Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has been very active in a whole range of issues involving our foreign aid program. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority leader, who has been a strong advocate for the United States' increased role in the world today.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from California for raising this important issue. As I have said repeatedly throughout the process of moving this bill to the House floor, I am deeply disappointed that this bill does not fulfill the U.S. commitment to the Global Environmental Facility. Since its establishment in 1991, the GEF has provided $5 billion in grants, leveraged $16 billion in co-financing for projects in 140 countries around the world, has provided more than 4,000 grants directly to smaller organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion to the GEF over this same time frame. The GEF is unique in its laser-like focus on environmental sustainability. It is the most effective way for the United States and other donor nations to support biodiversity and prevent climate change. House passage of the bill with no funding for the GEF will send a strong message, but I hope not the wrong message. I agree with the chairman that the U.S. should encourage transparency, responsibility, and accountability of the institution. And I hope that is what the international community takes away from today's debate. However, I do believe that in cutting off all funding to the GEF, we run the risk of sending the message that the United States no longer supports the good work of the organization. I am pleased that today's discussion will clarify that this is not true, and I join the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) in looking forward to the August GEF Council meeting, which will hopefully include the adoption of a performance-based Resource Allocation Framework. I am optimistic that the Senate will do the right thing by the GEF and that we will be able to provide the requested levels in conference. I look forward to working with the chairman and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to see that this happens. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a real advocate for the environment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for raising this important issue today. I agree with him that ensuring a robust level of funding for all of Latin America, particularly in the Child Survival and Development Assistance account, serves U.S. national interests. We need to remember that the challenges of development are not only found halfway around the world, they exist in America's own backyard as well. I want the gentleman to know that the chairman and I worked hard to restore cuts proposed to these two accounts in the President's budget request, and it would be my expectation that the funding in this bill is sufficient to ensure that at least the fiscal year 2005 levels would be achieved. That was certainly our intent in working to avoid the proposed cuts. I thank the gentleman again for raising this very important issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. I am grateful for the Committee on Rules for granting an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3057, the FY 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. It is always my preference each year to allow as broad a debate as possible on the provisions in the bill and on United States foreign aid policy generally. I believe this rule will accomplish that. However, I did ask the Committee on Rules to grant a waiver to one amendment during today's debate, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to provide $1 billion in emergency funding for veterans health care. While I do not usually support giving waivers to amendments on the foreign operations bill that are not directly related to the bill, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman from Texas' effort. The administration's recent revelation of a $1 billion shortfall in veterans health care funding is already significantly impacting our veterans, as facilities across the country deny new requests for appointments. This admission, which emerged during a congressional hearing last week, comes less than 4 months after Secretary Nicholson wrote to the Senate with a bold assertion that the VA ``does not need emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005.'' It seems Secretary Nicholson was either misleading Congress or simply was not informed of the facts; and, frankly, I do not know which poses a greater threat to the veterans health care system. The nonchalance with which the administration has handled funding for veterans health care is unbelievable, especially as our men and women in uniform continue to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. These brave Americans continue to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms, and we must fulfill our commitment to care for them upon their return. The gentleman from Texas' effort is not without precedent. The Committee on Rules made in order a Republican amendment to the Iraq War supplemental on REAL ID, allowing for adoption of this provision without any real debate or hearings. The committee also made in order a nongermane amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill, arguing that the continuity of Congress was too important not to include. Given what our veterans have done for this country, the gentleman from Texas' amendment is too important not to consider today, and I urge defeat of the previous question.