Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I want to take this opportunity to speak against another version of this amendment that may soon be offered to also overturn the executive order regarding discrimination in the Federal work force. At the heart of the debate over Executive Order 13087 is one of the most basic rights in any civil society, to be judged in the workplace on the content of one's character, not on one's race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, this is a question of civil rights, not special rights, and the sad truth is that the radical right cannot tolerate a society in which all Americans are afforded the same basic rights. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for making that point. I am leading up to that argument. Frankly, I have been serving in this House for 10 years, and I cannot remember a time when someone was arguing an amendment and someone was so concerned that speakers were going to challenge their arguments that they would silence Members in proceeding and arguing their point. So I am leading up to the point made by the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, it is really sad that the radical right cannot tolerate a society in which all Americans are afforded the same basic rights, and in this election season, the Republican leadership has decided that it is in their political interests to side with the ignorance and bigotry of the radical right. The fact is it is still legal in this day and age to fire someone simply because they are gay or lesbian. That is outrageous, and the majority of Americans agree it is an outrage. But an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that gays and lesbians in the workplace deserve the same basic rights. It is terribly ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the very same people who tout the virtues of running the Federal Government like a corporation are leading the fight against this executive order. The list of companies that prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation is a ``Who's Who'' of corporate America: IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, AT&T, Coca-Cola, Home Depot, and the list goes on and on. Numerous State and local governments also provide these protections for their employees. Mr. Chairman, the executive order is very modest, it is long overdue, and yet here we are voting whether to deny more than 2 million employees this most basic protection. What a sad commentary on this institution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Kolbe amendment, and I also urge my colleagues to defeat the Hefley amendment to repeal Executive Order 13087.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and with great respect for our chairman and our ranking member, I support the amendment of my colleague from New Jersey. I would like to point out to my colleagues that I notice in one of our press releases that this bill does provide $439 million for weather satellites, which is a $110 million increase over fiscal year 1998. So although this is clearly an important need and we support it, I think the greater need here is to support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), because from Long Island Sound to Chesapeake Bay, from the Gulf of Mexico to San Francisco Bay, nonpoint-source pollution is a major cause of water quality impairment. In fact, polluted runoff is the number one water problem nationwide, causing beach closures, fish kills, oxygen depleting algae bloom, shellfish harvest restrictions. The pollution takes a significant toll both on the environment and the economies of our coastal areas, an area where more than 50 percent of the United States population lives. To tackle this threat to our coastal areas, this bill is very, very important, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for my colleague.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a dubious anniversary. As we sit here, after 24 years of Turkish occupation of Cyprus, it is especially appropriate to recognize the struggle for the freedom of all Cypriots that has been waged for more than two decades. It was over two decades ago that 6,000 Turkish troops and 40 tanks landed on the north coast of Cyprus, and more than 200,000 Cypriots were driven from their homes and forced to live under foreign occupation. Over two decades ago, and Turkey still has thousands of troops on the island. That is why I'm pleased that we have this opportunity today. This evening we remember what happened in Cyprus 24 years ago and we pledge to fight to end the occupation. We also look toward the promise of the future. President Clinton has demonstrated his commitment to solving this difficult issue by making this issue a foreign policy priority of his Administration. I hope that his commitment will lead to a just and viable solution to the Cyprus conflict, and that this time next year we will be standing here on the House floor celebrating the end of the Turkish occupation. We must continue to fight against injustice in Cyprus. We must continue to provide aid to Cyprus to help that country deal with the terrible problems caused by more than two decades of Turkish occupation. And, above all, we must continue to keep the plight of the Cypriots on the minds of everyone around the world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Mollohan-Fox 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 and our appreciation. 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. In 1997, Legal Services programs handled over 58,000 cases in which clients sought 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 deadbeat 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. How can we at this time abandon these women to violence and abuse and greater poverty? Please support Legal Services. Let us protect poor families who need this help desperately. Let us vote for this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, although the sponsor of this amendment would have us believe that this amendment is not as egregious as its earlier incarnation, the fundamental fact remains: its purpose is to nullify a duly adopted local ordinance, micro-manage a city, and punish those who don't share a narrow-minded vision of America. I have to ask why, in the Congress where Members on both sides of the aisle routinely preach the virtues of states' rights, local governance, and devolution of federal power, we're even considering such a thing. This amendment is really the height of hypocrisy. If the people of San Francisco--or any city for that matter--have chosen to use their municipal spending powers to prohibit discrimination in city contracts and help equalize health benefits for married heterosexual couples and unmarried same-sex couples, what business do we have in stepping in and overruling that action? As the U.S. Conference of Mayors has stated, passage of this amendment ``would establish a very dangerous precedent.'' It could harm more than 30,000 people who benefit from federal funding for low-income elderly housing, homeless programs, and housing for people with AIDS. It also would serve to blackmail other municipalities who--through the democratic process--want to adopt similar ordinances that prohibit discrimination in city contracts. Call me cynical, but I don't believe the sponsors have had a change in heart on the issue of local control. The truth is that, in this election season, the Republican leadership has decided it's in their political interest to push proposals backed by the Radical Right in order to mobilize their base for the November elections. This amendment is just one in a series of attacks on those who don't fit the Right Wing's vision of America. In the next few days we'll debate an amendment to strip gay and lesbian federal employees of basic protections against being fired simply because of their sexual orientation. This is not the direction we should be heading in. I urge all Members to defeat the Riggs Amendment and work instead on bringing all Americans together.