Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue of great importance to our children--afterschool programs. The parents of more than 28 million school-age children work outside the home, and the Urban Institute estimates that at least seven million and as many as 15 million ``latchkey children'' go to an empty house on any given afternoon. It is during these after-school hours that children are more likely to be involved in crime, substance abuse, and teenage pregnancy. As a result, it is essential that we provide children with organized activities or programs to go to after-school. To highlight the ongoing need for after-school programs, the Afterschool Alliance--a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that all children have access to after-school programs by 2010--has organized the fourth annual nationwide day of awareness for after- school programs called Lights on Afterschool! This event is the only national event celebrating after-school programs and the important role they play in the lives of children, families and communities. Sponsored by the JCPenney Afterschool Fund, with additional support provided by the C.S. Mott Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and the Open Society Institute, Lights on Afterschool! was launched in October 2000 with celebrations in more than 1,200 communities nationwide. This year's event will be its largest yet with over 5,000 communities organizing more than 6,000 events. These activities will take place at schools, 4-H clubs, YMCAs, churches, parking lots, on fair grounds, at shopping malls and State capitals. In my own district, events will take place at the Eastchester After School Program, the Eastchester After School Youth Program (E.A.S.Y.), and the Yonkers School Age Child Care Alliance. I applaud these sites for opening their doors to parents, neighbors, business leaders, and elected officials to showcase their programs. I also hope these visits will help build support for after school programs. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, not all working families and their children have access to after school programs and additional sites are desperately needed. In polling done by the Afterschool Alliance, nearly two-thirds of respondents reported difficulty in finding quality, affordable programs. In addition, a 31-State study of after-school funding found that 75 percent of 2002 requests for Federal after-school support went unfunded because there was not enough money to go around. We must do more for families in need. After-school programs are invaluable to local communities--keeping our children safe and involved in positive, enriching activities, helping working families, and improving academic achievement. With the power of united voices, and the continued support of organizations like the JCPenney Afterschool Fund, the Afterschool Alliance, 4-H Afterschool, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the Inner- City Games Foundation, Junior Achievement and the YMCA of the USA, we can certainly reach our goal of after-school for all.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2655, which would extend and enhance the Walsh Visa Program--a critical effort in the drive for peace in Northern Ireland. There is still a great deal of work to be done to realize the vision we all share of a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. The Walsh Visa Program is a critical part of this effort, providing disadvantaged young adults from Northern Ireland and border counties with job skills and conflict resolution training in the United States. When they return home, these young people play a positive role in their communities, helping along the economy and the peace process. I cannot stress enough the importance of this program. H.R. 2655 would extend this vital program for two years and would also ensure that the people who benefit from it are the truly economically disadvantaged young adults the program was designed to help. They come from areas that have been gravely affected by conflict, suffering from intense violence and high levels of unemployment. As we strive for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, we must remember that while leaders may make peace, people make peace flourish. This program would support the everyday people who are the foundation of peace in future generations. I strongly support H.R. 2655, and I thank my colleague Mr. Walsh for his important contribution to the peace effort.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, after commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade just 9 months ago, we are reminded again that a woman's right to choose is never secure. In the debate today over so-called partial-birth abortion, do not ever forget this is about Roe v. Wade. We are here because supporters of this bill disagree with the Supreme Court. Let us be clear. This is not about outlawing one method of abortion. It is about restricting access to safe medical procedures throughout an entire pregnancy. Ultimately, it is about the right of all women to choose. Proponents of this legislation want to overturn Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart and go back to the days when women had no options, when they left the country or died in back alleys. In reflecting on the long debate over this bill starting in 1995, I remember something that I heard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor