Floor Statements

Offered By: Mrs. Lowey

Amendment No. 44: Page 50, line 9, before the period insert

``: Provided further, That an additional $1,229,500,000 is

available for State and Local Programs with this amount

designated as an emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H.

Res. 5 (112th Congress).''

Page 51, line 5, before the period insert ``: Provided

further, That an additional $460,000,000 is available for

Firefighter Assistance Grants with this amount designated as

an emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th

Congress).''

Page 91, line 20, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $1,500,000,000);;.

Later today, the House will continue its extreme assault on women's health. H.R. 3 would prevent small businesses and families from receiving tax credits for private insurance coverage that includes safe and legal health procedures; allow hospitals to deny lifesaving care to women; if audited, potentially require victims to prove to the IRS agents they were raped.

Most troubling, in the report accompanying the bill, radical Republicans want to limit the exception for rape victims who can access full legal health services to only forcible rape victims.

This bill to limit women's health services is a shameful distraction from the public's top priority, creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal challenges our nation faces are the result of the irresponsible policies of the Bush administration and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as necessary measures that continue helping our economic recovery after the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. The high federal deficit is not, as some claim, due to over-investment in Head Start, schools, roads, bridges, medical research, or other critical priorities.

The federal government must operate more efficiently, eliminate waste, and find cost-savings and efficiencies that jeopardize neither vital services on which Americans rely, nor critical investments in our economic growth. The administration and congressional negotiators made progress toward that end in this bill.

We were successful in restoring funding for critical programs like Head Start, Pell Grants, public broadcasting, and Title I aid to local schools, and that the damage was mitigated for programs like family planning and medical research at the National Institutes of Health. The draconian cuts prescribed in H.R. 1 for these and other vital initiatives would have hurt our ability to grow the economy, create jobs, and compete in the future.

I commend President Obama and Senator Reid for refusing to give in to Republican demands to de-fund Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs, which would have denied millions of women access to contraception, breast exams, Pap tests, and other critical health services.

While the bill is a significant improvement over H.R. 1, it is far from perfect. Among its flaws, I am extremely disappointed that the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) have been slashed by 18 percent and 24 percent, which will hurt New York's preparedness. It is shameful that my amendment to restrict UASI funding to 25 at-risk, densely populated cities, passed by the House of Representatives, was removed, allowing the program's recipients to continue to balloon and further dilute this already insufficient account. A unified House position and common sense should have been enough to convince the Senate to provide the most at- risk areas like New York adequate anti-terror funds before areas that face minimal threat. I call on Secretary Napolitano to use her authority to limit the number of grant recipients to 25 and will introduce stand-alone legislation today to make it a statutory requirement.

Many will reject this agreement on the grounds that the cuts are not severe enough while others will oppose it based on what they consider excessive reductions. However, to govern is to make tough choices, and I am working with my colleagues in a responsible and bipartisan way to protect vital services and investments in our future while reducing spending. My vote in support of this bill is not an endorsement of cuts to many important programs I believe are beneficial to economic growth, health, education, and public safety, and I will continue fighting against drastic and irresponsible proposals like H.R. 1.

As difficult as it was to reach agreement for 2011 spending levels, the challenges ahead are even greater. Moving forward, Democrats and Republicans must work together to eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending while protecting investments in our future and essential services like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. The House should be debating legislation to create jobs, not procedural tricks to repeal health reform and increase our deficit.

Under this resolution, pregnant women and cancer survivors could lose coverage when they most need it. Young adults would lose coverage on their parents' plans. Seniors would pay higher drug costs. Businesses and families would not receive tax credits for affordable coverage; and accountability for large insurers to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on health benefits would end.

Vote against this resolution in order to preserve vital consumer protections in health reform, reduce costs, and decrease the deficit.

I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. The right wing's failed radical attempt to block funding for Planned Parenthood has now devolved to procedural games instead of a renewed focus on creating jobs. Federal law prohibits Federal dollars for abortion, and family planning saves taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 spent.

If Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, they would increase these investments instead of demonizing those who provide affordable access to Pap tests, breast exams, routine gynecological exams, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides.

Vote ``no'' on this assault on women's health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ralph M. Baruch, who will receive the WNET Distinguished Service Award, and to honor his pivotal role in American broadcast media.

Ralph Baruch has led a truly remarkable life. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, he fled as a young child from Nazi Germany to Paris. He again sought exile from France during the war and on a three-month journey through France he heroically transported his grandmother over the Pyrenees Mountains.

