Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a good friend and outstanding leader, Robin Chandler Duke. Robin is one of those rare individuals who lends energy and dynamism to every cause with which she is involved. Through her service and advocacy, Robin has advanced compassionate public policy here and abroad, while touching countless lives. I have had the great privilege of working at Robin's side in the critical struggle to protect a woman's right to choose. President Emeritus of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Robin has been a tireless champion of reproductive freedom--always inspiring those with whom she works and meeting even the most difficult challenge with grace, wit, and determination. Robin is a giant among pro-choice leaders, yet this is but a small part of her varied activities. For seven years, Robin has been the National Co-Chairperson of Population Action International, which is dedicated to the promotion of voluntary family planning, effective population policies, and individual rights. In addition, Robin is actively involved in the U.S. Japan Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the United Nations Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies. She has represented our country in various international conferences and organizations, and remains today a shining light of principle and purpose. Above all, Robin is a delightful human being. A paragon of elegance and poise, and yet utterly without pretension. Robin is always impressive, but never imposing. It is a joy to be her friend. Mr. Speaker, this month Population Action International will honor Robin Chandler Duke for her service to that organization and for a lifetime of good works. Let the record reflect my enormous admiration and gratitude for this outstanding American.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the people of the United States are wise and fair. They understand that the President's conduct, the President's lies, the President's behavior was wrong and immoral and reprehensible. But they are wise. I want to appeal to my colleagues as a woman, as a mother, as a grandmother, and as a lawmaker, let us have a formal rebuke of this behavior, but then let us move forward in this House, because I want to make it very clear that we believe it is immoral not to be rebuilding our schools, not to be taking care of our children, not it be focusing on health care, and not to preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished good friend and ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Stokes). My colleagues, the Istook provision represents the latest attack by family planning opponents against our Nation's flagship program. Three years ago, family planning opponents tried to zero out funds for the Title X program. They failed. Two years ago, family planning opponents led by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offered a parental consent amendment, and it failed. Last year the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offered language nearly identical to that which he is offering today. That amendment also failed. These attacks on the Title X program have failed because a majority of Members in this body, pro-life and pro-choice, understand that denying teens access to family planning does not promote abstinence. I only wish it were that simple. Contrary to what we will hear today, the Istook language does not promote family values or protect the authority of parents over their teenagers. As a mother of 3 and a grandmother of 2, I can vouch for that. And instead, cutting off family planning services to teens simply increases STDs and HIV infections, unintended pregnancies and abortions. The Istook provision would deny contraception to minors unless they have the consent of their parents or waited 5 days after their parents were notified before obtaining contraception. Some of my colleagues are making a distinction between notification and consent, but who is kidding who? The 5-day waiting period before contraception can be obtained is no different than parental consent. The AMA, the American Academy of Pediatricians, Child Welfare League, Public Health Association, Social Workers and Nurses Association all oppose the mandatory parental notification restrictions in the Istook amendment. Of course, we would prefer that all teens consult with their parents about important life decisions such as using contraception. We would prefer that teens abstain from having sex altogether. But unfortunately, we know that teens will not change their behavior just because Congress passes a law. Instead, teens will forego contraception rather than facing their parents. In fact, studies show that over 80 percent of teens seeking family planning services have already been sexually active for nearly a year. By denying contraceptive services to tens of thousands of teens, the Istook language will simply result in higher rates of STDs, more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. If teens are required to obtain parental consent for contraceptive services, they will also avoid STD and HIV screening and routine gynecological exams. Our Nation already leads the western world in teen pregnancies. Millions of teens have some kind of STD, and the incident of AIDS among teens is, frankly, alarming. Mr. Chairman, we need to address these problems, but not by making Title X services more difficult to obtain. My colleagues, we have a teen pregnancy crisis in the country, and the Istook provision, in my judgment, will only make it worse. By contrast, the Greenwood-Castle substitute before us today promotes sensible policies for teens. It promotes the values we all share: abstinence for teens and parental involvement. However, it does not threaten the health of teens by withdrawing contraceptive services from our most vulnerable teens who simply have nowhere else to turn. Please, I say to my colleagues, think carefully. Let us protect the health and well-being of our teenagers, reduce the teen pregnancies which lead to abortion, support the Greenwood-Castle substitute, and oppose the Istook second degree amendment.