say once. She said that she was drawn to the law because she saw the role it plays in shaping our society. ``I don't think law often leads society,'' she said. ``It really is a statement of society's beliefs in a way.'' The proponents of this bill and I would likely agree with Justice O'Connor, except I believe that Roe v. Wade continues to express our society's beliefs, and they do not. Roe said that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is private and personal and should be made by a woman and her family and her clergy without undue interference from the Government. I and the American people still believe that, supporters of this bill do not. Roe and Stenberg said that a woman must never be forced to sacrifice her life or damage her health in order to bring a pregnancy to term. The woman's health must come first and be protected throughout her pregnancy. I and the American people still believe this, supporters of the bill do not. And Roe and Stenberg said that determinations about viability and health risks must be made for each woman by her physician. A blanket Government decree about medicine is irresponsible and dangerous. I and the American people still believe that, supporters of the bill do not. I urge my colleagues to not be fooled today by those who claim that sufficient changes have been made so that this bill agrees with the principles outlined in Roe and Stenberg. Make no mistake. The bill before us today still does not contain the health exception, which means it is still unconstitutional. It still bans abortion throughout pregnancy, which means it is still unconstitutional. Congress is wrong to pass this by ban, and the President would be wrong to sign it. Mr. Speaker, we believe that women matter. We believe that their health and lives are irreplaceable and worth protecting. That is why we oppose this ban. I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land and support the values in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart. Leave decisions in the hands of families. Protect the health of women.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of eliminating the tax on disabled veterans, and thank my colleague Maxine Waters for organizing the time to discuss this important matter. Those who spend their career serving our nation in the military deserve our respect and gratitude; yet, military retirees remain the only group of federal employees who must waive retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. Our nation is stronger and more secure because of their service and dedication, and fulfilling our obligations to those who fought for our freedom must always be a national priority. It is time to stop penalizing the more than 700,000 disabled veterans who are military retirees. Attempts to redefine who qualifies as a disabled veteran are unnecessary, and achieve nothing more than providing benefits to one group of veterans at the expense of others. The solution is obvious, yet resolution has been difficult, I was disappointed last year when a threatened presidential veto caused the elimination of the veterans tax to be scaled back in the Defense Authorization bill and, again this year when the House Defense Authorization failed to include language to repeal the tax. 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 a nation is measured not only in the might of its military, but also the compassion shown by and to its members. It is time to put a permanent end to the disabled veterans tax; their commitment to excellence in service to our country should not be answered with deficient services from that country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for comprehensive mandatory security training of the Nation's flight attendants. A bipartisan measure included in the FAA reauthorization bills passed by the House and Senate would have required the TSA to establish clear, consistent security training standards for all flight attendants, regardless of airline affiliation. The agreement would have ensured fight attendants received self- defense instruction as well as training to coordinate effectively with Federal air marshals, closing a glaring gap in the Nation's aviation security program. Unfortunately, this critical provision was stripped, apparently at the behest of a single carrier, from the final conference report. Under the new language, TSA could, but would not be required to, issue guidelines for flight attendant security training programs. In the absence of a statutory requirement, TSA is unlikely to establish the rigorous training program demanded by flight attendants. Forcing flight attendants with no prior self-defense training to confront well-armed, suicide terrorists is unfair and unwise. Flight attendants are uniquely capable of disrupting a potentially devastating terrorist attack. The attempted hijacking of a Quantas flight in May is a good example. The incident, which left two flight attendants and two passengers with stab wounds, dramatically illustrates the consequences of inadequate security training. The Department of Homeland Security's recent warning of another suicide hijacking reminds us of the perils of complacency. I was pleased that the Committee on Rules reported out a resolution recommitting the reauthorization bill to conference. As this legislation is rewritten, I urge my colleagues to support restoration of the original flight attendant training language.