Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from Indiana that money is a factor, because we saw in Hamlet, NC, again as I mentioned, after that terrible tragedy, the leaders of the OSHA program in North Carolina, working with the Federal Government, were able to increase their investment and the numbers of tragedies, the numbers of tragedies have gone down tremendously. We see this as a model program. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to welcome the gentleman from Indiana to our advocates for special education, and I hope we can work together to continue to make investments in that program, while not cutting other vital programs that make a difference for workers.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the committee worked incredibly hard making very tough choices. The numbers for special education in this bill have increased, I believe it was over $313 million, plus 8 percent. So the chairman has done his best, working together in a bipartisan way, to invest in special education programs, and we welcome the gentleman from Indiana to join us so we can continue to look for other opportunities.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague from Indiana. I would like to make three points. First of all, it was during the Bush administration in 1991, and for those of us who have been on the Committee on Appropriations serving with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], we were very privileged to hear Joe Dear speak to us and tell us about the major changes that have been made with the Clinton administration to OSHA, and we understand there have to be more changes, but I think it is important to know that there have been important changes made. Second, in North Carolina, where this tragic fire took place, there were 119 inspectors for 175,000 businesses covering 3.3 million workers. And, third, perhaps the gentleman and I have a different view of government. I really believe that although government is imperfect, that it has an important responsibility to help people's lives, to improve their lives. And, frankly, if the changes Joe Dear has made are not sufficient, then I would like to reach out to my colleague from Indiana, work closely with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and make sure they make continuing changes to improve the lives of workers. Again, most of the employers are doing this on their own. We are talking about a small number. But it seems to me cynical and, in fact, shameful to say that the way to improve working conditions, to make sure that plants such as Hamlet and others, where terrible tragedies have taken place, do not occur again, to make sure that our workers are covered, the way to do it is to cut money from the OSHA program. I would think that my colleagues who do not like OSHA, who feel that OSHA is not working and not helping people, should just put in an amendment to repeal OSHA. I would respect that, and I am sure some of my colleagues may think that is the best way to go. I disagree.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am sure that the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from Connecticut agree with me that the Speaker, Mr. Gingrich and the leader Trent Lott must have made an error. I do not understand how anybody could be against school construction. And when we are talking about a budget, it is just impossible for me to believe that anyone could be so forceful in saying the school construction money could not and should not and we will not agree to a budget in which there is school construction money. So I would really call on the Speaker and the leader in the Senate and all my Republican colleagues and Senate colleagues, we now have about 110 cosponsors, to join us in this bill. Let us do it in a bipartisan way and work together to improve our schools.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I appreciate the gentleman's help as a cosponsor of this bill. I do hope that working together, and I would hope that more of my Republican colleagues can join us, we can truly get this bill passed. Mr. Speaker, when we introduced this bill, frankly to provide for a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments on school construction, I really thought it would be a win-win for everybody. I was so pleased when the President and the Vice President of the United States began talking about the importance of rehabilitating our schools, and I was delighted to know that it had a good chance of being a part of the budget agreement. Frankly, I could not believe what I heard. I could not believe that Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich made a point of saying school construction support cannot be in this budget. In fact, in the letter that the leader of the Senate and the leader of the House sent to the President, they were absolutely explicit in saying school construction could not be part of the budget agreement. Well, frankly, it did not make any sense to me at all. I have visited many schools in my district in New York. We have worked with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun in the Senate, and all throughout this country. Whether it is the city or whether it is rural districts, there is a tremendous need for partnerships between the Federal and local governments in helping to rebuild our schools. We are talking about computers. We are talking about repairing infrastructure in our schools. How can we install computers in schools that are really 19th century schools? Mr. Speaker, I have seen youngsters in classrooms that were originally meant for cafeterias, for restrooms. They are so overcrowded that the youngsters who are supposed to be studying computers are going to schools that go back to the 19th century. So, on the one hand we are talking about the 21st century, moving us forward, understanding the value of computers, making sure every schoolroom has computers. And, yet, there are some schools that are still being heated by coal, where there is plastic on the walls. I have visited