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quickly respond to my colleague from Kentucky. Number one, the association that represents the Federal employees does support this provision. They are on record. Second, my colleague accused me of being selfish. I strongly endorse the provision of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), and I would hope that it would be in the bill. The reason the contraceptive provision is the motion to recommit is that provision did pass the House and the Senate; it was in the conference, and so it really is quite undemocratic to take it out. Last, I just want to say that I just have one brother. I have 3 children, and maybe I did not have to share everything with 11, but I have learned that democracy should work in this body, as a Member who has been here for 10 years, and I still think, in closing, it is outrageous that a provision that passed the Senate and the House and the conference should be taken out. We could have a longer debate about what should and should not be in a health benefit plan, but this has been supported by the association that represents these employees.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding to me. I want to say again to our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that I feel very sad tonight that I cannot enthusiastically support this bill. I know how hard the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) worked on the bill and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) worked on the bill. There are a lot of Federal workers out there who depend upon the provisions of this bill. I have heard from my colleagues this evening that we had to just remove all of the controversial provisions in the bill because otherwise the bill could not get through. I just want to make it clear to my friends on both sides of the aisle that I strongly disagree with that point of view. There is a big difference between disagreeing on a provision and taking a provision out of the bill that was voted on democratically, with a small ``d,'' by the majority of this House, by a voice vote in the Senate that was in the conference report. There is a big difference between taking that provision out, having the leadership of this House making a decision to take that provision out, and to remove other provisions that many of us felt were clearly political and were not supported by both the House and Senate. So I wanted to make that point, number one. Secondly, as a woman, sometimes you get an opportunity to do something that really helps the majority of women in this country. I want to urge my colleagues and alert my colleagues to a poll, and not that polls means anything in this House, but a poll that is being released tomorrow saying 78 percent of women in this country support contraceptive coverage. I know my good friend the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) has said that any woman can choose a plan that has a contraceptive. We know, and I have 2 daughters and daughters-in-law, that some contraceptives are good for some people; others are good for others. In fact, I would like to say to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Kentucky, is it not sad that a woman in 1998 should have to choose a plan just because it has the kind of contraceptive that is best for her. What we are saying is that there are five established methods of contraception. The plan should cover them if, in fact, they cover prescription drugs. That is what the American people want. That is what the women of America want. If some people feel one of those contraceptives is an abortifacient, it is your right. Just do not use it. I do not agree with everything that is in every plan, but the Budget Office has made it very clear that covering this would be an incidental cost. It does not mean anything. So I just want to say in closing, we try to operate in a small ``d'' democratic way in this House of Representatives in this Congress of the United States, and I am still proud to be a part of the Congress of the United States. But I have to tell my colleagues, to find a way to take out a provision that was democratically voted in both the House and the Senate I think is an outrage. I think it is an insult to American women when 80 percent of the plans do not cover all forms of contraception that have been approved. I have to tell my colleagues, all but one covers sterilization. We have just seen that it is okay for the military to include $50 million for Viagra. This is patently unfair. I would hope that everybody would vote for the motion to recommit so we can correct the error and put this contraceptive provision back in. That is what the American people want. That is what American women want. I thank again my chair and my ranking member.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and to my colleagues. I just want to make it very clear that there are 5 established methods of contraception that have been approved by the FDA, number 1. Second, 78 percent of the American people believe that we should work hard to reduce unintended pregnancies, to reduce the number of abortions, and most people in this country, men and women, do believe that the way to do that is with family planning, is with contraception. Now, we can debate on this floor when life begins, but remember, if a plan offers the 5 methods of established contraception, that does not mean everyone has to choose that. Everyone has the opportunity to make a decision based on their religious beliefs, and in fact, we have exempted the 5 religiously-based health plans so that they do not have to offer contraception. I think we have been very fair in drafting this provision. It was passed in a bipartisan way. Let us vote for the motion to recommit and support it.