Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's amendment mean that if the application is submitted to FDA without the term, without the term ``chemical inducement of abortion'' as its stated purpose, would the amendment apply?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for the purpose of a question?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, based on the gentleman's interpretation that unless the application for RU-486 contains the worlds ``chemical induced abortion,'' the prohibition would not apply, I would withdraw my point of order.

Mrs. LOWEY. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman, with my point of order?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Schumer amendment to reform the Federal sugar program. As my colleague from Florida just said, the sugar program is costing jobs in New York and around the country. In Yonkers, New York, the Refined Sugar Inc. sugar refinery is hanging on by a thread because of this program. There are over 300 of my constituents' jobs at stake at Refined Sugar. And just down the road from Refined Sugar is the Domino Sugar plant in Brooklyn, which is facing the same dire consequences as a result of this program. At Domino 450 jobs are at stake. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this grossly outdated program should be eliminated. Our Federal agriculture policy was never intended to benefit a few privileged growers at the expense of 250 million American consumers. It is time for each Member of Congress to decide who deserves our support, a few wealthy sugar barons or 250 million American consumers. The answer is clear, Mr. Chairman. It is time to end the sugar program.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Coburn amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House prohibiting authorization on an appropriations bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI a provision is authorizing in nature if it imposes a new duty on a Federal employee. The Coburn amendment does just this by prohibiting the Food and Drug Administration from expending any funds on an activity for which it does not have a definition. Quote: ``Drug for the chemical inducement of abortion,'' as the Coburn amendment is written, is not a term of art that is legally recognized by the FDA. I have a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, and will ask that it appear in the Record, stating that the term is one that is not recognized by the agency and would require interpretation. Requiring the agency to define this term unto the Coburn amendment means imposing a new duty on a Federal official. This is clearly authorizing language. Mr. Chairman, the memo goes on to say, and I quote: Under the statute's drug-approval scheme, sponsors propose to the Food and Drug Administration particular medical indications for which they seek to conduct research. Sponsors then seek FDA approval to market the drug for those proposed indications that the research demonstrates that the drug is safe and effective for these indication. Since sponsors are free to propose any medical indication for their drugs and are unlikely to propose this precise language under this amendment, FDA would need to interpret each of these terms in the amendment in this context, chemical inducement and abortion, none of which are defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and evaluate whether the proposed indication was subjected to the restriction. I have a letter from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) the former chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, agreeing with the assessment that the Coburn amendment is authorizing in nature, and I will ask that this letter be included in the Record as well. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chair to sustain a point of order against this amendment. It is a clear violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House. One more point. The duty is they have to make a determination even if the exact words of the application are different from those in the gentleman's amendment. The FDA needs to determine the meaning of the applicant's words, and I would suggest that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has conceded this point, and I thank the Chair, and again I ask the Chair to sustain a point of order against this amendment. It is a clear violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, correct; or I am asking the gentleman, let us say if RU-486 did not apply for the application, would those terms expressed in the gentleman's amendment, how would the gentleman expect under his amendment the FDA to rule?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman a question.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Coburn amendment would stop the drug approval process in its tracks by placing unprecedented roadblocks in front of the FDA. It puts ideology ahead of science and compromises women's health. This amendment would block final approval of a drug, RU-486, that the FDA has already declared to be safe and effective. I repeat, this amendment would block final approval of a drug that the FDA has already declared safe and effective when it is issued on approval letter for the drug. This amendment would make FDA drug approval contingent not on science, but on politics. The FDA is charged with protecting the public's health, and they should not be subject to congressional interference. Mr. Chairman, let us allow the FDA to do its job free from right wing intimidation. The American people do not want the Christian Coalition in charge of our Nation's drug approval process. The amendment specifically bars the FDA from approving any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. But what does that term mean? The FDA does not know. I have a letter here from their chief counsel that says they have no idea what it means. Doctors and scientists do not know what that phrase means either. So in addition to stopping RU-486, this broad, vague amendment may also prohibit the development of new contraceptive methods, if you believe, as some do, that any form of hormonal contraception, like the pill, is tantamount to abortion. What about other drugs that as a side effect may induce abortion, like many chemotherapy drugs and anti-ulcer medication? Will research be halted on these lifesaving drugs as well? This amendment may also prevent the FDA from preventing unsafe and unsupervised clinical trials. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about much more than RU-486; it is about whether the FDA will be free to test, develop and improve important medications without Congressional interference. It is about whether politics or science will govern our Nation's drug approval process. This amendment would tie the FDA's hands, rendering it absolutely helpless in its primary task to evaluate scientific data consistent with its mandate to protect the public health. Since Roe v. Wade, unfortunately, the anti-choice minority has attempted to stymie contraceptive research and suppress advances in reproductive health. For example, there used to be 13 pharmaceutical companies engaged in contraceptive research. There are now four. Thankfully, despite the right wing's pressure tactics, scientists have made some important progress. Among the most significant is the development of RU-486. RU-486 would make a dramatic difference in the options available to women facing unwanted pregnancies. It could make abortion, already one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States, even safer. The drug would eliminate the need for surgery for women choosing to use it. This would present tremendous health benefits for some women. RU-486 is also effective early in pregnancy. Women in France have been using RU-486 for a decade, and it is also available in Sweden and Great Britain. Over 400,000 women have had abortions using RU-486. The New England Medical Journal recently published clinical trials on RU-486 confirming its acceptability and effectiveness. RU-486 is safe and effective. Mr. Chairman, RU-486 has another significant advantage over current abortion procedures. RU-486 can be given in the privacy of a physician's office, away from clinics blockaded by protestors, away from violence, harassment and intimidation. This change would give women greater freedom and security. This is a fact that terrifies so many. What will the radical right do when RU-486 is approved? Will it picket every doctor's office in America? Will it harass every woman in the Nation? Thankfully, it cannot, and that is why it is fighting so hard to block the approval of this drug. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) wants to turn the clock back, back on scientific advances, back all the way to the back-alley in the days of the wire hanger, back to the days when thousands of women died every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. Well, we have news for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We will not go back.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, the ranking member of this committee was so eloquent and she has done such a fine job on this bill.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a point to the gentleman. The New England Journal of Medicine and the FDA has declared this safe and effective. Again, a Member of Congress should not be making this determination. I just wanted to make one additional point. It seems to me many of us reluctantly have been debating on this floor over and over again for the past few years about late-term abortions, and how dangerous and how inappropriate late-term abortions are. RU-486 is effective and can be a choice of women early on in pregnancy. Again, it is the choice of a woman. It is up to the FDA to determine if it is safe. The FDA has said that it is safe and effective, as has the New England Journal of Medicine.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman that as a Jewish woman and one who knows many survivors of the Holocaust, I personally resent the comparison of this amendment to the Holocaust and the evils of the extermination that took place during that tragic time that we have to learn from and not make comparisons that perhaps are very inappropriate.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) that I am a mother of three and a grandmother of two, and, frankly, I am sick and tired of debating abortion on this floor in the House of Representatives. Restriction after restriction, ban after ban, amendment after amendment. Enough. If one really wants to reduce the number of abortions, work with us to increase funds for family planning, work with us to ensure that women have access to prescription contraceptives. I have been working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to reduce the number of abortions. We need to make abortions less necessary, not more dangerous. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that this amendment is being offered to an otherwise outstanding bill. Congress should not be ordering the FDA to suppress a drug that is safe and effective. This amendment flies in the face of sound science. It puts women's health in jeopardy, it sets a dangerous precedent, and it should be defeated.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which implements the first step in the Shays-Lowey peanut program elimination bill. The peanut program epitomizes wasteful, inefficient government spending. It supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 million American consumers and taxpayers. This outdated program is based on a system reminiscent of feudal society. Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation to generation, and two-thirds of the quota owners don't even grow peanuts themselves. The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut prices to consumers. And what does this mean to average American families? Well, as a mom who sent her three kids to school with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for years, I find it unacceptable that this program forces American families to pay an average of 33 cents more for an 18 ounce jar of peanut butter. That's not peanuts! This amendment is also good for American jobs. Because the price of peanuts in the U.S. is so high, peanut butter and candy bar manufacturers are leaving the U.S. to open up plants in Canada and Mexico. The peanuts can be purchased there at the world market price-- half the U.S. price--and the finished product can be brought into the U.S. and sold here. We must lower the artificially high price of domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers and support this amendment. It is good fiscal and consumer policy.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our leader on this important issue, for yielding me this time. And I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and in support of the school modernization motion. My colleagues, just come visit some of the schools in our communities. The classrooms are overflowing and the students are trying to learn in hallways. Is Congress addressing this crisis? No. The leadership of this Congress has chosen, instead, to push through a flawed bill that will please their favorite special interests but do practically nothing for the majority of American families. The solution is not an arcane tax change, it is investing in education. Last year, 120 Members of this Congress showed their commitment to America's children by cosponsoring the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools. This session we have a similar proposal, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I and others introduced, called the Public School Modernization Act. Our program will make interest-free loans available to school districts across the country through the Tax Code. Under the bill, school districts will be able to issue special bonds at no interest to fund the construction or renovation of school buildings, and the Federal Government will pay the interest on these bonds. My colleagues, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical conditions of our schools any longer. The GAO found that $112 billion is needed nationwide to just bring our schools into adequate condition. Rural, suburban and urban districts all face serious problems. It is common sense. Children cannot learn in severely overcrowded schools and when classroom walls are falling down around them. In New York, where the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I come from, a survey my office conducted found that 25 percent, one in four, of New York City public schools hold classes in bathrooms, locker rooms, hallways, cafeterias and storage areas. Almost half of our school buildings have roofs, floors and walls in need of repair. A report by the New York City Commission on School Facilities revealed some startling realities: nearly half of the City's school children are taught in severely overcrowded classrooms. Two hundred and seventy schools need new roofs. Over half of the City's schools are more than 55 years old, and approximately one-fourth still use coal burning boilers. Quite recently, Congress overwhelmingly passed a $200 billion bill to build and maintain our nation's highways. I support this investment. But shouldn't we also be investing in the future of our children? Regrettably, the Republican leadership has time and time again refused to support efforts to rebuild our schools. This bill is the wrong approach. Investing in our schools is the right one. Support the school modernization motion. It is time that we come to the aid of our schools and our children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and support the motion to recommit.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of this amendment, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking minority member on the committee, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for their work on this important issue. I rise in strong support of the Conyers amendment. My colleagues, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act is a good bill. The Conyers amendment will make it even better. Domestic violence strikes every 15 seconds in our Nation. Six million women are battered every year, 4,000 of them battered to death. These figures are absolutely unacceptable. We must ensure that every American household is free from the scourge of violence. Mr. Chairman, for too long, our Nation turned a blind eye towards domestic violence. Thankfully that has begun to change. In 1994, this Congress took a significant step forward in the war against domestic violence by passing the Violence Against Women Act. The amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member today will build on this landmark legislation by giving law enforcement additional resources to fight violence against women. The Conyers amendment, which includes provisions contained in recently introduced Violence Against Women Act II will help protect women and their children by encouraging local communities to initiate pro-arrest policies by educating prosecutors, judges, and medical professions about domestic violence and by shielding victims from further abuse. It will keep children safe by allowing States to refuse to recognize a custody order from another State if evidence of domestic violence or sexual assault was overlooked in the custody decision. It will improve the way we investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that this House will also pass the other important provisions in the Violence Against Women Act II this year, provisions that would increase resources to battered women's shelters, encourage employers to establish antiviolence protections at work, improve student safety, expand prosecution for hate crimes, and increase domestic violence victims' access to legal services. Once again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership on this amendment. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) with whom I have worked on this issue for a very long time, and we have had some very important results. I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and all my colleagues who have been leaders and understand the importance of domestic violence reform.