Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but I would like to reiterate again, there were 39 entities listed, 24 applied; and of that 24, only 12 received the grants. So I think it's very different from an earmark where, if you list an earmark on many of the subcommittees, it is expected that those items listed will get the grants. So, if there were 12 of the 24, it's clear to me that this is a competitive grant. And so I certainly rest my case that this is not an earmark. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. The bill before the House contains an increase of 11 percent for education and cultural exchanges and is $33 million below the amount requested in the budget. The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $8 million funding for international exchange programs, bringing the amount in the bill to over $40 million below the request. It also would prohibit funding for the one-time special grants program begun in fiscal year 2008. Grants under this program are required to be competitively awarded and support exchanges for people who do not benefit through existing programs. None of the entities and organizations listed in the report are earmarks. All entities highlighted in the report under the Special Grants Program must compete with all other applicants, whether listed in the report or not. And for example, of the 39 entities listed in the explanatory statement accompanying the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, only 12, or less than one- third, received funding. So, I say to my friend, respectfully, these are not earmarks. This program fills a void in our international exchange portfolio. It is a targeted, one-time, competitive opportunity for an organization to address either a regional or population gap in international exchanges and should be continued. So I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona.

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

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

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to again thank the gentlewoman who couldn't be with us today for her work on oversight and our assistance to the International Monetary Fund. I recognize her concerns about the use of the signing statement by the President to interpret congressionally imposed mandates that apply to the World Bank and IMF in the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that this issue was included in the signing statement because of concerns regarding constitutional authority and not because of underlying policy differences with the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, though I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. LOWEY. I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences to U.S. interests. It would cut funding for the Asian Development Fund which provides basic loans and grants to support health care, education, infrastructure and economic development resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The World Bank, which provides debt relief to developing countries, is supporting an integrated agricultural initiative to address the global food crisis. The Global Environmental Facility and the International Fund for Agricultural Development provide loans and grants. This amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to meet its commitments to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on our assistance. Remember, this is in the interest of our national security. These institutions fund valuable initiatives that provide opportunities to millions of people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would like to say to the gentleman, Members understand their districts. They have respect for some organizations and not for others. They have a right, certainly, to recommend to include, to reference specific groups. That doesn't mean they are directing the agency to give them the earmarks. So, again, a hundred applied, 51 received them, and of the 24 that were referenced as suggested by Members, 12 of those received funding. So, again, they had to compete. But if the Members may believe that a particular group has done laudable work in their district, I think they have every right. As long as there is no guarantee, it is not an earmark.

Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), who is a former Peace Corps volunteer.

Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a great advocate of the Peace Corps and a distinguished member of the committee, Betty McCollum.

Mrs. LOWEY. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to Sam Farr, a former Peace Corps worker, from California.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. I would like to remind my good friend, Mr. Stearns, that the Peace Corps is also a job-creating program. These are our young people here who are going abroad to serve our country. So it is also a job-creation program for our young people. The Peace Corps, which is funded at $450 million in this bill, has long been one of America's most effective tools in directly reaching citizens of other countries, demonstrating firsthand the best of American values and generating goodwill for our Nation around the world. Just last year, Peace Corps volunteers helped train 148,000 teachers, health care workers and other professionals overseas. Their efforts improved the lives of over 2 million people in developing countries, including countries that are vital to our national security interests. In recent years, the Peace Corps has been chronically underfunded. Last year the agency was forced to cut 500 new positions. Funding the Peace Corps at the authorized $450 million level lays the groundwork to fulfill the President's pledge to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers at a responsible pace. In addition, the bill calls for the GAO to conduct a management review to ensure that every dollar is well spent and every volunteer's effort is well placed. In recent weeks I and other Members have heard from thousands of Peace Corps' 200,000 alumni. I am sure there are some in Florida, Mr. Stearns, and other constituents calling for this increase. In fact, the gentleman from Florida may have heard from some of the nearly 7,000 Peace Corps current and former volunteers from the State of Florida. I hope my colleagues will support me in opposing this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 4 be considered as read.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my friend, the gentleman, Mr. Buyer. I agree. And I think most of us in this Congress would agree that we have to get our fiscal house in order. However, we put this bill together in a bipartisan way. And I again regret that Ms. Granger who worked so hard on this bill couldn't be here with us today. And I want to make it very clear that cutting funding for our diplomats who are serving our great Nation in very difficult parts of the world, whether it is Pakistan, Afghanistan, whether it is in Iraq, and I could go on and on, is irresponsible. So I think it is fine to say that we have to put our house in order. However, I would like to remind you that in the past administration, diplomacy, development and defense were considered the three pillars of our national security. So just to say we can cut $1 billion here and $1 billion there and not to have the consequences, have great impact on the security of our people who are fighting for our Nation, I think is irresponsible. Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back.