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this undemocratic rule and this conference report. I appreciate the openness and honesty of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), and I appreciate the work that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has put into this bill. It is really a shame that this bill, which in many ways is a good bill, had to end in this way. Frankly, to me, it is amazing, and I hope the American people are watching this, contraceptives may be controversial in this body in the Republican Congress, but not for the majority of women in this country who want to end and prevent unintended pregnancies, who want to reduce abortions in this country. Contraceptives is not controversial for the majority of American women. I truly am outraged, my colleagues, at the Republican conference for stripping from this conference report my amendment to provide contraceptive coverage to Federal employees. A majority of this House supported this provision twice, not once, but twice. It passed unanimously in the Senate by voice vote. But at every turn, the House leadership has tried it kill it. If we pass this conference report, the leadership of this Congress is telling American women once again that their basic health care does not matter to this Congress, that it does not matter to the Republican leadership. Killing this basic women's health provision was a back-door way to overturn the will of the majority in Congress. This truly is an insult to all 224 Members of the House Republicans and Democrats, pro-choice, pro-life who voted for my amendment. It is an insult to every Senator. The Republican leadership truly should be ashamed of themselves. They have stomped all over democracy today. The women of America, my colleagues, are going to see right through this sham, and those responsible for stripping through this provision I think will regret it. I only hope that the Members of the Republican conference who are such champions of this issue when it passed the House in July will see through the political games of the leadership and vote with us to bring down this rule and bring down this bill. I cannot stress enough, my colleagues, how critical this basic women's health provision is to the women of America. It will take us a huge step forward in our efforts to improve women's health, prevent unintended pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions. With more than 2 million employees, the Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. Approximately 1.2 million women of child- bearing age are beneficiaries in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Currently over 80 percent of Federal health plans do not cover the full range of FDA approved contraceptives used by women, and 10 percent of FEHB plans offer no coverage of contraceptives at all. Women pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. This provision will have reduced that gender gap in insurance coverage. With this vote, my colleagues, we will see who in this House will stand up with the women of America, who will stand up with right wing extremists that want to regulate every aspect of women's health, and we will see who in this House has respect for the democratic process and the will of the majority. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, vote against this bill, and vote for basic women's health care that was supported by the majority of this House. That is the democratic way, small ``d.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last year I was proud to stand on the House floor and work hard with our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Porter), to pass a bipartisan Labor, HHS, Education spending bill. I am disappointed and sad this year, however, that the bill has become a partisan vehicle to satisfy the right wing of the Republican Party. While the bill contains very necessary increases in certain health programs such as the NIH, I must reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and final passage. We must defeat the rule before us today because it protects anti- worker provisions while at the same time denies the House a clean, fair vote on family planning. The rule also fails to protect another key women's health provision which would have given women in HMOs direct access to their OB-GYN. This OB-GYN provision is in the bipartisan and Republican managed care bills which have stalled. By failing to protect it from a point of order, the leadership is sacrificing a valuable opportunity to enact this provision into law. The rule reported out last night allows family planning opponents an opportunity to offer a second degree to the Greenwood-Castle substitute. Those of us who support family planning sought and were entitled to receive a clean up or down vote on the Greenwood-Castle substitute. The bill contains the same language restricting teenagers' access to Title X family planning services which was defeated on the House floor last year. This parental consent restriction will deny vulnerable teens the contraceptive services they need to avoid pregnancy, HIV and STDs. Last year's attack on the Title X program failed because a majority of Members understood that denying teens' access to family planning does not promote abstinence. I only wish it were that simple. Instead, it increases STDs and HIV infections, unintended pregnancies and abortions. The bill also shortchanges students who are hoping to pursue the American dream. Everyone in this Chamber understands that a college education is as necessary today as a high school education was just a generation ago. In April the House overwhelmingly passed a Higher Education Act bill that increases and expands Pell Grants, preserving the Perkins Loan, SSIG, TRIO and SEOG programs. Only four Members of Congress voted against this bill. Fast forward, and we have before us a bill that provides additional funding to strengthen Pell and TRIO programs. At the same time, however, the bill eliminates SSIG and provides no capital contributions to Perkins. Three-quarters of a million low-income students depend on the Perkins program, including 60,000 New Yorkers. Nearly all of them come from families with incomes of $50,000 or below. These families need more, not less, to send their kids to college and to reach for the dream. I am equally concerned about the elimination of the SSIG program. This program serves needy students, not affluent ones. My colleagues, we have a strong economy but too many people are shut out. This is the time to invest in education, not cut back. The bill also cuts funding to senior programs by $10 million. Funds that are used to prevent elder abuse, help families locate long-term care, and provide pension counseling have been zeroed out. These cuts are unnecessary and destructive. The bill also grossly underfunds the National Labor Relations Board which is already stretched to the breaking point. This independent law enforcement agency was created to carry out a vital law of this land. Without this law and the Board which oversees it, labor disputes between private employers and employees would grow out of control. Productivity in our nation's workplaces would plummet dramatically. My colleagues, the NIH increases in this bill should be applauded. However, on balance the bill severely shortchanges education, our seniors and hard-working Americans. We can and must do better. Let us vote down this rule and come back with a bill that reflects our values, our priorities.