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of the thousands of brave men and women lost on September 11th, the lives of the thousands more who survived, and the strength and love shown by the families, friends, loved ones, and communities left behind on that shocking, terrible day. It's hard to believe that it was 2 years ago. It feels like yesterday, in some ways, that we sat transfixed before CNN, unable to believe that the World Trade Center was gone, the Pentagon burned, and that somehow a plane of courageous passengers over Pennsylvania had managed to turn the table on their hijackers. The losses still ache. It was only last week that the last firefighting family in New York City laid their son to rest. In other ways, it feels like forever. Our sense of this world has changed, our duties have increased, and our vulnerabilities remain. As a Member of Congress, I feel a special and urgent responsibility to make sure we have better intelligence, more resources, and effective response plans in place. But I am optimistic. I have faith in America. In my area, many of us know someone who was lost. But you didn't have to know someone to feel it. America's heart was broken that day, and in some ways we will never be the same. But, in an important way, America will never change. The terrorists wanted, and still want, to break America's spirit. But that hasn't happened. Our shock has faded, and we've accepted a stark reality: we can never let down our guard in the fight against terrorism. Communities have drawn closer and grown stronger over the past 2 years; neighbors take the time to meet and thank fire fighters and police officers; people wait patiently in long airport screening lines; and parents stock up on bottled water and canned food. America is the land of the free; it's the home of the brave. We're fighters--just look at our men and women in uniform, who are just outstanding--and we're survivors. Our Nation is united as we continue to strengthen our security, protect our people, and pursue those responsible for the attacks. We've shown that we won't allow terrorists to destroy the values that make America great--we will protect and defend liberty, tolerance and democracy. There's no better national tribute to those who were lost than that.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Petri-Olver amendment, which would restore the set-aside for the transportation enhancements program. Passed over a decade ago, when Congress recognized a serious shortcoming in the Nation's transportation system, the Transportation Enhancements program has ensured consistent funding for pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly transportation projects. Large Federal highway budgets over the past several decades were instrumental in creating an integrated transportation network. The absence of serious intercity transportation alternatives, however, increased reliance on cars, resulting in gridlock, longer travel times, additional pollution, and reduced quality of life. Federal transportation planners' preoccupation with interstate highway construction and seeming neglect of local challenges frustrated many mayors, especially in my area. This is why the Transportation Enhancements program, which guaranteed a portion of Federal highway aid would go to multi-use paths, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, is so important, and why the decision to eliminate the guaranteed funding component of this program in this year's transportation appropriations bill disappointed transportation analysts, environmental and public health advocates, and state and local leaders. New York needs this funding. Although the State has spent $300 million on transportation enhancements since 1991, many of its needs remain unmet. Indeed, New York could afford to fund less than 30 percent of proposals received in the past 3 years, ultimately opting to use other Surface Transportation Program funds to pay for projects. My own constituents are especially worried. Since the creation of the Transportation Enhancements program, over $13 million has flowed to municipalities in my district to construct river paths, renovate town parks, refurbish scenic promenades, preserve historic sites, and improve pedestrian safety. Between 2001 and 2003, only 16 percent of the 74 eligible mid-Hudson projects received funding, a testament to both the program's popularity and current funding constraints. The benefits of the program are many and well known, but I would like to mention a few: (1) Quality-of-life. Over the past several decades, the car has become the preferred method of movement, even for short distances. The resulting congestion has made everything from commuting to work to picking up groceries, genuine headaches. Multi-lane arterials now zig- zag through formerly quiet neighborhoods, exposing residents to noise pollution and threatening our children's safety. By financing construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths, the Transportation Enhancements program has provided individuals with serious transportation alternatives that can cut traffic, reduce accidents with cyclists and pedestrians, protect green spaces an create truly livable communities. (2) Environment. Our reliance on cars, which produce acid rain and smog-forming chemicals, has harmed our environment and needlessly compromised