Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his leadership in safeguarding the Chugach and Tongass Forests.

I have visited the Tongass National Forest and was astounded at the magnificence of this virtually untouched part of the country. Human activity has not altered the face of this forest, which remains pristine wildness. Vast tracks of old-growth forest provide critical habitat for wolves, grizzly bears, wild salmon, and bald eagles.

The Chugach and Tongass comprise the largest intact temperate rainforest in the country. These two forests act as the literal lungs of the world, replenishing global oxygen stores and sequestering tons of carbon dioxide, which would otherwise contribute to global warming.

So I was really disturbed to learn of the administration's intention to roll back the roadless rule on 15 million acres of forest in the Tongass and Chugach. The proposal detailed in the Federal Register on July 15 would temporarily suspend the roadless rule in the Tongass National Forest. In anticipation of the passage of this rule, timber companies have already laid out 50 clear-cutting projects in roadless areas in the Tongass. They must not be permitted to proceed.

My good friend from Alaska.

Did I yield?

I would prefer just finishing my time, and then I would be delighted to yield, if I have any time, to this distinguished chairman from whom I have learned a lot. But if I may complete the statement, and I thank the distinguished chairman.

I co-sponsored the Inslee legislation to codify the roadless rule to provide permanent protection to the $58.5 million acres of roadless area in our national forests system. The amendment today would shield the roadless rule from the dangerous changes now being proposed. It offers, in my judgment, a unique opportunity to protect the 300,000 acres of threatened old-growth habit.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not have any time to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I support Project BioShield.

Over the last few months. I have been having meetings with local officials, first responders, hospitals, and school superintendents, to talk about how we can better prepare for the unimaginable, improve emergency planning, implement 21st century communication systems, and foster better cooperation among local, state, and federal public health and safety officials.

But all of these efforts won't amount to much if we do not have the right tools to counteract biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents, and the diseases caused by such agents. And that's the crux of this legislation.

With that said, I continue to have some concerns about whether this bill will be enough of an engine to spur research within the pharmaceutical industry and if our public health system is prepared and ready to assume the new products developed by BioShield.

During the drafting process of this bill, a number of expert witnesses stated that Project BioShield might not be tempting enough bait to entice the pharmaceutical industry to bite. These fears are legitimate. And that is why I am pleased that the bill includes a provision allowing the federal government to assume this work in-hours if private industry does not or cannot produce countermeasures fast enough.

On the other hand, if BioShield is successful, which I know we all hope it will be, and new countermeasures are developed, the success of these products depend on our public health systems' ability to distribute and deliver these serums to the general public in a timely, safe, and orderly fashion. In the case of smallpox, the cost of vaccinating--roughly $200 per vaccination because of screening, testing, post vaccination surveillance, and treatment of adverse reactions--has been a significant impediment to the program. Thus, the key to effective countermeasures depends on a lot of factors and costs other than buying countermeasures and putting them in the Strategic National Stockpile.

As I have discussed with my colleagues and Administration officials during both Homeland Security Committee and Labor HHS Appropriations Subcommittee hearings, the bioterrorism grants provided through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Resources Services Administration have not been adequate, particularly in the context of the current economy and failing state budgets. Basic health care programs are starved for cash for their core public health missions while also trying to take on treater responsibilities in the terrorism preparedness arena.

So today, I want to go on record with my colleagues that we must be prepared to better invest in our public health network if we truly want a sound and secure homeland.

Despite these criticisms, the BioShield proposal is a well-intended one, and a vitally important component in the fight agaisnt terrorism. The reality is: the more countermeasures we have, the less capable terrorists will be. And one way or another Project BioShield is going to make that happen.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from New York and strongly urge it's adoption.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the course of history, the greatest civilizations are remembered for their contributions to the arts and humanities. Indeed, public commitment to the arts and humanities, along with dedication to free government, could be described as the benchmarks of a great society. As Americans we should be collectively committed to the documentation of our history and our accomplishments.