From an early age, Ralph understood the vital power of the free media to ensure a just and fair world. Following his immigration to the United States in 1940, Mr. Baruch began his long and distinguished career in communications in radio then joined the DuMont Television Network in 1950. As television became a force in the American lifestyle, he began a long stint at CBS in 1954, then co-founded Viacom International Inc. and served as President and CEO from 1971 to 1983. During his tenure, he played a role in establishing or acquiring some of the most popular cable networks in the nation including Lifetime, MTV, Nickelodeon, The Movie Channel, and VH-1.

Events during Ralph's formative years were perhaps the most poignant in history in demonstrating the influence of media and the suppression of information on society. Perhaps that is why he sought to ensure an open government and freedom of the press throughout his career, including by co-founding C-SPAN. He believed strongly in the public's right to a real-time connection to our government's proceedings and in the responsibility of our citizens to actively participate in our government. C-SPAN has grown to provide unprecedented unedited coverage of government events throughout the nation as well as cultural and educational opportunities, like literary discussions and materials for teachers and students.

Mr. Baruch has already been honored with numerous awards for his leadership including an induction into the Cable Hall of Fame in 2006, cable television industry's highest honor, the Vanguard Award, their Chairman of the Year Award, and the International Radio & Television Society's Gold Medal.

Mr. Baruch has also donated his time to a number of important positions in his community to support public television and to promote the history of broadcast media. He served as vice chairman of Carnegie Hall, a Trustee of the Museum of Television and Radio, and a member of the New York City Cultural Affairs Advisory Commission under former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. He currently serves on the board of Thirteen and as a Trustee of Lenox Hill Hospital.

Mr. Baruch has balanced his distinguished career and philanthropic work with an equally impressive family life. He and his wife Jean have four daughters, Eve Baruch, Renee Baruch, Alice Baruch, M.D., and Michele Baruch Jeffery. Mr. Baruch is the author of an autobiography, Television Tightrope--How I Escaped Hitler, Survived CBS and Fathered Viacom, published in April 2007.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring a national broadcast media icon, Mr. Ralph Baruch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ruth and Stephen Hendel of Larchmont, New York, recipients of the Jewish Theological Seminary's 2011 Louis B. Marshall Award. This award recognizes their commitment to principles to which Louis Marshall adhered as the Chairman of the Board of JTS from 1904 to 1929: exemplary ethics and communal commitment.

In addition to helping strengthen our community and economy through their demanding careers--Stephen in business and law and Ruth in theatre production--the Hendels have worked to ensure equal opportunity for all.

Their contributions have enhanced education programs, including at JTS, where both are actively involved. Stephen takes a unique interest in supporting rabbinical students while Ruth takes an active role on Chancellor Arnold M. Eisen's Arts Roundtable and on the Advisory Board of the Library to help expand students' access to cultural and literary works.

The Hendels' contributions to the New York arts community extend far beyond professional commitment. With a long list of production credits on and off Broadway, the Hendels co-conceived and co-produced the critically acclaimed musical Fela!, which was nominated for eleven Tony awards. The Hendels sought to highlight continued oppression and civil rights struggles around the world in their production, which chronicles the life of a legendary Nigerian musician who inspired a generation in his pursuit of human rights and freedom.

They also serve on boards of several important arts organizations. Mr. Hendel is on the boards of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, New Group, Culture Project, St. Ann's Warehouse, Afropop.org, and the African Museum for Art, and serves on various advisory committees at Yale University. Ms. Hendel serves on the boards of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, LAByrinth Theater, The Play Company, and the Yale School of Drama Advisory Board.

In addition to their substantial contributions of their time and talents to JTS, Ms. Hendel received a Very Important Parent Award from the Board of Jewish Education and together they have been honored by Westchester/Fairfield County's Crohn's and Colitis Foundation and the Westchester Jewish Center of Mamaroneck.

Married for thirty-three years, the Hendels have three adult children and a son-in-law--Abby and Guy, Sam, and Joe--and one grandson.

The Hendels' commitment to community service and investment in the arts is greatly appreciated and extolled. I urge you to join me today in recognizing their outstanding achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute and appreciation of Geraldine Ferraro, who blazed a trail for all women, especially in government, and dedicated her life to public service.

Gerry and I shared many priorities, many of which were grounded in our similar experiences. As a former PTA president in Queens, New York, I felt a unique kinship with Gerry, who taught elementary school in Queens. In these capacities, we came to better understand the struggles families faced, the unmet needs of children, and the opportunities-- and, indeed, our responsibility--to exercise our precious rights to improve our communities for all our fellow citizens.