schools where there are tremendous leaks and the walls are crumbling and there are big sheets of plastic holding the walls up and our kids are supposed to learn in those kinds of schools. Now, we understand that this is primarily State and local responsibility. We understand that. But there are many things that the Federal Government gets involved in to help be a partner. And in our billions of dollars that we spend for a wide range of programs, what can be more important than making sure that every youngster has a classroom in which they can learn, a classroom in which they are safe? Our parents are worried, whether it is in New York or Connecticut, which is represented by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], and New Jersey, parents are worried when they send the youngsters to school because they are not safe. They should feel good about it. They should feel the children are going there to get the best education they can. What our bill provides for is $5 billion for 5 years to encourage local school districts to encourage States to invest in rebuilding our schools. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey very much. I really appreciate the gentleman's work and I appreciate this special order tonight. And I know that my colleague from New Jersey, and my colleague from Connecticut, will continue to explain to the American people how important it is for the Federal Government to be a partner so we can work together to make sure that every youngster has the best education they can, every youngster can leave in the morning, go to a school that is in good shape, have the best computers, the best books so we can continue to be competitive and that the United States of America can be proud that our youngsters are getting the very best education they can. What is more important? Education is the future. Education is the key to the future. Our school buildings have to be safe and secure so our teachers and our youngsters can work together to make sure that education is the priority that it should be. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to gathering more support in this Congress and this country for school construction.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the funding levels for the Older Americans Act, as well, in this bill. I was unsuccessful in obtaining the needed increases in committee, and I know we worked very hard with the chairman and the ranking minority member to do so, but I know these programs do enjoy support in our committee. The Senate bill as reported out of committee provided $42 million more than the House did, and I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to move toward the Senate levels as we go to these vital programs which provide meals and other services to seniors to enable them to remain independent in their own homes. These programs have not had a noticeable increase for quite some time and are feeling squeezed. Our senior centers just do not and cannot meet the demand for services. I visit many of these senior centers, as I know my colleagues do, and we see the really outstanding work they do, and the need for these services in our communities. These seniors have a lifeline in these centers. They provide nutritious meals, they provide a place where they can congregate. I know that, working together, we can do better for our seniors, and I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking minority member in the conference to do so. I thank the chairman for his cooperation. Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee, I want to assure Members that our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as well as our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the members of our committee worked incredibly hard to strike some kind of balance in the bill. This is a bill that addresses so many of the critical needs in our country, whether it is breast cancer research, ovarian cancer research, diabetes research. I cannot explain to the Members the difficult, difficult time we had trying to establish the priorities. Our chairman cares deeply about the NIH, about education, about all the issues that we concern ourselves with on this bill. I can assure the Members that there are dozens of areas in this bill where I personally and many of my colleagues would have liked to see additional funds. In fact, just today I have been talking to my colleagues about community schools, after-school programs. We would like to increase the numbers in all these programs so we can get more money down to the local level and raise standards for our youngsters. This balance was achieved with a great deal of effort and a great deal of compromise. We were happy to come to the floor with a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, some Members, for their own political purposes, want to address this balance that was carefully worked out in ways that I frankly find shameful and cynical. If we are going to get up here as mothers and grandmothers, well, I qualify. I am a mother and a grandmother. Mr. Chairman, in 1992 I was part of the committee that worked very hard and proudly passed the IDEA bill. In my district, if you reach out to the parents who have children that have benefited from this program, sure, we would like to increase the dollars even more, and as the chairman said, we did increase it $312 million. But that is not what this debate is all about. Let us, for a moment, think about the hardworking men and women who are parents of these children, who have to go to the store every day, who struggle to balance their lives, who work hard for a living, who have to take care of these children, and who work tremendously hard against the odds because they have additional burdens. Let us think about these parents and let us think about what this cut would do, and let us worry a little bit about the parents who are being exploited in many situations. That is what this division is all about. Sure, most employers respect their workers, but this division is trying to ensure that those workers who are not treated fairly, who are not getting a decent wage, are going to have to be treated fairly, or the law or the U.S. Government will take action. As one of my colleagues said before, why are we hiding behind these children that desperately need help, and whom our chairman and our minority member and all of us want to help? Why do Members not just come out and say they want to repeal this bill, that they do not like wage and hours enforcement? Why are they hiding behind these children? Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I find it cynical and shameful, and I do wish the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and others would have fought harder in the committee if they wanted to raise the money from $312 million to an additional number, but not try and pit one group against another. In fact, frankly, I find the debate on all these amendments cynical and shameful, because instead of coming right out and supporting the issue, they are trying to pit one group against another. Mr. Chairman, let us vote this amendment down and move on, and let us try and pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, there was an agreement that we were not going to add riders to this bill, that we had worked very hard to get good compromises on each of these very difficult, difficult issues. Let us vote down these riders, move forward, and pass this bill. Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking minority member, on their outstanding work, and working in a bipartisan way. In contrast to last year, it was a pleasure working in a bipartisan way, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and in support of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is just an extreme piece of legislation that aims to end family planning aid overseas. What our amendment will do is ensure that voluntary preventive family planning services continue. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] claims that his amendment simply cuts abortion funding. What he has not told us is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. His amendment would cut abortion funding from zero to zero. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] must be after something more, and that something is family planning. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, most living in developing countries.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I fully supported this bill as it was reported by committee. It was a bipartisan effort of which I am quite proud. Since the beginning of the last Congress, the Labor-HHS education bill has been the focus of contentious debate, which even led to a Government shutdown. At long last, the committee under the strong leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has succeeded in producing a bill which reflects our shared priorities. In keeping with the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the committee voted to oppose all new controversial legislative riders. I strongly urge my colleague to oppose the Goodling and Istook amendments. They are opposed by the administration, highly controversial, and do not belong in this bill. And let me say at the outset, if these amendments pass, support for the bill by Members of this body will be jeopardized and it would be very unfortunate if that occurs. The bill, as reported by committee, recognizes the clear need for an increased investment in our children's education, and I am pleased that we were able to provide $2.8 billion more than last year in discretionary funds for education. In particular, I am pleased that new funds have been provided to keep our schools open after hours in order to improve reading and other academic skills and that we have increased funding for magnet schools. I salute the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for developing a school reform proposal that would build upon the most successful models across the country, including several located in New York. I also want to note that we have increased the maximum Pell grant by $300 per student. We made a number of significant increases in health programs. We were able to provide NIH with a 6-percent increase over last year. This will allow NIH to increase funding for breast cancer research so that advances in prevention and treatment will continue to move forward. We were also able to provide a modest increase for the Centers for Disease Control, the agency which safeguards our Nation's public health. In the labor area, I am particularly pleased that we provided $170 million more than last year for adult job training. These funds will help to assist those on welfare so that they can better obtain decent paying jobs. Of course there are some programs that I believe should be better funded than they are in this bill. Specifically, I am disappointed that there is no money for the State Students Incentive Grant Program and no increase for teacher training under the Eisenhower program. I am also deeply concerned about the inadequacy of funds for aging services, particularly for senior centers and meal programs, and I hope that we can move toward the Senate levels on these programs. I am also concerned that the committee has not provided adequate funds to cities to care for people with AIDS nor to prevent HIV infection and the spread of AIDS. Worker protection programs are also now funded at adequate levels. But this is a very good bill that meets so many of the important needs of our constituents. Please let us keep it free of new controversial riders.