public health. Transportation is responsible for 50 percent of all the air emissions that cause smog, which decreases lung capacity and triggers asthma attacks. Over one million New Yorkers have asthma and over 14 million State residents live in areas where smog levels exceed the Federal Government's health standard. Full funding of the Transportation Enhancements program would help to bring into compliance the many New York metro areas that fail to meet ozone standards. (3) Obesity. Finally, the Centers for Disease Control recently identified obesity, particularly among children, as a top national health risk. The absence of walking and bicycling opportunities has played a major role in sky-rocketing obesity rates, which, according to the CDC, equal or exceed 20 percent in 30 states. Obesity, which can lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke, not only carries a tremendous health toll but also steep economic consequences. In 2001, indirect and direct economic costs were estimated at $117 billion. So, it is vital that opportunities to walk and bicycle grow rather than diminish. Restoring the funding guarantee for the Transportation Enhancements program is critical to making this happen. Once again, I appreciate Congressman Olver and Congressman Petri's leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to an article entitled, ``Justice for Jews from Arab Nations,'' which was printed in the International Herald tribune on July 1, 2003. I respectfully request that this article be entered into the Congressional Record. The article was written by Ms. Giulia Boukhobza, a Jew who was born in Libya in 1951. The story she tells is one of anti-Jewish legislation, seizure of assets, and, ultimately, ethnic cleansing. Beginning in 1948, over 800,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries, as those countries sought revenge for the creation of a Jewish state. Ms. Boukhobza was forced to flee from Libya in 1967. This article is her testimonial, bringing to light an important part of the history of Israel and the Middle East. Thank you. [From International Herald Tribune, July 1, 2003] Justice for Jews From Arab Nations (By Giulia Boukhobza (IHT)) New York: This is the first time I have ever written about my experience as a Jew from Libya, It's not easy for me. The memories are still painful. Jews had a continual presence in Libya for over two thousand years, predating the Arab conquest and occupation by centuries, My own family had lived on Libyan soil for hundreds of years, if not longer. I was born in Libya in 1951, the year of the country's independence. Most of the nearly 40,000 Jews left Libya between 1948 and 1951 because of a wave of anti-Jewish rioting, beginning in 1945, that left hundreds dead and injured and thousands homeless. My family, however, decided to stay and see if things would improve. After all, it was our home, it was our language, and it was the land of our ancestors. And the new Libyan constitution offered guarantees that gave us hope. We were wrong, The hope was misplaced. The guarantees were absolutely worthless. By 1961, Jews could not vote, hold public office, obtain Libyan passports, buy new property, or supervise our own communal affairs. In other words, at best we were second-class residents--I can't even say citizens-- though this was our birthplace and home. Our fate was sealed six years later. In June 1967, the anti-Jewish atmosphere in the streets became terrifying, so much so that my family could not leave our house in Tripoli, My parents and I, along with my seven brothers and sisters, sat frightened at home for days, And then the mob came for us. I can't even begin to describe the scene. It seemed there were a thousand men chanting ``Death to the Jews.'' Some had jars of gasoline which they began to empty on our house. They were about to strike a match. We were near hysteria. But then one man from the mob courageously spoke up. He said he knew us and we should be left alone. Amazingly, the mob complied and moved elsewhere. Other Jews, however, were not as lucky. Some, including close friends of ours, were killed, and property damage was estimated in the millions of dollars. Our family went into hiding for several weeks before we were finally able to leave the country and reach Italy. We arrived with barely a suitcase each. Today, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single Jew left in Libya, not one. An ancient community has come to a complete end. My family had to start from scratch in Italy. We bad nothing and no one. But we persevered. We knew that we weren't the world's first Jewish refugees, or the last, and that we would just have to make the best of a difficult situation. And that's exactly what we did. We did not wallow in self-pity. We did not seek to make ourselves wards of the international community. And we didn't plot revenge against Libya. We simply picked up the pieces of our lives and moved on. The more I think about what befell us, though, the angrier I become. In effect, we were triple victims. First, we were uprooted and compelled to leave our home forever solely because we were Jews. Second, our plight was largely ignored by the international community, the UN and the media. Do a search and you'll be shocked at how little was written or said about this tragedy. And third, Libya erased any trace of our existence in the country. Even the Jewish cemeteries were destroyed and the headstones used in the building of roads. In other words, first our homeland was taken away from us, then our history as well. I can no longer be a Jew of silence, nor can I allow myself to become a forgotten Jew. It is time to reclaim my history. It is time to demand accountability for the massive human rights violations that occurred to us in Libya. That's why, after 36 years, I've chosen to speak out today.