The two greatest civilizations of the ancient world, the Greek and Roman Empires, are remembered as much for their dedications to their arts as they are with the creation of the democratic and republican forms of government. The architecture of these civilizations inspired our own Capitol building. The theater of Greece and the mosaics of Rome are timeless and engraved in history alongside the triumphs of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Every child learns the Renaissance and the Reformation were watershed events of European history that revolutionized the Western world. The lesson children learn is that religious and political freedom go hand in hand with greater artistic and rhetorical expression.

In America, our contributions to democracy and free society throughout the world are unquestionable and unparalleled. But centuries from now the people of the world should look back with equal admiration to our commitment to the arts. But will they?

We need not support the arts merely to support history and posterity; the arts also have a vital impact on our economy. In my home county of Westchester, New York, the arts support over two thousand jobs and generate over $11 million in revenue for the state and local government. In Fiscal Year 2000, the arts had a total economic impact of over $92 million in Westchester alone. Nationwide, the figures are even more impressive. The arts are a $134 billion industry sustaining nearly 5 million jobs. While the federal government spends only about $250 million on NEA and NEH annually, it collects over $10 billion in tax revenue related to the arts industry, a ratio of 40 to one.

NEA and NEH dollars are crucial to the arts community, helping them leverage more state, local, and private funds. Clearly, the numbers show that investment in the arts is critical not only to our national identify, but also vital to our national economy.

Mr. Chairman, our place in history demands that we act decisively, and commit ourselves to our national heritage and culture. I urge my colleagues to support the $15 million increase for NEA and NEH, to support creativity and expression, to support our economy, and to support the place of our American civilization within the pages of history, a place our nation so richly deserves.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and in support of funding for UNFPA.

The language this amendment's sponsors are trying to strike is simple. It says that no U.S. funds go to UNFPA if it directly supports coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. That is in the bill.

My colleagues may argue that we devote enough to bilateral international family planning programs, that UNFPA is unnecessary. I say that while USAID reaches families in 58 countries, UNFPA reaches 141. In which of the 83 countries in question are there women whom we do not want to help?

My colleagues may argue that our bilateral programs are comprehensive

and UNFPA's is merely repetitive. I point to UNFPA's recent study on obstetric fistula. UNFPA is helping countries in sub-Saharan Africa to fix this terrible problem; USAID, to date, has done nothing.

My colleagues may argue that the language in question today waters down current law. I say that it clarifies current law, maintaining its strength while ensuring it cannot be misinterpreted in order to cut off funding to life-saving programs.

Madam Chairman, our refusal to fund UNFPA simply makes no sense. We do not champion human rights by cutting off UNFPA. What we do is prevent women from understanding what their rights are. We do not save women from coercive practices by cutting off UNFPA. We do, however, destroy an organization that is often the only place women can go to for basic medical and reproductive health care.

Please vote against this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would strike common-sense foreign policy from this bill.

The language in question here is simple--it says that no U.S. funds can go to UNFPA if it directly supports or participates in coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. It codifies the notion that respect for human rights and individual choice are critical components of our identity as Americans, and they should be essential parts of our foreign assistance program.

The language in question fixes an egregious error in current law, an ambiguously-written, overly broad provision that allows politics--not sound policy--to decide where our foreign aid dollars go. Current law has prevented U.S. funding from reaching UNFPA programs since 2001-- deeply injuring an organization that saves the lives of the poorest of the poor women and children around the world.

My colleagues may argue that it is enough that we devote hundreds of millions of dollars to bilateral international family planning programs. I say that while USAID reaches families in 58 countries, UNFPA reaches families in 141 countries. In which of the 83 countries in question are there women whom we don't want to help?

My colleagues may argue that our bilateral programs are comprehensive, eliminating the need for UNFPA's repetitive programs. I point to UNFPA's recent study on obstetric fistula, a debilitating result of unattended childbirth that affects more than 2 million women in Africa alone. UNFPA is providing technical and programmatic assistance to countries in sub-Saharan Africa with the will to fix this horrific problem; USAID, to date, has done nothing.

