Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill and the Young amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely gratified that after weeks of political brinksmanship the majority, the minority, and the administration have arrived at a reasonable compromise on this legislation. I do want to commend the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our distinguished ranking member, who has done an outstanding job, my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the chair, our overall chair, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and certainly our ranking chair, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who have worked so hard to make this day possible. I also want to thank the President and his negotiators for bringing to the floor today a reasonable bill that is clearly the product of good faith negotiations. I am also delighted that with this bill and the Young amendment we are fulfilling our important commitment to the Middle East peace process, a cornerstone of United States foreign policy for over half a century. Today, Congress can demonstrate our commitment to promoting U.S. national security interests in the Middle East and can prove our dedication to achieving a lasting and secure peace as the parties move into the toughest stage of negotiations. The compromise reached late last night will also fund another of many important priorities, such as the International Development Association, which provides assistance to the poorest of the poor; the African Development Fund; the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union; and the Peace Corps. But let us not make any mistake, this bill is not perfect. It fails to provide adequately, in my judgment, for other critical programs, including our participation in the G-7 debt relief initiative, and it does not include important provisions designed to encourage Indonesia's cooperation in expediting peace and independence in East Timor. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the coming months to provide support for these important priorities. The bill with the Young amendment represents a fair and reasonable compromise on our foreign assistance priorities. I am confident that this measure will help the United States maintain its role as a world leader, and I want to thank my colleagues again.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They both care deeply about the health, education, and opportunities available to Americans. I especially want to mention my high regard for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), who has said he will retire at the end of this Congress. The gentleman from Illinois has served his constituents, this committee, and the people of this great country with such honor, commitment, and decency, I am proud to call the gentleman my friend. I have hoped and will continue to hope that we can come together and work on a budget that truly addresses the needs of Americans. Unfortunately, in too many instances, I do not believe this budget does so. We are spending billions in this budget and, unfortunately, in my judgment, many times we are spending it in the wrong places. In some cases, we delay so long it is almost like not spending the money at all. The delayed obligation to the NIH and CDC troubles me, particularly. I have a personal reason for caring about this part of the budget. I lost my mother to breast cancer, and not a day goes by when I do not think about her and of the years we missed together. I often wonder how many women like my mother might still be alive today if our country had invested more in cancer research and treatment a generation ago. I am determined that my daughters and granddaughters will not suffer with cancer as my mom did, and as so many Americans do today. I believe that while government cannot cure cancer, it can put the resources in the hands of those who will. Therefore, I have made funding of biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health and the Public Health Mission of the CDC my top priority on the subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations. I am proud that medical research, particularly with regard to women, has finally become a national priority. Again, I am proud to serve on this subcommittee. This is a bill that is meant to give Americans a hand in the hard work of raising families and caring for loved ones. We are charged with protecting America's health, education, and employment, and because of that, I must say that it is irresponsible, in my judgment, to bring a bill to the floor with $10 billion in money borrowed from next year, in effect, taking care of this year's political problems at the expense of next year's needs. It is irresponsible to say that we support education and health care, but delay $11 billion in obligations to Head Start, the NIH, and other agencies until September 29, 2000, and it strains whatever trust Americans still have in us to load this budget with trickery and accounting gimmicks and call it a success. Mr. Speaker, frankly, when we read the bill, it is easy to see why Americans are cynical about Congress. The budget does nothing to secure the strength of social security, it does not reform Medicare, it hurts millions of hard-working Americans. Assisting those families should be where we start our budget work, not where we scramble to end it. I believe we can do better, we should do better. Let us vote no, and then let us work together and give this budget the worthy and sincere effort that the American people deserve.