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misguided legislation. The father of Head Start, Dr. Edward Zigler, once said, ``Learning is not a purely cognitive enterprise--children learn better when they have good physical and mental health and have families whose own needs are met.'' I could not agree with him more. The Head Start program merges literacy activities with lessons in good nutrition, vision screenings, and proper hygiene. It also recognizes the need to bring parents into the developmental process by providing them with support services in and out of the home, such as access to comprehensive health care and social workers, peer counseling, and parenting programs. As a mother and grandmother, I know that it takes a lot more than basic reading skills to get our children prepared for learning. A kid's emotions, personality, and social surroundings are just as important as their I.Q. when first entering school. Under this bill, however, instead of providing comprehensive family support, eight states could divert the funding to reading and language development-only programs--leaving behind the parental involvement and health components that are key to Head Start. If the goal was to truly promote reading excellence, then we could expand and increase our investment in programs like Reading First, Literacy Through School Libraries, and Reading Is Fundamental. Unfortunately, that is not what this proposal is about. Rather, it is a subtle acknowledgement that the Republican Congress has not fulfilled its promise to supersize the federal government's education budget. By giving states the right to divert this funding into education programs, Head Start will be likely be used to makeup for the funding shortfalls for the No Child Left Behind Act's programs. My colleagues, our kids need balanced meals before, during, and after school. They need comfortable, clean clothing in order to learn. And they need safe, structured, and encouraging environments in which to study. Head Start teaches parents these lessons, while also providing our kids with the right tools and motivation to learn. What happened to the saying--``if it's not broken, don't fix it?!'' This program has a proven track record for effectiveness. While I strongly support the provisions in the bill that improve teacher quality, create accountability measures, and increase Head Start's focus on educational skills--we simply cannot make the drastic changes that will eliminate the very initiatives that keep Head Start strong. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting to maintain the critical nutrition and health components of Head Start by voting against this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today, we sadly commemorate the 29th anniversary of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. Over one quarter century ago, more than 200,000 Cypriots were driven from their homes and forced to live under foreign occupation. Today, the legacy of this tragedy is the enormous Turkish military presence in Cyprus and the ongoing mystery of the fate of those who have disappeared. The occupation has gone on for far too long. We must strive for reunification, and we must achieve it soon, so that all Cypriots can benefit from Cyprus's new stature on the world stage. Cyprus is well on its way to full EU membership--by this time next year it will be official. And, while Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash has continued to throw up roadblocks in front of a formal settlement, it seems the people of Cyprus are fed up with living on a divided island. We have been inspired by the stories of peace and kindness that have emerged from the opening of the borders--an opening that has taken place without the violence Mr. Denktash so stridently predicted. We all know that while leaders may make peace agreements, people make peace-- and that is what we have witnessed in Cyprus. As Ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, it has been an honor to fight to achieve a substantial earmark for Cyprus each year. This assistance demonstrates our commitment to the people of Cyprus and our recognition of their struggle. These funds support measures aimed at reunifying the island and reducing tensions and promoting peace between the people of Cyprus. I believe this earmark sends a strong signal to the people of Cyprus that the United States is unflinchingly committed to realizing the goal of a reunified Cyprus. As the appropriations process continues, I will work to ensure the earmark once again reaches its traditional level of $15 million. We must work together to keep up the pressure on Turkey to end its occupation of Cyprus and to allow the Cypriot people to live in peace and freedom. This year, more than ever, we must not let the opportunity for a resolution to this conflict pass.