Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a woman who has been a fighter on this issue and so many others.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the very distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, my distinguished colleague and coauthor of this amendment, who has been an important leader on this issue. I am offering this amendment today to repeal a disgraceful giveaway to the tobacco industry that was slipped into the budget bill at the last minute. The other body voted 95 to 3 to repeal this provision last week, and I introduced legislation to repeal this provision that has over 60 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership slipped this infamous $50 billion tobacco tax giveaway into the budget bill in the middle of the night. Now we are going to shine a spotlight on this provision and see who will stand with the American people and who will stand with the big tobacco companies. At the heart of this issue is the understanding that American taxpayers should not be subsidizing big tobacco companies, but that is exactly what has happened. When asked about this provision, Kenneth Kies, the staff director of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said, ``The industry wrote it, submitted it and we just used their language.'' This is unacceptable. The Congress should be passing laws to protect the health of all Americans; it should not be lining the pockets of the tobacco industry. Tobacco products, Mr. Chairman, kill 400,000 Americans every year. Americans spend $50 billion each year to respond to the adverse health effects of smoking. Every day more than 3,000 American teenagers start smoking. One in three will die from cancer, heart disease and other illnesses caused by smoking. American taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, should not be subsidizing this deadly product. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the health of the American people and vote for this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey, the coauthor of this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would be delighted to yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goodling amendment. This amendment would prevent the adoption of a voluntary testing program. It would prevent parents, cities and States from pursuing a new strategy in our efforts to provide all of our students with the best education in the world. Let me make it very clear that many House Democrats strongly support the President's initiative. If this amendment passes, it might be a victory for the Republican leadership, but in my judgment it will be a clear defeat for the children of this country. Voluntary testing will promote reform, excellence. The Goodling amendment undermines educational progress and codifies mediocrity. Quite frankly, a vote for the Goodling amendment is a vote in favor of the status quo. That is simply not good enough. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I have worked on a whole range of educational initiatives. I am sorry that we disagree so strongly on this one. Mr. Chairman, the President's initiative will not nationalize education. There are no mandates here. A State will not lose money or face penalties if it chooses not to participate. The program simply provides an opportunity for interested cities and States to test their fourth-graders in reading and eighth-graders in math and measure their performance against students across town and across the Nation. Should a parent or a school not have the ability to make these comparisons? Frankly, it is very ironic that many of the same Members who support educational competition through school choice are today opposing educational competition through performance measures. What are they afraid of? Do they fear American students cannot compete? I do not. I know that our students can compete and win. My colleagues should be aware that this amendment is opposed by a wide array of educators, including the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the chiefs of our State education departments, the National School Boards Association and the National Association of Elementary School Principals. I know that some opponents say we should be investing more directly in teachers, books, computers and school construction. I certainly agree. We need to invest more in education, and at the same time we ask more of our students in schools, we must provide them with the resources they so desperately need. That is why I am the lead sponsor of the President's school construction initiative. That is why I support increases in title I. This is not an either/or proposition. I am pleased that six of the Nation's seven largest cities have accepted the challenge of national reading and math tests, including New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Detroit. These cities want to participate in a voluntary testing program. Communities across the Nation have concluded that they want to find out what needs fixing. They want to offer their students the best education possible. They want to ensure that they are preparing their children for a very competitive future, and they want to embrace the challenge and possibilities of voluntary national performance measures. Two things about these tests are worth noting. First, the tests will be based on the well-respected National Assessment of Education Progress. Second, the highly respected National Academy of Sciences will approve the tests before the first student in the first school sits down with pencil in hand to take the exam. These tests will be developed the right way. I believe very strongly in raising academic standards. If my colleagues in Congress agree, and I think we all do, then we must finally say no more excuses. We know that students and schools can achieve. We expect them to achieve. We will help them achieve. Voluntary testing is an important component of this process. I believe that the combination of educational investments and performance standards is a recipe for student success. I would urge my colleagues not to prevent the creation of a voluntary national testing system as a State and local option. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Goodling amendment. And I would urge my colleagues to work with us to support investments in school construction, to support different comprehensive changes in our school system. Because we support this, that does not mean we cannot support school testing as well.