polarized our thinking. As the psychologist Erik Erikson once provocatively suggested, no idea of modern times, save perhaps for arms control, more directly challenges human destiny, which alone may account for the profound social conflict it tends to inspire. As many scholars of the subject in recent years have also observed, much of the controversy around birth control proceeds as well from the plain fact that reproduction is by its very nature experienced individually and socially at the same time. In claiming women's fundamental right to control their own bodies, Sanger always remained mindful of the dense fabric of cultural, political, and economic relationships in which those rights are exercised. And almost, if obviously not always, the policies she advocated were intended to facilitate the necessary obligation of public policy to balance individual rights of self-expression with the sometimes contrary social and political obligation to promulgate and enforce common mores, rule, and laws. That Margaret Sanger failed to get this balance quite right in one important respect is certainly worthy of respectful disagreement and commentary, but it is no reason to poison her reputation or to abandon the noble cause of reproductive freedom to which she so courageously and indefatigably dedicated her life.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I strongly believe that we must continue to show support to the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation. Last year, President Obama told the American people, ``It is time for the U.S. to take real steps to end our addiction to oil, and we can join Israel building on last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy.'' I agree with President Obama and believe we must work with our global partners and allies to diversify our energy portfolio. Will the distinguished Mr. Pastor work with us to ensure that U.S.- Israel Energy Cooperation receives substantial funding and support as you proceed to conference with the Senate?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I insist on my point of order. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, OAS is the preeminent multilateral organization in our hemisphere. It helps resolve or minimize many threats, including terrorism, narcotics, and political conflicts. It also plays an important role in promoting sustainable development in Central America, supports the election process in places like Ecuador, Paraguay, Haiti, and El Salvador. While we may not agree with every issue and every member in the OAS, it is the key conduit for discussions among all of our hemispheric partners. We have made an international commitment as a member of OAS to pay our dues. Cutting our assessment payment will create arrears and undermine the work of the Secretariat, located here in Washington. The OAS is an international organization, and the United States has a legal commitment to provide our assessed contribution. The OAS is the only regional organization in the Western Hemisphere that has all of the democratically elected members of the region, and all of them strive to enhance and secure democratic principles and values as embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which was accepted by all of the members. The OAS is the prime defender of human rights in the region. OAS plays a major role in helping the people of Haiti as they struggle to establish a sustainable democratic regime, with assistance elections and civil society programs and rule of law. The OAS is one of the world's most recognized election observation experts, sending missions all over Latin America and the Caribbean. It would be a disastrous sign of our commitment as the main contributor to the OAS for us to unilaterally cut off funding. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Berman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my chairman, Mr. Obey.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would like to just say to the gentleman that in the bill that you referenced, there were a hundred applications, and 51 received funding of the hundred. And of the 24 that applied that were listed in the bill, 12 received funding. So that sounds like a competitive grant to me. It looks like a competitive grant. In my judgment, it is a competitive grant. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.