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I certainly agree with his intent, which is to minimize United States investment in failed counternarcotics programs. For far too long, we have supported policies and funded programs in Colombia that simply do not work. Our counternarcotics programs in Colombia have long been an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. The data we have from the National Drug Intelligence Center at the Department of Justice with respect to the success of this program is negative. It shows that the program has not decreased the amount of cocaine coming into the United States. In fact, the quantity of cocaine on our streets is increasing, and the price is decreasing, making it all the more affordable and attractive to our youth. The billions that we have put into Plan Colombia have not been effective in substantially decreasing the amount of coca being grown in Colombia either. After spending over $4 billion and spending nearly 6 years, have we even cut coca production in half? No. We have decreased by less than 7 percent the number of hectares of coca in Colombia. It is becoming even more difficult and costly to eliminate each hectare of coca. The U.N., whose own surveys found a small decrease in Colombian coca in 2004, found that for every acre of coca reduced in 2004, 22.8 acres of coca had to be sprayed. This ratio has never been so high. U.N. statistics indicate that the overall amount of coca grown in the Andes increased by 3 percent last year, led by substantial increases in Bolivia, 17 percent; Peru, 14 percent. Finally, the failure of this program to solve the problem of coca production is all the more compounded by the heavy toll it imposes on the rural communities in Colombia that are already suffering from armed conflict. Continuing to fund it at such a high level is simply bad policy. I am troubled by the fact that this amendment cuts $100 million from the foreign operations bill without adding it back for one of the many programs that could use it. The allocation with which the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I had to contend is already $2.5 billion short of the President's request; and with the increased needs we face around the world, to combat the HIV/AIDS virus and other diseases, fight hunger, improve child health and education, and promote peace and security in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe, I am concerned that this amendment further reduces our funding in the bill. Again, I support the gentleman for raising these important issues, and I thank him for all the time he has spent really understanding the issue, working on the issue and trying to stress how useless this funding really is in making a dent in the coca operation.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I withdraw my reservation, because I understand from the chairman that this does not have any substantive changes being made in the bill. But I certainly think that the content of the gentleman's amendment deserves greater discussion at another time. The chairman and I were also in Botswana, we were also in South Africa, we were in Tanzania as well, and there is progress being made in some parts of the country, and some not. It is a tremendous challenge, but I think it is simplistic to say that only one area deserves further funding, and that the ABC approach may not be as successful as one may think. So I think we need to discuss this further, and I would like to enter into dialogue with the gentleman at another time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order, I ask for clarification as to which of the two amendments the gentleman is offering to the House.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation as well to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work in crafting this legislation. I know they did the best they could with the allocation, and this bill does include many of our most important priorities, from education funding and worker training, to biomedical research and public health activities, and impacts the lives of virtually every American. I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant. However, because of this limited budget allocation, many important needs will remain underfunded. For example, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we built up in the 5 years completed in 2003. And despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last 2 years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award, and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low- and middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester, New York. The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade, allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education, IDEA. The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting base account by $100 million, and I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to restore funding to CPB. Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over 30 years there have been Federal laws which allow doctors, hospitals, and nurses to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies. And just as the law protects religious and moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections. I want to make it very clear that States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their Federal health, education, and labor funding. I will work to remove this provision from the final bill. Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws. However, I hope that as it moves through the process, we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure. I will vote ``no'' today. Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey for their hard work in crafting this legislation. This bill includes many of our most important priorities--from education funding and worker training to biomedical research and public health activities. The programs and policies in this legislation impact the lives of virtually every American. I am pleased that the bill makes significant investments in preparing for and responding to a potential pandemic influenza outbreak and restores funding to the TRIO and GEAR UP programs and partial funding to the Preventive Health Block Grant. However, because of the limited budget allocation many important needs will remain under-funded. For example, This bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years, squandering the momentum we've built up over the last five years. Despite an average 26 percent tuition increase in the last two years, the bill fails to adequately increase the maximum Pell grant award and does nothing to stop the new financial aid formula that severely impacts the ability of low-and-middle-income students to attend college. These changes will affect more than 1.3 million students nationwide, including 4,600 students in Westchester County, New York. The bill provides the smallest increase for elementary and secondary education in a decade and allows Congress to continue to renege on its promise to fully fund special education. And frankly, I was appalled that the majority chose to completely eliminate the Foreign Assistance Language Program (FLAP). There is little disagreement that the nation continues to face a shortage of