Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and I are pleased to offer an amendment today on behalf of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who unfortunately cannot be here. The Lowey-Harman- Morella amendment would give military women access to the health care they need and deserve. Our amendment will repeal a provision of law which prevents servicewomen and female dependents of servicemen from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and risk their lives in defending our country. They should not also have to sacrifice their health, their safety and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. I want to make sure that every Member of Congress knows that the Department of Defense itself is opposed to the current policy. Our amendment is first and foremost about protecting women's health. Local facilities and foreign nations are often not equipped to perform abortions safely and medical safety and medical standards are often far lower than those in the United States. A woman forced to seek an abortion at local facilities or forced to wait to travel to acquire safe abortion services faces tremendous health risks. Do we really want American servicewomen overseas seeking back-alley abortions on their own in a foreign country? This amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 to 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996, giving women in the military who are stationed overseas the same rights as military women in their own country: the right to purchase a safe and legal abortion with their own private money. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade. This bill penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose. I urge my colleagues, consider the irony of the United States military, the greatest and most powerful in the world, denying overseas servicewomen and servicemen and their families the rights and freedoms we are so justifiably proud of at home. I urge support for the Lowey-Harman-Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have spoken and supported the Lowey-Harman-Morella amendment. Let me reiterate, this amendment is not an issue of taxpayer-funded abortions. Under the amendment, the patient, not the government, would pay for the procedure. I close the debate by reminding Members that our American servicewomen take very seriously their duty to protect the constitutional rights of all United States citizens. Yet, we deny them time and time again the rights we extend to women on U.S. soil. It is time to stop the hypocrisy. The right to choose gives women the right to make this personal decision. Vote for the Lowey-Harman-Morella amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Food Allergy Awareness Week. My colleagues, 5 to 8 million Americans suffer from food allergies. Five percent of all children are food allergic and hundreds of Americans die every year from food allergies. And the number of food allergy sufferers is increasing. Indeed among children, allergy to nuts has skyrocketed in just the last twenty years alone. Indeed, I have spoken to many constitutents--young and old alike--who have shared with me their terrible experiences with allergies. I will never forget hearing the harrowing tale of a five year old rushed to the hospital in anaphylactic shock after inadvertently eating a nut. Tragically, there is no cure for food allergies. That is why it is so critical that we invest more resources in allergy research and prevention programs. As a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health, I will be working hard with my colleagues this year to increase funding for biomedical research so that we can find a cure for food allergies. We must also invest more in public awareness and prevention programs at the CDC and FDA so that restaurants and food processors become more sensitive to the health needs of their consumers and customers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this serious health problem so that we can find a cure for allergies in our lifetimes.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not about special ed or school construction. We should be doing both. Yes, education is a priority, should be a priority, and I would hope it could be a bipartisan priority. I rise to support this motion because, Mr. Speaker, schools are crumbling across this country. Classrooms are literally overflowing. Students are learning in hallways, but the leadership of this Congress just sits idly by. Yes, this is the public mandate. It should be a public mandate. We have a responsibility to rebuild our schools and make sure that every youngster has the opportunity to learn. Last year nearly 120 Members of Congress showed their commitment to America's children by cosponsoring H.R. 1104, the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools. This session we have a similar proposal led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the dean of the New York delegation. It is 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. The Federal Government will pay the interest on these bonds through a tax credit to bondholders. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical condition of our schools any longer. The GAO found that $112 billion is needed nationwide just to bring our schools into adequate condition. Rural, suburban, urban districts all face serious problems. It is common sense. Children cannot learn in severely overcrowded schools or 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 in any office conducted found that 25 percent of New York City public schools hold classes in bathrooms, locker rooms, hallways, cafeterias, and storage areas. Almost half of our school buildings have roof, floors, and walls in need of repairs. A report by the New York City Commission on School Facilities revealed the following: Nearly half of New York City schoolchildren are taught in severely overcrowded classrooms. Two hundred seventy schools need new roofs. Over half of the city's schools are over 55 years old. And approximately one-fourth still have coal-burning boilers. Congress just passed with overwhelming support $218 billion to rebuild, maintain our Nation's highways, and I support this investment. But should we not also be investing in the future of our children? The Republican leadership has time and time again refused to support efforts to rebuild our schools. I urge them to support this motion, and I invite them to come join us. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I would be delighted to travel around to some of the schools. We brought Secretary Riley and our superintendent of schools, Rudy Crew, to see some of these schools. They tried to wire these buildings. They could not even wire them internally; they had to wire outside. And if we cannot provide this for our children, then what are we doing here?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Riggs amendment. This amendment would forbid public colleges and universities from considering race, color, national origin, ethnicity, or gender at all in the admission of students. Now, I oppose quotas and reverse discrimination, but this amendment will not eliminate quotas or reverse discrimination because they are already illegal. And that is the point. This amendment would eliminate diversity in our Nation's public colleges and universities. We have seen what happens when affirmative action in higher education is eliminated. Minority enrollment plummets, plain and simple. For example, since the Hopwood case and the passage of Proposition 209, the number of racial minorities admitted to public universities in Texas and California has decreased dramatically. At the University of Texas Law School, admissions of Hispanic students is down 64 percent. Admission of African-American students is down 88 percent. And when minority admissions decrease so dramatically, there are so few minority students that those who are admitted do not choose to attend. At Boalt Law School last year, not one of the African Americans admitted elected to attend. Even minority applications are plummeting. Last year minority applications at the University of California at San Francisco Medical School fell from 722 to 493. Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl has said, ``We have got to take this seriously. Our future as a university and the future of the State of California is at stake.'' The Association of American Medical Colleges has said of this amendment: ``HMOs and other large health care organizations are calling for greater numbers of physicians who reflect the diversity of the patient populations they serve. Today, black, Hispanic, and Native American doctors are a crucial source of care for the Nation's burgeoning minority communities as well as its poor populations. Ultimately this legislation will undermine decades of progress our Nation has made in educating underrepresented minorities for all trades and professions.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. My colleagues, there are several important educational initiatives before this Congress that would benefit millions of students across our Nation, not just the chosen few. There is the President's proposal to help schools hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in the lower grades. There is also the President's school modernization and repair initiative. I introduced one version last year, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, that has attracted nearly 120 cosponsors. And a new proposal introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), myself, and others would offer tax credits to help local schools eliminate overcrowding, finance roof and window repair, and invest in computers and technology. These measures have the support of the American people. But are they being considered by the House? No. Madam Speaker, Democrats believe the Government should work to strengthen public schools, not undermine them. Unfortunately, that is exactly what this proposal is designed to do. Of course, there are problems, serious problems, with the schools in this district and other districts. One problem that I find particularly serious with this proposal is funding religious schools. I believe in government-church separation, and providing public vouchers for religious school costs would clearly violate this important constitutional principle. A potential lack of accountability to the taxpayer is another problem. Madam Speaker, the bill before us authorizes enough money next year to provide vouchers to roughly 7 percent of D.C. children. What about the rest? What message does this educational sweepstakes send to our youth? It says, ``Your future is based on the luck of the draw, not your effort and ambition, and not equal opportunity for all.'' Madam Speaker, D.C. public schools are in trouble. We need to invest in them. The Republicans want to tear them down brick by brick. The answer is not a limited voucher program that will weaken our public schools. It is tougher academic standards, safer school buildings, smaller classes, more teacher training. We have to invest in our public schools and make sure that every youngster has the opportunity to get an outstanding education.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for this rule and the bipartisan amendments to the Higher Education Act. Education is society's great equalizer. It enables Americans to participate in democracy and pursue the American dream. We all recognize that a college education is as necessary today as a high school education was just a generation ago. In 1982, a worker with a college degree earned 40 percent more than a worker without one. Today, college graduates earn 75 percent more. A recent national survey showed that 9 in 10 Americans believe every interested qualified student should have the opportunity to attend college. My colleagues, that is a clear mandate for a strong higher education bill, and I believe such a measure is before us today. Just briefly, it increases Pell Grants by 50 percent next year and provides additional increases in the future. It preserves the Perkins Loan, the State Student Incentive Grant, the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant programs, all important sources of financial aid. It will encourage more disadvantaged students to pursue higher education by strengthening TRIO, continuing my National Early Intervention Scholarships, and establishing a new High Hopes program that will work with low-income middle schools and community organizations. The new campus-based child care program will help young mothers attend college and become self-sufficient. The new loan forgiveness program will help fill America's growing need for qualified teachers. The bill will also help make college campuses safer and provide students and their families with the information they need and deserve about crime on campus. Of course, this