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would eliminate the appropriation for public broadcasting in this bill. My colleagues who were here in the 104th Congress will recall that we fought and won the battle over Federal funding for public broadcasting. Members of the majority party attacked funding for public television and radio on several occasions, but when the American people learned of this attack, they expressed their sentiments loud and clear and the result was a win for public broadcasting and a victory for the American people. I will never forget that fight because, although we were privileged to be here in the House, to be on the committee, to stand up for the importance of public broadcasting, I can remember the thousands and thousands of letters, all the people from every part of this country, large cities, small cities, people who listen to the radio in the garage stations, seniors who stayed home listening to the television and the radio, everybody was concerned; and it is the thousands and thousands of people who won that vote and won that battle. Mr. Chairman, ``Sesame Street'' and other federally supported educational programs reach at-risk children in the home and help our teachers in the classroom. News programs such as the ``Lehrer News Hour'', those on NPR, inform our citizens. The cultural programs enrich and make more humane all our lives. A failure to adequately fund educational television and radio would be an abandonment of the public's trust. My colleagues, the $300 million appropriation for public broadcasting in this bill is still below where it was prior to the start of the Republican Congress and it is still below the President's request of $325 million. The notion that Federal funds for public broadcasting do not make a difference to local communities is absolutely false. Some 87 radio and 61 TV stations around the country rely on Federal funds for one-quarter or more of their budgets. These stations, many of which are in rural areas, are often harmed the most when we cut back on Federal support for public broadcasting. Let us remember that the funding we provide is an incredible value. Every Federal dollar that public television stations receive from CPB is used to generate $6 in non-Federal funds. Let us also remember one of the prime audiences of public television, children. I know that many of my colleagues share with me a concern about violence in society. We know that children, if not on their streets, then in their living rooms are bombarded by violent acts and violent images. We also know that most children spend a lot of time in front of the television. As a mother, we might wish that children spent more time reading or engaged in other activities. The fact of modern society is children watch television. Thankfully, they can turn to public television for nonviolent educational programs. Eighty-three percent of preschoolers watch public television. What we need to do is expand funding and expand programming for public broadcasting so that older children can have the same array of high quality programming. The charge that public broadcasting is just for the so-called elite elements of our society is blatantly false. Sixty percent of regular viewers of public television come from households with incomes of less than $40,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, I will repeat what I have said time and time again in the last Congress. The American people overwhelmingly support Federal funds for public broadcasting. We have a responsibility to listen and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] for bringing this issue to our attention. The gentlewoman has been a leader on this issue, and is a cosponsor of H.R. 1104, the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools. We currently have 113 cosponsors. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] has spent a great deal of time touring the schools in her district, as I have in mine. There is widespread support in this House for rebuilding our schools. It seems to me that if we are going to put computers in each of our schools, if we are going to build bridges to the 21st century, we have to acknowledge that we cannot put computers in 19th century schools. As I have driven up to some of our schools, there was coal being delivered, plaster was falling down, large sheets of plastic were holding up walls that were crumbling because of leaks in the roof. This is a national emergency. The GAO has made it clear in their report that there is over $112 billion needed to repair our schools. As the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] has said, if we are going to be partners with State and local governments in a whole range of issues, such as building prisons, then how can we not invest in our schools? Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague again for her leadership on this issue, and I want to assure the Members that not only are there 113 cosponsors in this House, but there are parents, there are children, there are PTAs, there are school boards all around the country who understand that the Federal Government can be and should be a partner with them. Although our schools are a State and local responsibility, we do have a responsibility to make sure that every child is educated in a safe classroom and gets the best supplies they need. I want to assure the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender- McDonald] that we are going to work together to make this investment a reality, and make sure the Federal Government is a partner in rebuilding our schools. I thank her again for addressing this issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her important work on this issue and so many other issues on the committee. Mr. Chairman, under current law no Federal funds may be used for needle exchange programs unless the Secretary of HHS determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. This amendment would ban the Secretary from exercising this authority. However, there is mounting scientific evidence that needle exchange programs are useful in controlling the spread of the deadly HIV virus while not encouraging elicit drug activity. Mr. Chairman, this evidence comes from the most reputable scientific agencies in the land, such as the NIH, the CDC, and National Research Council. Leading sectors of the public health community support retaining the Secretary's authority to lift the ban on Federal funding for needle exchange programs and oppose this amendment. These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses Association, the AMA. There is uncontestable evidence that the proportion of HIV cases related to injection drug use has dramatically increased over the last 15 years. In fact, injection drug users now account for almost two- thirds of all cases of newly acquired HIV infection. This amendment will handicap public health officials from controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS, particularly in our inner cities. I urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong the debate, because I know there have been many debates on this issue. But I hope that we can convince our distinguished chairman that since there is precedent for the Federal Government becoming a partner in building prisons and a partner in building roads and highways, that together we can work to address this serious issue in all of our schools. If we can be a partner in providing computers for our schools and other modern technology, I would hope we could work together to be a partner in what many of us feel is of vital national interest.