My colleagues may argue that the language in question today waters down current law. I say that it merely clarifies current law, to ensure it cannot be misinterpreted in order to cut off funding to life-saving programs around the world.

Our continued refusal to fund UNFPA should embarrass us, because it simply makes no sense. We do not champion human rights by cutting off UNFPA--we all know that you can't solve problems by attacking the problem-solvers. What the withholding does is prevent women from understanding what their rights actually are.

We do not save women from coercive practices by cutting off UNFPA. We do, however, destroy an organization that, in many countries, is the only place women can turn to for medical care and basic contraceptive products. The only point we make by zero funding UNFPA is that we do not care about the world's most vulnerable women. And that does not adequately reflect what the American people--and even the sponsors of this amendment--feel.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's put politics aside and allow common-sense, basic human decency, and the merit of UNFPA's work dictate our foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Rehberg-Hooley amendment which would preserve country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements.

As many of my colleagues know, in 2002, provisions were added to the Farm Bill requiring grocery stores and similar businesses to provide country-of-origin information for all fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts.

However, during the subcommittee markup of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, language was added barring implementation of these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, we were elected by the people of this country because they believe in our ability to represent their views. We passed the original legislation requiring country-of-origin labeling because our constituents want the information they deserve to make informed food purchase decisions for their families. We passed this legislation because our constituents want additional steps taken to prevent the potential spread of diseases such as mad cow, which we know was recently discovered in Canada. We passed this legislation because our constituents want special protective measures put in place to prevent tampering with respect to our food supply.

The provision currently in the bill would keep the American people in the dark by refusing to fund efforts to implement country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products. We cannot let that happen. I encourage support of the Rehberg-Hooley Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today reluctantly in opposition to the 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services bill because I know how much our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), really cares about these issues and how he is committed to these issues. And I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They are all men of great principle and fairness. I enjoy serving with them, and I do respect them.

However, I am really disappointed that this process operated under terms and with restraints for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) that do not do justice to the millions of Americans whose lives are improved by the programs funded in this bill. For example, one would hope that students attending college could count on greater support from the Federal Government during these hard times, but with this bill they will not be able to. The maximum Pell grant is frozen at 4,050. Not only have House Republicans consistently neglected the Pell grant, but it is important for us all to remember that when the program was started in 1975, Pell grants paid about 84 percent of college costs. It now pays only about 38 percent of college costs. And under the Republican bill, funding for the four campus-based aid programs, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant, College Work Study, Leveraging Educational Assistant Partnership, LEAP, and Perkins Loans Program, are also level-funded.

The average student loan debt has nearly doubled in the last 5 years. Last year the average undergraduate borrower left school with nearly $17,000 in debt due to Federal student loans. With nearly 64 percent of students depending on student loans, and that percentage is sure to grow during this time of economic hardship, how can we in good conscience not increase funding for the very programs that encourage States to implement need-based aid?

In New York, the State and city university systems are on the cusp of instituting massive tuition increases, and they are not alone in their struggle to make up for faltering State budgets and decreased philanthropy. Colleges across the country are hiking tuition by record levels, including colleges and universities in Texas, Iowa, Missouri, and Massachusetts.

And let us not forget, we have to couple the lack of college funding assistance in this Labor-HHS bill with the administration's recently announced regulation change that would decrease college loans for millions of students and their families. Nationwide under the Bush regulations, 84,000 students would lose Pell grant eligibility altogether, and millions more would lose some Federal assistance. It really was a shame that we could not have corrected that in this bill.

I will give you an example. I visit the community colleges and the 4- year colleges in my district all the time.

For example:

A family of four living in New Jersey with one child in college, attending full time, would have to pay about $100 more toward college expenses; and

A family in New York with $45,000 combined income, one child attending college full time, would have to pay about $300 more toward college expenses.