bill is not perfect. It ends Federal support for the fine work of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and fails to include, as the Senate bill does, a Fair Play Act to encourage colleges to satisfy the interests and needs of young female athletes. However, despite some deficiencies, this is a strong bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for yielding to me. I would also like to add before making some other comments, that I hope the gentleman and all the Members on that side would join us in doubling the investment at the National Institutes of Health for those of us who care passionately about diabetes and cancer and the whole range of illnesses that cause such pain in our society. I hope my colleagues will join us. I want to proceed in making comments. Mr. Speaker, drug use is one of the fastest growing causes of HIV infection and AIDS. Nearly three-quarters of all AIDS cases in women are related to IV drug use. This is the tragic and unfortunate reality of the AIDS epidemic. Let me be very clear that those of us that oppose this amendment do not condone the use of illegal drugs. In fact, I believe we have to do more on the war on drugs. But this amendment is part of a phony war. Instead, we need to spend more on prevention, treatment programs, and we need to get much tougher on drug pushers. If I thought that needle exchange programs promoted drug use, I would support this amendment. But the fact is that since 1991, six federally funded studies have reported that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission but do not increase drug use, and that is the fact. After reviewing the research, an NIH panel concluded that needle exchange programs will not increase the number of drug users or the amount of drugs used by addicts. In fact, individuals with access to needle exchange programs are more likely to enter drug treatment. A study conducted in New York found that HIV infections decreased by two-thirds among participants in needle exchange programs. It is estimated that needle exchange could save between 5,000 to 11,000 lives over the next few years alone. That is why the AMA, the National Academy of Sciences, the Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and many other mainstream medical and scientific groups support needle exchange. This is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors also supports needle exchange as part of a comprehensive AIDS-fighting effort. Let us be clear, this amendment is not fighting drug use. It is about partisan politics, pure and simple. Let us listen to our Nation's health experts instead of playing politics with people's lives. Let us not oppose a proven method of preventing the spread of the deadly AIDS epidemic.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the nation is now engaging in a dialogue about the future of Social Security, our most important government program. President Clinton deserves credit for fueling this discussion. Without a doubt, we must take steps to preserve Social Security for today's seniors--and tomorrow's. But as part of this effort, we must also address the current inequities facing women of retirement age across America. Let me share a few facts. Women live seven years longer than men on average--so they have an increased need for economic security in their later years. Women move in and out of the workforce more than men to raise children and care for elderly relatives so their earnings can change dramatically from year to year. And, women are still paid less than men--about 70 cents less on the dollar and three quarters of women earn less than $25,000 per year. As a result, women have far less retirement income than men. Less than a third of all female retirees have pensions. And of those women with pensions, the average benefit is 40 percent less than men's. Equally troubling, women's average monthly Social Security checks are 25 percent smaller than men's. Given these disturbing figures, is it any surprise that fully one- quarter of women over 65 live in poverty, that women make up three quarters of the elderly poor? The good news is that there are ways to make Social Security fairer to women. I am working on a package of Social Security measures to improve the system for women. For example, one bill would improve Social Security benefits for those who take time out of the workforce to provide child care or elder care. Unfortunately, it does not appear that these issues are getting the attention they deserve. As economist Kathleen Feldstein recently noted in the New York Times, some reform proposals currently on the table would perpetuate or even exacerbate the problems facing women in retirement. Mr. Speaker, I am not passing judgment on any reform plan today. I would simply urge that as my colleagues, the Administration, and the citizens of this nation work together to preserve Social Security, we pay close attention to the unique circumstances which affect women's retirement. We must use this crucial debate to improve the economic security of older women and future generations.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 83d anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, an act of mass murder that took 1.5 million Armenian lives and led to the exile of the Armenian nation from its historic homeland. It is of vital importance that we never forget what happened to the Armenian people. Indeed the only thing we can do for the victims is to remember, and we forget at our own peril. The Armenian Genocide, which began 15 years after the start of the twentieth century, was the first act of genocide of this century, but it was far from the last. The Armenian Genocide was followed by the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, and other acts of mass murder around the world. Adolf Hitler himself sad that the world's indifference to the slaughter in Armenia indicated that there would be no global outcry if he undertook the mass murder of Jews and others he considered less than human. And he was right. It was only after the Holocaust that the cry ``never again'' arose throughout the world. But it was too late for millions of victims. Too late for the six million Jews. Too late for the 1.5 million Armenians. Today we recall the Armenian Genocide and we mourn its victims. We also pledge that we shall do everything we can to protect the Armenian nation against further aggression; in the Republic of Armenia, in