Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 741, the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004. The bill, known as MUMS, will make an important contribution to animal health. This legislation is very similar to H.R. 2079 sponsored by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); and although we are taking up the Senate bill, they, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), deserve credit for leadership on this issue. The bill is supported by the MUMS Coalition and the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. The MUMS coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Institute, the National Fisheries Institute, and many other organizations. The Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense, and the Center For Science in the Public Interest. In sum, the proverbial delicate balance has been found. Mr. Speaker, I am also greatly pleased that MUMS includes the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, Title II of S. 741. I authored the food allergy bill 4 years ago; and since the bill's inception, everyone, from food-allergic consumers to members of the food industry, has rallied behind the bill. However, we would not be here today without the backing of the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), Secretary Thompson, and Commissioner Crawford. I am truly grateful to them for their involvement and support. I also owe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and Senators Kennedy and Gregg special thanks for being my partners in this effort. We spent a few years and many hours hashing out the bill before us, committed to crafting a noncontroversial, bipartisan product. And I believe we accomplished our goal. Yesterday, I was surprised to learn that my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), will be retiring at the end of the year. While I am disappointed to be losing such a tremendous colleague, one I have worked with on so many issues of importance for so many years, I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) will continue to lead and be a strong advocate for great causes. Good luck in all your future endeavors. And please know, Jim, that your fair, bipartisan manner will be missed. Mr. Speaker, the 11 million Americans with food allergies face a daily struggle. Because there is no cure for allergies, the only way to stay healthy is to avoid certain foods. But maintaining an allergen- free diet is incredibly difficult. Food ingredient statements use scientific jargon commonly used by only those wearing lab coats, not average citizens. Take, for example, a recent study which found that fewer than one in ten parents restricting milk from their allergic children's diet were actually able to correctly recognize terms for milk on a label. Statistics like this make you think if adults cannot easily determine terms like whey, casein, lactose, how can you expect food-allergic children to remember so many complicated terms? The answer is, we cannot and we should not. Today up to 200 allergic reactions to foods result in death each year, and 30,000 require life-saving emergency treatments. Moreover, within just the last five years, the number of children with a peanut allergy has doubled. If we do not take action to improve food labels, the number of deaths and incidents will rise. Navigating insufficient labels is much more than an irritation for the millions with food allergies. It is a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, the situation is the same for those with celiac disease, a lifelong digestive disorder that damages the small intestine and interferes with absorption of nutrients from food. Although celiac sufferers do not go into anaphylactic shock if they consume gluten, the consequences of leaving the disease undiagnosed or untreated can be just as grave and deadly, potentially leading to additional autoimmune disorders, infertility, osteoporosis or cancer. With no treatment for this disease, the only alternative is to follow a strict gluten-free diet, which means not eating wheat, rye or barley. However, it is a regimen difficult to adhere to, because food ingredient statements are written more for scientists than consumers. The bill before us provides a common-sense solution for those with food allergies and celiac disease. It will require that food ingredient statements list in everyday language the eight major food allergens: milk, egg, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, crustacean shellfish, soy and wheat. It will also give those with celiac disease the green light to consume foods without hesitation by establishing and setting guidelines for the use of the term ``gluten-free.'' Simply put, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act requires minimal but life-saving changes to food ingredient statements. Upon its implementation, millions of Americans will finally be able to let out a collective sigh of relief, something we can all be proud of. Before I close, I hope the Speaker and my colleagues will indulge me for just a moment. This bill has been a work in progress for 4-plus years. There are many people who worked diligently behind the scenes to craft it and secure its implementation. I would be remiss if I did not personally thank some key staffers, including John Ford, Ed Walz, Ryan Long, Alan Eisenberg, David Dorsey and Kate Winkler. Additionally, we would not be standing here without the expertise of Tina Harper, Bob Lake and Felicia Satchell from the Food and Drug Administration. The Food Allergy Initiative, American Celiac Task Force, Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network and so many others also deserve thanks for their continued dedicated advocacy. I urge my colleagues to support S. 741 so that those with food allergies and celiac disease will have the dietary information they need at their fingerprints. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage in colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). As my colleagues may be aware, the administration is expected to announce soon that for the third year in a row it will deny U.S. funding for the life-saving programs of the United Nations Population Fund. In my view, the administration's justification for this denial is flimsy at best. UNFPA has a long-standing program in China which aims to help introduce voluntary family planning into that country and change China's destructive and coercive one-child policy. The basis of denying UNFPA our support is precisely this: UNFPA is being punished for working within the Chinese government to change a policy we all agree is wrong. Contrary to assurances from the administration and the leadership of this House since 2002 that the decision to de-fund UNFPA would not negatively affect the U.S. commitment to international family planning programs, the funding Congress originally intended for UNFPA has not all gone to support USAID's bilateral family planning program. A significant portion of it has been diverted to combat trafficking. While I certainly do not take issue with anti-trafficking programs, I would urge the administration to request adequate funding for this priority instead of relying on transfers of funding that should have gone to UNFPA. It is our understanding that the administration will propose to Congress the UNFPA's fiscal year 2004 funding be diverted for anti-trafficking programs instead of going to support USAID's family planning programs. I certainly hope that we can include language in the conference report indicating that the FY 2004 money meant for UNFPA can only be used for bilateral family planning programs. I would like to ask the chairman if he agrees with this sentiment, and if he will support such an effort.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with him. Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, but I rise to express my disappointment with this rule. On a party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make my amendment in order to provide funding on a limited basis to the United Nations Population Fund. I requested that it be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to discuss this matter of grave importance, not only to the poorest women and their families, but also to United States national security. Unfortunately, we are being denied the opportunity to debate this issue. Many of my colleagues think they have voted on this issue before. However, the debate we could have had today would have been different from those of the last 3 years. To begin with, this amendment would have maintained the Kemp-Kasten restrictions in the bill in their original form. As many of my colleagues know, these restrictions prohibit funding to any organization that supports coercive abortion and sterilization. The amendment would have provided funding for UNFPA in only six countries, all of which are strategically important to United States national security: Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya, and Tanzania. If UNFPA is found to be supporting coercive practices in any of these countries, the amendment would have prohibited funding for the UNFPA program in that country. The amendment would have maintained prohibitions on funding for the UNFPA in China and would have restored a prohibition included in previous Foreign Operations bills that requires a reduction in U.S. funds to UNFPA programs for every dollar spent by UNFPA in a country which is alleged to support coercive practices. Currently, China is the only such country. Essentially, my amendment would have asked a very simple question: Should we let concerns about UNFPA's programs in one country, China, stop the United States from investing in a proven, multilateral program that could, in fact, reap benefits for United States national security? By improving the health of women and their children, reducing the rate of maternal deaths, and preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, UNFPA chips away at the demographic trends and public health disasters that threaten the stability of the world's poorest nations. As we all know, achieving global stability is a primary United States foreign policy goal. I am really disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to debate it today. I am also displeased that the rule did not grant waivers to other Democratic amendments. One such amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) would have provided an additional $800 million in emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. While we have provided $400 million in the bill for the Global Fund, an amendment equal to last year's bill and $300 million above the President's request, the Global Fund will require much more in order to meet current and future commitments. It is unfortunate, I say to my colleagues, that we will not be able to vote on this sound policy initiative today.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for the close working relationship we enjoy. The bill we consider today is the result of our close collaboration and represents the bipartisan commitment of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations to bring a bill to the House floor that accurately reflects United States foreign policy priorities. As in the past, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has been a gracious colleague, and I am proud of the product of our cooperation. I believe this bill successfully maintains our commitment to ensure that foreign aid remains one of the three pillars of the United States national security policy, along with defense and diplomacy. The bill provides nearly $19.4 billion in new discretionary budget authority, which is over $1.9 billion below the President's request. It contains substantial funding for pressing needs in support of the war on terror, such as the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and significantly increases funding for HIV/AIDS programs and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The bill fully funds and even slightly increases the President's request for the Emergency HIV/AIDS Initiative. Since the very beginning of our effort to fight HIV, the subcommittee has led the charge to increase funding for this key priority. While I would have preferred to have included even more funding, our limited 302(b) allocation precluded us from doing so. However, within the context of our allocation, the bill does provide $400 million for the Global AIDS Fund, the same as last year's bill, and $300 million above the President's request. It also provides $30 million for microbicides research and development and a similar amount for HIV vaccine research and will allow for substantial program increases for all countries where the United States now conducts HIV programs, even