language experts after the attacks of September 11th. FLAP is the only federal program that supports language education for students in elementary and secondary schools. The bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Healthy Start, training grants for health care workers and grants for public health and hospital preparedness, and eliminates $100 million for the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. The bill cuts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's base account by $100 million. I hope that my colleagues will support an amendment that I will be offering with Ranking Member Obey and Representative Leach to restore funding to CPB. I'm also disappointed that when so many other programs faced the chopping block this year, the bill provides a $10 million increase for abstinence-until-marriage programs despite mounting evidence of the scientific and medical inaccuracy of their curricula and ineffective results. We all agree that we must teach our children that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. However, federal dollars should be invested only in programs with strong evaluation components and those found to provide medically and scientifically sound information to young people. Madam Chairman, I also want to express my continued concern with the Weldon refusal clause provision included in the bill. For over thirty years, there have been Federal laws that allow doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services because of their religious beliefs. However, this provision extends that protection to HMOs and insurance companies. And just as the law protects religious or moral objections to performing medical services, it protects patients' access to accurate and complete medical information when making decisions about their health. The Weldon provision would unravel these protections, gutting the stipulations included in the Title X family planning program which require that all legal options are presented to a woman; denying rape and incest survivors access to legal abortion services; and overriding state constitutional patient protections. States that attempt to protect access to these health services can be denied all of their federal health, education and labor funding. I will work to remove this provision from the final bill. Madam Chairman, this legislation has significant flaws, however, I hope that as it moves through the process we can work together to make necessary improvements to the final measure. I will vote ``no'' today.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). What we have today is a new remake of an old show: the misguided effort to deny the American people the quality, thought-provoking, and insightful programming of PBS. Ten years ago, when the right wing launched an all-out assault on public television, Americans understood what was at stake and rallied around PBS. The Republican leadership retreated, and public broadcasting was saved. Today, the majority is again trying to pull the plug on public television and radio. This time, well over a million Americans have signed petitions calling for the restoration of CPB's operating funds, and thousands more have contacted congressional offices in opposition to these devastating cuts. Families across the country turn to public radio and television for educational programs, job training, the latest digital services, balanced news, local information; the very types of programs and services commercial television stations simply do not offer because they just are not profitable. Local public stations are already struggling to provide these quality programs with limited dollars. This $100 million rescission, 25 percent of CPB's operating budget, could force many stations to fade to black. Do we want to live in a society where pop culture dictates all that is offered on the airwaves? Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters that appear on Sesame Street and other children's programs are the ones that gross the highest profits, rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids? We have an opportunity today to send the same strong and successful message that beat back these cuts to public broadcasting 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to restore this critical funding to CPB by voting in favor of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for their commitment and work on restoring these monies. None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11. In my judgment, the committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State workers' compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York. The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. What we do know is that the health needs of September 11 responders continue to be great and the Federal response continues to be incomplete. There have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who work or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack. The men and women were exposed to toxic materials, included asbestos, fiberglass, PCBs; and many may not even exhibit symptoms of sickness for years to come. We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11. I rise in support of the Maloney amendment and thank my colleague from New York for her leadership on this issue. When President Bush stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center, and when he sat in the Oval Office with New York's Congressional delegation almost four years ago, no one doubted his promise to give our State and city the funds we needed to recover from the terrorist attack on our Nation. None of us could have imagined that we would find ourselves here today, fighting to hold onto $125 million set aside for workers and responders who helped search for survivors and assist victims in the aftermath of September 11. In my judgment, this Committee's rescission of $125 million appropriated by Congress for New York State Worker's Compensation claims and related expenses breaks the President's promise to New York. The Office of Budget and Management has argued that these funds are no longer needed, but nothing could be farther from the truth. What we do know is that the health needs of September 11th responders continue to be great, and the federal response continues to be incomplete. Since September 11, there have been ongoing concerns about the injuries and chronic illnesses sustained by first responders