Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and again with great respect to the gentleman from Connecticut, in my discussions with the CAP, they made it clear that they don't need money now. This is now June. We just passed a supplemental. In September there will be another supplemental. They are doing great work, and we both admire their work. Given the tremendous needs around the world, which I know you support, be it clean water or HIV-AIDS or peacekeeping, and we can go on and on, the CAP made it clear to me that they do not need the money now. Therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment, because I do not want to take the money from any other urgent needs that exist in the world today.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to make it very clear to my good friend from Connecticut, just as they had $100 million and then an additional $95 million in the last supplemental, I certainly would intend to fund this outstanding program in the next supplemental that will be before us in September to continue their important work. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept this amendment. I thank the gentleman for his interest in basic education in Pakistan. As the gentleman knows, I have been a firm believer in basic education for a long time. The bill includes a total of $750 million for basic education programs. The gentleman recently went to Pakistan. I had the privilege of going to Pakistan and visited the earthquake zones, and in fact I had the privilege of opening a school in the earthquake zone. These beautiful young girls looked at me and said, can you send us science teachers? Can you send us computers? We know this experience can be replicated thousands of times around the world. So I really do appreciate the gentleman's commitment to basic education, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and accept his amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the committee. This type of government-sponsored terrorism was a hallmark of Saddam Hussein's rule and cannot continue. It was endemic. Unfortunately, it seems that the practice continues, and I continue to worry that our assistance may not be benefiting the intended recipients. I too am concerned about the plight of the Christian minority, and I am dedicated to using whatever tools we have available to ensure their rights are given due consideration. Furthermore, I want to note for my colleagues that the recent supplemental included a requirement for a report on the ethnic and geographic distribution of the United States assistance programs reaching the Nineveh Plain region, which should give us a clearer picture of the situation facing Iraqi Christians. I want to assure my friend that I, and I know my ranking member, who cares passionately about these issues, will work closely with the Congressman to ensure that this $10 million does go for its intended purpose of protecting the Christian minority in Iraq.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure my good friend from California, and, of course, my ranking member, that we together will make it clear that this is an urgent issue, and the amendment in the committee validated the urgency of the issue. I know we will continue to work together to address this. I thank the gentleman for bringing this up, and, of course, I respect the interest and passion of my ranking member. We will be following up, and there will be attention given to this issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for an important statement.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for bringing attention to these important issues. As you know, the former Chair of this committee, Mr. Kolbe, has been a leader on trade, and continues to share with us the importance of trade as we move forward in this process. I thank you very much for focusing on his very important legacy. He was a great partner for me working together on this committee, and I also appreciate your mentioning Colombia and the fact that we changed the balance of funding in this bill, putting more resources in the Fiscalia. When I was there, it was clear to me that they didn't have enough people to enforce the law to go after the narcotraffickers, so this was an important area, in addition to increasing funding for interdiction. Justice, rule of law, interdiction, and funding for the Afro-Colombians, and we know there has been a tremendous need. Thank you for your work. I look forward to working together. I know that my colleagues realize how important these issues are as well.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to enter into a colloquy about the need for increased funding for the United States contribution to the Comprehensive Test Ban Organization with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mrs. LOWEY. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that my good friend from California brought this issue to our attention. I really want to thank you for your work on CTBTO, and I agree with you that the United States should show leadership and pay our full share of obligations that it owes to the CTBTO. The bill tries to draw balance between the various programs funded within the nonproliferation antiterrorism account, but I understand the concerns my friend has raised and these are concerns of the committee. There are many members of the committee who are working very hard on this issue, and it is my intention to continue to work with you as the bill moves through the process.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, despite the best efforts of our prevention programs, the HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to grow. In 2006, 4.3 million people were infected with the virus; and for every new treatment patient in 2006, six additional people became infected with HIV. If we do not slow the pandemic, treatment costs alone in 2010 could be as high as $11 billion. Unless this trend is reversed, global efforts to expand treatment will falter and our global effort to address the pandemic will fail. That is why it is so critical to maximize the effectiveness of the $5.062 billion for HIV/AIDS programs provided in this bill and make sure that our prevention programs work. A recently released Institute of Medicine report entitled, ``PEPFAR Implementation,'' stated: ``The earmark has greatly limited the ability of country teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention programs that are well integrated with each other and with testing, care, and treatment programs.'' These congressionally mandated funding restrictions are hampering our overall prevention efforts. Therefore, and I want to make it very clear to my colleague, the bill allows the President to provide funding for HIV/AIDS prevention at his discretion. It does not change the underlying PEPFAR law, nor does it require that the President change the amount of funding for any particular prevention programs. In fact, it doesn't require the President to change the programs at all. The language simply provides flexibility to design the most effective prevention programs. Effective HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives must be designed to respond to the local social and cultural conditions. These efforts should include all available options, including abstinence programs, comprehensive prevention programs, condom distribution, and medical interventions such as male circumcision and mother-to-child prevention programs to ensure that we use every tool at our disposal to stop this deadly disease. We know that the only solution to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is expanded and effective prevention programs. Our bill language again provides the administration with the flexibility to respond to the ever-changing pandemic in the most effective ways without the restrictions of arbitrary numerical targets. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, an expert on Africa and so many of the issues that are critical, Mr. Payne.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mrs. LOWEY. It is such a pleasure for me to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, under current law, the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy, prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, from receiving any U.S. assistance unless they agree not to use their own funds to perform or refer patients for abortion or to even advocate the legalization of abortion. This policy applies even when abortion is illegal in a country or when NGOs promote the legalization of abortion for cases of rape and incest. 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, the provision of contraceptives to foreign NGOs to help reduce abortion, unintended pregnancy and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Let me repeat that. The intent of the bill is to provide international NGOs U.S.-donated contraceptives, not funds for millions of men and women who desperately need them. The provision provides absolutely no assistance for abortion. It is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of this bill. While I have made clear my intent to allow only for the provision of donated contraceptives, some of my colleagues have brought to my attention concerns that the language as currently written could be interpreted more broadly than intended. Therefore, to make it absolutely clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who may have concerns about the language, I am offering this amendment to my own bill to clarify the existing language by narrowing the provision in question by replacing it with the following language beginning on page 97, line 10 of the bill: ``That, in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/ AIDS, no contract or grant award exclusively for the purpose of providing donated contraceptives in developing countries shall be denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in the President's March 28, 2001 Memorandum to the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development with respect to providing contraceptives in developing countries, or any comparable administration policy regarding the provision of contraceptives.'' This amendment, which replaces the current provision in the bill with the one I just read, can leave no doubt in any reasonable individual's mind that the provision will provide contraceptives. It will not provide funding to foreign NGOs. In fact, this amendment would advance the Bush administration's stated goal of the Mexico City policy ``to make abortion more rare'' and protect women and children. Filling the unmet need for contraceptives could prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 children from losing their mothers in just 1 year. These are statistics. How much more evidence do my colleagues need to be convinced that contraception reduces abortion, saves lives? It is simply not enough to say that you support family planning as long as the current restrictions remain in law, denying millions of the poorest men and women around the world access to contraceptives. In my judgment, support for my amendment represents a good-faith effort to find common ground on this issue. I really do hope that we can all agree that voting against family planning and the provision of contraceptives, which my colleague from New Jersey will ask you to do in a later amendment, and against the opportunity to provide more than 200 million men and women in developing countries with access to contraceptives is the most extreme vote any of us can take. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I agree with the intention of this amendment and thank my friend for raising this very important issue. As you know, the subcommittee agrees with you that Liberia should be a priority. We support the efforts currently under way by President Johnson Sirleaf to move her country out of poverty. We provided a total of $40 million in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental and in this bill we provide a total of $106.5 million for Liberia. We look forward to continuing to work with the gentlewoman and others in Congress to support Liberia. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and would be happy to accept this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for his passion. I know you're concerned with so many issues in this bill. I appreciate your comments and I look forward to continue working together.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mrs. LOWEY. I understand the intent of this amendment, and we have worked to craft an amendment we both can accept. As you know, I believe that the United Nations Development Program is a key partner in our efforts to address global poverty. Their programs work to spread democracy, to address global HIV/AIDS, to improve the environment, and to respond to natural disasters and crises. All of these programs are critically important and they are working. Because of their broad mandate, they often work under very difficult circumstances, and it is their work in North Korea that has led to the recent allegations of inadequate controls on funds to North Korea. These are serious concerns and need to be addressed. However, I want to point out to my colleagues that UNDP has reacted swiftly to these concerns by suspending its program and closing the office in North Korea. In addition, UNDP is working with its executive board to put new accountability and transparency measures in place. In light of congressional concerns that have been raised on both sides of the aisle, I worked with the gentlelady to negotiate this agreement which reduces UNDP resources in order to provide support to the U.N. Democracy Fund and the U.N. Entrepreneurship Fund. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest in this issue and accept her amendment.