those not among the 15 ``focus'' countries of the President's Emergency AIDS Initiative. I am particularly pleased that we were able to preserve funding for other vital child survival programs, instead of cutting these as the President requested. As we continue to ramp up funding for HIV programs and respond to the many administration initiatives requested, most notably the Millennium Challenge Account, we cannot retreat from our child and maternal health commitments in the developing world. The progress we have made on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS will be lost if the United States does not maintain its leadership role in meeting the basic health needs of women and children in poor countries. The bill provides $400 million for basic education, which is an increase of $75 million over last year. Increasing this commitment to basic education has been one of my top priorities as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and I am proud that funding for basic education has increased from $98 million in fiscal year 2000 to a total of $400 million for fiscal year 2005. For the first time, we have included funding specifically to address the issue of school fees in a comprehensive manner in the form of a pilot project to be undertaken by USAID. As we are all aware, crises in Haiti and Sudan have required us to reevaluate our funding priorities to ensure that the United States is leading the way to alleviate the horrible situation in these two countries. The bill earmarks an additional $50 million above the President's request for Haiti and provides a total of $311 million, $25 million above the request, for urgent humanitarian needs in Sudan. Congress has already responded to the evolving humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan by adding $95 million in emergency funding to the DOD bill. There may be additional funds needed, as we intend to simultaneously fund the rebuilding of southern Sudan if and when a peace treaty is completed. The bill does prohibit assistance to the government of Sudan until it has disarmed and disbanded government- supported militia groups and allows full and unconditional access to the Darfur region to the UN and other humanitarian organizations. The government of Sudan should get the clear and unambiguous message from this bill that we will not tolerate continued brutality and cover-ups. I am particularly pleased that the bill provides funding to combat terrorist financing in three different accounts, along with report language requiring the administration to analyze the total level and distribution of funding for this priority across all government agencies. This analysis will be a critical tool in ensuring that our efforts are coordinated and efficient. I am very pleased that this aid bill once again demonstrates our strong commitment to maintaining Israel's economic health and its qualitative edge in the region. The bill also provides increased funding for conflict resolution programs in the Middle East and elsewhere and increased funding for UNICEF, UNDP and UNIFEM's program to prevent violence against women. While the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I are in agreement on the vast majority of issues, and, as I did say, we worked so well together, there are a few areas where we may disagree. Once again, the bill fails to include language that will restore funding for the life-saving activities of the United Nations Population Fund. I had hoped to offer an amendment today to restore funding to UNFPA on a limited basis to countries of clear strategic importance to the United States foreign policy. Because I discussed this amendment in depth during debate on the rule, I will not repeat the discussion again during the general debate, but I want to make it clear that I think it was a grave error not to include this funding for UNFPA for the six countries strategically placed who have clear laws against abortion and the other provisions of that bill which I believe make a great deal of sense and are very important to the entire world. I also want to say a few words about our overall allocation, to ensure that the funding levels in this bill are put into context. As my colleagues are surely aware, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations was asked this year to make room for new administration initiatives alongside the core development, export financing and military assistance accounts usually included in the bill. The largest of these initiatives, the Millennium Challenge Account, was initially conceived of by the President 2 years ago, at which time he assured the American people that any funds devoted to it would be in addition to, rather than in place of, existing development funds. With an allocation nearly $2 billion below the President's request, however, we were hard-pressed to provide significant increases for priorities such as non-AIDS child survival and health, development assistance and refugees and migration assistance. While we significantly cut MCA funding from the requested level, it is clear that, unless the President increases his request and the committee decides to grant us an adequate allocation, we will continue to have to scrape together the money to level fund or slightly increase our core development priorities. This is a real concern to me. I am sure many of my colleagues share it. I am sure my committee chairman shares it as well. However, in conclusion, the bill we are recommending to the committee today represents a true bipartisan effort and funds accounts as equitably as possible in the context of the deep cut from the President's request. I support the bill enthusiastically. I hope my colleagues will do the same. In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) again, as well as all the members of the subcommittee and the associate staff. The majority staff, John, Alice, Rodney, Rob, Lori and Sean, and the minority staff, Mark and Beth, have been extraordinarily helpful in working with the chairman and me in crafting the bill, and I do thank them for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), an outstanding, effective member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), our distinguished colleague who happens to have his daughter in the audience with her really distinguished road show for the show ``Oliver.'' So we are very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished New Yorker who happens to represent my former district in Queens.