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to this conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Unfortunately, I have to stand here again, as I have before, embarrassed and ashamed that the United States is the United Nation's number one deadbeat. If my colleagues want to help restore our good name and regain our influence in the UN, they will oppose this conference report and join me in demanding today that we pay immediate and full payment of our over $1 billion in UN arrears. This conference report provides only $351 million to pay off our arrears, only after separate authorization, and only after onerous and impractical conditions have been met. We have gone through this before. We voiced our concerns, and the UN has responded, maintaining a no-growth budget from 1994 to 1998, creating an Office of the Inspector General, eliminating over 1,000 positions, implementing other cost saving measures. Withholding our arrears is irresponsible and short-sighted. We have already begun to feel the effects of our diminishing influence, and this is just the beginning. How can we expect the United Nations to continue to take our interest into account around the world? How can we expect them to fund the projects we support and to send peacekeeping troops to areas where we want to see more stability when we do not contribute? How do we expect to help continue to reform the United Nations in a meaningful way to cut down on its bureaucracy and decrease our annual dues if we do not pay our debt? This funding is critical to United States foreign policy. It shows the international community that a commitment made by the United States means something, and it is a cost effective way for us to leverage U.S. funding with that of the other members of the United Nations to make a difference around the world. Our continued participation in the UN is critical to United States global leadership, which in turn is the cornerstone of our national security. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also express my outrage about a trick played on us in this bill. The majority has violated the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriation by modifying the newly signed fiscal year 2000 Treasury, Postal law in the Commerce, Justice, State bill. It goes without saying that the Commerce, Justice bill has no jurisdiction over the programs in the Treasury, Postal bill. This conference report passed the House 292 to 126, a broad bipartisan margin, and was signed by the President on September 29. Not even 3 weeks later, the Republicans undo the bipartisan agreement, one of the few bipartisan bills that this ridiculous process has produced. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. Let us get serious about the budget process. Let us make the modifications to what is a good bill and reject this proposal.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink-Woolsey amendment, which would reauthorize the Women's Educational Act. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mink-Woolsey amendment, which would reauthorize the Women's Educational Equity Act and restore other critical gender equity provisions to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And I must say that I feel like I've gone back in time--during consideration of the FY 97 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill on the House floor in 1996, nearly 300 of my colleagues voted for an amendment I authored to fund the Women's Educational Equity Act. My colleagues overwhelming agreed then that this was an important and worthwhile program. They should do the same now and vote for this amendment. No one can dispute that every child in America deserves the opportunity to learn and grow, and since the passage of Title IX twenty-five years ago, women face far fewer barriers in the classroom. But disparities remain in the educational opportunities available to young women. We continue to see female high school students fall behind their male counterparts in standardized math test scores. We also hear from the students themselves that a startling amount of gender bias-- some inadvertent--still pervades American classrooms, preventing young women from achieving at their highest potential and discouraging them from pursuing certain subjects. Treating girls and boys unequally in the classroom is a problem with disturbing implications for the young women who are losing out on opportunities and for our country's economic future. By the year 2010, 65% of all jobs will require technology skills. So, it's very important that we act to implement policies that respond to a wealth of research, which demonstrates that the earlier girls are introduced to careers in mathematics and sciences, the more likely they are to pursue careers in technology and related fields. Yet more than half of female students take no high school math beyond Algebra 2. Only 20% of female students take the three core science courses--biology, chemistry and physics--in high school. Fewer than 20% report using a computer once a week. With the number of women in the work force increasing at twice the rate of men, how will our workforce be prepared for a global, fast-paced economy without the full participation of women? It is obvious that America's schools need assistance to ensure that both men and women are equipped to compete for good jobs with good wages. That's why it's baffling, and in my judgment unconscionable, that the Women's Educational Equity Act and other gender equity provisions were stripped from this bill in committee. WEEA, which was developed over twenty-five years ago to help schools meet their commitment to Title IX, provides grants to ensure that women's future choices and accomplishments are not dictated by their gender but freely determined based on their skills, interests, and dreams. These grants have been used to develop dropout prevention programs, to help schools understand and combat sexual harassment, and to bolster female performance in math and science. I think we can all agree the initiatives included in this amendment can meaningfully enhance the education of America's young women. The Women's Educational Equity Act remains as important today as it was in 1974 for ensuring that girls succeed at school. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Mink-Woolsey amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion because we now have a chance to reconsider this year's foreign aid bill which was plagued by low funding levels from the start and never really recovered. Now we are faced again with a very important choice. We can insist upon a dangerously underfunded foreign aid bill, jeopardizing not only the United States' leadership around the world but also our national security; or we can work to rectify some of the most egregious funding cuts to our initiatives abroad, maintaining the United States of America's international stature, and acting in the best interests of our own national security. We really have no choice, in my judgment. This bill, as it stands now, will severely erode our ability to pursue our interests abroad. And our stinginess now will be an expensive mistake. Saving now but paying double and triple later is no way to protect the global interests of the American