Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify this with the facts. Ten percent of the Federal employee health benefit plans currently do not cover any method of contraception, ten percent. Eighty-one percent of the plans cover some of the methods. I do not know when the gentleman last had to deal with that issue, but for some women the pill is better than other procedures such as the IUD or diaphragm. It is not up to us to tell that woman which method is better. So I think it is important to know that 81 percent of the plans do not cover all five of the established methods. Only 1 percent of the plans, I think this is important, do not cover sterilization. I think we owe it to women to give them a broader range of options. I think it is also important to know that when we are talking about contraception we are not talking about RU-486. So what we are trying to say here with regard to contraception is that the Federal Government should be the model employer. When it comes to private insurance plans, only 50 percent currently cover all five methods of contraception. So, in conclusion, I think it is very unreasonable, if we are saying to the American people that we are really trying to reduce unintended pregnancies, not to cover the cost of contraception, when women's costs are 68 percent higher than males', and, in fact, contraception is basic health care for women. In this bill, to vote not to cover abortion is your right, but then it seems to me the height of hypocrisy not to cover contraception.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that this provision is being removed from the bill. It is shameful and outrageous that the Republican leadership will not allow an open and honest debate on the issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful and outrageous that over a million women covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program will not be covered for the payment of contraception.

Mrs. LOWEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. That the American people who are listening to this debate have to understand that this Congress wants to tell women that all forms of contraception are abortifacients and they cannot be considered. I would like to make that point again. The majority of American women do support the use of contraceptives. These are very personal decisions, we understand that, and each person has to make it for themselves. But the majority of American women understands that. Now, it seems to me from this discussion, that the gentleman from New Jersey is saying to every woman who may take a birth control pill or use another one of the five accepted methods of contraception that they are abortionists.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can make it clear, I think it is very important, my colleagues, that we realize what the gentleman is attempting to achieve with this amendment. He is stating that there is no form of contraception that may not be considered an abortifacient and, therefore, the American women have to understand----

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make it clear to my colleague that the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears to me from your statement, is trying to make every method of contraception an abortifacient; is that correct?

Mrs. LOWEY. If I may reclaim my time, could the gentleman explain whether this includes the pill?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Then the question concerning preserving State laws is not really one of the valid arguments. The second question I have is, the gentleman was talking about a judicial bypass. Does the gentleman actually admit to this group that a grandmother, a loving aunt, a loving cousin, a sibling could be subject to penalty if they help this woman? I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, could he clarify for me whether a loving grandmother, an aunt or a sibling would be subject to penalty if this young woman in her hour of need wants to go to a loving family member, if, in fact, because the parent might be a drug addict or might be abusive or might have abused her, if that young woman decided she could not go to the parent, would that relative, dear friend or family be subject to these penalties?

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, we have heard a considerable amount of concern from our friends on the other side of the aisle about older predator males smuggling or forcing young women across State lines for an abortion. We share that concern. States must do a better job of enforcing the statutory rape laws, and we must make it clear to older men that if they have sex with underage women, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. We must also ensure that women are not being forced or coerced to cross State lines to obtain an abortion. We support the right to choose, and we must guarantee that every woman can exercise that right free from harm, threats or intimidation. Our motion to recommit will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to report back a substitute that will make it illegal to force or coerce a woman across State lines so that she can obtain an abortion. The substitute also strengthens the underlying bill's criminal penalties by sentencing violators to 5 years in jail. This amendment gets at the heart of what the underlying bill was trying to do, deter and punish those who intentionally try to evade parental laws and force young women to have abortions without the proper consent or notification requirements having been met. H.R. 3682, as currently written, is far too overbroad. As we have seen, it would have the effect of criminalizing grandparents and close family relatives who are in many cases a young woman's only family and only source of support in times of crisis. H.R. 3682, as currently written, would lead to back-alley abortions and increase family violence, particularly for young women who have nowhere to turn and no one to help them at a critical time in their lives. Surely, we want to strengthen family ties, not damage them. H.R. 3682 is a bad bill. It will put our children at risk. It will throw our grandmothers in jail. Let us really do something about sexual predators by voting for the motion to recommit.

