Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Slaughter amendment to make important increases to the NEA and the NEH. I do so not only as a proponent of Federal support for the arts and the humanities but also as one who has seen firsthand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), I have the privilege of serving as one of five congressional Members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the board of directors. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to United States taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all Americans, which is what this debate is all about. Mr. Chairman, we know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture and our economy and beneficial to all our citizens. This year, NEA Chairman Ivey unveiled a major new initiative called Challenge America which would further arts education outreach and organizational initiatives, particularly in underserved areas. At this bill's current funding level for the NEA, this worthy and creative initiative will remain unfunded. We need to support this amendment to provide a Federal commitment to this program and the other important activities the NEA offers in our communities. Likewise, we know that the National Endowment for the Humanities provides funding for student essay contests, teacher seminars, museum exhibitions, documentary films, research grants, public conferences and speakers and library- based reading and discussion programs. Through all of these programs, the NEH helps to provide a greater understanding of our Nation's history and culture. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts and the humanities. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area, even with a fully funded NEA. In a Nation of such wealth and cultural diversity it is a sad commentary on our priorities that year after year we must continue to fight about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, dance companies, and their audiences across the country. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports Federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let us just talk dollars and cents. For every one dollar the NEA spends it generates more than 11 times than that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment, and we certainly do not have to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. Mr. Chairman, let us use this opportunity to begin to provide a level of resources to the NEA and the NEH which we can all be proud of. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and funding for cultural expression, celebration.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the bill. The legislation we are considering today would prohibit anyone, anyone, including a step-parent, grandparent, or religious counselor from accompanying a young woman across State lines for an abortion. In my judgment, my colleagues, this is a dangerous, misguided bill that isolates our daughters and puts them at grave risk. That is why the President has threatened to veto it. Under this legislation, young women who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without help from any responsible adult. Some will seek dangerous back-alley abortions close to home; others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves. Thankfully, my colleagues, most young women, more than 75 percent of minors under age 16, already involve their parents in this very difficult decision to seek an abortion. That is the good news. And as a mother, as a grandmother of four and about 7/8ths, one is arriving in August, I hope, as we all hope, that every child can go to her parents for advice and support. But, unfortunately, not every child is so lucky. Not every child has loving parents. Some have parents who are abusive or simply absent. Now, I believe that those young women who cannot go to their parents should be encouraged. We want to encourage them to go to another responsible adult, a grandmother, an aunt, a Rabbi, a minister in what can be a very, very difficult decision. Already more than half of all young women who do not involve the parent in the decision to terminate a pregnancy choose to involve another adult, including 15 percent who involve another adult relative. That is a good thing. We should encourage the involvement of responsible adults in this decision, be it a step-parent, an aunt or an uncle, religious minister or a counselor, not criminalize that involvement. Unfortunately, what this bill does is impose criminal penalties on adults, like grandmothers, who come to the aid of their granddaughters. We tried to address this problem at the Committee on Rules by exempting close familiar relatives from criminal liability under the bill. But, unfortunately, that amendment, much to my amazement, it was hard for me to believe, was denied. As a result, this bill will throw grandmothers in jail for assisting their granddaughters. What will the police do? Are they going to set up granny checkpoints to catch grandmothers helping their granddaughters? Will we have dogs and search lights at State borders to lock up aunts and uncles? I suppose so. Mr. Speaker, I am a grandmother of four, and I believe grandparents should be able to help their grandchildren without getting thrown in jail. As much as we might wish otherwise, family communication, open and honest parent-child relationships cannot be legislated. When a young woman cannot turn to her parents, she should certainly be able to turn to her grandmother or a favorite aunt for help. Unfortunately, this legislation criminalizes that involvement. And so this bill tells young women who cannot tell their parents, just do not tell anyone else. Do not tell a grandparent, do not tell an aunt. No one can help them; they are on their own. As a result, young women will be forced to travel out of State by themselves or remain in- State and obtain an illegal abortion. Parental consent laws do not force young women to involve their parents in an hour of need. We know that it can do just the opposite. Indiana's parental consent law drove Becky Bell away from the arms of her parents and straight into the back alley. Parental consent laws do not protect our daughters, but they can kill them. They do not bring families together, but they can tear them apart. And so I ask, why can we not do more in this body to bring families together, to keep our young people safe? Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less necessary for teenagers, not more dangerous and difficult. We need to teach teenagers to be abstinent and responsible. We need a comprehensive approach to keeping teenagers safe and healthy. We do not need a bill that isolates teenagers and puts them at risk. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and myself on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task Force. Let us work with our young people. Let us help them gain self-esteem. Let us see what works out there and try to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent teen pregnancies. Let us reduce the need for abortion. Let us work together on this. We can work together, pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat and Republican, to reduce the need for abortion. But my colleagues, let us not put our young people at risk. I want to say again, I would hope that every mother, every mother, could have a relationship with her child so, number one, there is no need to have an abortion. But if that child should be put in this position, I would hope that child would come to me, would come to a mother, I would hope my granddaughter would come to me, again, let us hope, before it is necessary. But if it is, I want to be there to help, not to feel that we grandmothers are going to be thrown in jail if we try to help and leave these children so isolated that they may make an unwise move and get this procedure where it may not be qualified. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute. Mr. Chairman, more than 8 weeks ago, 12 students and a teacher were killed at Columbine High School. That terrible event shocked this Nation to its core; and all across the country, the American people cried out for action. That cry was heard in Washington. Carol McCarthy heard it. We all heard it, the cry of so many victims, the cry of the children. A terrible tremor arose from Columbine 8 weeks ago. It spread across the entire Nation. Today we stand on the floor after 2 days of debate and discussion. Let us vote for this bill, the substitute bill. It is a good bill. Let us take action.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity tonight to save lives. December 7, 1993. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will not forget that day. The families of the six dead, the 19 wounded will not forget that day. Eight weeks ago, 12 students and a teacher were killed at Columbine High School. Tonight we are finally considering legislation to protect our families and our children from guns. The American people have turned to us for leadership. And tonight, my colleagues, we are going to see if this House has the courage to answer that call and turn its back on the NRA. Everywhere I go in my district, at the supermarket, at neighborhood events, mothers come up to me, children in hand, and ask me, ``What are we going to to do to stop this violence?'' ``What are we doing to stop the guns flowing in our schools and onto our streets?'' I challenge anyone in this House to look one of those mothers in the eye that came to us just yesterday talking to us about their children, their husband, there was a young girl there who was wounded 13 times, let us look her in the eye and tell her that this is more important to avoid inconveniencing a handful of gun buyers than it is to protect her child. I would like to remind my colleagues that, in the first 15 minutes of the instant check, 75 percent of the people are cleared. In the next couple of hours, it goes up to 90 percent. So we are talking about inconveniencing a couple of people to check their record to be sure that we save lives. We know that this is not going to solve all our problems. We have to address the whole culture of violence in this country. But tonight we have to begin, we have to respond, we have to act. We have to pass the McCarthy amendment. Closing this loophole will make a critical difference in protecting our children.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment and in support of the amendment of my good friend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this restricted rule. In the weeks after the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School, the American people cried out for leadership from this House. They demanded that we do something to stop the violence that has invaded our schools and is killing our children. The response from the Republican leadership was to delay. We were told we could not move forward quickly. We were told that we needed to address this issue in regular order, starting with the subcommittee, and then the committee, then the House floor. But what has happened to that regular order? The Committee on the Judiciary was not allowed to consider this bill, and the closed rule we are debating right now locks dozens of amendments to address the crisis of gun violence in this country. It does not even allow a sensible vote on these proposals. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a sham. This day was supposed to be about Members of the House coming together across the aisle to pass common- sense gun safety measures. It was supposed to demonstrate nonpartisan courage and leadership in the face of a crisis. Instead, sadly, the Republican leadership in this House has turned its back on the American people and embraced the NRA instead. I urge my colleagues to vote against this terrible rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and my colleagues for their important work on this issue. In closing, I just want to say, please do not be fooled. This is not an issue of taxpayer dollars funding abortion. This is about American women in private with their own money exercising their constitutional right to choose. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases. These women work to protect the freedom of our country. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women for the past 4 years have been denied the right to a safe and legal abortion at the bases where they are stationed. Just yesterday, when we debated the anti-choice majority's latest effort to restrict access to legal abortion, I said I was tired of these attempts to chip away at a woman's right to choose. I ask my colleagues to please support the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to manage the time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding time to me. Before I address the overall issue, I would like to respond to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) by reading another quote. ``The Danish researchers concluded that induced abortion has no effect on the risk of breast cancer.'' When reporting on a particular study, the New York Times stated: ``This longstanding issue shall now be settled. No evidence exists to link induced abortion and breast cancer.