people. It is just plain irresponsible. While the majority engages in political brinkmanship, we are already feeling the effects of turning our back on what has historically been a cornerstone of United States foreign policy. Funding for implementation of the Wye River agreement is essential. And each day we drag our feet, we jeopardize Israel's security; we endanger the very security of Middle East peace; and we destroy our own credibility as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. Wye assistance has become a pawn in the majority's budget game, a dangerous game with very high stakes indeed. And Wye is not the only problem with this bill. The International Development Association, the Peace Corps, debt relief, international organizations and programs are all underfunded. The bill remains $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion below last year's level. This is not the first and it is not the only example of a reckless decision on the part of the majority that shows utter disregard for maintaining the United States' global stature. Last week, the Senate majority brazenly defeated the comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States is currently the U.N.'s biggest deadbeat, owing over $1 billion in arrears. Thanks to the President's decision to veto the foreign aid bill we sent him, we can now, working together, begin to restore the United States' diminished global leadership. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Stop the games, stop the gimmickry now, and let us go back to work and return with a bill that preserves our national security.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Jodi J. Schwartz, an outstanding attorney and community leader who will be honored with the George A. Katz Torch of Learning Award from American Friends of the Hebrew University on October 19th. Ms. Schwartz is a partner at the prestigious firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. As a widely-respected expert in merger and acquisition transactions, she has been at the center of some of the most important business arrangements of the decade, including AT&T's acquisition of MediaOne and TCI, USA Network's acquisition of Universal Studios, and AT&T international telecommunications' joint venture with British Telecommunications. Ms. Schwartz brings to her professional challenges a powerful intellect, a deep commitment to the law, and a profound understanding of the global economy. These skills alone merit the applause and admiration of those who know her. But Ms. Schwartz's accomplishments do not end at the bar. Indeed, her volunteer and community service efforts are just as impressive. She has served on the Executive Committees of AIPAC, the Israel Policy Forum, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services. In addition, Ms. Schwartz has been nominated to serve as an officer of UJA-Federation of New York. Ms. Schwartz's devotion to the Jewish community and to the values of community service embody the admonition ``Tikkun Olam''--repair the world. She is an inspiration to colleagues and friends, and a great credit to our Nation. It is my pleasure to join in saluting Jodi Schwartz and in thanking her for so many outstanding contributions to her field and to our country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Judge Sondra Miller, an extraordinary jurist and community leader who will be honored with the Diane White ``Advocate for Women's Justice'' Award on October 28th. Judge Miller has enjoyed a remarkable career in the law. Currently an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, she has previously served as a Justice of the Supreme Court for the Ninth Judicial District, and as a Family Court Judge in Westchester County. Judge Miller has also lent her energy and expertise to a great number of organizations which support our legal system and advance the values of a strong society. Her expertise and commitment to women and children has been especially inspiring. Judge Miller has been the Co-Chair of the New York State Task Force on Family Violence, the Founder of Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, and a Commissioner of the Governor's Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, among many other volunteer posts. To each challenge, Judge Miller brings a keen legal mind, a genuine devotion to our system of law, and a determination to seek justice. It is no wonder that she has been recognized repeatedly by her peers, receiving honors such as the Westchester Woman of the Year Award, the Founders Award from the Woman's Bar Association of the State of New York, and the New York State Bar Association Howard A. Levine Award for Outstanding Work in the Area of Children and the Law. Judge Miller's commitment to the law is matched by an equally powerful devotion to the larger community. She has been active in a wide variety of organizations, ranging from the League of Women Voters, to Hadassah, to Planned Parenthood. In each case, Judge Miller has earned the respect and admiration of friends and associates. In short, Judge Miller is a trail-blazer whose work and personal example have made a difference to countless Americans, and who continues to offer the very highest quality of personal and professional service. I am proud to join in recognizing Judge Sondra Miller and confident that she will remain a leading light for many years to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to this conference report. Mr. Speaker, during the August debate, I was quite clear in expressing my strong reservations about this foreign aid bill. But I voted for it, hoping that some of the most egregious funding cuts would be remedied in conference and the overall flaws in the bill would be repaired through bipartisan negotiations. I want to commend my friend and our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and our ranking member and my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for their hard work in crafting this bill. Despite their best efforts, however, I believe that this bill, plagued by poor funding levels from the start, still has serious problems. The $12.6 billion measure remains $2 billion under the President's request, $1 billion below last year's level. Passing an inadequate foreign aid package will severely harm the United States' ability to maintain its position of leadership in world affairs. And referring