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule on the Treasury Postal Conference Report, because the conference report includes an important women's health provision: the requirement that FEHB plans which cover prescriptions also cover prescription contraceptives. The language passed the full Committee on Appropriations with support from Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice. The Committee on Rules stripped it out of the bill, but I offered a rewritten amendment on the House floor, which passed. Then the same coalition of pro-choice and pro-life Democrats and Republicans defeated an attempt to weaken the language by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Unfortunately, the conference report also includes a politically vindictive attack on the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, and I think this is disgraceful, has no place in this legislation, and I do hope this will be eliminated in the Senate. However, because of the importance of contraceptive coverage for women across America, I will vote for the conference report. Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that we want to reduce the number of abortions. Close to half of all unplanned pregnancies end in abortions. Many of these unplanned pregnancies could be prevented with better access to contraception. Contraception is basic health care for women. It allows couples to plan families, have healthier babies when they choose to conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary, which is a goal I thought we all shared. Yet, 80 percent of FEHB plans do not cover all of the 5 most widely used contraceptives. Ten percent cover none of the 5 most widely used contraceptive methods. Meanwhile, all but one of the FEHB plans cover sterilization. Is it not clear that women and men who want to have families, who want to plan pregnancies, need better options? It is important to understand, I say to my colleagues, what we are talking about when we talk about contraceptive methods. We are not talking about abortion, we are not talking about RU486 or any other abortion method. No abortions will be covered by this amendment. This is, in fact, clearly stated by the language in the conference report. I just want to make it very clear to my colleagues that we are talking about providing women with the full range of contraceptive options. Women need the full range of options because not every woman can use one form or another form of birth control. Many women cannot use the pill. Its side effects, such as migraines, can be truly disabling for some. Other women choose not to go on the pill because they may be at special risk for stroke or breast cancer or something else. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support this bill, and I hope we can change it in the Senate.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ASTHMA Act-- Action Strategies To Help Millions of Asthmatics--on behalf of myself and my colleague from Texas, Joe Barton. This bipartisan legislation, which is the result of months of research and preparation, will provide our nation with new tools to battle the epidemic of asthma that continues of affect millions of Americans--especially our children. Asthma affects more than 14 million Americans, including almost 5 million children. Every year, asthma results in 500,000 hospitalizations and claims 5,500 lives. Since 1980, reports of asthma are up more than 75 percent. Tragically, the asthma-related death rate among children has risen equally fast. Asthma remains one of the leading causes of absenteeism from school and costs our nation more than $6 billion per year. Mr. Speaker, public health experts do not have all of the answers, but they know plenty. We now have the collective knowledge and experience to help millions of sufferers control and manage their asthma. We can reduce absenteeism in school and the workplace, reduce costly ER visits and hospitalizations, and help millions of Americans live happier, more productive lives. Earlier this year, the Daily News published an award-winning series of articles highlighting the asthma problem in New York City. The ASTHMA Act would go a long way to addressing those problems. It would expand federal asthma data collection efforts; promote new health guidelines on asthma prevention and treatment; educate the public about the dangers of asthma--and how to manage it; and improve the response of local schools and state children's health programs. Our legislation is supported by organizations leading the battle against asthma, such as the American Lung Association, the Joint Council of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology, Mothers of Asthmatics, as well as pharmaceutical manufacturers and managed care plans. Mr. Speaker, asthma is not a partisan problem. It affects Texans and New Yorkers, Republicans and Democrats, men and women, and our children. As a nation we can and should be doing much better. I invite my colleagues to join Congressman Barton and me in our effort to help asthmatics lead healthier, happier, more productive lives.