During Committee consideration of the Labor HHS, we had an opportunity to put the breaks on the Bush proposal. But, and I think it's important for America's hardworking families and dedicated students to know, Committee Republicans rejected that attempt.

In pointing out the problems with this bill, I do not fault either of the chairmen. They had a bad set of parameters to work with. But the 2.9 million graduating high school students, the 5 million Pell Grant recipients, and the millions of Americans who rely on the student aid programs to make attending college a reality deserve more. And the Democratic substitute would have done just that!

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican Labor HHS bill.

Let us hope that we can correct this bill and work together as the bill comes back from the Senate and reach the level that I know our chairman and our ranking member and all of us really want to achieve. I thank the gentleman again for working so closely with us.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss some ways this bill falls short in our commitments to eradicating child labor and promoting core labor standards. Less than a month ago, Secretary Chao stood before the International Labor Conference and proclaimed the administration's solid support for ILO programs. She even announced ``new'' initiatives to combat child labor and to fight the scourge of AIDS. In the days when the credibility of the United States is strained, it is unconscionable to make hollow promises, and that is what Secretary Chao did when she implied the administration would ramp up the International Labor Affairs Bureau's work, including expanding HIV/AIDS prevention programming.

My colleagues, like the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget, the bill before us provides $12.3 million for ILAB. A 92 percent reduction in funding for the Bureau would gut our efforts to eradicate child labor and promote decent labor standards abroad. Furthermore, our ILAB public-private partnership aimed at combating the spread of HIV/AIDS would be completely eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, the International Labor Affairs Bureau's programs are working. Since fiscal year 1995, our child labor elimination projects have targeted more than 500,000 children for prevention or removal from exploitive work. In turn, more than 140,000 children have been either prevented or have been removed from exploitive work; and since October 2002, 24,000 children have been removed from just awful conditions and placed in education and training programs. ILAB assistance has also resulted in 41 counties making commitments to initiate programs or expand existing projects that are designed to promote and implement core labor standards, including occupational safety, health, model job banks, mine safety programs, veterans employment and training. I realize that as of May 31 ILAB had only obligated 8 percent of its fiscal year 2003 appropriated funding.

Please let us vote against this bill so we can work with the Senate and expand the numbers for this very important program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Miller amendment.

Mr. Chairman, overtime pay, strict regulations on child labor, occupational safety standards, and employee training are the nuts and bolts of our Nation's labor laws.

Yet, since day one, this administration has worked little by little, step by step, to unravel our gold standard protections.

First, the Department of Labor passed on the opportunity to institute strong ergonomics standards and, instead, chose to implement weak guidelines--leaving many to continue working under egregious, unsafe conditions.

The administration has repeatedly submitted budgets that have not provided Department of Labor programs with inflationary increases. In turn, many of our safety enforcement programs and worker protection efforts have been diminished.

And now, the administration is attempting to strip precious dollars from those who are working the hardest, the longest, and in careers that are notoriously underpaid and often understaffed, including licensed practical nurses, EMTs, air traffic controllers, social workers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, health technicians, and paralegals.

My colleagues, this proposal would have real consequences for the millions of hardworking Americans already working to send their children to college, the millions of Americans trying to buy a home, and the millions of Americans trying to save for retirement.

In New York, everywhere I go, town supervisors, city mayors, and local leaders are discussing massive tax increases. All around the country, colleges, and universities are substantially raising tuitions. The reality is--Americans are already feeling squeezed. Let's not make it worse by sending them home with a blank check.

Vote ``yes'' on the Obey-Miller amendment.

Mr. Speaker, during an absence yesterday, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 297-300. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 297: ``Yea''; rollcall No. 298: ``Yea''; rollcall No. 299: ``Yea''; rollcall No. 300: ``Yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, my good friend, for a colloquy, who will then yield back to me.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for agreeing to enter into this colloquy, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from New York.