to the comments before of my good friend and chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), in my judgment it will be a costly mistake. Conflict and problems that could be avoided with a modest allocation today may turn into expensive crises down the road. I would think that by now we should all have learned that lesson. Let me take a moment to highlight a few of the conference report's biggest problems, in my judgment. First, the Wye River aid package is nowhere to be found. Implementation of the Wye agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is now on track and steadily moving forward. Both sides have begun to act on their commitments, and we must act on ours. But we have received no commitment from the leadership to include Wye in this fiscal year. Waiting until the spring for a supplemental is just unacceptable. This is a priority of the United States foreign policy, and it should be addressed immediately. Now is a dangerous time to turn our backs on the Middle East. Secondly, debt relief in this bill is woefully underfunded. A debt relief program for the highly indebted poorest countries is not even authorized. To further burden the poorest of the poor, the bill cuts $175 million from the International Development Association. IDA is the primary World Bank lender on primary health care, basic education, microcredit, and a number of other critical development programs. And in a final blow to the poorest of the poor, the bill provides $22 million less than the President's request for international organizations and programs. This will be disastrous for the United Nations Development Program, which attacks the roots of poverty by creating jobs, promoting economic growth, and providing education and basic social services. Underfunding this program will decrease our contribution to UNDP and will decrease United States leadership in this critical organization. The list of underfunded accounts is too long to enumerate. The bill is not good for our programs in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and throughout the world. I stated very clearly during the initial House debate on this measure that my continued support was contingent upon an increase in overall funding levels and inclusion of the Wye aid package. I had high hopes that we would craft a final package that would merit everyone's support. But, regrettably, I must oppose this measure. I think we can do better, and I think that in the interest of our national security we need to try. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. Let us hope we can get back together again, work in a bipartisan way, and meet our priorities. The United States is the leader of the world. And, again, I think by investing now, we are saving millions and millions of dollars later on.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misguided bill, as a mother of three, as a grandmother of five, because once again we are faced with a decent idea but, in my judgment, it has gone horribly awry. The proponents of this bill have taken an important principle, the constitutional right of a woman to have control over her own pregnancy, and hijacked it, unfortunately, into the divisive world of abortion politics. I want to make something absolutely clear from the outset. The loss or harm to a woman and her fetus is absolutely devastating to the woman and her family. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot imagine a greater pain, frankly. Those who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus should be severely punished and families should have appropriate redress for their loss. Because we believe strongly that families should have the legal tools to have their loss recognized, we will offer a substitute that does just that, and I believe that the Lofgren substitute will demonstrate very clearly that there is a lot of common ground on this issue if we would only look for that instead of looking for ways to disagree. Having said that, let me explain why the approach this bill takes is just another thinly veiled attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose. This bill would give a fetus the same legal recognition as you or I, for the first time in Federal law, the first time. Instead of addressing the real issue at hand, the horrible pain for a woman who loses a pregnancy to a cowardly, violent act, this bill is an ideological marker for the anti-choice special interests. Frankly, this bill is just another way of writing a human life amendment. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee admits that it participated in drafting the bill and, according to the committee web site, the bill challenges that pro-choice ideology by recognizing the unborn child as a human victim, distinct from the mother. If anti-choice Members of this House want to recognize the fetus as a person, I respect that. Do that. Bring a human life amendment to the floor and let us debate it and let us vote on it. But let us not tell pregnant women in this country that my colleagues are trying to protect them with this bill when there are existing Federal laws to do just that, and when we are willing to join my colleagues in addressing the tragic but rare cases where pregnant women are attacked. The American people are smarter than they are being given credit for. They know my colleagues are proposing a political statement today, not a real solution. Let us not insult their intelligence this way. If my colleagues really want to crack down on cowardly criminals who would attack a pregnant woman, support the Lofgren substitute. It gets us to the same ends without the overtly political means. If my colleagues are serious about protecting women in this country from violence, why do we not bring up the Violence Against Women Act for floor consideration? It has 174 cosponsors, almost double the number of cosponsors of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Where is it? Reauthorizing VAWA is critical to effectively combatting violence against women. Every year, over 2 million American women are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. A woman is physically abused every 15 seconds in this country, and one of every three abused children becomes an adult abuser or victim. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, will not do anything for these women, but the Violence Against Women Act will make all the difference in the world. Mr. Chairman, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not about protecting pregnant women from violent acts. It is yet another anti- choice attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose. Time and time again I have stood on the House Floor and asked my colleagues to work with me, to help women improve their health, plan their pregnancies, have healthier children. It is tragic that every day over 400 babies are born to mothers who receive little or no prenatal care. Every minute a baby is born to a teen mother and three babies die every hour. It is tragic that one of three women will experience domestic violence in her adulthood. Instead of finding ways to visit the divisive abortion battle, Americans want us to focus our efforts on providing women with access to prenatal care, affordable contraception, health education, violence prevention. If we truly want to protect women and their pregnancies from harm, then let us work together to enact legislation to help women have healthy babies. I see my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). We have worked together on legislation to try and help women have healthy babies. I would love to continue to work with my good friend to do just that. Let us focus on that, but I would hope we would vote no on H.R. 2436.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for once again sparking this important debate on the House floor. Another day has passed and another 13 of our children have been lost to gun violence. But still the majority stalls and stonewalls, ignoring the cries of parents, of siblings, and of friends who continue to lose their loved ones. Another day has passed. And while we debate gun safety in this room, on the streets of our cities and town, felons with guns threaten American families. While we debate, our constituents are left to fight the daily battle against gun violence alone. Another day has passed, and still handguns in homes where children play remain unsecured, criminals build collections at gun shows, and the numbers of victims mounts. Passing comprehensive gun safety legislation does not limit the rights of people. The Constitution, the cornerstone of the philosophy of this Nation, is not compromised by protecting children and families from deadly weapons. Freedoms and responsibilities go hand in hand, and it is reasonable to require citizens to exercise their freedoms safely and responsibly. Ensuring the safety of our schools, streets, and places of worship enables people to enjoy the inalienable right to which they are entitled under the Constitution. We have simple goals: ensure that unlocked guns do not get into children's hands; ensure that juveniles are prohibited from possessing assault weapons; ensure that all people buying a gun, in any venue, are subject to the same thorough background checks. This is what the American people are asking for, and we have an obligation to respond. With each passing day, the price of our inaction rises, the human toll of our procrastination increases, the loved ones of victims of gun violence plead with Congress to lead the charge to make our communities safe again. Each day that we turn our backs on the American people, we undermine the freedoms and rights that make the United States a safe and stable place to live. I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in showing the American people that their cries have not gone unanswered. Let us not delay one more day in passing comprehensive gun safety legislation. Again, I support the motion of my good colleague.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, once again we are calling on the House leadership to move gun safety legislation now. Wherever I go in any district, whether it is in the supermarket; at the post office; on the streets, local streets; my constituents cannot understand it. People are afraid. In the United States of America, 1999, to be afraid to go to school, to be afraid to go to church, to be afraid to go to a synagogue: This is madness. It does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, we have to have the courage to stand up for what is right and not cave to the special interests. I will continue to read the roll of those children who have lost their lives since Columbine: Kristi Beckel, age 14, killed by gunfire on September 15, 1999, Fort Worth, Texas; Justin M. Ray, age 17, killed by gunfire on September 15, 1999, Fort Worth, Texas.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman would yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield back to the gentleman his time so that other people on his side can continue this discussion, and I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the gentleman from Illinois, and I know he is a gentlemen, and I have great respect for his commitment to moving this bill. But I would just like to remind my friend and the gentleman that we have been asking for the commonsense gun safety legislation that passed the Senate to come before this House before Memorial Day. It has been quite a while. Look at the lives that have been lost. I understand that the legislation is complex. I would be delighted to work with the gentleman to call on the Justice Department to enforce the laws. But the commonsense gun legislation that passed the Senate could have been brought to the floor, could have been called from the desk at any time as a separate package. For me, as for the gentleman from Illinois, we understand how complex this is. But we also understand that there is a madness in this country, and that parents are afraid to send their kids to school. We have to do what we can to prevent felons from getting through that loophole at gun shows, for example, and getting their hands on guns. So I wish the gentleman Godspeed. I wish him good luck. I would hope that the juvenile justice bill could pass. But I would just like to say in conclusion to the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, that way before Memorial Day, we have been asking for the common-sense legislation to be brought to the floor and to pass. We know it is not the whole answer. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and more lives have been taken. The gentleman's constituents and mine are just afraid. This is the United States of America, 1999. We know the guns are not the whole answer. But let us begin by making it tougher to get one's hands on a gun.