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois for working with us to improve and clarify his amendment. Although I disagree strenuously with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] on the abortion issue, he certainly is a gentleman and a man of his word, and I am pleased that the gentleman has changed his amendment to satisfy our concerns that it would have prevented private insurance plans from offering abortion coverage. We no longer object to it on those grounds. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and all the people who worked so hard to make this possible. However, I continue to oppose the Hyde amendment for the same reason I have opposed it every year since being elected to Congress. The Hyde amendment, in my judgment, blatantly discriminates against poor women by preventing them from obtaining safe, legal abortions. I abhor the Hyde amendment, and I oppose its punitive restriction on low-income women. A woman's ability to obtain an abortion should not depend on her income. By creating a two-tiered health care system, the Hyde amendment prevents lower income women from obtaining vital reproductive health services. That is wrong. Federal health programs must cover the full range of reproductive health care services, including abortion. The Hyde amendment also puts the health of American women at risk. Funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking abortions make it more likely that women will bear unwanted children, continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy or have abortions later in pregnancy. I am also outraged that the amendment's life exception effectively narrows the protection accorded to women by Roe versus Wade. The antichoice Republican leadership has been waging war on the reproductive rights of American women since taking over Congress in 1994. Poor women have been especially vulnerable to this assault. In fact, in the last Congress I would like to remind my colleagues that the Republican leadership voted to limit abortion rights more than 50 separate times, a new record, and the assault does not stop with abortion. At the same time that the Republican leadership is reducing access to abortion, they are also attacking family planning programs that prevent unplanned pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. And so, if this is the Republican vision for women as we head into the 21st century, no access to family planning, no access to safe, legal abortion, no control over our own bodies, we have a different vision. We will continue to fight to ensure that women are able to obtain safe, legal abortions, and we will work to reduce the number of abortions by providing women with greater access to family planning and contraceptives. We will work to empower women to help them make responsible choices about their own bodies. The Republicans have chosen, unfortunately, to make our bodies their battleground. They will not succeed, and they cannot succeed.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment is a direct attack on the title X program. Parental consent and notification laws just do not stop teens from having sex. In fact, the Istook amendment will increase teen pregnancies, increase abortions, increase sexually transmitted diseases. That is why it is opposed by the doctors, the AMA, who treat and care for our teens. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Castle substitute. Under the Castle substitute, no funds can go to title X clinics unless they encourage families to participate in the decision of minors to seek contraceptive services. The Castle substitute will help ensure that teens receive effective counseling, to behave responsibly, and avoid illegal and coercive sexual activities with adults. Title X clinics do not encourage teens to have sex. Eighty percent of the teens who seek title X services are already sexually active when they walk into the clinic door. Title X clinics simply help teens who are already sexually active from getting pregnant or catching a sexually transmitted disease. Mr. Chairman, our friends argue that the title X clinics come between the parent and the child and that they encourage deceit and deception. That is nonsense. Problems begin at home, not at the title X clinics. If there are problems, let us not scapegoat title X; let us work with our families, let us work with our communities. Our families and our communities must do more. Mr. Chairman, supporters of the Istook amendment want to legislate an ``Ozzie and Harriet'' world, where every family is a loving one and every parent is willing and able to speak with their teenage children. Unfortunately, too many of our teens come from broken homes where their parents neglect them, and that is the problem here, not the title X program. As a mother, as a grandmother, I do believe that teens should remain abstinent, but I know that we cannot legislate abstinence from the floor. I believe teens should act responsibly, but I know that Congress cannot mandate responsibility. For those teens who are desperately seeking help, who are struggling to remain responsible and take control of their lives in terribly difficult circumstances, I urge Members to vote against the Istook amendment and for the Castle substitute. Mr. Chairman, these are very, very difficult decisions. As we struggle with them, we all try to do the right thing. We know that we have problems in this country because of the breakdown of families. Many of us are worried when we look at the charts and we see teenage pregnancy rising every year. That is why the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and I are working with a national campaign to fight teenage pregnancy. We encourage Members to join us. But mandating responsibility, telling the clinics that they cannot help those children who desperately need help, just does not make any sense. Our families need help. Our churches have to do more. Let us support the Castle-Porter substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand again to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], our chairman, for working so hard in a bipartisan way to bring our committee together and the caucus together to support what I believe has been a very fair bill. Again, we have had a difficult time in this committee and we have for all the years I have been serving on it because we have to make a lot of tough choices. For those, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], I want to say with great respect to our colleague who has been working in the trenches and understands the pain and suffering out there, we understand it and our chairman understands it as we go through those difficult decisions. Our chairman has been an extraordinarily supportive advocate, probably the most strongest advocate for the National Institutes of Health, working to prevent the scourge of AIDS, working to focus attention on research so we can finally end the pain and suffering. I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] as we are making these difficult decisions why on July 11, 1996 he voted for an across-the-board cut for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I want to remind the gentleman that the across-the-board cut had a definite negative impact on AIDS research and prevention, and as we fight to establish priorities, we have to be very careful that when we support an across-the-board cut as the gentleman did on July 11, 1996, this directly negatively affected the work that we are doing in that regard.