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker. The real problem here is that a young woman who is in need of assistance is going to have the person with whom she wants to confide subject to a penalty; thrown into jail. This just does not make sense at all. I urge my colleagues to join with me in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Let us work and reach out to our young people, encourage abstinence, encourage responsibility, but in their time of greatest need, let us not throw them in jail. Let us not throw their relative in jail. In fact, at 6 o'clock today I challenge my colleagues to join us and vote against a rule that prohibits coverage of contraceptives. One of the gentlemen who spoke earlier today voted against coverage of contraception. He is against abortion, he is against contraception. This is 1998. Let us work together to reduce unintended pregnancies, prevent unwanted, unwanted and unloved pregnancies, and let us move on and work together. This bill does not make sense at all. Let us not throw granny in jail, let us not throw the aunts, the relatives in jail, let us defeat this bill.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, we have heard a lot today about love, parental responsibility, family values. Oh, I wish we could legislate those values here in this Congress but, unfortunately, we cannot. As a mother of three, as a grandmother of two, as many of my colleagues said, we hope and pray that our children will confide in us, speak to us when serious challenges face them in their lives. Not every family is Ozzie and Harriet. There are many young people who do not feel that they have parents they can confide in. Maybe they are lucky. Maybe they have a grandmother they can talk to in their hour of crisis. Maybe they have an aunt. Maybe they have a sibling that they can confide in. Yet in this bill we are going to say to that young woman in her moment of greatest need, when she has to make a very, very difficult decision, ``Don't go to your grandmother. Don't go to your aunt. Don't go to your dear friend.'' And we are saying, ``It's okay to go to a judge.'' And in 12 minutes that judge is going to make this decision. Twelve minutes. Let me tell my colleagues something. First of all, there are five States that do not even have a judicial bypass. Five States that do not have a judicial bypass. And some judges have never granted this authority. We have facts. This is a fact.