Mrs. LOWEY. Ninety-five percent. So what we are saying, and what the legislation in the Senate is saying, 3 business days, that is just for the 5 percent of the people who do not get through. So what is wrong with that, when 95 percent get cleared in the first 24 hours or less? So let us do that.

Mrs. LOWEY. I have no doubt that the chairman's intentions are very noble and that he is a wise gentleman, as always.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her courageous work on this issue. I rise in strong support of this motion, and I am outraged that, once again, the stalling tactics of the majority have forced us to the floor to address gun safety. My colleagues and I have come together countless times over the past several months with the same simple message: Congress must pass meaningful gun safety legislation. Today, we repeat that message with added urgency. When the conferees met this week, and when they continue to meet, they must return with loophole-free substantive measures to combat the gun violence that is killing our children and turning our schools into war zones. The American people are demanding action. Throughout my district, mothers approach me, children in tow, and ask me why on earth this Congress has not done more to stop the scourge of gun violence attacking our communities. They are afraid to go out on to the streets of their own neighborhoods. They are afraid to send their kids to school. They are afraid to go to church or synagogue. They are searching for courageous leadership from this Congress. Instead of providing that leadership, Congress has stalled and stonewalled as, week after week, the death toll from gun violence rises. Who can forget Littleton, Paducah, Jonesboro, Springfield, Conyers, Los Angeles, and Fort Worth? How many cities and towns across this country need to be hit with tragedy before something is done? The Senate passed a gun safety bill which would have prevented felons from buying guns at gun shows, ban the importation of high capacity ammunition clips, and kept guns away from children. But the House took a different route. We had a choice between the public interest and special interest, and the public lost. Our bill is hollow legislation which ignores the cries of victims of gun violence and their families. We have an opportunity starting today to change our ways. We have a real opportunity to save lives. The conferees must work hard to include strong gun safety measures.

Mrs. LOWEY. However, the gentleman has talked about car registration. I would like to see gun registration as well.