One of only three women in her law school class, she advocated for women and children in countless pro bono cases in family court, including during the years she spent at home raising her own children. Gerry's sense of commitment to justice and opportunity for abused women and children was rivaled only by her success. In the Queens District Attorney's office, she led the Special Victims Bureau, prosecuting domestic violence, child abuse, and sex crimes. She gave voice to thousands who desperately needed an advocate and improved the quality of life and safety for all New Yorkers.

Then as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Geraldine Ferraro fought day-in and day-out in the continuing struggle for women's rights, especially in the workplace. Before any of us knew the injustice Lilly Ledbetter faced in a tire manufacturing plant 900 miles from New York, Gerry was working to ensure women received wages, benefits, and pensions equal to their male counterparts. She laid the groundwork for the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay legislation we passed only two years ago.

The first Italian-American and the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro crystallized for millions of women and girls that gender should be no obstacle to public service and national leadership. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and other strong women in government have benefited from the foundation she laid as the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee in 1984, and she inspired countless women to pursue elected office and assert their power as voters and active civic participants. Thanks to her efforts, the United States is stronger and more representative of our diverse and vibrant population.

Her leadership did not end when she left the halls of Congress. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, she was a highly effective voice for women and families not just in the United States, but worldwide. She donated a great deal of her time and talent to highly respected charitable organizations and causes.

Once diagnosed with multiple myeloma, she fought her illness for 12 years with the same tenacity and determination that were the hallmarks of her professional career. I was privileged to be part of honoring Geraldine with the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee's 2009

Lifetime Achievement Award. She stirred the hundreds of women packed into a New York City ballroom with her words of inspiration, her grace, and her commitment to advancing the health and well-being of others, even as she faced the fight of her life.

In 1984, Geraldine proudly proclaimed as the Vice Presidential nominee, ``America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.'' She didn't just believe this in her gut; she did everything in her power to ensure that, through equal opportunity, every girl and boy throughout the United States and around the world has the means to pursue their dreams of a productive and successful life.

I was privileged to know Geraldine Ferraro, and she leaves a proud legacy of courage, principled advocacy, and greater opportunity. All Americans owe her a debt of gratitude for her service and leadership.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that we must get our fiscal house in order, which is why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 billion from the President's 2011 budget request in December. We must evaluate every program and determine whether it merits taxpayer funding.

I have significant reservations about some of the cuts included in H.J. Res. 48, particularly eliminating funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, which was created nearly 50 years ago and is the only source of ongoing infrastructure assistance for public broadcasting stations. Its competitive grants require a local match, resulting in a successful public-private partnership, and it is the only source of emergency funding for stations with facilities devastated by disasters. Funding has already been cut by more than half since 2004, and it is a mistake to eliminate it.

Instead of continuing their quest to dismantle public broadcasting, the authors of the bill should have found savings by ending taxpayer- funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars.

However, while I may not support every cut, it is imperative that Congress do everything it can, and reach common ground whenever possible, to avoid a government shutdown. We cannot allow for the possibility of seniors going without Social Security checks or veterans losing access to the health benefits they have earned.

The 7-month continuing resolution the House passed in February is a dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. With no better options, we must adopt this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government operating while we negotiate spending for the remainder of the fiscal year that will continue economic growth.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition. 170 million Americans use public media for vital news. Sixty-one percent of voters who support deficit reduction also support funding for public broadcasting. Yet the assault on public broadcasting continues, when jobs and the economy should be our top priority.

This outrageous bill would prohibit public radio stations from using Federal funds to acquire any radio programming from any outside source. That means that your local stations may not be able to air quality programming.

We were not sent here to silence ``Prairie Home Companion,'' ``Car Talk'' and ``Morning Edition.'' Let's stop trying to put Diane Rehm out of work and focus on putting more Americans back to work.

Reject this bill.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we must get our fiscal house in order. That is why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 billion from the President's 2011 budget request in December. We have a responsibility to our constituents to evaluate every program and determine whether it merits taxpayer funding.

Although I will vote for it, I do not support every cut in the underlying bill. We must make targeted reductions that make our government more efficient while prioritizing critical investments in innovation if we are to remain a global leader. Instead of reducing our deficit by eliminating education programs, we should find savings by ending taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars.

However, it is imperative that Congress do everything it can, and reach common ground whenever possible, to avoid a government shutdown. We cannot allow for the possibility of seniors going without Social Security checks or veterans losing access to the health benefits they have earned.