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. The amendment would stop the drug approval process in its tracks by placing unprecedented roadblocks in front of the FDA. It puts ideology ahead of science and compromises women's health. The Coburn amendment would block the final approval of a drug, RU- 486, that the FDA has already declared to be safe and effective. I repeat, this amendment would block final approval of a drug that the FDA has already declared safe and effective. This amendment would make FDA drug approval contingent not on science but on politics. The FDA is charged with protecting the public's health, and should not be subject to congressional interference. Should we subject each FDA decision to a congressional vote? Mr. Chairman, let us allow the FDA to do its job free from right-wing intimidation. The American people do not want the Christian Coalition in charge of our Nation's drug approval process. This amendment may also prohibit the development of new, more effective contraceptive methods, if Members believe, as some do, that any form of hormonal contraception, like in this bill, is tantamount to an abortion. What about other drugs that as a side effect may induce abortion, like many chemotherapy drugs and anti-ulcer medication? Will research be halted on these lifesaving drugs as well? This amendment is too vague even to give us a clear answer to that question. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about much more than RU-486. It is about whether the FDA will be free to test, develop, and approve needed drugs without congressional interference. It is about whether politics or science will govern our Nation's drug approval process. Since Roe v. Wade, the anti-choice minority has attempted to stymie contraceptive research and suppress advances in reproductive health. For example, there used to be 13 pharmaceutical companies engaged in contraceptive research. There are now four. Thankfully, despite pressure tactics, scientists have made some important progress. Among the most significant is the development of RU-486. RU-486 would make a dramatic difference in the options available to women facing unintended pregnancies. It could make abortion, already one of the safest medical procedures, even safer. Women in France have been using RU-486 for a decade. It is also available in Sweden and Great Britain. Over 400,000 women have had abortions using RU-486. The New England Journal of Medicine has published clinical trials confirming its acceptability and effectiveness. Also, RU-486 has another significant advantage over current abortion procedures, it can be given in the privacy of a physician's office. What will the right do when it is approved? Will it picket every doctor's office in America? Will it harass every woman in the Nation? Thankfully, it cannot. That is why it is fighting to block the approval of this drug.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to refer my colleague again to statements from the National Cancer Institute, because we feel so strongly that we should not be mixing up politics and science, confusing our own personal views, and I respect the gentleman's, on whether or not women should have a choice. I would expect that the gentleman respects others'. In 1996 the National Cancer Institute, concerned that some anti- abortion groups were misrepresenting the science on the subject, issued a statement, not my statement, their statement, and I quote, ``The available data on the relationship between induced abortions or spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and breast cancer are inconsistent, inconclusive. There is no evident of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion.''

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who I believe has left the floor. But he referred to this administration and said they have done nothing to make abortion rare. I would invite him and my other colleagues to join us in supporting our contraceptive coverage bill, because that is really the way we reduce the number of abortions. Having the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan and other private insurance plans cover contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions, and the administration has been strongly supportive of that. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate, I would like to address some remarks again to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) because I respect his point of view. We may differ on this issue, but I certainly respect his point of view. As a mother and grandmother of four-and-a-half, I have to tell my colleague after 10 years of serving in this body I am so tired of debating abortion on the floor of the House, restriction after restriction, ban after ban, amendment after amendment. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions, please work with us to increase funds for family planning. Work with us to ensure that women have access to prescription contraceptives. I have been working to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the numbers of abortions. We need to make abortions less necessary, not more dangerous, and I am sorry that this amendment is being offered to an otherwise outstanding bill. The amendment was offered last year. Although it passed the House narrowly, it faced a veto threat from the administration, rejected by the Senate members of the agriculture appropriations conference committee, and strong opposition from medical groups, patient advocacy organizations and the biomedical community. It was wisely stripped out of the final version of the bill signed by the President. The amendment faces the same widespread opposition today, but I hope that this year my colleagues will send this amendment to the defeat it frankly deserves right here in the House floor. Mr. Chairman, Congress should not inject politics into the FDA's drug approval process. This amendment ignores sound science, it puts women's health in jeopardy, and it should be defeated.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for William E. Rapfogel, a remarkable leader and citizen who this year receives the Distinguished Community Service Award at the Centennial Anniversary National Dinner of the Orthodox Union. A man of high principle, piercing intelligence, and extraordinary skill, Mr. Rapfogel has touched countless lives in the New York area through a variety of professional and civic activities. For seven years, Mr. Rapfogel has been the Executive Director of the Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty, one of New York City's largest not-for-profits. Through the Met Council, Mr. Rapfogel has been instrumental in expanding home care, housing, and employment opportunities, while also providing crisis intervention and other services to deserving recipients. Mr. Rapfogel's commitment to social progress is matched by a life- long devotion to the Jewish community. He has been the Executive Director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Orthodox Union and of the American Jewish Congress Metropolitan Region. In addition, Mr. Rapfogel contributed his time and energy to all New Yorkers by serving as an able and effective Assistant Comptroller of New York City. We are a stronger community thanks to William Rapfogel's vision and leadership. I am confident that Mr. Rapfogel's exceptional example will remain a source of guidance and