Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Thousands of women are maimed or killed each year in nations across the developing world because they have committed what their relatives or neighbors perceive as a crime of honor. I have met with some of these women who have had acid thrown in their faces, who clearly are maimed, because in someone's eyes they did wrong. Whether their supposed offense is adultery, the desire for a divorce, refusing an arranged marriage, or having the nerve to fetch a lower-than-expected dowry, the punishment is always swift, severe, and outrageous. Throughout the world women face flogging, forced suicides, stoning, beheading, burning, and other violent punishments for their actions. Rarely does anyone from the community offer to help. Even local government officials turn a blind eye to this terrible practice. This amendment highlights how very important it is to do more to stop honor killings around the world. Shining a flashlight on this practice, putting the full moral weight of the United States behind a campaign to end it, is critical if we are going to ensure the fundamental human rights of women. We simply must do more to stop these cowardly attacks. I urge Members to vote yes. For those in doubt, I just wish they could see the faces of these women who have been tortured, who have been maimed, who have had acid thrown in their faces, just because they committed a crime that the community thought was not right, but we understand that they have the right to live their lives in peace and in dignity.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a woman who has been fighting for equal opportunity, democracy in the United States and around the world, and who understands the importance of striking this antidemocratic amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have spent a lot of time on this floor in the last day talking about how at a time of prosperity we should be reaching out to families, to children around the world, helping them get educated, providing health care, providing the very basics of life. And then when we hear the horrors of these children who, in addition to lacking education and health care, are being recruited into the armed services to fight a war that they do not know anything about, the words of one child named Alil ringing in my ear, the army was a nightmare; we suffered greatly from our cruel treatment we received. We were constantly beaten mostly for no reason at all, just to keep us in a state of terror. They forced me to learn how to fight the enemy in a war that I did not understand why it was being fought. Sadly there are stories like this in several nations all around the world, and I support the Jackson-Lee amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished Member of the Committee on the Judiciary who truly understands that we cannot do unto others what we would not do unto our own NGOs at home. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the distinguished leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for our chair and our ranking member, who both wish they had more for this bill, frankly, I rise in disbelief that we are here, once again, debating a foreign aid bill that is woefully underfunded. Whatever the reason, this bill, like just about every other House version of the foreign operations bills since 1995, is the epitome of myopic neglect. With a few notable exceptions, the bill underfunds almost every aspect of United States foreign aid. It is $1.5 billion less than the President's request; it undercuts our contribution to IDA, the arm of the World Bank that makes loans to the poorest of poor nations; it practically ignores the AIDS crisis in Africa that is plunging that continent further into economic and social despair every day; and it adds insult to injury by undercutting the President's debt relief initiative. And, once again, it violates fundamental principles of democracy by imposing a malicious gag rule on foreign NGOs participating in a bilateral family planning program. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we discuss for a moment why a strong United States foreign aid program is so critical, because it is very clear to me there is a misunderstanding in this Chamber on that point. The single most important argument for a stronger investment in foreign AID in this time of great prosperity and burgeoning budget surpluses is that we have a responsibility to help those who have been left behind. In the Jewish faith, we call it ``tikkun olam,'' which means, repairing the world. What it means is that we recognize that if we were suffering under the scourge of a 20, 25 percent HIV infection rate or experiencing such a high level of infant mortality that we all knew someone who lost a child or could not send our daughters to primary school because only the boys were allowed to go to school, and even they could only go for a few years, that we would expect, and rightfully so, that other more fortunate nations around the world would help alleviate some of this suffering, and we, in turn, are bound by that same obligation. I was brought up believing that the right thing to do is to repair the world, to help those who need it. Sadly, this bill takes that principle and throws it out the window. But there is another reason why such a low level of foreign assistance is terribly misguided, a more selfish reason. That is because in the long run we in the United States will reap the benefits from the stability sown by our aid. Countries that are now top candidates for foreign assistance can use our aid to strengthen their democracy, stabilize their economies, and improve the health and well-being of their citizens. When these goals are met and these countries become strong and independent, they will graduate from being recipients of our aid to being our strategic allies and trading partners. So it makes sense for us, it makes sense for them. In the last year of World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his fourth inaugural address to the Nation. As the war raged and some people suggested that we ought not to be involved in the affairs of other nations, FDR made a profound case for the importance of the United States' engagement around the world. I think his words are particularly relevant today. He said: ``We have learned that we cannot live alone at peace, that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men and not as ostriches, not as dogs in the manger. We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.'' FDR's words from 55 years ago ring even truer today. We cannot turn our backs on the people of the world. It is in our interests to promote economic stability and democracy. Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill today because I do not believe that the Republican leadership in the House will produce a better bill. I do believe that this bill will look a lot different, a lot better, when it comes back to this floor after conference. I am telling the Republican leadership today that I refuse to play their game. I want to move the bill off the floor to the conference, of which I will be a member as soon as possible. As the most powerful Nation in the world, we have the capacity and the responsibility to improve the lives of those less fortunate. We cannot turn away from that obligation.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, one of the guiding principles of United States foreign policy is that whenever possible we use our assistance to enable developing countries to stand on their own two feet. That is precisely what this amendment would do and why I support it. Many countries in the developing world have been unable to spend the necessary resources on health care and on education for their citizens because they have been saddled by debilitating debt. New regimes elected with high hopes for economic opportunity and democratic ideals will remain unable to achieve their noble objectives because of debt incurred by previous, often corrupt regimes. Debt relief, as some contend, is not about giving a free ride to developing nations. That is not what we are talking about. It is about helping countries in sub-Saharan Africa build the health care infrastructure necessary to fight the AIDS epidemic. It is about giving countries the chance to educate children, giving them hope for a better future. It is about giving nascent democratic regimes the chance to build constituencies, perpetuating the ideals of democracy abroad. The cost of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a small price to pay for the myriad of benefits it will bring. It is disgraceful, in my judgment, that this small amount of money that this bill provides for debt relief will stall the global HIPC initiative and may deny relief to some of the world's most committed economic reformers. These countries have worked hard at developing concrete poverty-reduction targets, sound economic management practices. It would be shameful for us to turn our back on this important initiative. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, just briefly the hour is late, I want to thank again my ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for the commitment to put money into this effort. Having recently returned from India, visiting a school where we spoke with the young girls who had been trafficked, the tragedy of this throughout the world is so immense and I know the gentleman from Alabama is aware of it and I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to invest the money in this effort, and I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would make a critical investment in combatting HIV-AIDS around the world. When one looks at the numbers, it is astonishing. More than 16.3 million people across the globe have died of AIDS. More than 33.6 million are currently living with the disease. Over the course of the year, approximately 5.6 million more people will become infected with AIDS. This is a pandemic of immense proportions, and if we hold back on investing and finding solutions to the world's AIDS crisis now, there will be consequences, both domestically and internationally later on. The AIDS crisis has disproportionately affected the developing world. Sub-Saharan Africa has been particularly hard hit. Already 13.7 million Africans have died of HIV-AIDS, leaving behind social and economic devastation that will affect the nature and pace of African development for years to come. AIDS is hurting Africa. It is crippling Africa's viability as a destination for business. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue. He has really been a leader. I want to thank the ranking member; I want to thank the chairman, and I particularly want to thank the chairman, because we appreciate his commitment to work in conference to raise these numbers on this issue, and I know that the chairman will succeed, and we will all succeed as a result of his important work. For those of us who have been watching this process for a long time, the success is really extraordinary. To see a woman open a small restaurant or buy some chickens and sell their eggs or make bread to sell to her neighbors, the small amount of income and the small amount of savings that this loan makes possible will pay for a school uniform for a daughter who may not otherwise have gone to school in many parts of the world; it will pay for doctor visits for her family, nourishing food to keep everyone healthy and active. Most important of all, it makes her stand tall and be a person and help support her family. So I thank the chairman again for his commitment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. The foreign operations appropriations bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year. It is up to this Congress to provide the resources that are adequate to maintain the United States' leadership in the international community. That is why I am deeply disappointed that this rule denies a voice to some key constituencies in this Congress and denies the House the opportunity to respond to some of the most urgent global needs. For instance, this rule denies Congress the opportunity to debate our amendment to eliminate the anti-democratic Mexico City language that is already included in the bill. The very same amendment passed the House last year during the debate over foreign operations. I am outraged that we are prohibited from even letting the House express its will on this issue and have a free and fair debate. This rule also denies Congress the opportunity to respond adequately to the global AIDS