The seven month continuing resolution the House passed in February is a dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. We must adopt this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government operating while we negotiate spending for the remainder of the fiscal year that will continue economic growth.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Broun amendment would withhold U.S.- assessed contributions to the U.N., directly contravening U.S. treaty obligations and national security interests. It would isolate the U.S., cripple U.S. diplomatic efforts globally, weaken our leadership within the U.N. to advance crucial foreign policy priorities.

The U.N. is critical to advancing U.S. national security interests, and the Broun amendment would impede our ability to influence crucial counterterrorism actions at the U.N. Security Council, including concrete steps targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, global action addressing the conduct of regimes such as North Korea and Iran, on which the Security Council has acted forcefully in recent years, imposing the most comprehensive sanctions ever on these regimes, U.N. missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which play crucial and growing roles in both countries, supplementing U.S. efforts and reducing our burden.

U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are an indispensable tool, have saved untold lives, averted dozens of wars, and helped restore or establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries.

The Broun amendment would put the U.S. on a dangerous path to isolationism. We learned on September 11, 2001, that we are not immune from events that take place halfway around the world. There are enormous challenges that we all must face together, and the United States cannot close its borders and think that we can protect our own security.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to effectively withdraw from the U.N. because it would endanger our national security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

May I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that none of us are making a statement that the U.N. can solve all the problems in the world. But I want to reiterate again a comment that my good friend Mr. Moran made: If we are going to put a cocoon around our country and operate in isolation, we will be less successful in dealing with the extraordinary challenges that we are facing today.

And I would like to say to my good friend Mr. Kingston, I'm not quite sure that we would be more successful in dealing with slaughters and genocide without the U.N. We are working very hard with our colleagues and our friends around the world to try and find solutions.

And I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Stearns amendment because it would exacerbate security vulnerabilities at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

The United Nations Capital Master Plan addresses a number of serious life safety and security concerns to staff, diplomats, and visitors. The U.N. receives approximately 5,000 accredited delegates annually from around the world and 300,000 tourists, about 40 percent of whom are Americans. Almost 4,300 people work at the U.N. headquarters complex, including 1,280 Americans.

The U.N. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old, is not compliant with New York City building and life safety codes or modern security requirements.

The major building systems are inefficient, beyond their useful life, increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. For example, the life safety systems are a great concern, including inadequate sprinkler and alarm systems and the lack of an automatic shutdown of ventilation systems in the event of a fire. Hazardous materials, such as asbestos, are still present in the facilities.

Providing the U.N. with safe and functional headquarter facilities will enable the organization to operate more effectively is what we all want.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, while I have serious misgivings about the funding levels for FEMA first responder grants in the CR, my amendment ensures that one program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, is restored to its intended purpose.

By limiting UASI recipients to the 25 highest-risk cities, we will restore its original purpose--addressing the unique planning, equipment and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas in order to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from, acts of terrorism.

Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI has ballooned to 64 regions, many of which are neither high-threat, nor high-density.

Rather than provide the highest possible funding to our most at-risk targets, FEMA made UASI a virtual earmark account. FEMA wastes resources, disregards Congressional prerogatives, and dilutes resources available to truly high-risk areas. For instance, despite a $50 million increase for UASI since Fiscal Year 2008, the New York City area receives less funding despite the grave and growing threats it faces.

We need look no further to Faisal Shazad's failed plot to detonate a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010 or the 2009 arrest of Najubullah Zazi for his role in an attempted bombing of the New York City subway system to understand the disproportionate threat New Yorkers face.

Just last week in fact, Secretary Napolitano testified before the Homeland Security Committee that we are at our most ``heightened state'' of terrorist threat since September 11th.

Now is the time to provide the most targeted cities with the resources they need and deserve. If the CR is adopted and the same number of UASI recipients remains, the New York City region would stand to LOSE nearly $15 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone--this is totally unacceptable.

To my new colleagues who came to Congress pledging to make government more efficient, this is your chance. Don't let the CR pass with the same number of UASI recipients, shortchanging the top terror target in the country by a $15 million decrease in funds.

While the horrific World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and 2001 were in New York, they were aimed at the United States and all Americans. We all have a responsibility to ensure our most targeted regions are adequately prepared.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Our constituents sent us here to create jobs. Instead, the majority is pushing an extreme right-wing agenda to limit women's health.

In the course of considering the underlying bill that eliminates the Federal family planning program, a Member of the majority--in fact, another gentleman from Indiana--proposed providing birth control to horses. And now we are considering an amendment attacking Planned Parenthood, which has provided health services to one in five American women. So it seems to me that Republicans believe that horses should have family planning, but women should not.