We in New York have been bracing for another terrorist blow since September 11, and all of America has experienced that anxiety. I know the chairman is totally committed to doing everything possible to protect our communities against any potential attack.

It is my understanding from both Federal and local intelligence briefings that New York is still acknowledged to be the top target for terrorism. I believe that New York City and other cities across our country, including Yonkers, New York, in my district, need dedicated resources to protect sites of national significance and critical infrastructure.

I agree with Secretary Ridge that we must distribute Federal funds on the basis of threat of terrorist attack and need, as well as population. That is not to say that States without high-density urban areas do not have important security needs. Our resources are limited, our responsibilities enormous, so we must be strategic; and I hope that the number of us who represent high-threat, high-density urban areas can work with the gentleman to examine this issue.

I appreciate the leadership of our chairman, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his hard work.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, after commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade just 6 months ago, we are reminded again today that the fight to preserve a woman's right to choose is far from over. We are here today considering a ban on so- called partial-birth abortions for the ninth time in 8 years because the proponents of this bill disagree with the Supreme Court. They 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 was struck by something Sandra Day O'Connor said on CNN recently. Justice O'Connor 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 without undue interference from the government. I, and the American people, still believe that. Supporters of the 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 life and health must come first and be protected throughout pregnancy. I and the American people still believe that. Supporters of the bill do not.

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.

The supporters of H.R. 760 disagree with the Court's reflection of our society and reject the principles embodied in its decisions. Holding their opinion is their right. Disregarding the Constitution is wrong.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart rested on precedent, including Marbury v. Madison, decided 200 years ago this year. Marbury was critically important to the development of our democracy because it established the Supreme Court as the final and ultimate authority on what the Constitution means.

In 1803, the Supreme Court became in fact, not just on paper, an equal partner in government, co-equal with the executive and the legislature. But in 2003, this Congress has decided to ignore the Court. The Court made clear that a partial-birth abortion ban was extreme and dangerous because it limited safe options for women and failed to protect the health of women.

Yet the bill before us contains no protection for the health of the woman, leaves no role for the physician treating a woman, and never mentions fetal viability. Congress ignores women, families, doctors and the Supreme Court, and makes all the decisions.

Congress is wrong to pass this ban and the President would be wrong to sign it. I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land, support American values in Roe v. Wade, Stenberg v. Carhart, leave decisions in the hands of families, protect the health of women. Please vote against this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, during an absence yesterday, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 227-229. Had I been preset, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 227: ``yea''; rollcall No. 228: ``yea''; rollcall No. 229: ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 330, the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003. This bill incorporates many provisions of the Veterans' Memorials Protection Act, which I first introduced in the 104th Congress, and have fought to pass ever since.

Recently a memorial dedicated to the memory of soldiers killed in World War I was desecrated in Rockland County, New York, an area which I am proud to represent. Soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice have no ability to defend their honor against senseless desecration, so we must do it for them. That is why I am so pleased that this measure is before the House today for our consideration.

Recognition of our veterans is an integral part of our national heritage. While veterans may not have created our democracy, they have continuously defended it and renewed America's promise through their efforts. While our memorials and monuments to veterans may not be as imposing as the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington Monument, the dedication and protection we provide them should be no less zealous.

We live in a greater and safer nation because of the dedication and bravery of our veterans. We are indebted to our veterans, because we know that freedom is not free, and it is our veterans who have paid a severe price for the freedom we enjoy. The memorials created in this honor deserve the greatest protection we can afford them.

Protecting the memory of their sacrifice is one manner in which we can repay our veterans. It is both fitting and proper that we should pass this legislation before the Congress recesses for Memorial Day. As a new generation of veterans return from the Persian Gulf, I am hopeful that this is a first step in Congress toward fulfilling our promises and obligations to these heroes. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that these protections will soon be passed by the House, so that this grateful nation can further preserve the memory of those who preserved our nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank my colleague Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this important issue.

Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And yet, these women--for the past eight years--have been denied the very Constitutional rights they fight to protect.