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman, because I think this is an absolutely critical point to be made. In countries where women are more involved, where there are more women in government, there clearly is a greater effort towards peace, towards collaboration to avoiding the horrors of war. So I want to applaud the gentlewoman for her initiative and for her focus on women and peace, and I do hope that we can work together to ensure that these kinds of efforts around the world are supported. I thank the gentlewoman.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to the floor. This condition is so devastating, I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. We need to get more comfortable with the fact that the problem exists, and we must play a role in solving it. I am glad we are discussing it on the floor today. A recent report commissioned by UNFPA has recognized obstetric fistula as a condition that is both preventable and treatable. Obstetric fistulas are virtually unknown in places where early pregnancy is discouraged, young women are educated, family planning is accessible and medical care is provided at childbirth. Women with fistulas are living indicators of failed maternal health systems. I am proud that the committee report accompanying this bill urges the Agency for International Development to initiate programs in the areas most heavily affected by fistula. We must work hard to encourage USAID to take on this issue. The United States has consistently taken the lead on fighting HIV- AIDS, and I believe we should do the same for obstetric fistula. We know the difference that a trained physician can make through prevention and treatment. We need more trained doctors, organized education efforts for women and families and basic medical equipment in the countries affected by fistula to eradicate this terrible condition. These are the types of assistance that USAID can and should be providing, and I thank the gentlewoman again for raising this issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I share her concern. What does the gentlewoman from New York recommend?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that formulation.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention. The chairman and I are very sensitive to the conditions which the gentlewoman describes. Yes, there is assistance that is being provided by AID. We would like to further discuss it with the gentlewoman and work with the gentlewoman to see if that assistance could be intensified. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment and for giving us the opportunity to have an open discussion about recent events in Indonesia. Last August, two U.S. citizens and one Indonesian were killed in an ambush in Papua, Indonesia, and eight other Americans were wounded. This incident took place in an area under the nominal control of an American company and the victims were their employees. While the Indonesian military has sought to blame indigenous rebel movements for this act of terror, all signs point to the direct involvement of the Indonesian military. The FBI has been dispatched several times to assist in the investigation. The cooperation of the Indonesian military authorities has been sporadic at times and at times nonexistent. The debate on whether to allow military training for Indonesia has gone on for over 10 years now. Last year, over my objections, Congress allowed for the resumption of full IMET training for the first time since 1992. Let us examine the Indonesians' response to this action: One, continued lack of cooperation with the FBI investigation into the killings in Papua; Two, an active media campaign to discredit the FBI's initial conclusions that the Indonesian military was most likely involved in this incident; Three, a horrific military crack down in Aceh which has resulted in hundreds of civilians killed, executions, rape, numerous schools burned, and thousands forced into military camps; The shutting out of foreign journalists and human rights organizations from Aceh; A similar campaign in Papua, targeting mostly Christian and Melanesian populations; A continuing mockery of justice in cases involving the abuses in East Timor in 1999; And efforts by the Indonesian Army to slow or hinder U.S. anti- terrorism assistance for the Indonesian police. In short, Indonesia has not shown any inclination to work more closely with us and to change policies which they know are objectionable. If anything, their behavior indicates that they have chosen to use this as an opportunity to defy the United States. This amendment cuts $600,000 requested for Indonesian IMET and will send a strong signal to the Indonesians. Allowing unrestricted IMET demonstrates to the Indonesians that they cannot afford to ignore State Department and congressional calls for military reform, real cooperation in the war on terrorism and an end to violence and corruption. I urge support of the Hefley amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman has any idea what the effect of this point of order is. This authority to allow for the rescheduling of bilateral agriculture debt has been carried in the foreign operations bill for at least 5 years. If it is removed, the administration will be unable to pursue bilateral debt rescheduling. This authority is a crucial tool in helping poor countries. It has been used recently to help critical allies in the war on terrorism, such as Pakistan and Indonesia. We also just used the authority to help the Democratic Republic of Congo with the horrible mess they are in. We did not fund the $300 million request to forgive their debt. The least we can do is reschedule their debt. So I am mystified as to why the gentleman would raise this point of order. I might ask whether he knows of any plans in the Committee on Agriculture to enact a bill containing this authority. I would like to yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman again if he is against competition in awarding contracts in Iraq. I am trying to figure out what he is trying to do with the point of order.