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee and my friend. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the representatives of the only region in the country with two airports, governed by the High Density Rule, LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy. Since last October, the Secretary of Transportation has granted 30 slot exemptions to the High Density Rule at LaGuardia with little, if any, examination of the impacts on aviation safety, flight delays, and aircraft noise that are occurring from this increased traffic. Numerous communities in the New York metropolitan area are very concerned about the situation, and I would like to ask for the gentleman's assistance in working with me and other Members from New York in having the FAA examine these potential adverse impacts. Mr. Chairman, we need to have a study done of the average flight delays at the airport, whether the additional flights are making it more difficult for air traffic controllers in manage the region's air traffic, and if there is an appreciable increase in aircraft noise. This is a very serious issue, both for the traveling public and the residents on the ground.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with him.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment to prohibit funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs misguided VERA plan. The VERA plan will take scarce resources away from the veterans in my district and other areas of the northeast based on flawed data about veteran populations around the country. The veterans who use the VA health care system in New York deserve better than the VERA plan gives them. Each year, about 150,000 veterans use the eight VA facilities in the New York metropolitan region. These veterans have come to rely on the excellent services provided by these facilities but the cuts in these services called for in the VERA plan will be disastrous. Since the implementation of VERA began, I have received reports from many veterans in my district of diminished quality of care at the VA medical centers. In fact, the VA's Office of the Medical Inspector investigated the Hudson Valley VA hospitals and found more than 150 violations of health and safety rules at those hospitals alone. It is not a coincidence that these violations came at a time when these hospitals were trying to cut costs to comply with VERA, and the situation is about to get worse. When I joined some of my colleagues in a meeting with VA officials about VERA implementation several months ago, the reports from the VA were alarming. Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer told us that under the current budget the VA will hit a brick wall in its ability to provide services to the veterans community in my region, and James Farsetta, the director of Network 3, which serves my constituents, said his network would, quote, be in trouble soon under the current VERA plan. Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to provide services to growing veterans populations in other regions of the country but that must not be done on the backs of New York's veterans. A recent assessment of the VERA plan by Price Waterhouse highlighted a major flaw in the fundamental assumptions of the plan. The report stated that, quote, basing resource allocation on patient volume is only an interim solution because patient volume indicates which veterans the VHA, Veterans Health Administration, is serving; not which veterans have the highest health care needs. This is especially relevant to the New York region, which has the highest proportion of specialty care veterans in the country. Mr. Chairman, we cannot turn our backs on New York's proud veterans, but that is exactly what will happen if we allow the VERA plan to go forward. I urge my colleagues to protect our veterans by supporting the Hinchey amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I just came down to talk on another amendment, which I believe will follow this amendment. I just want to say to my colleagues that I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut. As a mother, as as a grandmother, it is shocking to me that these laws that were put in place to protect our youth, our infants, would be weakened. I just appeal to the House to support my colleague from Connecticut, because when we have a chance to save lives, it seems to me we should do everything we can to do so. So I strongly support the gentlewoman from Connecticut's amendment. I thank her for introducing it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep and sincere condolences to the families of Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson. Those of us who are privileged to work on Capitol Hill feel as if we are part of a very large and extended family. Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson were vital parts of that family. If the Capitol Police did not perform their jobs so professionally, they would be better known. Unfortunately, in today's society, we seem to focus on the negative rather than on the positive. But the Capitol Police do an excellent job and so the American people are not familiar with these dedicated men and women who patrol the United States Capitol grounds day and night. Our nation's Capitol, the most recognizable symbol of freedom and democracy in the world, is also one of the most accessible government buildings in the world. Visitors from across our nation and the globe marvel at the ease with which they can sit in the gallery and watch the inner workings of Congress. They walk in awe throughout this grand and historic building. Yet, it is the dedication and professionalism of the Capitol Police which makes this access to the Capitol possible. A few months ago, there was a fire in the Longworth Building. The fire alarm didn't go off on every floor, so Capitol Police officers ran up and down the stairs going into each office to remove people from harm's way. A few officers suffered smoke inhalation as they risked themselves to do their duty. Every summer we read about tourists overcome by the heat, collapsing on the Capitol grounds, only to receive swift and needed care from Capitol police. Every day we see the Capitol Police direct traffic to ease the morning and evening commute. We see them giving tourists directions and helping lost children find their parents. They patrol our corridors and insure order and safety in our nation's most important public building. When I think about the choice which Officers Chestnut and Gibson made to serve the public as police officers, I am reminded of what Thucydides once said, ``the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out and meet it.'' As I offer my sympathy to the families of these two fallen heroes, I am also reminded of what the Bible says, ``No greater love has a man, than he lay down his life for another.