My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed.

This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a broad exemption. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access safe and legal abortion services.

Mr. Chairman, as our Nation works to preserve our freedoms and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the path of our troops overseas. We know that the restriction on abortion does nothing to make abortion less necessary--it simply makes abortion more difficult and dangerous.

It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their important work. I have always believed that dealing with the AIDS crisis is both a national security priority and a moral imperative for the United States. I am pleased to see that we are authorizing a significant infusion of resources and broad-based commitment.

However, I caution my colleagues that despite strong administration and bipartisan congressional support for this bill, the $3 billion authorized for the upcoming fiscal year simply does not exist in the bill. The administration's request for 2004 for all global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs is about $1.7 billion, not $3 billion. While my colleagues and I on the Committee on Appropriations will try to find the $1.3 billion necessary to fill the massive funding gap, it will be difficult in an already tight budget.

I would urge the administration to request the funds necessary to fulfill the President's promise. I hope our Republican leadership will make sure we have the resources we need to fully fund this historic initiative.

Mr. Chairman, we have before us today an opportunity to do a great deal of good in the world: to improve the lives of people living with AIDS, to help AIDS orphans survive and thrive, and to prevent millions of those who are most at risk from contracting this horrible virus. Our efforts will have massive implications for the stability and prosperity of whole communities, societies, and regions of the world, a tremendous privilege and an awesome burden.

It is not every day that Members of Congress have the opportunity to jumpstart a process. So let us appropriate the money, let us fulfill the promise, and let us make sure we use it wisely and well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Crowley amendment, and I commend my colleague for his leadership on this important issue.

The amendment addresses one of the core issues driving HIV/AIDS infection rates in the hardest hit countries: The disproportionate vulnerability of women to contracting HIV.

The facts speak for themselves, women and adolescent girls make up more than 50 percent of those infected with HIV worldwide, more than 58 percent of those infected in sub-Saharan Africa. The reasons for this are clear, gender violence and sexual coercion make it difficult, and even impossible, for women to say no to sex with an infected person. Widespread poverty has turned many younger women to having sex with older men in return for the food and shelter their families cannot provide. Poverty, as well, is a factor in the prevalence of early marriage, subjecting adolescent girls to marriages with unfaithful partners who often bring HIV home.

The Crowley amendment would provide a solution requiring U.S. programs to prevent HIV/AIDS to work toward empowering women to negotiate their sexual activity, and working with men to understand and respect women's rights. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Abstinence or monogamy or condom use, it just does not work. What worked in Uganda was abstinence and be faithful and condom use. It is essential to pursue all approaches to prevention. Promote and value abstinence, encourage monogamy in both men and women, and teach that lifesaving use of condoms works. Using all three options, men and women can be approached differently according to the cultural values of a village or religion or a region. United States policy reflects that by funding faith-based organizations as well as secular organizations that may focus on one area or health concern.

Abstinence, be faithful and condom use worked in Uganda.

Each approach is different, and may be suitable at different stages in life. But each approach can and does work together.

Many of us believe that abstinence is most realistic in the years before sexual activity begins--because it can delay sexual activity, and that's important. But abstinence may not be an appropriate message for a girl who has no say in the extent of her sexual activity.

Once sexual activity begins--keeping in mind that the sexual activity may not be consensual--it's critical that accurate information about condoms and other prevention methods be available, to limit exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

It is essential to pursue all approaches to prevention. Promote and value abstinence, encourage monogamy in both men and women and teach the life saving use of condoms. And, if married, monogamy is both a social and a public health value, and it should be strongly promoted for both men and women.

Using all three options, men and women can be approached differently, according to the cultural values of a village, a religion, or a region. U.S. policy reflects that, by funding faith-based organizations as well as secular organizations that may focus on one area or health concern.

Many Members have spoken about Uganda, a country in east central Africa. But I want to focus on another part of Africa--the West African region, and the countries of Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso. About 10 percent of the population in each of these countries is infected with