crisis. Our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), sought to offer an amendment increasing funding for the AIDS crisis and giving these funds an emergency designation. Our administration has made it clear that the AIDS crisis is a national security emergency, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin called it the biggest impediment to economic development in Africa. How can we, as the international health community gathers in Durban, South Africa to discuss this pandemic, turn our backs on this crisis? Debt relief has been severely underfunded, and the committee denied the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and others the opportunity to designate this important funding as an emergency. As developing nations are crushed under the burden of mounting debt, unable to devote the necessary resources to the health and education of their people, we continue to deny this funding. Without this relief, my colleagues, we are dooming countries that have tried hard to break the cycle of poverty to repeat this cycle indefinitely. Extreme poverty worldwide is an emergency. We should have been able to designate it as such, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the plight of the 13 Iranian Jews that have been held for over a year on trumped- up charges of spying for Israel and the United States. After months of incarceration, coerced confessions and show trials, the fate of these 13 will be decided this weekend by a revolutionary court judge who alone will make a decision whether these 13 will live or die. The arrest of these innocent people was in itself an outrage, but the Iranian government has doggedly pursued these false charges, denying the defendants representation and visitation from their families, and using them as a pawn in the ongoing ideological tug-of-war of Iran's future. We have read and heard that the so-called moderates are slowly eroding the power base of Iran's hard line clerical leadership, but I do not see the evidence. There is no religious freedom in Iran, there is no respect for human rights and due process in Iran, and anti-Semitic, anti-Western scapegoating persists in Iran. A country like this has no place among the community of nations; and the United States, as the premiere defender of democracy around the world, should make no overtures to welcome Iran. I join my colleagues telling Iran that we are watching.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would like to state again to my colleagues that I think we all have to be careful in this body about cutting money from a general account when, frankly, the impact of those cuts could impact a very important program such as this one.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wanted to point out the importance of this use of that source of funds. Because I think we have to be very careful in this body about indiscriminately cutting back on an account that may have very important uses for those dollars, and I wanted to point out one of the very important uses of these dollars so that I think we have to be careful. I am just stressing this to the gentleman that to cut out a whole account, we could put a program like this in danger.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) is indiscriminately attacking important programs in this bill without much discussion about the impact of the proposed cuts, I want to take a minute to talk about the program that he is attacking with this amendment. The Cornell University program on breast cancer and environmental risk factors was launched in 1995 in response to the abnormally high incidence of breast cancer in New York. The program investigates the link between risk factors in the environment, like chemicals and pesticides, and breast cancer. The BCERF program takes scientific research on breast cancer and translates it into plain English materials that are easy to understand, and disseminates this information to the public. They have a web site that is filled with information on BCERF's activities, breast cancer statistics, scientific analyses of environmental risk factors, and links to other sources of information. They sponsor discussion groups that provide a public forum to discuss breast cancer. This amendment would destroy our ability to bring the important work of the BCERF program to more people around New York and around the country. Let me make this very simple. If Members oppose efforts to educate the public about breast cancer, and if they think we have done enough to prevent breast cancer in this country, then vote for this amendment. But if Members agree with me that we need to do more about stopping the terrible scourge of breast cancer, if Members agree with me that we cannot sit by while one in eight women are diagnosed with breast cancer over the course of their lifetimes, if it outrages Members that approximately 43,000 women will die from breast cancer, and 175,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone, then join me in voting no on this terribly misguided amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, and in conclusion, I think that points out once again that the reason that I am using this as an example is to explain to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my good friend, that the impact of his cuts, although it may be unintentioned, could severely affect very important programs such as I have mentioned here.