I strongly urge those who support this affront to women's health to clearly explain to their constituents that

they want to make it harder to access pap tests, breast exams, routine gynecological examinations, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides.

My friends, this is not about abortion. Federal law prohibits Federal dollars from being spent on abortion. This amendment is about denying women access to basic health services. I oppose this amendment because we should be focusing on creating jobs and protecting women's health.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

As I visit all the communities of my district, I am asked about high unemployment, how government can help promote job growth, and how we can get the economy working again for families trying to make ends meet. It is clear that the top priority in New York and across the country is creating jobs. But when I'm in Washington, I don't hear the House leadership answering that call.

Since the beginning of the year, we have yet to debate a single bill that would create a single job. There have been no attempts to make the targeted investments in innovation and education that will help us win the next century, as the President mentioned in the State of the Union.

In the last decade, unemployment has skyrocketed while the number of abortions has decreased. Yet today the majority is pursuing an extreme assault on women's health and reproductive rights by eliminating the cost-effective Family Planning Program.

My amendment would restore $317 million for title X family planning because it is a wise investment. Publicly supported family planning clinics save taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 that is spent providing contraceptive care. In New York, more than 340,000 women are served by title X funding clinics and 66 percent have incomes at or below poverty level. Elimination of the program in the CR would only guarantee higher government health care costs for these low-income Americans in future years.

If our goal is to cut spending, it is reckless to eliminate this program that saves taxpayer dollars. It is unconscionable that those Americans who most need access to the affordable basic health care title X provides, like cancer screenings and contraceptives, have become victims of the extreme right's divisive partisan attempts to deny women a full range of legal health services.

Even as we consider this wrongheaded bill, they are simultaneously pursuing legislation and authorizing committees to roll back the clock on a woman's right to choose, women's services available to victims of rape and incest, and even allow hospitals to deny lifesaving treatments for women.

Not once have I heard a constituent say that it's important for the government to get to work on restricting women's health choices and denying basic care. At a time of high unemployment and enormous economic challenges, Congress should focus on job creation. The assault on women's health must stop now.

I move to strike the last word.

It's deja vu. Here we go again. This week, we are again fighting extreme efforts to dismantle the public broadcasting services that 170 million Americans use for news and education. In 1995 and in 2005, we defeated efforts to slash the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. How long will it take for some people to learn that the public wants Congress to focus on creating jobs, not laying off Burt and Ernie with GO-pink slips. My grandchildren are learning from not only old favorites like Big Bird, but also Maya and Miguel, Clifford the Big Red Dog, and a cast of other fun and educational characters.

Millions of Americans rely on public TV and radio for vital news in the community, and broadcasters leveraged $6 for every $1 in Federal funds. Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters that appear on children's programs are those who gross the highest profits rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to our kids? Or one where our news is delivered primarily from sources focused on their bottom line? Of course not. That is why I am so pleased to support this amendment to restore cuts.

In recent years, we have already cut funding for programs related to public broadcasting, including the Department of Education's Ready-to- Teach Program. We cannot abandon the Corporation for Public Broadcasting altogether. Republicans should be less preoccupied with silencing Cookie Monster and more focused on getting our economy back on track.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, as chair of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for the last 4 years, I worked in a bipartisan manner with my friend, Chairwoman Kay Granger, to ensure our bill protects our national security, and I do appreciate her efforts to sustain our successes and note the inclusion of $3 billion pursuant to the MOU between the United States and Israel and continued commitments to Egypt and Jordan in the bill we consider today. I am also pleased the bill continues robust investment in basic education, which is the cornerstone of free, healthy and economically stable societies.

Tough measures we authored to hold accountable recipients of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan are also preserved in this bill to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively to achieve our security priorities in the region. However, irresponsible cuts in policies in the CR will threaten global stability and American interests abroad.

There is broad bipartisan agreement that a three-legged stool of defense, diplomacy and development is vital to our national security, yet this bill would dramatically weaken U.S. diplomacy and development.

Despite the ongoing events in Egypt, burgeoning protests throughout the region, instability around the world, this bill undermines our efforts aimed at democratic governance and alternative development options, our support of international financial institutions, conflict mitigation and reconciliation, disaster assistance, and global health priorities.

In addition, the Republican leadership has taken a divisive approach by including reinstatement of the global gag rule and a prohibition on funds for the United Nations Population Fund in our first spending bill in the new majority.

