Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear in closing, we all may have different views about abortion. I respect your views. I may differ. Each person is entitled to their own conscience and their own views on abortion. But this is not about abortion. Every provision forbidding U.S. dollars going to abortion is in this bill, and it remains in this bill. The choice is clear, my friend. My amendment will provide donated contraceptives, reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, prevent HIV/AIDS, save lives, save the lives of millions of poor people around the world. This amendment will save lives. Mr. Smith's amendment will lead to more abortions, put more lives at risk. My friend, the choice is very clear. If you want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, if you want to save lives, if you want to prevent abortion, you vote for the Lowey amendment and against the Smith amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact, with one important exception. It would allow for the provision of contraceptives, not direct funding, to foreign NGOs to help reduce abortion, unintended pregnancy, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The amendment I offer today makes absolutely clear that no funding would be provided to international organizations that do not comply with the Mexico City policy. In addition, the provision provides absolutely no assistance for abortion. This is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of the bill. Every provision in this bill has been kept there that forbids U.S. dollars going to abortion. There are tremendous unmet needs for contraception in developing countries that most need this assistance to address population and health crises, including the spread of HIV/AIDS and unintended and high-risk pregnancies. The global gag rule has only made matters worse for decreasing access in many countries. U.S. shipments of contraceptives have ceased to 20 developing nations, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In some areas, the largest distribution centers for contraceptives have experienced decreased access for over 50 percent of the women they serve. This decline in access to contraceptives has led to increases in unintended pregnancy and in the number of women seeking postabortion care. It is clear that withholding contraceptives, my friends, does not reduce abortion. Providing contraceptives is the way to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. The numbers speak for themselves. Increased use of contraceptives in the last two decades has been accompanied by significant declines in abortion rates in a number of countries. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate declined by 61 percent, as has been mentioned, between 1988 and 2001, as modern contraceptive use increased by 74 percent. Proponents of the Smith amendment will make several false claims. They may say that this provision would provide funding or assistance for services and products other than contraceptives directly to international NGOs who are not compliant with Mexico City. It absolutely will not. They will argue that the Smith amendment will not cut family planning funds in this bill. However, it will dramatically decrease the effectiveness of our international family planning aid by withholding contraceptives to the areas of the world that need them most to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV-AIDS. The other side will also say that my provision encourages abortion as a means of family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is already illegal in many of the areas that would receive contraceptives under my provision, particularly in African countries. Furthermore, these organizations do not promote abortion as a means of family planning. They provide family planning to prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing abortion. You may also hear that by providing contraceptives, these organizations will be able to use their own funds for other purposes prohibited by Mexico City. I have already made clear the incredible unmet need for contraceptives. In Uganda alone, the average number of births per woman is 7.1, while the unmet need for family planning is reported by married women at 35 percent. The bill will provide donated contraceptives, not funding, to groups that are unable to provide enough contraceptives in areas with severe shortages. Furthermore, contraceptives are not fungible. They are used for contraception. Period. By filling the unmet need for contraceptives, each year we can prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 children from losing their mothers. It is clear that voting for the Smith amendment and against contraceptives is an extreme position that will in fact hurt our efforts to decrease abortion. So if you really want to decrease abortion, if you really say you are for family planning, if you really want to save lives, if you really want to decrease HIV/AIDS, which is spreading throughout the world, vote no on the Smith amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. And I want to be clear to my colleague from Iowa we all agree that the United States should not be an occupying power in Iraq, but in no way does my acceptance of this amendment come to my or the American people's acquiescence to establishing any other kind of short- or long- term basing agreements in Iraq. But we are accepting the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, this is a difficult and sensitive issue that the House has debated many times before in many different ways. We all know that Egypt is an important ally of the United States. We all know that Egypt plays a very important role in the Middle East, and that role will even be more crucial in the months ahead. We all know that Egypt was the first Arab country to have made peace with Israel, and that the peace, while not nearly as warm or as forward-leaning as many of us would have liked, has held for close to 30 years. That is why Egypt has consistently received more foreign assistance in this bill than virtually any country other than Israel. And that is true of this year's bill as well. Nevertheless, there is a frustration level with our very good ally over two key issues, the Egyptian Government's increasingly harsh response to dissent of any kind and the government's failure to take serious steps to stopping the smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. When Israel withdrew all of its population and military forces from Gaza nearly 2 years ago, one of the biggest concerns was what to do about Gaza's border with Egypt. Some in Israel argued that Israeli forces should remain at the border to ensure that it did not