and other individuals who worked or volunteered at the site in the weeks and months following the attack. These men and women were exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos, fiberglass, and PCBs, and many may not even exhibit symptoms or sickness for years to come. We simply cannot rescind the funds to assist those victims before we even review the full needs of September 11 responders. If any of these funds are not needed for workers compensation payments, then we should redirect the money to supplement the federal response to the ongoing medical needs of September 11th responders. When New York needed help, volunteers from New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and even as far as Florida and California--and the list goes on--came to aid the victims of this tragic attack. I hope you will join me in fighting to preserve the funds to assist these individuals should they become ill as a result of their efforts in the aftermath of September 11th. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time, and I want to express my enormous respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my dear friend, with whom I agree on some things but not on this issue, although the majority of the bill I know is consistent with the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lantos) and my view, although I do rise in strong support of the Lantos substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill, but it is with great respect; and I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague on this and many other issues. It is no secret that the United Nations is going through a period of intense soul-searching, precipitated by increasing evidence that it has become an ineffective and unwieldy institution that long ago lost sight of its reason for being. When the world changes, its institutions must change with it or become irrelevant, and so the U.N. has embarked on a mission to adapt to the changing times. As the Nation most involved in the founding of the U.N., the United States has an obligation to play a key role in this reform process. Reform cannot, frankly, come quickly enough. The U.N. suffers today from a credibility gap around the world and for good reason. The Volcker Commission has exposed some uncomfortable truths about the Oil- for-Food program. The U.N. has dragged its feet in addressing some of our world's worst crises, such as the Darfur genocide, and has been impotent on human rights issues; and the record of the U.N. and many of its member states with respect to Israel has, frankly, been abominable. In many ways, the U.N. is broken; but we must remember that it remains and must remain a central actor in global affairs. The organization has provided critical resources to nations coping with great poverty and social dislocation. The U.N. Population Fund has reduced the number of unintended pregnancies around the world through basic family planning services. UNICEF is the premier organization combating childhood disease in poor countries. Agencies like the United Nations Development Program have raised living standards by improving governance, health, and education. For millions around the world, the U.N. is not some distance bureaucracy. It is a hot meal for a hungry family. It is a doctor for a pregnant mother. It is protection for a first-time voter, and it is peace for a war-ravaged village. Indeed, even when the U.N. efforts fall short, and they often do, progress toward international cooperation is made, and recognition of common interests and values is encouraged. As many have said, the U.N. is the kind of organization we would have to invent if it did not already exist. A strong U.N. is good for the United States and good for the world. So enacting the Hyde bill, which is more about punishment than reform, simply does not serve, in my judgment, the best interests of this country. In requiring a mandatory 50 percent cut in the United States dues to the U.N., unless 32 of 39 specific reforms are achieved, the Hyde bill provides no flexibility whatever to the State Department to negotiate with other U.N. member states. Rather than providing Secretary Rice a tool to encourage ongoing U.N. reform negotiations, it ties her hands. The Lantos substitute would call for most of the same reforms as the Hyde bill, while providing the Secretary of State with room to maneuver to get real reforms passed. It is a common-sense way to achieve the changes we all agree are needed with the right balance of diplomacy and muscle. And while I support the goals of the chairman, I cannot endorse his means, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lantos substitute and defeat the underlying bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would correct an error in the interpretation of our law that has put the lives of the world's most vulnerable women and children at risk. Since 2002, the United States has provided no funds to the United Nations Population Fund. The facts are clear. UNFPA has a worldwide policy of not providing abortions, even when they are legal in the country in which UNFPA is operating. UNFPA does not coerce women into abortion and sterilization. It works to secure voluntary reproductive health options around the world. U.S. law prohibits funding for organizations that support coercive practices. But UNFPA is being penalized because it is trying to overturn, end coercive practices in China. In meeting after meeting over the past 3 years, the State Department has repeatedly said that nothing UNFPA does will lead to a restoration of its funding as long as it continues to operate in China, unless China changed its laws. Let us make it very clear. UNFPA is the premier multilateral organization helping to provide safe motherhood, reproductive health assistance to the world's poorest children. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this weekend should serve as a time for all Americans to reflect on the great sacrifices of those who have defended our great nation and to honor the men and women who continue to protect us. As we celebrate this Memorial Day, the thoughts and prayers of our entire country are with our troops and the families who have lost loved ones. Throughout our history, brave men and women have answered the call to duty, and their courage and dedication to protecting our democracy is an inspiration to us all. We are the beneficiaries of their bravery, and we must also be the protectors of their legacy. That is why I am proud to join many of my colleagues in cosponsoring the comprehensive New GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. These benefits for active duty service members, veterans, and military retirees would ensure that we fulfill our obligation to our men and women in uniform. At a time when our nation is asking more men and women to risk their lives and security on behalf of our country, we should make every effort to fulfill our promise to them upon their return. The strength of our nation should not be measured only by our military or diplomatic might, but also by the compassion and dedication we show to those who defend us. Freedom is not free, and we honor those who have paid a price for the liberties we enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to our nations' fallen heroes and honoring those who have made sacrifices in defense of the United States.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and I rise in strong support of this critical legislation. My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives, a value that we all share regardless of race, culture or religion. But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore, with appropriate ethical guidelines, medical advances never before imagined possible. I also sit on the committee that funds the National Institutes of Health with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor. But as I sit on that committee and we hear the testimony, one after another, of people who are suffering, who have lost their loved ones, who are on the verge of losing another loved one, look at the 200 major groups who are supporting this legislation. And let us listen to them. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and I rise in strong support of this critical legislation. My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives--a value that we all share regardless of race, culture, or religion. But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore--with appropriate ethical guidelines--medical advances never before imagined possible. There is no question that scientific advancement often comes with moral uncertainties. We should and have ensured that difficult ethical and social questions are examined and debated before passing this legislation. In my judgment we now have a moral obligation to pursue each opportunity and provide crucial funding, support and oversight for this critical research. Like many of you, I believe that strong guidelines must be in place with vigorous oversight from the NIH and Congress before allowing federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. With appropriate guidelines we can ensure that the research with the most promise for medical achievement can be fully realized. While adult stem cells have yielded important discoveries, the evidence from scientists themselves suggests they don't have the same potential as embryonic stem cells. The legislation before us today would strengthen the standards guiding embryonic stem cell research and would ensure that embryos originally created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization could be made available for research only with the consent of the donor. Let me be clear. This legislation retains the current restrictions on creating human embryos for the purpose of research. So today I ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as science allows us to be. With the appropriate guidelines in place, we are closer than ever to remarkable discoveries and on the brink of providing hope to millions of individuals who otherwise have none. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment and strongly urge its adoption. Our contributions to the arts and humanities are the standard by which our history as a society will be measured. A strong public commitment to the arts and humanities, along with a dedication to freedom, is the hallmark of great civilizations. History has shown that religious and political freedoms go hand in hand with greater artistic and literary activity, and that the societies that flourish and have a lasting influence on humanity are those that encourage free expression in all of its forms. This is a lesson that resonates with people of every age, background, and belief, and one we can guarantee our children learn. By sharing ideas and images from a diverse range of backgrounds and through many different media, the arts and humanities help to create a more informed citizenry. We are better prepared to meet the responsibilities of democracy; to ask ourselves the hard questions; to demand of our leaders the full answers; and to judge fairly the actual and potential endeavors of our country. Our support for the arts and humanities also has a profound impact on our economy. In my Congressional District, there are over 2000 arts- related businesses, providing more than ten thousand jobs. This creates a substantial economic impact. In Fiscal Year 2000, for example, the arts industry contributed more than $92 million in revenue to Westchester County alone. Nationwide, the figures are even more impressive. The arts are a $134 billion industry sustaining nearly 5 million jobs. While the federal government spends just over $250 million on the NEA and NEH annually--approximately 40 cents per person--it collects over $10 billion in tax revenue related to the arts industry. NEA and NEH dollars are crucial to the arts community, helping them leverage more state, local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that investment in the arts is important not only to our national identity, but also to our national economy. Mr. Speaker, we must act decisively to commit ourselves to our national heritage and culture, by voting to increase funding for the NEA and NEH. I urge my colleagues to support creativity and reflection, to support our economy, and to support the continued growth and expression of democracy in its fullest form.