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an extraordinary journalist, Nancy Q. Keefe, who is retiring in July after 22 years with Gannett Suburban Newspapers. Ms. Keefe is being honored on June 18 by the American Jewish Committee Westchester Chapter with their Distinguished Community Relations Award for her work as a columnist and ``community voice of conscience.'' Nancy Q. Keefe was editorial page editor of the Gannett Suburban Newspapers from 1984-1989 and then became a columnist. She consistently wrote with unusual clarity and style about people, issues and events, often on topics that few others dared to tackle. During her stint as editorial page editor, she wrote editorials and columns favoring a program of transitional housing for homeless people. In appreciation, the WestHELP organization named its Mount Vernon housing complex, the first in Westchester County, for her. As a Roman Catholic and member of an interfaith group, she traveled to Israel in the spring of 1993 on a trip arranged through Project Interchange of the American Jewish Committee. She wrote about the experience for the newspapers. She graduated from the College of New Rochelle in 1956 and received her master's degree from the Graduate School of Journalism in 1958. In 1981, the College of New Rochelle awarded her the Angela Merici Medal, its highest alumnae honor for service to college, church and community. In 1991, Nancy Q. Keefe was named to the Westchester County/Avon Women's Hall of Fame, cited for being ``the conscience of our community.'' She was born in Pittsfield, Mass., Nov. 20, 1934, the daughter of John Gorman Quirk and Ann O'Laughlin Quirk. She began her newspaper career at The Berkshire Eagle in Pittsfield and then worked at the old World-Telegram & Sun in New York City. She and her husband, Kevin Keefe, live in Larchmont, N.Y. They have three children and three grandchildren. For her unfailing courage, commitment to the truth and dedication to improving the lives of all in our community, Nancy Q. Keefe deserves our heartfelt thanks and congratulations. We wish her good health and happiness in her retirement from Gannett, but hope that she will continue the writing that has informed, inspired and even incited us to action for so many years.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt substitute. Let's be honest: the Republican budget resolution is a political document that fails even the most basic test of mathematics and fiscal reality. Its authors know it, I know it, we all know it. Even their party's most respected budget expert in the Senate, Senator Domenici, called this GOP budget ``a mockery.'' The National Conference on State Legislators, the National League of Cities, and many Governors--of both parties--have also expressed their opposition to the resolution. Instead of keeping faith with last year's Balanced Budget Agreement, the Republican leadership's budget requires cuts in domestic programs that are so draconian that its authors don't even have the courage to tell the American people what they are. What we do know is that $100 billion dollars--in addition to the reductions adopted last year--would have to be cut from Medicare, Medicaid, education, environment, veterans and other domestic programs over the next five years. As has been the case time and time again, these budget cuts will hurt low- and moderate-income working--and tax-paying--families the hardest. If this budget is adopted, it also will force us to turn a blind eye to serious national problems such as crumbling and overcrowded schools. Because of the restrictive rule governing this debate, the only responsible budget plan before us is this substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. This resolution keeps faith with last year's bipartisan budget agreement, includes $30 billion in carefully targeted tax cuts, and will provide funding to fix school buildings, provide affordable child care, hire 75,000 new teachers, and boost investments in medical research. It also protects Americans' retirement income by reserving all budget surpluses for Social Security until a long-term plan for preserving Social Security is adopted. For the sake of our children, our veterans, and the future of our Nation, I urge support of the Spratt substitute and opposition to the underlying bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this constitutional amendment. Freedom of religion and freedom from religious coercion has been at the core of American democracy for over 200 years. I believe that the first amendment has served all of us of every religion extremely well. The separation of church and State does not require the separation of spiritual values from secular affairs. In fact, I believe strongly that private morality and public conscience must guide the formation of our Nation's public policy. But no one individual or individual religion may be permitted to impose one set of religious beliefs on the rest of us. The American people do not want this Congress telling them how and when to pray. In fact, this amendment is entirely unnecessary. Although the Supreme Court has upheld the separation of church and State, the Court has also clearly stated that all American citizens are free to exercise their religious beliefs in public schools. In the words of President Clinton: Schools are not religion-free zones. Students can pray privately and individually whenever they wish. They can say grace before lunch. They can form religious clubs and those clubs can and should be treated like any other extracurricular activity. And students reading to themselves have every right to read the Bible or any other religious text they want. So what would this amendment change? Well, it could allow public tax dollars to be spent on religious schools, shifting scarce resources from public schools and setting up competition among faiths. It would allow mandatory prayers in schools, and it could allow a local school board to endorse certain religious traditions and ignore others. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason this amendment is opposed by most of the churches, synagogues, and religious organizations in the United States, including the National Council of the Churches of Christ, the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee and the Presbyterian Church of the USA. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as a woman of the Jewish faith, my personal religion and the right to pray is important to me and my family and that is why I oppose this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I hereby offer congratulations to the Columbia University School of Social Work, the oldest social work training program in the nation, on the occasion of its Centennial. From its beginnings as a summer program organized by the Charity Organization Society of New York, the School of Social Work has had a long and distinguished history of pioneering research, informed advocacy and exceptional professional training. Social workers have played key roles in every major social reform movement that has taken place in our nation--from settlement houses to labor reform, to the New Deal, to civil rights and voter registration. Many of the laws we take for granted today--Social Security, child labor restrictions, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, Medicare-- came about because social workers saw injustice and helped to inspire the country to take action. Throughout the 20th century, Columbia's faculty, students and alumni have worked tirelessly to address both the causes and symptoms of our most pressing social problems. National movements, such as the White House Conference on Children and the National Urban League, have emerged from projects undertaken by the School's faculty and administration in cooperation with professional and community organizations. The entire nation has benefited from the work of people like Eveline Burns (Social Security); Mitchell I. Ginsberg (Head Start); Richard Cloward (welfare rights and voter registration); Alfred Kahn and Sheila B. Kamerman (cross-national studies of social services) and David Fanshel (children in foster care). As Columbia University School of Social Work, and the social work profession as a whole move into their second centuries, they will be challenged to respond to ongoing social changes and new social problems. Now more than ever, we will need well-trained and dedicated social workers to work with troubled children and families, organize communities for change, conduct cutting edge research, administer social programs, and alleviate society's most intractable problems. It is with appreciation and admiration that I extend my best wishes to the Columbia University School of Social Work on its Centennial and look forward to its future achievements.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today marks a major achievement in providing the developments that are needed in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking minority member on the committee, and in New York and in communities across the United States our highways, bridges, transit systems will be far better off because of this bill. That is the good news. The bad news is that this bill does not go nearly far enough in making the streets safer from the horrible tragedy of drunk driving, a crime that claims more than 16,000 Americans, and injures countless more every year. First, let me say that I am very pleased that this bill contains provisions to encourage States to crack down on repeat drunk drivers. Too often, convicted drunk drivers find their way right back behind the wheel of a car to commit their crime again. I introduced repeat offender legislation last year after the tragic death of my constituent, Burton Greene, and I am pleased that Congress is finally taking action in this area. As many of my colleagues know, however, I had also hoped that the conference report would contain the Senate-passed provision to ensure that the United States, like other industrialized nations, adopt a national uniform DWI standard of .08 blood alcohol content. Regrettably, this Chamber was silenced by the Republican leadership from voting on that lifesaving measure last month. Even though the .08 provision enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the Republican leadership did bow to pressure from the powerful liquor lobby and bottled the bill up in the Committee on Rules, and killed it in the conference. This outcome was an outrage, but not a surprise. Mothers Against Drunk Driving have big hearts but small wallets. On this bill, it came down to a battle between big hearts and deep pockets, and the deep pockets won. The liquor lobby pays a lot for the privilege of writing our Nation's drunken driving laws, and today, unfortunately, they got what they paid for. So here we are today with a compromise of a targeted incentive program to encourage states to adopt the .08 standard. While the measure is better than current law, history tells us that incentives alone will not be enough to match the power of the alcohol industry in state houses across the country. On behalf of the mad Moms and mad Dads of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and all the medical and law enforcement experts who lobbied on behalf of .08, I want to make clear that this is not the end. This is not the last time Congress will consider the .08 issue. We will be back, and we will continue to fight to make .08 the law of the land. We will continue to insist that our Nation's drunk driving laws are written by medical and safety experts-- not the liquor lobby.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my former co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remark to the gentleman that the military does have a conscience clause. No doctor has to perform this procedure if it is against their own views. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).