Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4818, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4818, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 15, 2004)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 715 and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, but I rise to express my disappointment with this rule.

On a party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make my amendment in order to provide funding on a limited basis to the United Nations Population Fund. I requested that it be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to discuss this matter of grave importance, not only to the poorest women and their families, but also to United States national security. Unfortunately, we are being denied the opportunity to debate this issue.

Many of my colleagues think they have voted on this issue before. However, the debate we could have had today would have been different from those of the last 3 years.

To begin with, this amendment would have maintained the Kemp-Kasten restrictions in the bill in their original form. As many of my colleagues know, these restrictions prohibit funding to any organization that supports coercive abortion and sterilization.

The amendment would have provided funding for UNFPA in only six countries, all of which are strategically important to United States national security: Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya, and Tanzania. If UNFPA is found to be supporting coercive practices in any of these countries, the amendment would have prohibited funding for the UNFPA program in that country.

The amendment would have maintained prohibitions on funding for the UNFPA in China and would have restored a prohibition included in previous Foreign Operations bills that requires a reduction in U.S. funds to UNFPA programs for every dollar spent by UNFPA in a country which is alleged to support coercive practices. Currently, China is the only such country.

Essentially, my amendment would have asked a very simple question: Should we let concerns about UNFPA's programs in one country, China, stop the United States from investing in a proven, multilateral program that could, in fact, reap benefits for United States national security?

By improving the health of women and their children, reducing the rate of maternal deaths, and preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, UNFPA chips away at the demographic trends and public health disasters that threaten the stability of the world's poorest nations. As we all know, achieving global stability is a primary United States foreign policy goal. I am really disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to debate it today.

I am also displeased that the rule did not grant waivers to other Democratic amendments. One such amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) would have provided an additional $800 million in emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. While we have provided $400 million in the bill for the Global Fund, an amendment equal to last year's bill and $300 million above the President's request, the Global Fund will require much more in order to meet current and future commitments. It is unfortunate, I say to my colleagues, that we will not be able to vote on this sound policy initiative today.