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a good friend and distinguished, effective member of the committee. (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Providence, Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition reluctantly to this amendment. While I have absolutely no sympathy for the government of Iran and would strongly prefer that the World Bank not approve loans to that country, I oppose this amendment because its passage will not in any way affect lending to Iran. What the amendment would do is cut $359 million from the International Development Association, which is almost half of the proposed fiscal year 2005 U.S. contribution. IDA funds loans to the poorest countries in the world, mostly African countries, at low rates of interest and on a long-term repayment schedule. IDA is the source of much of the capital that poor countries use to rebuild vital infrastructure and deal with the chronic problems of poor health and education systems. The World Bank, through the IDA loan window, has spent over $1 billion to combat HIV/AIDS to date. The bank is also the center for the ``Education for All'' initiative, which aims to provide a free, primary education to the 110 million children around the world who currently do not attend school. Because the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation was $1.9 billion below the President's request, we had to make some tough choices. In that context, the funding currently in the bill for IDA represents a $200 million cut from the President's request. I am certainly not totally satisfied with the quality of the World Bank's lending programs and will be monitoring closely the result of the new Performance Evaluation Scheme. The cuts the committee made were in that context, but cutting further would be a mistake and would only serve to reduce the bank's overall lending capacity without in any way affecting Iran. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. I want to say that we have tried to accommodate everybody with their amendments, and I believe this agreement does so. I look forward to working with the chairman, and, hopefully, everyone will go along with the plan. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her important leadership on this issue. I know that she recently returned from the HIV/AIDS conference in Bangkok. I know that in this very busy place we never have adequate time to really listen and learn, but she has truly been a leader, and I hope that we all have the opportunity to share her experiences with her. I thank her. Mr. Chairman, while the bill before us already contains $2.2 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, which is the requested level, it only contains $400 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The Global Fund has made clear to us that a $400 million U.S. contribution for fiscal year 2005 will endanger completion of multiyear grant agreements it has already signed and will totally shut down the Fund's ability to make new grants. The Fund has appealed to us for a total U.S. contribution of $1.2 billion this year, which is its estimate of the funds needed to meet anticipated demands for the next round of grant awards. I want to point out that the committee has not been totally satisfied with the management performance of the Fund, and there are a number of reforms mandated in the bill to improve its performance. But, despite these concerns, the demand for increased funds for meeting the needs for HIV treatment, prevention, and awareness are vast and growing. One need only cite the daunting statistics of the most recent U.N. reports on the spread of HIV to understand the need for more funds. Based on this alone, I would support the gentlewoman's amendment. I do, however, have another compelling reason to support the amendment, and that is because I am convinced that the Global Fund is doing a better job at scaling up HIV treatment programs than our bilateral program currently is. As many of the Members know, the administration recently announced that the Food and Drug Administration would institute new policies that would dramatically speed up the process of approving generic drugs for HIV treatment. Unfortunately, this announcement was completely misleading. As documented in a recent letter to HHS Secretary Thompson from our colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member on the House Committee on Government Reform, the administration's announcement in May that the FDA would be able to review these drugs in ``2 to 6 weeks'' raised the expectation of their imminent purchase and distribution. After close review, however, of FDA plans, it becomes clear that the expedited review starts only after companies have submitted a complete application to FDA. In order to have a complete application, these companies may have to repeat clinical studies, undergo a raw materials review, and submit to detailed inspections. The bottom line is that this presubmission process could add months, if not years, to the approval process. The Bush administration has made treatment of those living with HIV its highest priority, stating that 200,000 people will be in treatment within 1 year and 2 million by 2007. As the cost for generic ``one pill combinations'' continues to decline to less than $150 per year, the United States is still purchasing brand-name drugs at four to five times that price. Without a viable regime in place to certify safe and effective generic drugs to treat HIV, our ability to meet the goals set out by the President will diminish. WHO has standards in place and in use today, but they are not currently recognized by the United States. I believe that either the administration should implement a realistic plan for rapid approval of safe and effective combination therapies by expediting the FDA approval process, or we should participate in the WHO approval process. I do not believe Congress should have to get involved in this issue. It is best left to medical experts to determine what is safe and effective in treating HIV. However, I also believe that the President should not mislead Congress and the American people. We should not continue indefinitely to purchase expensive brand-name drugs with no clear plan in place by the FDA to expedite its review of cheaper generics. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves today. I intend, along with Chairman Kolbe, to follow up with Global AIDS Coordinator Tobias and Secretary Thompson. In the meantime, providing more funds to the Global Fund will speed progress toward reaching the treatment and prevention goals we all share. I urge support of this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. For the last several years I have joined many of my colleagues, including this amendment's sponsor, in expressing concern about the composition of the United States aid package to Egypt. Why at a time when Egypt has no major enemies should we be providing over $1 billion each year in military assistance? Why, when economic conditions in Egypt are so dire, should we be maintaining such a high level of military aid even as economic assistance levels drop? I share the concerns many of my colleagues have expressed about Egypt's record. Egypt's media is rife with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic images and language, including constant comparisons between Israel and the Nazis in television shows that perpetuate anti-Semitism. Egyptian officials have called Israel a ``terrorist organization'' by taking self-defensive actions against terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt's move towards political reform has been slow and bumpy, with little support from that country's top leaders for adopting measures to make Egyptian society more democratic and inclusive. As for Egypt's record on security and peace process issues, I have other serious concerns. The Egyptians have dragged their feet in stemming the flow of smuggled weapons through tunnels under the Egypt- Gaza border. The Egyptian leadership has not historically been helpful in pressing the Palestinians to comply with agreements they have already made and to negotiate with Israel on matters of grave importance to regional stability and security. Egypt has failed to return its ambassador to Israel since it recalled him nearly 4 years ago. All these examples point to one conclusion: Egypt has not acted the way we should expect one of the largest recipients of United States foreign aid to act. Its policies have at times been in outright opposition to the best interests of United States national security. For these reasons, I agree with the message of the gentleman's amendment. However, as much as I agree with my good friend's message, I am troubled by the timing. In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's decision to pursue a unilateral Israel withdrawal from Gaza, which I strongly support, Egypt has signaled a new readiness to play a constructive role in making the region secure. Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman has become the point man in discussions with the Palestinians, delivering the message of the United States and the Quartet that the Palestinians must consolidate and reform their security forces and empower their prime minister rather than Chairman Arafat. Egypt is taking actions right now that are supportive of what Israel has determined is in its best security interests. So at a time when Egypt is preparing to take on the Herculean task of consolidating and training the Palestinian security services, a task that will require steely resolve and sustained pressure on Arafat to achieve, I am concerned about the unintended consequences this amendment may have. In a July 2 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who has served both administrations and is probably one of the foremost experts in this region of the world, warned that the Egyptians are unlikely to succeed at the long list of goals they have, goals shared by both the United States and Israel without active United States support. I agree with Ambassador Ross, and I believe that this amendment could have the effect of chilling these efforts at a time when they could be most helpful for bolstering security in the region.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in opposition to the amendment. Because what the amendment would do is cut $250 million from the International Development Association and IDA funds, loans to the poorest countries in the world, mostly African countries, at low rates of interest and long-term repayment schedules. IDA is the source of much of the capital that poor countries use to rebuild vital infrastructure and deal with the chronic problems of poor health and education systems. This amendment, if we had unlimited funds and we can do it all, it might make sense, but in light of the good work of the committee in trying to balance needs in all the accounts, I do not think we can possibly deal with cutting $250 million from IDA, and, therefore, I am opposed to this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the spirit of the gentleman's amendment and regret that I cannot support it in this context. We have worked hard to bring a bill to the floor under a requirement to reduce the President's request by $1.9 billion. And so in order to accomplish this, we were forced to make, as you know, many tough choices, and reducing funding for the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank, unfortunately, was one of them. I have always worked hard to get adequate funding for the GEF because I believe it provides a vital source of funds for environmentally sound lending. The bill does provide $107.5 million for the GEF, which is the amount of our annual contribution. As you know, we did not include the additional $13 million requested for arrears and that is reflected in the funding levels of other banks as well. It would be my hope that we could find a way to make up these arrears either in conference on this year's bill or next year. I know of the gentleman's commitment to GEF. I share that commitment. And I want to assure you of my intention to work towards this goal. I thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of my colleagues.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate her thoughtful comments. The problem of unexploded ordnance in Laos is real and will be addressed immediately. I would strongly urge a significant portion of the funds already in the bill for demining be used to address this problem in Laos, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the committee. Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished chair of the Black Caucus.