During my 4 years as chair of the subcommittee, I refrained from including many women's health priorities I fought for throughout my career so that we could work together to advance America's best interests. This CR would deny millions of women abroad family planning and basic health services, and I'm deeply disappointed that my colleagues refuse to work with us to bolster our efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of disease in the developing world.

Finally, these measures are brought to the floor under the guise of fiscal responsibility. Let me be clear: This bill would endanger our national and economic security, hurt job growth, and put an extreme social agenda ahead of restoring our economy. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences for U.S. interests.

The amendment would cut funding to the Asian Development Fund, which provides loans and grants to support basic health care, education, infrastructure, and economic development resources to frontline countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The International Development Association which provides debt relief to

developing countries and is supporting an integrated agricultural initiative to address the global food crisis.

The Global Environment Facility, which provides grants and loans to preserve some of the most vulnerable habitats in the world.

The International Fund For Agricultural Development, which provides grants and loans to the poorest of the poor to support food security programs as a compliment to U.S. Government-funded programs.

The amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to meet its commitment to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on grants and loans from these institutions to stabilize their economies.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes this amendment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes this amendment because it would impair the ability of U.S. companies to access developing markets. The Chamber recognizes that these programs help build reliable trading partners for the United States, which in turn creates jobs here at home and strengthens our own economy. In light of that fact, it is puzzling why the majority would propose these cuts.

With regard to international organizations, the CR cuts the request to below levels enacted under President Bush. This level would result in draconian cuts to our contributions to UNICEF, the United Nations Development Program, the Montreal Protocol to prevent ozone-depleting substances, and a wide range of programs that address counterterrorism and security activities, sustainable development, humanitarian needs, reduce violence against women, human rights, scientific, environmental, and international trade development. This would represent a major step back from U.S. engagement in these organizations and dramatically impact U.S. national security.

This cut would harm U.S. support for efforts in international development, human rights and environmental areas, as well as send the wrong signal to our partners and allies.

I urge a no vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I had not intended to speak, my colleagues, on this issue, but I do feel that my friend, the gentleman, does deserve a response to clarify the facts and to talk to this body about why funding for UNFPA is so important.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I fervently believe that UNFPA is essential to achieving our global health goals. UNFPA's family planning and reproductive health activities are key elements of global health, and they contribute to the comprehensive strategy of the U.S. for sustainable development. The UNFPA improves the reproductive and maternal health of women around the world through the implementation of effective voluntary--voluntary--family planning policies and programs. It is the largest multilateral provider of family planning and reproductive health information and services with programs in nearly 150 countries.

The U.S. Government's partnership with the UNFPA leverages funds for these health programs, including the reduction of maternal mortality, the promotion of the human rights of women, including those affected by conflict and natural disasters, and it extends the reach of U.S. Government support to a number of countries where USAID does not have programs.

UNFPA works with governments to develop and strengthen laws and national capacities to promote women's equality, the prevention of gender-based violence, including in refugee and conflict situations. Improving the health and well-being of populations in other countries, especially those of women and children, promotes internal stability and social and economic progress.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the Kemp-Kasten amendment prohibits funding for any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntarily sterilization.

We oppose China's coercive birth limitation policies. The facts show that UNFPA does not support or participate in the management of any program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In fact, UNFPA works to eliminate them.

In 2009, the department concluded, based on the review of available facts, that the UNFPA does not engage in these activities. We continue to monitor UNFPA's programs. We continue to believe that UNFPA's activities in China do not implicate Kemp-Kasten. As part of our due diligence, the department sent a team to China to review UNFPA's program in June 2010 prior to the UNFPA executive board's renewal of the China Country Program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I also want to congratulate my friend for the important work that you're doing with regard to fistula. I've seen it. I know the suffering that women go through, and I thank you for your leadership on this issue.

The hour is late. The gentleman and I have been talking about this issue for many, many years, and I'd be delighted to have a further discussion, but for the purpose of this debate and the purpose of closing the bill for the moment, I just want to close again by making it clear. We oppose China's coercive birth limitation policy, and the facts show that UNFPA does not support or participate in the management of any programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In fact, UNFPA works to eliminate them, and I think it's important to note, again, that in 150 countries that do not receive bilateral support and family planning we have seen some very, very important work that actually saves women's lives.

So I would like to say to the gentleman, as we are closing this debate, thank you for your good work. We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I think this is such an important program and we have provided such invaluable help to women that I would hope that at some point we could agree on that.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding, and I thank our chairwoman for your important work on this bill.