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and I want to make one thing very clear at the outset: I support the tax cuts in this bill. Many of these tax cuts are measures that Democrats have championed and that I fully support. But unless they are paid for without draining Social Security reserves, the only responsible thing to do is just say no. I want every American to be perfectly clear what this debate is all about: it's a choice between politically motivated, election year tax cuts and protecting Social Security. It's about spending now and paying later--and jeopardizing the retirement security of millions of Americans. No matter how you slice it, the fundamental fact remains: these tax cuts are being paid for by raiding Social Security. All of the surpluses CBO projects over the next 5 years--and 98 percent of the surpluses CBO projects over the next decade--are trust funds that are needed to build up Social Security reserves. In fact, excluding the Social Security trust fund, the total budget surplus over the next decade will only be $31 billion, and that assumes that we won't have a downturn in the economy. As Alan Greenspan stated this week, ``the surplus may well be less than anticipated.'' According to CBO, if a recession began next year that was similar to the 1990-1991 recession, the $53 billion projected surplus in 2001 would become a $53 billion deficit. Let's be honest. This tax bill is election year politicking at its worst. If you don't believe me, listen to the experts. Earlier this week, Chairman Greenspan stated before the Senate Banking Committee that spending the Social Security surplus ``would be the worst outcome'' and that this tax bill ``would not be growth productive.'' The Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has stated that ``all the surplus belongs to the Social Security trust fund . . . I'm telling you there is no surplus.'' Economist Herbert Stein, chairman of President Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors, stated earlier this year that those who want to ``reduce our prospective surpluses should admit that in doing so they are impairing the incomes of our children and grandchildren.'' Quite simply, this bill will make it harder to ensure Social Security's solvency when Baby Boomers began to retire in the next century. It violates the budget rules and abandons the fiscal discipline that has enabled us to eliminate the deficit and enjoy a booming economy. My colleagues, we cannot afford to impose a massive I.O.U. on the American people's retirement system. Defeat this measure and support the Democratic substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a House Resolution which, for the first time, will recognize formally the 18,745 American civilians incarcerated by the Axis powers during World War II. We all know what the world faced during the struggle between the evils of Hitler's Axis powers and the heroic citizen armies of the Allies. We know about the 50 million dead and millions of others maimed, wounded, and displaced. The history books are filled with their tragic and triumphant stories. However, there are still little known aspects of World War II that deserve our attention. The plight of civilian American internees deserves our attention. These American citizens were subject to barbaric prison conditions and endured torture, starvation, and disease simply for being American. As they lost their basic human rights, these courageous men and women were used as slave labor and 1,704 died due to the sub-human conditions they were forced to live under. Many were taken prisoner before the United States entered the war. The horrors faced by America's civilian internees was brought to my attention by Michael Kolanik, Jr., a constituent of mine from Yonkers, NY. His father, Michael Kolanik, Sr., was an American citizen born in Pennsylvania in 1913 who returned to his ancestral homeland of Poland in 1931, with the full knowledge and consent of the U.S. State Department. In September of 1939, the Nazis termed Mr. Kolanik ``a stateless Pole, born in Pittsburgh'' and deported him to Nazi Germany as a slave laborer. While incarcerated, he faced a myriad of abuses starvation, backbreaking work, beatings, torture, and living conditions not fit for animals. Everyday was an incomprehensible struggle to stay alive with only the dream of making it home keeping him going. It wasn't until the U.S. 75th Infantry Division liberated the labor camp in 1945 that Mr. Kolanik regained his freedom and basic human rights. Upon his release, the horrific conditions he suffered through were obvious. Normally a strong 155-pound man, Mr. Kolanik had been reduced to 103 pounds. He regained his strength and health, joined the U.S. Merchant Marines, and returned to the United States. However, his father's story, and many others might not have been heard if not for the tireless efforts of Michael Kolanik, Jr. His love for his father and his desire to bring to light the suffering these American citizens endured drove Michael, a Vietnam Veteran, to make sure Congress recognized those incarcerated by the Axis. The recognition his father, who died in 1992 would not live to see. Approximately 3,000 civilian internees are still alive. The least we can do is finally honor these survivors and acknowledge their heroic and courageous sacrifices. That is what my resolution does.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the school, in my judgment, must be shut down, but the issue of what to do with the School of the Americas goes well beyond the deplorable actions of the school and right to the heart of the United States foreign policy. The question before us today is whether the United States has a moral responsibility to encourage other governments to respect human rights and democracy. Are human rights and democracy just catch phrases we use, or are they basic principles that we demand of every Nation? We must in my judgment demand human rights and democracy, in name and in practice, from our own military and all of our neighbors. That is why the School of the Americas is an affront to everything that the United States foreign policy should be about. That is why we must close the school. Fifty years ago, the School of the Americas was opened with the goal of improving United States ties to Latin American militaries. The idea was to educate our neighbors to the south about Democratic civilian control of the military. But over the last few decades, we started to hear reports of what was actually being taught there. Words like torture, beating, and execution were increasingly being associated with the school's courses. Then, some of the school's most distinguished graduates started to turn up in high positions in Latin American governments. People like Panama's drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega, now serving time in a United States prison on a drug conviction; and Roberto D'Aubuisson, who organized many of El Salvador's notorious death squads. In response, many of us have been calling for the school to shut down.