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a good friend, who has worked very closely with me, and I appreciate our extremely cooperative relationship. I also want to thank the chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I appreciate the leadership he provides to this committee. And I want to say at the outset that while Chairman Kolbe and I may differ fundamentally on the adequacy of our allocation he certainly accommodated most of my priorities, and I believe we have a bill that indeed is worthy of Members' support, despite the fact that we had to cut $1.7 billion from the President's request, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The bill contains $17.1 billion, which is an increase of $900 million over last year, and I generally agree with my chairman on the spending levels recommended for specific accounts within the reduced allocation. We did work together closely to ensure that in the face of devastating cuts we at least level funded Child Survival and Health accounts and increased education as a priority area. We provided funding for reconstruction in Afghanistan, an issue on which the chairman and I have collaborated often in the last year. The bill also funds fully our commitments in the Middle East, a powerful statement at such a critical time in the peace process. And there are many more very positive aspects I will discuss further in a moment. I do have some concerns as well. At the $17 billion spending level, we as a country will devote less than 1 percent of our GDP to foreign assistance. Actual spending in 2003 for foreign aid will total over $23 billion, including $7.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for war-related needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. That additional spending sped through Congress without a hint of controversy because it was judged vital to our national security. As the conflict and reconstruction continue in Iraq on parallel tracks, there is a good chance we will need more, and Members should know that there are no funds in this bill to address Iraq reconstruction needs. This means that those additional needs will be addressed in a supplemental, which will undoubtedly also contain billions to fund the defense-related costs of the war and which will again be requested by the President as emergency spending. I do believe that our response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic is underfunded and should be dealt with as the emergency it is now. In response to the President's extraordinary initiative on HIV/AIDS, Congress overwhelmingly passed and the President signed a bill authorizing $3 billion for fiscal year 2004. While in Africa 2 weeks ago, the President repeatedly touted this $15 billion 5-year plan, and he and his advisers called on Congress to fund it. This created the impression that we the Congress were the obstacle to providing $3 billion, despite the fact that the President himself only requested $2 billion in appropriations. Now, while I am pleased that this bill provides $1.43 billion for HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, we supported the $3 billion authorization on this floor in this Congress, and now the bill has come due. I believe it is disingenuous for us to make promises we have no intention of keeping, and so I offered an amendment at full committee to provide an additional $1 billion for HIV/AIDS as emergency spending. I asked that this amendment be made in order under the rule so every Member of Congress would have the opportunity to fulfill our pledge, but it was not. It is truly a disgrace, in my judgment, that we will not have the opportunity to take this vote today. Additional resources for Africa are also vitally needed. Everyone is aware of the long history of devastating and destabilizing humanitarian and political crises on that continent. And although this bill will slightly increase resources for Africa above last year, it merely begins to address the ongoing tragedies there. Unfortunately, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to add emergency resources for Africa was also not made in order. The sad fact is that we as a Nation have neglected the problems of Africa for decades; chronic poverty, the spread of infectious disease, and lack of good governance remain. And despite all the efforts we have undertaken so far across many Congresses and administrations, we must no longer shy away from addressing these problems with sufficient resources and political will. It serves no one when the current presidential initiatives are touted as ultimate answers for these tragedies. Both the Millennium Challenge Account, MCA, and the HIV initiative hold the promise of getting increased resources to Africa, but the actual effects they will have remain unclear. I support the conceptual approach embodied in the proposal to