Mrs. LOWEY. Unfortunately, that may be the case, my dear friend. I would also like to say that although lives may be lost unfortunately as a result of gun accidents, the gentleman and I are terribly pained for every mother, every father, every family that loses a child, and every day we delay another 13 lives are lost. Every day. So I would just encourage my good friend, and I am delighted I am on my good friend's time, I would encourage my good friend to work as expeditiously as he can because, and I really mean this, whether I am in the supermarket or I am in the street, people are afraid. This is the United States of America, and people are afraid to go to school, afraid to go to church, afraid to go to synagogue, afraid to walk the streets. We have the power to do something. Let us make sure the Justice Department enforces the laws, but if we have the power to close some loopholes and pass common sense gun legislation, let us do it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, how many more children's lives will be ended by gunfire? How many more tears will parents shed? Mr. Speaker, it is time to act. We must pass gun safety legislation now. Mr. Speaker, I am here to continue the roll of names of children who have been killed by gunfire since Columbine: Dominic E. Johnson, age 16, killed by gunfire on June 1, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri;. A.J. Flores, age 13, killed by gunfire on June 2, 1999, Grand Prairie, Texas;. William Floyd, age 18, killed by gunfire on June 2, 1999, Washington, D.C.;. Ricky Salizar, age 12, killed by gunfire on June 2, 1999, Roswell, New Mexico;. Rodney Nelson, age 17, killed by gunfire on June 3, 1999, Detroit, Michigan.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion and urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing for the courageous people of East Timor. I am outraged at the current events in East Timor, whose people exercised their right to self-determination two weeks ago. Although the threats and intimidation of anti-independence groups ominously hung over their heads, nearly all eligible East Timorese voted for the referendum, with an overwhelming majority choosing independence from Indonesia over autonomy within it. What should be a time of celebration for the East Timorese is instead a time of great terror. Anti-independence militia groups continue today to burn houses, places of worship, loot businesses and private homes, and brutally murder innocent civilians. The U.N. Security Council delegation sent to Indonesia has cited strong evidence that the Indonesian military and police are complicit in this rampage. The chief U.N. human rights official has said that there are enough witnesses of the militias' heinous acts that a war crimes tribunal will likely be convened. East Timorese refugees, still frightened for their lives, tell of planned, systematic massacres of young men and clergy. We are witnessing a catastrophic violation of human rights. Initially President Habibie resisted international peacekeepers, insisting that the military could bring order to East Timor. Now Indonesia has agreed to the peacekeepers but needs more time to discuss the details. As Habibie hedges and delays, East Timor has run out of time. As Indonesia turns a blind eye, those who advocated a peaceful and democratic transition to independence violently perish. Until the terror ceases, the United States and international financial institutions should continue the moratorium on aid to Indonesia. Until an international peacekeeping force reclaims East Timor and the Indonesian military leaves, not one iota of military assistance should be sent to Indonesia, not one Indonesian soldier should be trained by U.S. military personnel, not one dollar should prop up those responsible for this massacre. Let us make clear that we are disgusted by Indonesia's utter disrespect for the tenets of democracy and the sanctity of human life. We have a responsibility to our partners in democracy in East Timor to be the loudest voice, the strongest voice in support of their courageous step towards independence. Let us not stand by as East Timor is destroyed and its people banished and murdered. As we have learned from history, the price of inaction is far too great.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, on August 30 the world watched as the people of East Timor exercised their right to self-determination for the first time with nearly full participation of eligible voters; and by a staggering margin, the East Timorese chose independence from Indonesia over autonomy within it. This courage has been rewarded with the destruction of East Timor, the displacement of its people, the inaction of the Indonesian government. Since the election, hundreds have died; and nearly one-quarter of the East Timorese have been forced to flee their homes. Indonesian officials have done nothing to stop the violence and to protect the U.N. personnel there. For the people of East Timor time is running out. We must do our part to stop the horror; we must pledge logistical support to an armed peacekeeping force to restore order in East Timor. Until order is restored, all bilateral nonhumanitarian assistance to Indonesia should be suspended; and we should use our leverage in international financial institutions to cut off multilateral assistance. We should advocate in the U.N. Security Council punitive measures against Indonesia if Habibie fails to cooperate. As the champion of democracy, our voice should be the loudest.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to the basic issue today and rise in strong support of this reasonable amendment to begin to put the United States back in good standing at the United Nations. When the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and I joined in creating the bipartisan Congressional United Nations working group at the beginning of the 105th Congress, we never imagined that we would be here over 2 years later still demanding that the United States pay its arrears to the U.N. It is really extraordinary. But here we are, still outraged, still embarrassed, still trying to get the United States to live up to its commitments. Let me be very clear. It is outrageous that the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, is the biggest deadbeat at the United Nations. This amendment is very straightforward. It takes the empty U.N. arrears language in this bill and makes it real. It makes the reforms in the bill real. It makes the $244 million