Nagorno-Karabagh, or anywhere else. Unfortunately, there are some who still think it is acceptable to block the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance around the world. Despite overwhelming international condemnation, Azerbaijan continues its blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It is tragic that Azerbaijan's tactics have denied food and medicine to innocent men, women, and children in Armenia, and created thousands of refugees. The U.S. must stand firm against any dealings with Azerbaijan until it ends this immoral blockade. We must make clear that warfare and blockades aimed at civilians are unacceptable as means for resolving disputes. Mr. Speaker, after the Genocide, the Armenian people wiped away their tears and cried out, ``Let us never forget. Let us always remember the atrocities that have taken the lives of our parents and our children and our neighbors.'' As the Armenian-American author William Saroyan wrote, ``Go ahead, destroy this race . . . Send them from their homes into the desert . . . Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh again, see if they will not sing and pray again. For, when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.'' I rise today to remember those cries and to make sure that they were not uttered in vain. The Armenian nation lives. We must do everything we can to ensure that it is never imperiled again.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, well, my colleagues, today is April Fool's Day. How fitting and how truly outrageous that we are here today considering a rule that silences this Chamber and prevents debate on our amendment that will save hundreds of lives every year. The amendment that I had hoped to offer, along with our colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and over 100 cosponsors, was not a radical proposal. It would have simply established .08 BAC as the national DWI standard. It was identical to a measure adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate during consideration of the highway bill last month. More than 17,000 Americans were killed last year by drunk drivers. More than 3,700 of these fatalities and countless other injuries occurred in crashes involving persons with BAC levels below .10. Virtually every medical, law enforcement, and highway safety organization supports the .08 standard. The United States lags behind other industrialized nations in adopting .08 laws, despite the overwhelming evidence that drivers are seriously impaired at .08. Here in the United States, 15 States have already adopted .08 laws; and studies show that as many as 600 lives would be saved each year if every State adopted the .08 standard. And yet, this life-saving measure was blocked by the Committee on Rules. How shameful. In my 10 years of service in this institution, I have never been so disgusted. The liquor and restaurant industries gave millions in campaign contributions last year, and today they got what they paid for. The liquor industry owns this House lock, stock, and barrel. Every 30 minutes an American is killed by a drunk driver, and yet the House leadership could not even give Members half that time to debate our amendment. Somehow, though, they managed to find time for 60 minutes of debate on a partisan measure that failed the Senate overwhelmingly. What a sham. The House leadership has opened their doors and pockets to the liquor lobby and slammed them in the face of the mothers and fathers who have lost children to drunk drivers. The liquor lobby has bottled up our bill and demonstrated loud and clear that they put profits ahead of people's lives. Today we had an opportunity, my colleagues, to follow the Senate lead and save lives. We were poised at a crucial moment in the fight to make our Nation's roads safer from drunk drivers. The rule defeats all that. I urge Members to oppose this gag rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. Once again the lives and well-being of women around the world are being held hostage. We are faced with a bill that forces the Mexico City global gag rule upon us. This bill, like so many defeated before it, prohibits organizations from receiving any U.S. funding if they use their own funds to provide abortion services or advocate on the abortion issue. The need for family planning services to prevent unintended pregnancies in developing countries is urgent, and the aid we provide is critical. When women are unable to control the number and timing of births, they have more dangerous and complicated pregnancies, and too many will turn to abortion, often illegal, unsafe and life threatening. Passage of this conference report will mean more abortions, not fewer. It will mean women dying and children dying. It will mean an increase in unintended pregnancies, and it will mean women taking desperate, dangerous measures to end those pregnancies. And that is the fact, that is the reality. Mr. Speaker, I am also opposed to the provisions in this bill regarding the United Nations. The funding level provided is too low, and the requirements attached to that funding micromanage the President as he attempts to push the U.N. to reform itself further. Our debt to the U.N. leaves the United States with no leverage to reduce our annual assessments and weakens our leadership in the organizations. This bill will not solve the critical problem. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this bill was pushed through to the floor with no bipartisan support and with a veto promise from the White House. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 1757.