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radanovich amendment to strike the repeal of section 907 from the bill. During committee consideration of this bill, a provision was added to repeal section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which prohibits direct economic assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country ends its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This amendment was misguided and, in my judgment, it should be overturned. For almost a decade, Azerbaijan has imposed a cruel and illegal blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This blockade has cut off the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh from food, fuel, medicine, and other vital goods and commodities. It has stopped United Nations humanitarian assistance to the people of Nagorno-Karabagh and has created a humanitarian crisis in the region. I had the opportunity with my colleagues on our subcommittee, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others to visit Nagorno-Karabagh, to visit Armenia, to visit Azerbaijan. It was very clear when we visited Nagorno-Karabagh to see the suffering. The life of these people made us come back even more committed in trying to bring the parties together to work out a settlement. We feel that lifting this blockade does not work towards that end. Currently, the process to bring a lasting peace to the Caucasus is at a very critical stage. The United States, as one of the cochairs of the Minsk Group, has been trying to bring the parties to the table for direct talks. Now, in my judgment, is not the time to change the United States policy in the Caucasus toward any one of the parties. Repealing section 907 at this critical juncture would only encourage the Azerbaijani government to dig in its heels in the peace process. It would remove what little leverage the United States has over the government in Baku to move it along toward an agreeable solution to this protracted conflict. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that opponents of this amendment have grossly exaggerated the scope of section 907. Let us be perfectly clear. Section 907 does not, does not prohibit the delivery of humanitarian and democracy building assistance to Azerbaijan. In fact, the United States has provided over $130 million in assistance to Azerbaijan through NGO's and PVO's since 1992. Section 907 also does not prohibit U.S. export financing assistance to Azerbaijan. OPIC, TDA, the Export-Import Bank are free to participate in projects in Azerbaijan. Section 907 does not prohibit oil companies from developing and investing in projects in Azerbaijan. In fact, during our visit, I dare to say, the oil companies were alive and well. At our meetings with the business community in Azerbaijan, I do not think there was one oil company that I ever heard of that was not there. So this is not prohibiting any action from the oil companies to operate in that region. Section 907 does give the United States leverage over a government that has not shown respect for human rights and the principles of democracy. Maintenance of section 907 will give the United States stronger footing in its attempts to bring the Azerbaijani government to the table and direct peace talks over Nagorno-Karabagh. Mr. Chairman, this, in my judgment, is a good amendment that deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support peace in the Caucasus by voting ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres- Kennedy amendment which would help us close the U.S. Army School of the Americas once and for all. The School of the Americas has taught some of the most ruthless dictators in Latin America to torture their opponents, censor their press, intimidate their citizens. It must be shut down.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of funding for the International Monetary Fund. This is one of the most important issues facing this body. The ongoing economic turmoil in Asia and Russia is having a very serious impact on Wall Street and other markets around the world. We must provide the IMF with the resources it needs to respond to the economic insecurity in Asia and Russia as it promotes badly needed reforms in those economies. The leadership in my judgment is playing a very dangerous political game by not allowing a vote on this issue today. The global economic crisis demands immediate leadership, not political gamesmanship. The IMF's resources are at a dangerously low level, jeopardizing its ability to perform its basic mission and respond effectively if the economic crisis deepens or spreads to even more markets. The $18 billion requested for U.S. commitments can leverage about $75 billion in usable global commitments from the IMF's 181 members. This degree of burdensharing would provide the IMF with sufficient resources to sustain its operations well into the next decade and would reduce the possibility that the United States will be forced to bear a disproportionate share of the financing in any future financial crisis.