inspiration to his colleagues and admirers for many years to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Victor A. Kovner, a remarkable leader and citizen who this year receives the Stanley M. Isaacs Human Relations Award from the New York Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. A man of high principle, piercing intelligence, and extraordinary ability, Mr. Kovner has touched countless lives in the New York area through a variety of professional and civic activities, while also promoting the cause of peace and justice throughout the world. A senior partner with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, Mr. Kovner is widely respected for his legal experience and skill, qualities evident during his service as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, and in a wide range of other important positions such as Chair of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, as well as Chair of the New York City Bar Association's Committees on the Judiciary and Communications & Media Law. But despite this stellar professional record, it is Mr. Kovner's extra-professional accomplishments in which his character and dedication are most apparent. He has been instrumental in advancing the cause of Middle-east peace as a member of the board of Americans for Peace Now and as a leader with the Israel Policy Forum. In the United States, Mr. Kovner has been a tireless advocate for social justice and progress. He helped found the Black-Jewish Coalition, chaired the board of Planned Parenthood, and worked to advance such important goals as artistic creativity, environmental protection, and civil liberties. In short, Victor Kovner is a man of national and international stature, whose vision and leadership have made a material difference to many individuals--and inspired even more to demonstrate a similar devotion to social and community ideals. I am proud to join in recognizing Mr. Kovner and confident that he will remain a leading light for many years to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for ordering this special order this evening. It is truly an honor for me to spend some time with her and my good friend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee) to talk about this very important legislation. And I am very glad that she mentioned that we work together on just a whole range of issues, education, health care, and we know that we have to address the violence in our society in just so many different ways, and my colleagues talked about it this evening, that this is not the only answer. But as I talk to people in my district, as I talk to the mothers, the fathers, the children who are afraid to go to school, I realize there is a madness in this country and we have to work on doing something about the guns. My colleagues and I have talked about how different it was when we were in elementary school. I do remember, a long time ago, when Ms. Margot in first grade would get upset when someone was chewing bubble gum and leave the classroom. These kids are going to school and worried about whether someone has a gun. This is madness. And so, as a grandmother and a mother, I feel it a personal obligation to represent all these families across America. Every once in a while in our congressional career we feel that there is an urgency to do something and do it now. I think of the pain of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy) when she lost her husband, the pain of the gentlewoman from New York as she watches her son Kevin fight back, the pain of all those parents in Littleton, in Conyers, the pain of all those family members. Every day 13 youngsters are killed because of guns. We have a responsibility and an obligation to do something and to do it now. And each week and nearly every day since the tragic shootings in Littleton, Democrats have called for urgent passage of meaningful gun legislation. We filed discharge petitions. We held press conferences. We raised our voices loud and clear. The NRA just cannot be allowed to write our gun laws anymore. I want to assure my colleagues that I, along with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer), we are going to address this every moment we can. The gentlewoman and I and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) came prepared to offer gun control legislation to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill. It was hard to believe. We had on our desk the wires from Conyers that had just happened that morning. And yet the GOP leadership stalled. They did not act. They did not heed our calls. They did not take up the meaningful legislation that our Senate colleagues have passed. They even canceled the Treasury, Postal markup rather than consider our common sense gun control amendments. Hard to believe, is it not, that the GOP leadership could be more afraid of the NRA than they are of violence in our schools? Now the leadership's delay has given the NRA the chance to strategize and mobilize. My colleagues referred to the letter that the NRA sent to their members in a fund-raising drive. Undaunted, the NRA is back in full force. The letter says, and I quote, ``pulling out all the stops to win this battle.'' But we have news for them. We will not let them win. We will not back down. This battle is over the safety of our children at home, in our schools, on the playground, and it is a cause worth fighting for. Mr. Speaker, we cannot back down in the face of the NRA. We must stand firm. Like our Senate colleagues, we must have the courage to reach across the aisle and pass meaningful bipartisan gun control legislation. The American people want action now. We have got to get the guns off of our streets and away from our children. I cannot tell my colleagues how many people came up to me during this recent work period in our district and said, ``how could you not do something? You were elected to do something? Nita, I know you are a leader on modernizing our schools. I know you want to put computers on everyone's desk.'' And then they tell me that the kids are afraid to go to school. We are going to continue to make sure that we have after-school programs to tutor our youngsters to provide them with the academic support they need so they can be what they want to be, so they can reach for the sky and fulfill their dreams. But they are afraid to go to school. These kids have to go to school with gun detectors. This is madness. And we know we have to look at the whole picture, as my colleague mentioned. We really have to talk about why it has become such a violent culture, why the kids have to watch these violent episodes on TV and the movies and the Internet. We understand, as my colleague said, that this is not a one-dimensional issue. But there is a madness in this country. They should not be able to buy guns when they are a kid. I mean, how is it that they cannot go to a