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 177th anniversary of Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire, and to celebrate the shared democratic heritage of Greece and the United States. I thank Congressman Bilirakis and Congresswoman Maloney for organizing this special order and for their leadership on issues of importance to the Greek-American community. On March 25, 1821, after more than 400 years of Ottoman Turk domination, Greece declared its independence and resumed its rightful place in the world as a beacon of democracy. The people of Greece and the United States share a common bond in their commitment to democracy. Our Founding Fathers looked to the teachings of Greek philosophy in their struggle for freedom and democracy. And the American experience in turn inspired the Greek people who fought so hard for independence 176 years ago. This bond between our two peoples stretches beyond the philosophy of democracy. The relationship between the U.S. and Greece has grown stronger and stronger through the years, and Greece remains today one of our most important allies. And the contribution Greece makes to life in America is even stronger than the ties between our two countries. Greek-Americans are a vital part of our cultural heritage. My district in New York would not be what it is today without the valuable contributions made by the Greek- American community. I am proud to stand today in commemoration of Greek independence and in recognition of the contribution Greece and Greek-Americans have made to our country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary career and accomplishments of Joan Dunlop, one of the world's truly outstanding leaders for women's health. As the President of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), Ms. Dunlop has successfully transformed a once small organization into an agency with a genuinely global scope. Widely recognized as a top authority on women's health and population policy, IWHC now supports some fifty projects in eight countries, enlists the talent and energy of thousands of committed activists and policy- makers, and helps countless individuals make sensible health and family planning decisions. Thanks to Ms. Dunlop, debate about reproductive health and population policy has achieved a new prominence at international conferences, and a greater claim on the attention of global decision-makers. She was instrumental in shaping the agenda of the 1994 United Nations Conference on Population and Development and the Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995. Ms. Dunlop came to the IWHC after an already distinguished career in philanthropy and public service. She worked with the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Family, helped develop strong leadership at the Population Council, served as the vice-president of the Public Affairs Division of Planned Parenthood, and as the Executive Assistant to the President of the New York Public Library. Mr. Speaker, on April 20, the staff, supporters, and friends of the IWHC will gather to honor Joan Dunlop and celebrate her inspiring contribution to the cause of women's health world-wide. I wish to add my heartfelt thanks and express my passionate belief in the goals to which Joan Dunlop has devoted her professional life.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today all over America our schools are inadequate, overcrowded and literally falling down. In Miami students learn to read and write in temporary trailers. Here in our Nation's capital, schools have been closed for violating the fire code. In New York City, students dodge falling plaster and attend class in hallways and cafeterias. It is really extraordinary to me after having visited so many of the schools in the metropolitan region of New York that in the United States of America youngsters go to school with plastic actually holding up the ceiling. This, in the most prosperous and advanced Nation in the world. It just does not make any sense. A 1996 GAO report confirmed the worst. Record numbers of school buildings across America are in disrepair. One-third of all schools serving 14 million students need extensive repairs. About 60 percent of schools need to have roofs, walls or floors fixed. With school enrollment skyrocketing, this problem will only get worse. It is time for the Federal Government to act. This is a local problem that demands a national response. Our school modernization bond proposal will allocate $19.4 billion for zero interest bonds to fix old schools and build new ones all across the Nation. This is absolutely an essential idea that is creating a partnership between the Federal, State and local governments. The Federal Government should not assume the total responsibility, but we have an obligation to build that partnership. If the Federal Government can help States build prisons and roads, then certainly they should be able to help build schools. Just look at some of the numbers. Due to the baby boom echo, the children of baby boomers filling the schools, particularly the high schools across the country are once again bulging with students. The demand for school facilities will continue to be high. School enrollment is projected to continue to climb over the next several years, growing from 52.2 million in the 1997-98 school year to 54.3 million by the year 2006-07. With school enrollments rising at the same time that the budgets for building new classrooms have been constrained, overcrowding has become a common problem. I say to my partners on the other side of the aisle, if we really want to keep down property taxes, then in addition to building roads and highways and bridges and prisons, we have a responsibility to help with our schools. Because of this partnership, it will keep down the local property taxes. This is everywhere. In California, a 35 percent increase in high school enrollment is projected. In North Carolina, 27 percent increase. In Arizona, 25 percent. In Nevada, 24 percent. In Massachusetts, 23 percent. In Rhode Island, 21 percent. In Georgia, 20 percent. In Virginia, 20 percent. In Texas, 19 percent. And on and on. The bottom line is we have to build schools. The Education Department estimates that 6,000 new schools will have to be built over the next 10 years in response to this rapid growth in school enrollment. What do poor building conditions have to do with our students' achievement? According to all the studies that have been done, there is a direct connection. For example, a 1991 study of the District of Columbia public schools found a 10.9 percent gap in scores between students in buildings rated poor and ones rated as excellent, after accounting for other factors. The problem is not just an urban one. Studies in rural Virginia and North Dakota have found similar results. Recently there was a study published in May 1996 by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University which concluded sufficient data exists to state that the condition of a building does result in a difference in students' scores and action. Mr. Speaker, this is urgent. Education is the key to the strength of the United States of America. I would hope that we can work together to pass this bill this year, because we are doing it for our youngsters, for our families and our futures.