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will send a strong message to the government of Iran and the world that the United States Congress will not tolerate Iran's blatant disregard for basic human rights. We have heard about the so-called ``moderation'' of Iran, about the power struggle between the hard-line clerics and the reformists led by President Khatemi. I invite my colleagues to examine carefully the face of this moderation: 13 Iranian Jews are currently awaiting sentencing on charges of spying for the United States and Israel. These 13 have been denied due process, were coerced into confessing on Iranian TV, and are being prosecuted, judged, and sentenced by the same Revolutionary Court judge. Since late May, over 20 newspapers and magazines associated with the reformists have been shut down by the Iranian government, silencing the voices of the independent press in that country. And just yesterday, two prominent human rights lawyers in Iran were sent to prison, without trial, on charges of insulting public officials. No reasonable person could call this ``moderation.'' Mr. Chairman, Iran is not ready to join the community of nations. Each day, Iran produces more and more evidence that the terms of membership in this community--including respect for basic human rights, due process, and freedom, are not terms it can accept. Each day, Iran sends unmistakable messages to the world that it is not willing to embrace the mores of reasonable society. Each day, Iran continues to threaten its neighbors and pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. We have heard these messages loud and clear. And we should react accordingly. This is not the time to make concessions to Iran. This is not the time to open up our markets to Iran, to allow the government to fill its coffers with dollars from the sale of Iranian goods to the United States. This is not the time to give Iran one iota of legitimacy in the international community. Legitimacy must be earned, and Iran has earned nothing. I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Weiner amendment, which would deny funding for the importation of agricultural products from Iran. We owe this to ourselves, as the premiere defenders of democracy throughout the world. And we owe it to the Iran 13, the independent journalists, the human rights lawyers, and all the people of Iran who are still not free.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been a cosponsor of this bill for nearly a year. But the amendment before us strips physicians of their right to speak about their medical, religious, and moral beliefs; and it says doctors can collectively bargain on any subject except those related to abortion and abortion services. Every single time the anti-choice majority in this House can interfere with a women's right to access family planning or choose a legal abortion, they do. It is never enough. This bill contains no mention of any specific health service. It offers no directive about specific benefits or services that must be covered. But here we are debating women's reproductive health care once again. We need not fear that it will be covered because this amendment would ensure it cannot even be discussed. I hope that Americans who are watching this debate will think carefully about the kind of Congress they want to elect in November. We can have a Congress that encourages responsible decision-making and access to quality reproductive health care. We can have a Congress that works to prevent the need for abortion by increasing access to effective family planning methods. Or we can continue to have a Congress like this where nearly every day it seems there is another amendment, another bill to make the right to choose obsolete. This is what it is all about. We are gagging our doctors. We are not giving them the right to negotiate. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to fight for quality health care for their constituents and oppose this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the statement from my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who said that unless someone is willing to terminate an unborn child they cannot practice medicine. Look at what the Greenwood amendment says, that the Committee on Rules and the gentleman would not accept. It clearly says and provides for a religious exception.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My colleagues, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment, and I want to thank my colleague for her strong leadership on this issue. A woman's right to make a private decision to terminate a pregnancy is the law of the land. The prohibition on prisoners' access to abortion services in Federal prison facilities contained in this bill does not make it impossible for women in prison to obtain an abortion; but it deliberately makes it more expensive, more difficult, and less private. In my view, the only reason the ban does not go further and ban abortion outright is because Americans do support a woman's right to choose. I respect my good friend and my colleague's views. These are very personal decisions. But we cannot impose our personal views, in my judgment, on the next person. I know that my colleagues would vote, many of them, to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, they would probably do it immediately, if they thought they could. But they do not go that far because Americans would not let them do it. Instead, those who oppose a woman's right to choose take every opportunity to make the decision ever more difficult, dangerous, and expensive. I support the DeGette amendment because I believe that my colleagues' approach is the wrong one. If we agree that there should be less abortions, and I think we all do, we can work and should work together to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy less necessary. The policy we are debating in this amendment, which allows women in Federal prison to pay for an abortion outside but not obtain one inside the prison system, only makes the decision to terminate harder. What should we do to make the need for terminating a pregnancy less necessary? We can work together to promote contraception access and use. We could work harder to educate people about taking responsibility for protecting themselves from unintended pregnancies. We could do more, my colleagues, to prevent sexual abuse, rape and incest. We could work together, as our constituents clearly would like us to do, to insure that most women never have to make the most personal decision about terminating their pregnancy. Less necessary, not more harassing and less private. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeGette amendment. It is the right thing to do. Let us work together to make abortions less necessary. We can do that together.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before we hear from my other colleagues, I would just like to respond to our distinguished chairman that I am delighted to know that there is some money in the budget; but this President has made a very, very forceful commitment to go after these criminals and, as I understand it, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle share that commitment.