in arrears payments in the bill real. Quite simply, it removes the smoke and mirrors from the bill and puts us back on the road to acting like the world leader we are. This funding is critical to United States foreign policy. It shows the international community that a commitment made by the United States means something, and it gives the U.N. the resources it needs to carry on the important work it is doing around the globe. The United States has a tremendous amount of influence within the U.N., but, frankly, that influence is decreasing with every day that we do not pay our arrears. In fact, at the end of this year, as you heard, we face the unimaginable prospect of losing our vote in the General Assembly under the requirements of Article 19. But this issue goes beyond simple embarrassment. How are we to expect the U.N. to continue to act in our interests around the world? How can we expect them to fund the projects we support, to send peacekeeping troops to areas where we want to see more stability, when we do not pay our debt? How do we expect to reform the U.N., and I agree with my colleagues on the reform measures which are in this bill, and most of them, it is my understanding, remain in this bill if we do not pay our U.N. dues? As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am well aware of the limited resources we have been given to fund our international activities in recent years. I have seen the United States foreign assistance decreased to an almost unimaginable level in the last few years. But in this context, paying our debt to the U.N. is even more important. The U.N. is a cost effective way for us to leverage U.S. funding with that of the other members of the U.N. to make a difference around the world. I want to reiterate again for my colleagues that what this commonsense amendment does is it essentially removes the language which makes meaningless the arrears section already in the bill because it is tying it to another issue. It leaves in place the reforms included in the bill that caps our future U.N. dues at 22 percent and mandates a zero growth budget for the U.N. So I want to say to my colleagues once again, too often in this body we cannot pass and there remains a stalemate on issues such as this that are really very important, because we want to tie it, as our ranking member said, to another issue. Let us vote on that other issue as a clean issue. Let us have that vote, up or down. I respect my colleague from New Jersey. Let us have that vote up or down. But let us not tie paying our U.N. dues to that issue. Let us have that vote cleanly. So, again, I want to urge my colleagues to support the Hall amendment. Let us pay our U.N. arrears. Let us not be a deadbeat. Let us not tie that payment to other issues where there is some controversy. I would think that the majority of this body wants to stand tall, work together, and pay our U.N. arrears. If there are other controversial issues, let us have that debate, but let us take it as a separate issue, let us have a clean vote on paying our U.N. arrears with the provisions which are included in this bill to reform the U.N.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. Cutting the funding of the Legal Services Corporation to $141 million would be a disaster for families living in poverty across this nation. Legal Services attorneys deserve our thanks. They help our poorest and most vulnerable citizens navigate the complicated bureaucracy of our court system in search of justice and fairness. Many of my colleagues may not think of Legal Services as a women's issue, but it is. More than two-thirds of the clients served by Legal Services are women. The funding cuts in this bill will force Legal Services to abandon many of the critical legal services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence. Mr. Chairman, for the past 25 years, Legal Services have held the courthouse doors open to clients seeking legal protection from abusive spouses. In fact, family law--which includes domestic violence cases-- makes up over one-third of the cases handled by legal services programs each year. In addition to helping domestic violence victims, the lawyers at the Legal Services Corporation help poor women to enforce child support orders against dead-beat dads. They also help women with employment discrimination cases. Slashing funding for Legal Services means barring the door of the courthouse for tens of thousands of women who have nowhere else to turn for help. As the Legal Services Corporation celebrates its 25th Anniversary, we must not abandon these women to violence and abuse and greater poverty. Please support Legal Services, protect poor families and vote for the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment. My colleagues are not surprised to hear me say this, because it is well known that I am pro-choice. But it might surprise some of my colleagues that I think there are too many abortions in this country. I work hard to support policies that prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe that our approach should not be to make abortion less accessible or more difficult, but less necessary. If we agree, pro- choice and pro-life, that our goals should be less abortion, then our focus must be on what we can do to further that goal. Together, we should increase access to contraception, work harder to educate people about responsibility if we want to make abortion less necessary. I will tell my colleagues what I do not believe. I do not believe that making abortion inaccessible is the answer. I do not believe that the way to end abortion is to make it so difficult or so dangerous that we endanger women. The right to access an abortion is the law of the land. I oppose banning access to abortion in Federal prison facilities for incarcerated women who need them. The prohibition in the bill does not make it impossible for women in prison to obtain an abortion, it just makes it more expensive, more difficult, less private, more dangerous. Imprisoned women with the money to pay for abortion can get transport to a facility outside the prison. So we are comfortable making it more difficult. We are comfortable making it more expensive. Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. I will continue to work with my colleagues towards a day when abortion is truly rare. Let us work together to do that. But as we work together, I will vote to make abortion truly accessible. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to strike.