establish a Millennium Challenge Account, however, budget realities we face this year, and will likely face next year, make it highly unlikely that the promise made by the President that the $10 billion intended for the MCA will be additive to current levels of foreign assistance will be kept. Much of the bipartisan support in Congress for the MCA is based on the fact that it is supposed to help the poorest countries of the world and that MCA resources will add to amounts currently spent on foreign assistance. Cuts to discretionary spending in this year's budget resolution, combined with unrealistically low budget requests for many domestic programs, have translated into cuts in this bill of $1.7 billion. This situation is likely to worsen in fiscal year 2005. The President cannot expect Congress to support full funding of the MCA initiative if other vital programs in the foreign operations bill have to be cut. The bill contains $800 million for the MCA, largely at the insistence of the White House; the Senate bill contains $1 billion for MCA; and the White House is still pushing for the full $1.3 billion requested. It is highly likely that the final allocation for the foreign operations bill will be $1 billion to $1.5 billion below the President's request. Now, in plain English, this means that other accounts in the bill will be cut severely if MCA is fully funded. Members should also know that only 3 of 11 potentially qualifying countries for MCA resources in 2004 are in Africa. In 2005, of the 12 countries most likely to qualify, again, only 3 are in Africa. In all, after $2 billion over 3 years is provided to the MCA, only a small number are African countries are likely to have benefitted. I have taken the time in my opening remarks to address this situation because this initiative marks the beginning of a shift in how we in Congress effect foreign aid programming. As we provide more resources for MCA, our ability to direct funds to specific purposes, such as health and education, will diminish significantly. My support for this initiative going forward will thus depend on whether resources going to it are truly additive and whether Congress maintains some measure of control and oversight over country eligibility and program planning. I am especially proud, and I want to personally thank the gentleman from Arizona for the $350 million in the bill for basic education, which is $100 million above last year's level. In addition, we require a detailed report on how the administration will organize and implement our expanded efforts in basic education. Virtually everyone I speak to agrees that providing more and more focused resources for basic education throughout the world is one of the best possible ways we can combat the extremism and hopelessness that breed terrorism. I again want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with me on what I think is a very critical issue. The bill also provides an increase in resources for Treasury technical assistance which will help countries that are major source and transit points for terrorist financing close the gaping holes in their financial systems that let this funding slip through. However, the fact that we took care of administration priorities such as the Millennium Challenge Account and AIDS required that we make some hard choices. As a result, some programs will suffer. There is no funding recommended for debt relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cuts in economic support funds, Eastern Europe, the New Independent States, and development assistance translate into probable cuts to many countries and a limited capacity to restore misguided cuts proposed by the administration to others, including Cyprus, East Timor, Armenia, Ukraine, and Russia. Mr. Chairman, as a final note, I want to make a few comments about the importance of this bill we consider on the floor today. I have always viewed foreign assistance as one of the three pillars of national security, along with defense and diplomacy. I believe the value of foreign assistance in spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom around the world and in eliminating the poverty that causes widespread instability in developing regions cannot be underestimated. However, except for a handful of notable instances directly linked to front-page current events, it has been difficult to ensure adequate funding for foreign aid priorities. Despite the new Presidential initiatives in this bill, and again I want to congratulate the President on these initiatives, this year, unfortunately, is no different. We still require far more resources than have been made available. I look forward to working with my colleagues in future years to ensure our priorities are adequately funded. In closing, I once again want to emphasize that I appreciate the close working relationship I have enjoyed with the gentleman from Arizona. He is a distinguished chairman, he is committed to this bill, and it truly has been a pleasure for me to work with our chairman. Considering the obstacles we faced, the product we present today is very good. I look forward to working with him as we move the process forward. I would also like to thank our able staff, Mark Murray, Charlie Flickner, Alice Grant, Scott Gudes, Rob Blair, Lori Maes, Sean Mulvaney, Beth Tritter, and Joe Weinstein, for their hard work. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.