Mrs. LOWEY. Ms. Granger and I have worked hard to craft a bill that strengthens the civilian diplomatic and development capacity of the U.S. Government. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates and many of us in this Chamber have said time and time again that the State Department and USAID have to start leading U.S. Government efforts to address the global threats of the 21st century, including preventing and responding to conflict. As our new administration sets priorities, develops strategies and creates greater efficiencies and harmony in our foreign policy, this requires an expansion of people and resources. The proposed cuts in this amendment, to USAID's operating expenses and the Department of State's operating account, strike at the very heart of the bill's efforts to strengthen our civilian capacity. This amendment would have a devastating impact on USAID and the Department of State's ability to carry out their diplomatic, development, and reconstruction mission. For USAID operating expenses, the amendment would halt support for over 200 existing personnel, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, putting the U.S. Government missions in those countries in jeopardy. The amendment would stop the construction of secure and safe facilities for USAID employees in nearly 30 countries overseas and halt the hiring of 350 new Foreign Service officers as planned in the development leadership initiative which is intended to rebuild the civilian development workforce. Within the Department of State's operating account, the amendment would eliminate $328 million to add 1,000 foreign and civil service officers to fill the 12 percent vacancy rate at the 260 diplomatic posts worldwide and to fill urgently needed positions here in D.C., eliminate $213 million to add nearly 300 diplomatic security positions to better protect and secure diplomatic and development personnel, and reduce by nearly $700 million funding to regularize diplomatic operations in Iraq. USAID is a global leader on health, and the proposed cuts would hamper their ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The proposed cut in this amendment could result in 18.3 million women being without access to voluntary family planning services, which could lead to an estimated 5.5 million additional unintended pregnancies, 300,000 additional under-5 deaths per year and 15,000 additional maternal deaths per year, and approximately 800,000 people in four high-burden countries going without planned multidrug resistance tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment services. Congress must strengthen civilian agencies to respond to foreign policy crises and not cut core programs in our diplomacy and development initiatives, as this amendment seeks to do. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks but I just want to emphasize, again, that we are providing up to $1 million for demining activities under NADR for the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their home. And in addition to the terrorism that occurred on the part of the Tamil Tigers, we do have many civilians that have been displaced. And I think it is essential that the Government of Sri Lanka respond to that challenge and help those people return to their homes. So I know that we will continue to follow this issue to be sure that the policy that is in place adjusts to the actions that the government takes. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to note that Kay Granger, the ranking member's amendment, is not a money amendment. It's a policy amendment as well.

Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. My amendment makes several modifications to the bill. Specifically, it would increase funding for safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million and democracy programs by $10 million. It would provide $300,000 for the implementation of the U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality; increase funding for maternal health programs by $10 million; and ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars by increasing funding for oversight of Department of State and USAID programs by $8 million. These additions would be offset by reductions to the Department of State Capital Investment Fund and USAID's Capital Investment Fund. The amendment would also restrict foreign military financing to Sri Lanka, but I would note that the base bill includes up to $1 million for demining activities under the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs' account to continue the work with the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their homes. Lastly, this amendment includes a restriction on first- class travel by employees of agencies funded by this act. I am pleased to have worked with Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Henry Cuellar, Alcee Hastings, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Marshall and Gwen Moore to address these concerns. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3081.