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their very hard work. This bill includes provisions to improve our homeland security a great deal, but I regret that it is not complete. Communication barriers faced by emergency personnel in Oklahoma City 10 years ago still plagued our first responders on September 11; 3\1/2\ years later, the very same first responders are waiting for further guidance and funding for communications interoperability. Section 308 reinforces Congress's intent for DHS, the Department of Commerce, and the FCC to work together to issue voluntary standards and a schedule to reach those standards. I applaud this provision, but we could have done better. I am frustrated that two amendments I submitted to the Committee on Rules were not allowed under the rule. One of the amendments would have authorized grant funding for interoperability. Standards are a first step, but we must follow with resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors June 2004 interoperability report noted that 75 percent of the cities surveyed have not received Federal funds for interoperable communications. This is unacceptable. First responders need, and quite frankly deserve, a commitment from this Congress that roadblocks to an interoperable communications system, particularly a lack of consistent and sustained Federal funding, will be eliminated. My second amendment would have required that all airport employees go through some form of physical screening when entering sterile and secure areas. This happens at the busiest airport in the world, Heathrow, and in Canada; but it does not happen in the U.S. 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean told the Committee on Homeland Security that everybody should go through metal detectors without exception. We have spent tens of billions of dollars on passenger screening, but have nevertheless left gaping holes in the security of our airports. These two fundamentals of homeland security, grant funding for first responder communications system and screening of airport workers, are long overdue. I support the bill, but it could have been improved with these commonsense measures.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, for his leadership on this committee and our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The day has come. I am delighted to be here with all of the members of the committee, and I know this will receive unanimous approval from this body. Many of my colleagues have worked hard to ensure that the areas of our country facing the greatest threat receive their fair share of homeland security funds. Quite frankly, it amazes me that we have gone this long allocating such a large portion of homeland security funds based on everything but the threat of a terrorist attack to a particular area or region. The 9/11 Commission's report specifically states that Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel; yet, we seem to have been doing just that. We should not play politics with public safety. There are six grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Five of these six programs are distributed based on a formula that does not take risk or threat into account. In fiscal year 2005, New York, which suffered the most catastrophic damage from terrorism on September 11, was not even in the top 10 for per capita funding. I challenge anyone who opposes risk-based funding to sit down with the first responders from New York or Virginia, that is, our police, our firefighters, our EMS workers. These are the people who responded on September 11. They should tell them that funding should be based on anything but risk. This is not about politics; it is about common sense, good policy. It took only minutes for our police, firefighters, and EMS workers to respond to the calls for help on September 11. Over 3 years later, Congress still has not answered their cry for better funding to protect us. This change in funding priorities is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. And I would like to take a few minutes to express my support with some provisions included in the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental bill. First and foremost, I am pleased that we have finally appropriated funding to address the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Asia. The images of destruction, parents separated from their children, whole villages flattened and emptied, livelihoods washed away, touched the American people deeply and brought out the most generous and humanitarian impulses in us all. I am disappointed, however, that it has taken Congress so long to respond officially on behalf of the United States, but I am happy that we finally have a robust package of aid to offer affected nations. I want to thank Chairman Kolbe, Senators McConnell and Leahy for responding to my request to ensure that the needs of women and children around the world are addressed in this supplemental. Of the $656 million included in the bill for tsunami-related assistance, over 200 million will be dedicated to directly meet the needs of women and children, and much of the remainder of those funds will be of indirect benefit through the restoration of infrastructure needed, such as new schools and roads. The bill also makes a strong statement about U.S. support for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It provides 200 million to help the Palestinian people improve their economic situation. I also want to thank Chairman Kolbe and my colleagues in the Senate for agreeing to provide most of the $100 million added by the House for emergency needs in Africa outside of Sudan. Unfortunately, the horrible tragedy in Sudan has meant the diversion of funds needed to address ongoing problems in the democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Ethiopia, and Uganda. This 100 million, along with additional funds for Public Law 480 food aid, will go a long way toward easing the pain and hunger expressed by many women and children throughout Africa. While I have deep concerns about other provisions included in other sections of this supplemental, I am pleased with the shape of the foreign operations section. I believe it goes a long way toward fulfilling our many commitments around the world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in my 16 years in office, I have seldom seen such a blatant disregard for the truth. What occurred in this body last week during the consideration of the bill should be an embarrassment to every Member of this Congress. To purposely mischaracterize amendments offered during committee consideration of a bill is simply outrageous, and quite frankly, it sets a dangerous precedent. Many of us have different views and even deep disagreements about the important issues we consider in this institution, but we should be using the power of debate to resolve those differences. Instead, the majority is using parliamentary gimmicks and deliberate mischaracterizations to misrepresent the intentions of other Members of this body. The official record exists to record the views and actions of the participants of the debate, not to editorialize and inflame the debate. To go so far as to change the descriptions of amendments, to use an official document to mislead the American people about alternatives suggested by the minority is a gross abuse of power by the majority, and it is just not honest. If we allowed this or similar action by either party to go unchecked, if we let this happen now, it will almost certainly happen again. The Congress can do better. The American people certainly deserve better, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important resolution.