Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], a distinguished member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we continue to oppose this bill for two very simple reasons. It endangers the life and health of American women. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The antichoice majority has trumpeted the AMA's support for this bill, but the changes made to this bill to win the AMA's support do nothing, nothing to protect the lives and health of American women. Again, I want to remind my colleagues, whether one believes that the Constitution should say more or should say less, the point is that 10 courts have struck down, even, or changed abortion bans like the one before us because they violate Roe versus Wade. Ten courts have spoken. Why will not Congress listen? This bill tramples on Roe versus Wade and is a direct assault on the constitutionally protected right to choose. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. As a mother, as a new grandmother, I respect and celebrate life with every ounce of my soul, with every ounce of my being. I find it very offensive when year after year my colleagues and I will go to the leadership, will go to the Committee on Rules and say, let us craft a bill that the President will sign. Let us craft a bill that will focus on postviability abortions, will disallow postviability abortions except as they protect the health and the life of the mother. But unfortunately, the majority again, time and again, will not work with us to help craft this bill. So year after year this procedure, which they say they abhor, continues when we want to make sure that postviability we are eliminating a procedure except to save the life and health of the mother, which is consistent with Roe versus Wade. I would ask my colleagues again, work with us. Let us craft the language that the President can sign, and we can get this enacted into law, that we feel is reasonable and that will protect a woman's life and health.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority leader.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would rather the gentleman speak on his time since I have limited time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, again I just want to reach out to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and ask them to work with us to craft a bill that would protect the health and the life of the mother. We could have had a bill today. This was first introduced in 1995. It was vetoed by the President. It came back five times. We could have a bill today. And I want the gentleman to know that I respect the passion of the opponents on this issue just as I hope the gentleman would respect the passion of women such as myself who have given birth to beautiful children, who is now a grandmother and respects life and celebrates life. I wish the gentleman would have more respect for those women like Claudia Addes, who suffered the pain of losing a child when she desperately wanted a child. I am saying to the gentleman, with respect, let us sit down and work out a bill that would protect those women, protect all the women who may face this very difficult tragedy in their lives at some future time. I hope no one close to the gentleman ever faces that decision. Let us work together, let us craft the bill, protect the women and the families who have to face these difficult decisions and, Mr. Speaker, let us not put a doctor in the terrible position of making this decision that he does not or she does not feel is the correct decision.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am concerned about the viability and sustainability of our six State maritime academies under this bill's funding level for MARAD operation and training accounts. These six academies currently provide 75 percent of our Nation's licensed mariners at approximately one-third the cost of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. In addition, the graduates enjoy an impressive press 100 percent job placement upon graduation. Mr. Chairman, it is because of this great return on our investment that I am concerned about adequate funding. The report language notes that additional funding may be available for State Academies via the sale for scrap of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet. However, EPA regulations currently prohibit such scrapping. I would like to work with the chairman to resolve this problem, but in the meantime, I urge the chairman and Members of the subcommittee to work with the Senate in conference to ensure adequate funding for the State Maritime Academies.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bartlett Amendment. This extreme amendment blocks the U.S. from taking even the first step toward fulfilling its debt to the U.N. Mr. Bartlett cloaks his amendment in the rhetoric of reform. He claims that his amendment will somehow take us down the path to reform. But let's be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is NOT about U.N. reform. This amendment is simply about blocking the U.S. from fulfilling its obligations to the U.N. I don't think there is anyone in this House who is not supportive of further U.N. reform. That is why we worked to elect a new Secretary General. That is why the Administration and the Congress have come up with a reform and arrears plan that is currently being negotiated by a conference committee. And that is why we will continue to advocate far- reaching reforms throughout the U.N. system. But this amendment approaches the issue in an irresponsible, haphazard manner. In fact, the amendment would upend the ongoing negotiations between the Administration, Congressional leaders, and the U.N., setting back our efforts to implement reform in the U.N. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. has a tremendous amount of influence within the U.N., but that level of influence is in danger of decreasing. Our outstanding debt to the U.N. is draining our power in the organization and has created a climate of resistance to U.S. proposals. The U.N. has historically served U.S. interests, but our debt is making it hard for the organization to carry out the very activities that serve these interests. For all of these reasons, the U.S. must fulfill its financial obligation to the U.N. But that will not happen if the Bartlett Amendment passes. In the interest of reforming the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bartlett Amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will take us one more step toward a consistent Federal tobacco policy. Tobacco products kill over 3 million people every year, including 400,000 Americans. Every day, thousands of young people start smoking. One in three will die from cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses caused by smoking. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing this deadly product. We in the United States are facing a public health crisis over the effects of tobacco use. In fact, we spend almost $200 million each year to warn Americans about the dangers of tobacco and prevent its use. But it is irresponsible fiscal and health policy for the Federal Government to then turn around and promote the sale of tobacco products overseas. What kind of an example are we setting for the rest of the world? What kind of an example are we setting for our own kids here in the United States who are being told not to smoke? It's time for this hypocrisy to end. We must make our Federal tobacco policy consistent with our public health policy. Today, we have an opportunity to move another step down the road to dissolving the Federal Government's partnership with the tobacco industry. We must stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize a product that kills millions of adults, addicts our kids, and costs billions a year in health care. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan- Fox amendment. Many Members may not think of Legal Services as a women's issue, but it is, because more than two-thirds of the clients served by the Legal Services Corporation are women. The funding cuts in this bill will force the LSC to abandon many of the critical legal services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence. Last year, Legal Services programs handled over 50,000 cases in which clients sought legal protection from abusive spouses and over 6,000 cases involving neglected, abused, and dependent juveniles. 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 victims of domestic violence, 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. The funding level in this bill will only allow for one Legal Services lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans. If we slash funding to Legal Services, we will be abandoning tens of thousands of women who desperately need legal help. These women have nowhere else to turn in order to escape domestic violence or to bring a deadbeat dad to justice. We must not abandon tens of thousands of women to violence, abuse and greater poverty. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague to please vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for yielding. However, during this unusual procedure, since I already had the privilege of speaking on this very important nonpoint pollution source amendment, I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for his cooperation.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is partially based upon the amendment I filed on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], is in response to one simple fact: our coastal waters are in trouble. It is hard to read the newspaper lately and not come across a story about toxic Pfiesteria, brown tides, and ecological dead zones in our Nation's coastal waters. From the Long Island Sound to the Chesapeake Bay, from Louisiana to Oregon, fish kills, contaminated shellfish beds, beach closures, deteriorating coral reefs, and harmful algae blooms are taking an enormous toll both on the environment and the economies of our coastal areas. While the specific sources of coastal pollutants are not always clear, the leading cause of water quality impairment in these areas and all of our bays, lakes and rivers is nonpoint source pollution, polluted runoff from city streets, farms, and a variety of other sources. In fact, nonpoint pollution is our Nation's number one water pollution problem. To tackle these threats to our coastal areas' economic and ecological vitality, Congress established the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1990. This program provides technical and financial assistance to States to address the water pollution threats to coastal waters. Working with NOAA and the EPA, coastal States have invested millions of dollars crafting runoff control programs. My own State of New York has invested considerable effort in developing a plan that will benefit Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, the Great Lakes, and the New York City Watershed. Many State plans are ready for implementation, but Federal support for their efforts has not been provided since 1995. NOAA's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program is the only Federal program which holds real promise for reducing nonpoint source pollution, and it is critical that we provide funding to make sure that States continue to make progress. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for their help in working with us to provide funding for this important program. The agreement we have reached will provide $1 million, the full amount demanded by the administration, to assist States that have already developed management plans. The evidence is clear that our coastal waters are sick. It is time that we step up to the plate and wage war on these contaminants. The money is a down payment on our environmental future. The needs among coastal States are clearly greater. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide more funding next year.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall 419 through 425 because of the birth of a beautiful new grandson, Daniel Henry Luttway. Had I been present, I would have been delighted to vote ``aye.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman, and I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again I am very pleased that the chairman and the ranking minority member are in support of this amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and I are offering. We expect that this amendment will be accepted by the committee as we move forward in the process.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Lowey-Hoyer-Morella amendment will allow Federal employees to choose a health care plan that covers the full range of reproductive health care services just like other American workers. Right now women working for the Federal Government are the only group of American women legally prohibited from obtaining employer-provided insurance that includes abortion coverage. These women cannot use their own money. Remember, it is their salary. They cannot use their own money to purchase such coverage. Let me be very clear. Congress has taken away the right to choose for more than 1 million American women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care. Two years ago, before we enacted this ban, just about half of the plans covered abortion services. Now women relying on FEHBP for health care must go to an abortion provider on their own and pay for the services out of their own pocket. This prohibition has made it more difficult and more dangerous for Federal employees to get an abortion. Let me give Members an example, real life, what this is all about. I received a letter from a woman in Alabama whose story shows how destructive lack of coverage for abortion services can be. Kim Mathis and her husband, who works for the Federal prison in their town, were expecting twins, but during the pregnancy things went terribly wrong. They learned that the twins had a rare malady with many complications, and there was a very slim chance of either twin surviving the pregnancy. After consulting with the doctor, Kim and her husband made what she calls ``the hardest decision of my life,'' to terminate the pregnancy. Knowing that that kind of abortion could cost up to $12,000, the doctor asked them about their insurance. They went home, checked the booklet for the insurance they had through Kim's husband's job at the Federal prison, and saw that all legal abortions were covered. Unfortunately, their booklet was 1 year old. After the procedure was done, they started getting notices from the insurance company stating that their claims were denied. They found out that because of the law enacted by Congress in November 1995, their coverage for abortion had been terminated. Soon the hospital began harassing them for payment, turned the case over to a collections agency, and after receiving threatening letters and phone calls at work, they were forced to file for bankruptcy. As Kim wrote to me in a letter, ``Our lives and financial future have been ruined. Families like ours should not have to go bankrupt in order to receive appropriate medical care.'' We have been wrong, my colleagues, for the last 2 years to pass this restriction. I urge Members to vote for the Lowey-Hoyer-Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.