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to remind the gentleman again and my colleagues that as we work so hard to balance our priorities, across-the-board cuts can negatively impact the important work that the National Institutes of Health is doing and in providing for the invaluable dollars we need to buy these important drugs. I would just alert him that we welcome him as a supporter to these very important issues, and again I would urge my colleague to vote down this amendment because for those of us who care deeply about this issue, this again is a shameful and cynical way to deal with our priorities. I just want to remind the gentleman that that vote cost $12 million in prevention money, $30 million in research and $20 million in care.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is violating the agreement that our chairman and ranking member agreed to in order to keep the bill free of controversial and extreme amendments. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment represents the latest attack by family planning opponents against our Nation's flagship program. Two years ago family planning opponents tried to zero out funds for the title X program. Fortunately, they failed. Last year family planning opponents, led by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], offered an amendment very similar to today's. Thankfully the amendment also failed. We must defeat the Istook amendment once again. The Istook amendment would deny contraception to minors unless they have the consent of their parents or waited 5 days after their parents were notified before obtaining contraception. Some of my colleagues are making a distinction between notification and consent, but who is kidding whom? The 5-day waiting period before contraception can be obtained is no different than parental consent. That is why the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatricians, Child Welfare League, Public Health Association, Social Workers and Nurses Association all oppose the mandatory parental notification restrictions in the Istook amendment. Because they know, they understand that parental notification laws drive minors away from seeking basic health services. But the Istook amendment does not just prohibit the use of title X funds for contraceptive services to minors. It could also bar programs from using any Federal, State, or private funds for this purpose. This is so important, Mr. Chairman, that 24 States have passed laws assuring that minors can get access to contraceptives. Furthermore, hospitals, community health centers, and other organizations that receive title X funds could face the loss of all Federal funding if they provide contraception to minors without abiding by the Istook parental notification consent restriction regardless of which funds they use. That is why the American Hospital Association and the National Association of Public Hospitals are opposed to the Istook amendment. Let me say as my colleagues did, as a mother of three, a grandmother of one, soon to be, please God, a grandmother of 2, we would like all youngsters to have parents such as many who spoke this evening. It would be wonderful if all parents had that kind of relationship with their youngsters. Unfortunately, it just does not exist in this country. In fact, we would prefer that teens would abstain from having sex altogether. But unfortunately we understand that minors will not change their behavior. There is a lot of work we can do to help them move to change their behavior, but what we are going to see if this is passed, many teenagers will forgo contraception rather than facing their parents, and that is unfortunate but it is the fact, and in fact studies show that 80 percent of teens seeking family planning services have already been sexually active for nearly a year. In fact, my colleague said that Federal law cuts children off from contact with parents. What the substitute does is encourage the contact with parents, but we have learned that mandating it just does not work. What we are going to create is more teenage pregnancies unfortunately. By denying contraceptive services to tens of thousands of teens, the Istook amendment will simply result in higher rates, not only of teen pregnancy, of STD's and more abortions. If teens are required to obtain parental consent for contraceptive services, they will also avoid STD and HIV screening and routine gynecological exams. Our Nation already leads the Western world in teen pregnancies. Millions of teens have some kind of STD and the incidence of AIDS among teens is alarming. We need to address these problems, but not by making title X services more difficult to obtain. Mr. Chairman, we have a real teen pregnancy crisis in this country, and the Istook amendment will only make it worse. Opponents of family planning are exploiting a tragic situation in Illinois to gather support for their position. If the 37-year-old teacher in question is found guilty of carrying on an illegal and amoral relationship with a teenager, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We are in agreement on that. Let us not exploit that situation for this purpose, because there is no connection. If school authorities knew about the relationship, they should be held responsible. We should not be blaming the title X program for this man's actions. Title X clinics are now required to report cases of rape, child molestation, and abuse. Clinic personnel would have been required to report this illegal relationship had they known about it. Let us stop exploiting this tragedy in the name of national policy. I urge my colleagues to support the Porter substitute instead. The Porter substitute will require that title X programs encourage the involvement of parents when teens seek contraception and other family planning services. By encouraging parental involvement rather than mandating it, we can ensure that teens will not pass up necessary health care services. This is the same language that passed the House last year. The Porter substitute also requires that young women seeking title X services receive counseling on how to resist and avoid coercive relationships with male sexual predators. We cannot be tough enough on sexual predators and by voting for the Porter substitute, we can help to stop them. Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, if the Istook amendment passes, teens will not stop having sex but they will have more unintended pregnancies. Let us not make the teen pregnancy crisis in this country worse.