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This legislation puts the lives and health of women at risk, and it tramples on the constitutional rights of every woman in this Nation. The GOP leadership, unfortunately, has been waging war on abortion rights since taking over this House in 1994. This is the 93rd vote on reproductive rights in less than 4 years; 93 times. The goal is clear: ban every abortion procedure by procedure, month by month. Madam Speaker, we have a different vision. We want to reduce the number of abortions, not by making them illegal, but by empowering women to make healthy choices about their own reproductive health care. Last week, we had a crucial vote in this House on a measure that will help reduce the number of abortions in the United States. That initiative will ensure that Federal employee health plans cover prescription contraceptives. It passed because the American people are tired of these polarizing debates. They want common sense solutions to preventing unintended pregnancy and reducing the number of abortions. Increased access to contraceptive coverage is one such approach; the bill before us, frankly, is not. My good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), and we have worked together on many issues. However, my contraceptive coverage amendment, in my judgment, will prevent more abortions in a week than this bill ever will. It will do so by improving women's health, not by endangering it. I am only sorry that the gentleman from Florida could not join us last week in supporting contraceptive coverage because that is the way that we will really reduce unintended pregnancies and prevent abortions. So let us work together. Let us reduce the number of abortions. But, instead, we are, once again, considering this divisive issue. In fact, this is the sixth time this bill has come before the House. Each of those times, we tried to offer an amendment to the bill to protect the health of the mother, and each time the Republican leadership blocked us. We offered to sit down with the Republican leadership, craft a health exception that we could all accept. The Republican leadership refused. The President will sign this bill if it protects the health of the mother, but the Republican leadership will not even give us a chance to make this change. Let me repeat, the President will sign this bill if it contains an exception to protect the health of the mother, but the GOP leadership refuses to put one in. So the Republicans, unfortunately, would rather debate this issue again and again and again rather than send the President a bill that he could sign. Madam Speaker, this bill is not about reducing abortions. It is about defeating Democrats. This is election-year politics, plain and simple. But do not take my word for it. Leading GOP strategist Ralph Reed called this ``a winning gold-plated issue.'' A winning gold-plated issue. Is that not unfortunate that that is why we are here today. I heard reference in the debate before to liberals. In fact, two of my colleagues, my good friends, refer to people who oppose this ban as liberals. I just want to tell my colleagues, as a woman, that when you are there making this very difficult decision, and we have seen these women come to my offices to discuss the decision that they had to make to preserve their future fertility, they were not making this decision with their family, with their physician, with the member of their clergy, as a Democrat, as a Republican, as a conservative or a liberal. They were making this decision as a woman in distress who had to make a very, very difficult decision. I think it is time for us to stop playing politics with the lives and health of American women. We must ensure that women have access to abortion if their lives and health are endangered. So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whose health would you sacrifice? Which one of us? Which of our daughters is expendable? The health of every woman in this Nation is precious. Each of us, mothers, wives, daughters, is irreplaceable. Women like Tammy Watts, Claudia Addes, Maureen Britel, these women testified before Congress that this procedure protected their lives and health. These women desperately wanted to have children. They had purchased baby clothes. They had picked out names. They did not abort because of a headache. How demeaning to a woman to even consider that that is an option. They did not abort because their prom dresses did not fit. They chose to become mothers and only terminated their pregnancies because of tragic circumstances. So who in this chamber will stand in the operating room and limit their options? Who, at this agonizing moment, will decide? Who will make that difficult decision, the Congress of the United States or the woman, families, physicians, and members of the clergy of America? The courts have been very clear on this point. Bans like this one have been passed in 28 states. Court challenges have been initiated in 20. In 18 state courts, there have been partially or fully enjoined bans on constitutional grounds. The courts have found that these laws ban most safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy. Courts have found that the bans are vague, they fail to protect the health of the mother and they are unconstitutional. The legislation before us is also clearly unconstitutional. I want to conclude by stating that we believe strongly in the right to choose, but we also recognize that rights confer responsibilities as well. No woman terminates a pregnancy casually. No woman makes this decision lightly. Madam Speaker, we have to trust the women of America to exercise this right thoughtfully, deliberately, judiciously, and we must empower them to do so responsibly. We must trust the women of America, not the government. We have to trust the women of America to make this very, very personal choice. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to say no. Put your faith in the women of America, not in this Congress, to make this very, very personal decision. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong support of the Waxman amendment. I do so because passage of this amendment is critical to moving forward on a number of important environmental issues, including a matter close to the hearts of many New Yorkers, cleaning up the Hudson River. Among the many egregious legislative riders tucked into this bill is a provision which would delay cleaning up PCB contamination in the Hudson River, as well as the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Thanks to 30 years of PCB discharges, the upper Hudson River has the distinction of being one of the Nation's largest Superfund sites. Not surprisingly, the upper Hudson River has also been designated as one of the most endangered rivers in the United States by North America's leading river conservation organization, American Rivers. PCB contamination in the Hudson has taken a huge toll on the River's economic recreational and environmental resources. Fish caught throughout 200 miles of the river are contaminated at unsafe levels. As a result, the river's commercial fishery industry, valued at more than $40 million annually in 1976, has been almost completely closed down. In addition, PCBs from the upper Hudson are responsible for about half of the sediment PCB contamination in New York Harbor. This contamination greatly increases the cost of dredging the harbor, which is so critical to the economic vitality of the New York metropolitan region. Most troubling is the threat to public health posed by PCBs. These chemicals have long been regulated as human carcinogens, and scientific evidence continues to mount about PCBs' impact on disease resistance, reproduction and cognitive development. For example, studies of PCBs in the Great Lakes region have shown startling effects on the birth weights, cognitive abilities and emotional stability of children exposed in utero. The EPA has spent years examining the Hudson's PCB contamination in order to develop an appropriate cleanup plan. This process is already years behind schedule, and that is bad enough. We certainly do not need more delay, but that is just what this bill will do, and that is why I urge support of the Waxman amendment, so that the long awaited cleanup of the Hudson can move forward.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like again to say to my distinguished chairman that we understand the complexity of the Hudson. It has already been delayed an additional 18 months, after many years of delay, but it is my understanding from Carol Browner that there are areas, such as the Housatonic, which could move forward, could be an important demonstration, so we can make an appropriate decision as to what to do with the Hudson, understanding the complexities, and this report language would just delay further.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to remind my colleagues that I began working on this issue when I was at the Department of State in the 1970s. EPA has delayed this and delayed this decision. We are concerned. As I said, the decision has been delayed and delayed because of the complexity of the issue. As I understand it, the decision has just been delayed 18 months again, will not be completed, and the decision will not be made until after the year 2000. There is great concern from Carol Browner that this language would then delay it even further. So for many of us who are concerned about this issue, who respect the complexity of the decision, we feel after this report has been filed, it is time to move forward, based on the scientific evidence and make an appropriate decision.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to say to the Chairman, having worked on this issue since the 1970s when there were many, many different heads of EPA, I am aware of the complexity of this issue. There have been serious debates on whether dredging or remediation or covering the PCBs is the best method to move forward. However, as I understand it, the report was completed last year, reading from a letter from the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Browner, and there are areas, such as in the Housatonic, smaller areas, where they could move forward on the dredging. However, there is concern, and I would appreciate any further elaboration, that this language does hold up that process. Because of the complexities of a river such as the Hudson, they are still determining which is the best method, and I believe that study will not be completed until the year 2000.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I yield for that purpose. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 324] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berman Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Bryant Bunning Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Costello Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Ensign Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fazio Filner Foley Forbes Fossella Fox Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Furse Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayworth Hefley Hefner Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (WI) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kilpatrick Kim Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Latham Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manton Manzullo Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHale McHugh McInnis McIntosh McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Miller (FL) Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moran (KS) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Packard Pallone Pappas Parker Pascrell Pastor Paul Paxon Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Poshard Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Redmond Regula Reyes Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Ryun Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaefer, Dan Schaffer, Bob Schumer Scott Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Shimkus Sisisky Skaggs Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Smith, Adam Smith, Linda Snowbarger Snyder Solomon Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stearns Stenholm Stokes Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Talent Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thompson Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Towns Traficant Turner Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand White Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wynn Yates Young (AK)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the bill. Because this legislation, my colleagues, puts the lives and health of women at risk and it tramples on the constitutional right of every woman in this Nation. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership has been waging war on abortion rights since taking over this House in 1994. This is the 93rd vote on reproductive rights in less than 4 years. 93 times. The goal is clear, ban every abortion procedure by procedure, month after month. Madam Speaker, we have a different vision.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA. Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music Foundation. This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take their responsibilities to U.S. 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. Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one- hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. 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 tragic commentary on our priorities that year after year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance companies and their audiences across the country. But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is an outrage--and it must be defeated.