licensed gun dealer and buy a gun until they are 21 yet they can buy a gun from a secondhand dealer at a gun show? It does not make any sense. But we are not even talking now about the comprehensive bill of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy). We want to work on that. What we are saying is the Senate passed common sense legislation. No one should be celebrating that. Because unless it passes our House and unless the President signs it, it is not law. So let us make sure that we pass the common sense legislation that passed the Senate. And as we are doing that, let us talk about the larger issue and pass more comprehensive legislation. But let us not wait. And I know that my colleague and I and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) and other members of our caucus are going to be speaking to mothers and fathers and families all around the country. And I hope they are listening tonight. Call your member of Congress. Tell them to pass the legislation now. We have the power to do it. We can do it. We must do it. We must save lives. Let us do this now. I want to thank my friend and colleague the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Rosa DeLauro) for her leadership on just so many issues. I know how she cares about Head Start and pre-K and how she is fighting to make sure our young people are nurtured all the way through, and this is part of that great effort. Let us deal with this now. I thank my colleague again for leading us in this great effort.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this will impact the project. I think it is important for my colleagues to know that the Cornell University program on breast cancer and environmental risk factors was launched in 1995 in response to the abnormally high incidence of breast cancer in New York. The program investigates the link between risk factors in the environment like chemicals and pesticides and breast cancer. The BCERF, which it is called, takes scientific research on breast cancer, translates it into plain English materials that are easy to understand, and disseminates this information to the public. They have a web site that is filled with information on BCERF's activities, breast cancer statistics, scientific analyses, and environmental risk factors and links to other sources of information. They sponsor discussion groups that provide a public forum to discuss breast cancer. This amendment will destroy our ability to bring the important work of the BCERF program to more people around New York and around the country. Let me make this very simple, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues oppose efforts to educate the public about breast cancer, if they think they have done enough to prevent breast cancer in this country, then vote yes on this amendment. But if my colleagues agree with me that we need to do more about stopping the terrible scourge of breast cancer in this country, if they agree with me that they cannot sit idly by while one in eight women are diagnosed with breast cancer over the course of their lifetimes, if it outrages them that approximately 43,000 women will die from breast cancer and 175,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone, then join me in voting no on this terribly misguided amendment. My colleagues, these are just some of the materials that they distribute, avoiding exposure to household pesticides, protective clothing, safe use and storage of hazardous household products, pesticides, and breast cancer risks and evaluations, and on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, we all want to spend money wisely. We all understand that the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers should not be distributed willy-nilly. But the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our ranking member, have worked very hard to keep the numbers in this budget within their budget allocation. I think it is very important that we not get misled by the desire to cut and balance our budget, because we all want to spend wisely. But we have to look at what these potential cuts will do, what kind of impact they will have on the lives of our constituents. That is why, as I was sitting in my office, I decided to come down here. This is the kind of impact that this unwise, foolish cut will make.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), it is my understanding that it is the same account, and the gentleman's amendment will cut indiscriminately that account. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, I would like to discuss another item in that account, because it will be impacted.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). It is my understanding that the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will cut $1 million from the research account. This research project for breast cancer is within that account. In fact, if his amendment will not cut from that account, then I am not sure what we are doing here debating it.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I came down to the floor with great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). But I would say to the gentleman that I understand that this committee has met its 302(b) allocation; we are on mark, they met their budget. As I was listening to this debate, I thought that I would come down to discuss with my colleagues one of the programs that my friend's amendment will cut. I think it is important to know that these programs are not just some programs that are out there that no one knows about and that are not having an impact. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is indiscriminately attacking important programs in this bill without much discussion about the impact of his proposed cuts. I want to take a moment to talk about the program that the gentleman is attacking with this amendment. The Cornell University Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors was launched in 1995, and responds to the abnormally high incidence of breast cancer in New York. Point of Order

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from Missouri would yield, based upon the information I have, I believe the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has distorted the response, or there is a misunderstanding here between people on this committee. But it is my understanding that the gentleman's amendment does come from the special research account and that this breast cancer project is within that special research account. Therefore, although the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has supported it, and I thank him, our gracious chairman, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has supported it, it will have an impact in this project. So, Mr. Chairman, there must be a misunderstanding here. Because on the one hand, it will cut; on the other hand, it will not have any impact.