become an opening to allow the smuggling of weapons and terrorists to Gaza. Those who argue that Israel needed to completely withdraw and that Egypt could effectively play that role ultimately prevailed. Israel and Egypt even reworked parts of their peace agreement to allow for an expanded Egyptian force on that border. Unfortunately, however, those forces have not done the job, have not stopped the smuggling. As was highlighted so vividly during the recent fighting in Gaza, the forces of Hamas are very well equipped. The bulk of that equipment has come through that border. Especially now that Hamas has effectively taken over in Gaza, it is critically important that Egypt do everything within its power, including stopping these armed shipments before they even get to the Gaza border, to put an end to this deadly arms trade. The language in the bill does not cut aid to Egypt, which many have wanted to do, I can assure you. It simply fences off a portion of Egypt's assistance, pending a report and certification by the Secretary of State that Egypt is taking steps to, one, enact a new judicial law; two, to curb police abuses; three, to detect and destroy the smuggling network into Gaza. I believe it is a moderate and reasonable approach to two very difficult and important issues that we have discussed on numerous occasions, to no avail, with our good friends in Egypt. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lantos.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. This amendment would cut $203 million from our contribution to international organizations. This amendment fails to realistically address the effect our arrears have on our standing in the world community. At a time when the United States is increasingly relying on international organizations to further our security interests around the world, shortchanging our treaty-obligated contributions to these organizations undercuts our foreign policy goals and undermines our reputation around the world. It also countermands our new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's call to pay our dues in full and on time. As of today, the United States is $291 million in arrears at the U.N. for regular budget contributions alone. The United States has chosen to belong to each of these organizations. They leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars and advance a wide range of U.S. foreign policy objectives, including monitoring nuclear proliferation through the IAEA, creating norms for international telecommunications through the ITU, and fending off global pandemics through the WHO. The administration and the Congress have underfunded and cut this account in recent years. This amendment would continue this trend. The United States has an $80 million deficit in the CIO account and the State Department is paying U.S. dues late or incurring arrears in virtually every organization in this account. Shortfalls to the CIO account in 2006 caused the State Department to pay all of its regular dues to the IAEA almost a full year late, even as we relied on that organization to track nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea; pay dues to our allies in the OECD almost a year late; pay all of our dues to the WHO about a year late, even as we asked WHO to help contain avian flu; and pay the vast majority of our regular dues to NATO a year or so late, even as we relied on that organization to shore up security in Afghanistan. This amendment has no appreciation of the influence this increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations has on our ability to sway others and it is difficult to justify why our priorities should be given full consideration when we chronically pay our dues late. Paying these international organizations late is counterproductive to achieving United States international security goals. The increasing trend of paying late and underfunding international organizations confounds U.S. demands for better management in them. An example of this detrimental effect is seen at the World Health Organization which reports that the arrears owed by the United States are preventing well-managed budgets and resulting in programs not reaching optimal effectiveness for a year or more after they were planned to be fully operational. Further, other dues-paying countries take note when the United States fails to honor its commitments in these international organizations. As a result, our influence on making budgetary and policy decisions in them is lessened. For example, the U.S. consistently wants the Food and Agriculture Organization to increase its capacity to set worldwide food and plant standards, yet it is very difficult to justify why U.S. priorities for the FAO should be given full consideration when the U.S. is chronically paying its dues there about a year late. Therefore, I strongly object to the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for your important work with Mr. McCaul on this issue. I understand the urgency and the impact of methamphetamine in your areas and the tremendous negative impact on the people you represent. I have a problem with the offset. Therefore, if you will withdraw this amendment, I would be delighted to work with the gentlemen as we approach our conference in increasing money for this very important need.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would say to the gentleman that in my discussions with Mr. Cuellar he is very clear about the urgency of this issue and the impact of these concerns on the citizens that you both represent. I would be delighted to work with you. We will certainly search for funding as close to the numbers you mention as we possibly can. Again, the only issue with this amendment was the offset, not the important need for the funding. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with you. I thank you for withdrawing the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. International broadcasting is an essential component of our Nation's public diplomacy strategy, enjoys broad bipartisan support in our committee. The bill before the House includes $671.6 million for the international broadcasting operations of the BBG. It restores over $30 million in cuts to BBG language services proposed in the President's budget. It includes program increases requested for high-priority areas such as $2.9 million for broadcasting to North Korea, $.5 million for enhanced broadcasting to Somalia, $1.2 million for Radio Sawa in the Middle East, $5 million to retain BBG's broadcast capability. The matter of broadcasting to Venezuela is an emerging issue. I commend the gentleman for his amendment and join him in urging its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.