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this gag rule. Mr. Speaker, the foreign operations appropriations bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation the House will consider this year. As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have sat through many hours of hearings, two markups, in the process of bringing this bill before the House today. But there are 420 Members of this House who are seeing the bill for the first time today, and they deserve a lot more respect for their input than this rule gives them. The rule before us imposes a ridiculous time limit of 5 hours for the complete consideration of this bill and stricter limitations on certain specific amendments. As a comparison, I would ask my colleagues to look at how much time this body took to debate and amend the foreign operations appropriations bill for FY 1998. Last year it took us 3 days, 15\1/2\ hours, to finish the bill, over three times as long as we have been given today. The rule also denies the House an opportunity to debate the issue of additional funding for the International Monetary Fund. Whichever side of the issue my colleagues stand on, it deserves a full debate by this House. I, for one, strongly support the administration's request for IMF funding, and I believe that the leadership is playing a dangerous political game by not allowing a vote on this issue today. The ongoing economic turmoil in Asia and Russia is having a serious impact on Wall Street and other markets around the world, and we must provide the IMF with the resources it needs to respond to the economic insecurity in Russia and Asia as it promotes badly needed reforms in these countries. Finally, the rule violates an agreement that we had with the Republican leadership on the international family planning issue. By allowing a second degree amendment to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)'s amendment, the Committee on Rules turned its back on an agreement it made just 1 week ago. On this matter alone, we should reject the rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for their right to have a full debate on this important legislation, and I urge a vote against this terrible rule.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, we have always had a collegial relationship, and I just want the gentleman to know that everything I have said is meant to be fair and not to personally attribute anything to our good chairman. However, I would just like to say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that it was my understanding, as we had a meeting in the committee, that there would be an opportunity to offer an amendment, because on the committee we did not have full debate on the pro-life/ pro-choice issue, because as the gentleman said, people know where they stand on this issue, and we thought we would defer the debate to the floor. It was my understanding that we would have the opportunity to offer a substitute and we would have a full debate on that, and then the Members would use it as an opportunity to vote, either for or against. So I am sorry if there is a difference of opinion, but I do believe that was the agreement that we thought was made, and so we did not have a debate in the full committee. We thought the debate would be here and that there would not be a second degree. So I certainly respect the gentleman's views, but I just wanted to present to the gentleman my understanding. It was certainly the spirit of the agreement that, in my judgment, was violated by allowing the second degree. I thank the gentleman very much. I wish the gentleman well, and I know we will continue to work well together.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Norton amendment. Once again this Congress is attempting to impose yet another restriction on women's reproductive choices. This bill would prevent the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised funds to provide poor women with abortions, as many States, including my home State of New York, have chosen to do. I strongly support the efforts of my colleague from the District of Columbia to remove this language and free the District from a restriction that has not and, indeed, cannot be placed on any State in this Nation. So far this year the anti-choice forces of this Congress have prevented Federal employees, military women overseas, and women in prison from receiving abortion services. Now we are about to impose a restriction that would prevent the District from using locally raised revenues to pay for its needy citizens. Make no mistake, if the anti-choice leadership of this body could restrict the use of local funds in the rest of the country, they would do so in a second. They are attempting to restrict these funds in D.C. because they can.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment. Congressman Stearns and I agree on one thing: The provisions relating to the United Nations in the bill before us are unacceptable. Unfortunately, that is where our agreement on this issue ends. I believe the funding level this bill includes for the U.N. is woefully inadequate. The United States owes more than $1 billion to the U.N. in arrears. But this bill provides just $475 million--less than half--of our debt. And it makes even that small amount contingent upon the enactment of legislation authorizing this funding, which, conveniently enough, is lying dead in a dormant conference committee. So I too think that we need to change the U.N. provisions included in this bill. But Mr. Stearns' amendment goes in exactly the wrong direction. This amendment hinders the United States from taking even the first, paltry step included in this bill toward fulfilling its debt to the U.N. Mr. Stearns cloaks his amendment in the rhetoric of reform, and claims that his amendment will somehow take us down that path. But let's be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not about U.N. reform. This amendment is simply about blocking the United States from fulfilling its financial obligations to the U.N. I don't think there is anyone in this House who is not supportive of further U.N. reform. That is why we worked to elect Secretary General Kofi Annan. That is why the U.N. has begun to implement reforms developed and demanded by the United States. And that is why we will continue to advocate far-reaching reforms throughout the U.N. system. The United States has a tremendous amount of influence within the U.N., but that level of influence is rapidly decreasing. Our debt to the U.N. is draining our power in the organization, creating a climate of resistance to U.S. proposals and even endangering our vote in the General Assembly. The U.N. has historically served U.S. interests, but our debt is making it hard for the organization to carry out its activities. The Stearns amendment will only make this situation worse. In the interest of U.S. national security and in the interest of reforming the U.N., I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Stearns amendment.