Mrs. LOWEY. So you are not interested in protecting State laws.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman from Florida two questions. Firstly, he was talking about protecting State laws. I wanted to question the gentleman and wondered if he would protect New York State's gun laws as well. For example, Florida has no gun laws. Could we work together to make sure that the gun laws in New York are enforced if a person goes to Florida? That is the first question. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill. 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 cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from any responsible adult. Thankfully, most young women, more than 75 percent of minors under age 16, already involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion, and that is the good news. But not every child is so lucky. Not every child has loving parents. Now, I believe that those young women who cannot go to their parents should be encouraged to involve another responsible adult, a grandmother or an aunt, in this difficult decision. Already more than half of all young women who do not involve a parent in the decision to terminate a pregnancy choose to involve another adult, including 15 percent who involve another adult relative, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, this bill will impose criminal penalties on adults like grandmothers who come to the aid of their granddaughters. We have tried to address this problem at the Committee on Rules by exempting close family relatives from criminal liability under the bill, but that amendment was denied. As a result, this bill will throw grandmothers in jail for assisting their granddaughters. Mr. Speaker, I am a grandmother of two, and I believe grandparents should be able to help their grandchildren without the risk of being thrown in jail. Unfortunately, this legislation would criminalize that involvement. And so this bill tells young women who cannot tell their parents, ``Don't tell anyone else. Don't tell your grandmother. Don't tell an aunt. No one can help you. You are on your own.'' Let me give you one tragic example. Ten years ago Becky Bell was 17. Unfortunately, she became pregnant. Hoping to keep the pregnancy from her parents, she went to a local Planned Parenthood clinic. They told her that under Indiana law, if she wanted an abortion, she would have to obtain her parents' permission or ask a judge for a waiver. Well, Becky was ashamed to tell her parents and said, ``If I can't tell my mom and dad, how can I tell a judge, who doesn't even know me?'' So Becky obtained an illegal back-alley abortion, an illegal, unsafe abortion that killed her. Parental consent laws did not force Becky to involve her parents in her hour of need. Just the opposite. At her most desperate hour, Indiana's parental consent law drove Becky away from the arms of her parents and straight into the back alley. Mr. Speaker, parental consent laws do not protect our daughters, they kill them. They do not bring families together, they tear them apart. And so I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), how many young women like Becky Bell will lose their lives because of this legislation? How many more of our daughters will be killed by these misguided laws? Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less necessary for teenagers, not more dangerous and difficult. We need to encourage 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. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. As my colleagues know, this rule leaves unprotected the Lowey contraceptive coverage language in the bill, language which provides that Federal employees must have their contraceptives prescriptions covered if, in fact, other prescription drugs are covered. This language passed in the full Committee on Appropriations with support from Democrats and Republicans, prolife and prochoice Members, but the Committee on Rules has denied Members a chance to have a debate and a vote on this critical issue and on the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) which will give religiously-based plans an opt-out from covering the plans of contraceptives if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. We have had vote after vote after vote on legislation that would restrict women's access to abortion, but we are not allowed to have even one vote on improving women's access to contraception, which will prevent abortion. The rule we are considering is a clear infringement on the rights of Members to offer amendments in the House, and it is a slap in the face, frankly, to more than 1 million American women who are covered by the Federal Health Benefits Plan who stand to benefit if Federal health benefit plans that cover prescription drugs are required then to cover contraceptives as well. Why is this language so important? We are all in agreement that we want to reduce the number of abortions. Close to half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortions, and although all but one of the FEHBP plans cover sterilization, all but one cover sterilization, only 10 percent cover the five most basic, widely-used forms of contraception, and over 80 percent of the plans do not cover all five methods. Contraception, my colleagues, is basic health care for women. It allows couples to plan families and have healthier babies when they choose to conceive, and it makes abortion less necessary, which is a goal we all share. Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more in out-of- pocket health costs than men, and part of the reason for this gender gap in health care costs is the failure of health plans to cover contraception. Plans refuse to cover contraceptives because they know that this is a necessity for women and that if forced to, women will pay for it themselves. On average, women using the pill pay $25 a month, that is $300 a year for their prescriptions. It is important to understand, my colleagues, what we are talking about when we talk about contraceptive methods. We are not talking about abortion, we are not talking about RU 486 or any abortion method. No abortions will be covered by this amendment. We are talking about the range of contraceptive options that women need, including the five most popular methods, the oral contraceptive pill, the diaphragm, the IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant. It is crucial that plans cover the full range of choices because some methods do not work for some women. For example, many women cannot use any of the hormone-based methods such as the oral contraceptive pill because it causes migraines or because they have been advised not to because it may increase their risk of stroke or any other reason that is peculiar to them and the advice from their physician. Now, some of my colleagues may think that we should not be telling FEHBP plans what they have to cover, that this is an insurance mandate. Let us be clear. This is not a mandate on private plans. What we are discussing here is what the United States as an employer should provide to its employee. The United States Government should be a model for other employers. There was strong support for this provision in the Committee on Appropriations. It has the support of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe); it has the support of several prolife Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations, and, in fact, a myriad of health groups support the provision, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is also supported by the AFL-CIO, the AFGE. Let me say in closing that a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis determined that this improved coverage for Federal employees would not have any impact on the budget totals for fiscal year 1999, no budgetary impact for fiscal year 1999. This issue is absolutely essential. I would hope that the Congress could come together to support contraceptive coverage and defeat this rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating it. This bill is dangerous; and, as we have heard from so many of our colleagues, the Committee on Rules has refused to allow us to propose even the most reasonable changes to it. This bill will put our daughters at risk. 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 any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek dangerous back-alley abortions close to home. Others will travel alone to unfamiliar places for abortions. This measure will isolate young women, not protect them. And, unfortunately, despite a veto threat from the White House, the Committee on Rules has prohibited us from offering even one amendment to make the bill better. The President has said he will sign the bill if it is altered, but, once again, the GOP leadership has demonstrated that it would rather have an election-year issue than a bill. One of our principal objections to the legislation is that it will subject grandmothers and siblings and other close relatives to criminal prosecution for coming to the aid of a relative in distress. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) went to the Committee on Rules to address this issue. Her amendment would have exempted grandparents and other close relatives from criminal prosecution under this bill. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules; and so under this legislation grandmothers will be jailed for helping their granddaughters, aunts imprisoned for assisting their nieces, brothers for aiding their sisters, all in the name of so-called family values. What will the police do? Set up granny checkpoints to catch grandmothers helping their granddaughters? Will we have dogs and searchlights at State borders to lock up aunts and uncles? Mr. Speaker, I am a grandmother of two, and I believe grandparents should be able to help their grandchildren without getting thrown in jail. As much as we wish otherwise, family communication, open and honest parent-child relationships, just cannot be legislated. When a young woman for many reasons cannot turn to their parents, she should certainly be able to turn to a grandmother, or a favorite aunt, or a relative. Democrats made other efforts to improve the legislation. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) offered an amendment to add a health exception to the bill. His amendment would have allowed a relative to accompany a young woman for an abortion if the young woman's health was endangered. Demonstrating its ``high'' regard for women's health, the Committee on Rules rejected that amendment as well. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less necessary for teenagers, not more dangerous and difficult. We need to encourage teenagers to be abstinent and responsible. We need a comprehensive approach to keeping teenagers safe and healthy. We need to encourage family involvement, not tear families apart. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I would just like to respond to some comments of a good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). We have heard a lot of talk today about States rights, and the Republican Party is the party, say they are the party, of States rights. And yet, here they are supporting legislation that tramples all over States rights. The bill will grant the Federal Government brand new authority to enforce State law. It interferes with the rights of citizens to travel between States by saddling a young woman with the laws of her home State no matter where she goes. I wonder if the gentleman from Florida might be as willing to apply this novel approach to other areas of the law like gun control. For example, in New York we have very tough, sensible restrictions on gun ownership. His State of Florida has very weak gun control laws. Would the gentleman support legislation that applied New York's gun control laws to New Yorkers seeking to purchase guns in Florida? We have heard a lot of talk about States rights, but I wonder if the gentleman would respond or if someone else would respond whether our tough New York gun control laws could be enforced in the State of Florida, for example. If we are really for States rights, let us think about that.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma if the application for RU-486 did not include the terms in the gentleman's amendment, how would the gentleman require the FDA to rule?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman for further clarification?

Mrs. LOWEY. But then, if I can further ask for clarification again, if the application is submitted to the FDA without the specific term ``chemical inducement of abortion'' as its stated purpose, would the amendment apply?

Mrs. LOWEY. So, if the gentleman would clarify once more for me, if the application does not include the specific term ``chemical inducement of abortion,'' what would the gentleman expect the department to do?