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, as National Child Abuse Prevention Month draws to a close, I would like to recognize the organizations and individuals who work so hard to break the cycle of violence within families. I urge my colleagues to continue to make eradicating child abuse a top priority, not just during the month of April, but all year long. Throughout this month we have had many reminders of the tragic events that occur daily in the lives of children throughout the nation. We've heard speeches with startling statistics, stories about families torn apart by unthinkable violence, and we've worn blue ribbons to remember victims. Sadly, child abuse continues throughout the year, and we all must recognize that child abuse and neglect is not just a family problem--it is a societal problem that requires the attention and efforts of each of our communities. Effective child abuse programs succeed because of partnerships between social service agencies, schools, faith communities, civic organizations, law enforcements agencies, government, and the business community. The Exchange Club of Yonkers and the Westchester Child Abuse Prevention Center in my district are just two examples of groups that are making a difference both locally and nationally to eliminate the abuse of children. Both of these organizations work with families in a variety of ways to help break the cycle of abuse and educate the public about ways to help children who are victims of abuse. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to work with organizations nationally and locally to show children that they are a priority and to take a stand against the tragedy of child abuse and neglect.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, we get two crimes for the price of one. H.R. 748 would not only make a felon out of anyone, a stepparent, grandparent, aunt, or member of the clergy who accompanies a young woman across State lines for an abortion; it would make a felon out of any doctor who performs an abortion on a minor from another State without having first obtained parental consent, in person, and abided by a 24-hour waiting period. In my judgment, this is a terribly misguided bill that has the potential to isolate young people and put doctors in the unthinkable position of having to decipher State and Federal law before practicing good medicine. Thankfully, most young women involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion. But, under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy, and my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) talked about the terrible cases of incest where a young woman is impregnated by a father or a stepfather, they will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places, obtaining abortions by themselves. We should encourage the involvement of responsible adults in these difficult decisions, not criminalize this compassion. Mr. Chairman, every single Member of this body knows that we cannot legislate family relationships. Sadly, parental consent laws do not always force young women to talk to their parents. In fact, we know that in some circumstances, these laws, without any exemptions, can literally tear families apart. This bill is not about involving parents in the lives of their daughters, or about ensuring that doctors practice medicine responsibly or well; in my judgment, it represents a lack of compassion, empathy, and moral judgment. It distracts us from doing things that will actually help young people and their families make abortion less necessary, teaching and encouraging abstinence, fostering safe and healthy relationships in adolescence. I believe this body can do better, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in Commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This yearly commemoration is a testament to the lives and the legacy of the 1.5 million Armenians who lost their lives, and it underscores our commitment to keeping the Armenian nation and culture alive. As we revisit this dark period in Armenian history, we must be mindful of the lessons that can be learned from this tragedy. Blind hatred and senseless prejudice tear at the very fabric of our society even today. The victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan, and acts of vicious terrorism remind us of the human cost of hate and implore us to prevent these tragedies from happening again. I want to join my colleagues in renewing our pledge to the Armenian nation to ensure that Armenians around the world can live free of threats to their existence and prosperity. Azerbaijan continues to blockade Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, denying the Armenian people the food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance they need to lead secure lives. A key component of this pledge is maintaining high levels of assistance to Armenia. As Ranking Member of the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I will fight to maintain funding for Armenia, which recently became eligible for special Millennium Challenge Account funds. We must also be cautious to balance our immediate foreign policy needs with the long-time concerns we have had about both the Azerbaijan and Turkish records. This includes reaffirming that the Section 907 waiver is not automatic and indefinite--it will be carefully evaluated. And it also involves close monitoring of assistance given to Turkey. Building a strong, prosperous Armenia is the best way to honor the memory of the Genocide victims, and I am proud to be a partner in this effort.