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which will eliminate USAID funding for international family planning. The need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Last February, both the House and the Senate showed their commitment to the USAID International Family Planning Program by voting for the early release of the funds for this program. Eliminating family planning will deeply hurt millions of women and children. Nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth; 99 percent of these women live in developing countries. In many countries, women are the primary caregivers of children and a mother's survival is crucial to the survival and well-being of her children. Our international family planning programs are working to reduce maternal deaths and illness due to childbirth. The ability to control the timing and spacing of childbearing helps mothers, infants, and children thrive. Infants born less than 2 years after a sibling are more likely to have low birth weight, making them more vulnerable to illness and death. One in five infant deaths alone could be averted by the better spacing of births. In addition, the health of the mother is also put at risk when couples cannot control the number and timing of births. For example, very young women and women who have births very close together are at greater risk for postpartum hemorrhage, a leading cause of maternal death. And for every woman who dies during childbirth, many more face injuries and infections, leaving them permanently disabled or infertile. This amendment will prevent us from eliminating these tragedies. Simply put--this amendment will end our family planning programs. Period. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We cannot let them eliminate international family planning--there is too much at stake. I urge you to continue this vital investment in the reproductive health and safety of women and children.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres amendment, which would help us close the U.S. Army School of the Americas once and for all. The School of the Americas has taught some of the most ruthless dictators in Latin America to torture their opponents, censor the press, and intimidate their citizens. It must be shut down. But the issue of what to do with the School of the Americas goes well beyond the deplorable actions of the school, and right to the heart of U.S. foreign policy. The question before us today is whether the United States has the moral responsibility to encourage other governments to respect human rights and democracy. Are human rights and democracy just catch phrases we use, or are they basic principles that we demand of every nation? We must demand human rights and democracy--in name and in practice-- from our own military and all of our neighbors. That is why the School of the Americas is an affront to everything that U.S. foreign policy should be about. That is why we must close this school. Fifty years ago, the School of the Americas was opened with the goal of improving U.S. ties to Latin American militaries. The idea was to educate our neighbors to the South about democratic civilian control of the military. But over the last few decades, we started to hear reports of what was actually being taught there. Words like torture, beating, and execution were increasingly being associated with the school's courses. Then some of the school's more distinguished graduates started to turn up in high positions in Latin American governments. People like Panama's drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega--now serving time in a United States prison on a drug conviction--and Roberto D'Aubuisson, who organized many of El Salvador's notorious death squads. In response, many of us have been calling for the school to be shut down and for disclosure of the school's curriculum. Well, we got our second wish last year. In September 1996, the U.S. Army released portions of a training manual used at the school during the 1980's. The manual revealed what we have suspected all along: Latin American military officers were taught to intimidate, torture, and kill to achieve their political objectives. According to the Pentagon itself, School of the Americas students were taught to imprison and execute their opponents. To use motivation by fear. To subvert the press. And to use torture, blackmail, and truth serum to obtain information. This is unacceptable. U.S. foreign policy should not promote these tactics. And they have no place in a school funded by our tax dollars and taught by U.S. instructors on U.S. soil. The United States stands for democracy and respect for individual rights. Its foreign policy must always be conducted with a commitment to these principles. The School of the Americas violated this fundamental tenet. It is time to close down the school for good.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct before us. It doesn't make sense to me why the Joint Tax Committee needs all of the funding it receives in this bill. Last month, when we all thought the committee was busy writing the provisions of the tax bill, it turns out they were checking their mailbox for suggested provisions from lobbyists. One such suggestion was a $50 billion giveaway to the tobacco industry that went directly from the desks of the industry lobbyists into the tax bill. This provision will allow the big tobacco companies to reduce the payment they are required to make under a settlement by the amount collected in excise taxes on cigarettes. This is unacceptable. That is why I introduced legislation with Senator Dick Durbin that will repeal this middle-of-the-night giveaway. We must not allow American taxpayers to foot the bill for big tobacco's settlement with the American people. This provision should never have been written into the tax bill in the first place, and it must be repealed immediately. But in addition to repealing the provision, we must determine how it was slipped into the tax bill in the first place. Fortunately, Kenneth Kies, the staff director of the Joint Tax Committee, answered this question for us August 29. When asked about this giveaway to the big tobacco companies, Mr. Kies was quoted in USA Today as saying, ``The industry wrote it and submitted it, and we just used their language.'' Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the Joint Tax Committee determined which provisions to include in the tax bill, there are far better ways to use taxpayers' dollars. We must repeal this tobacco giveaway, and we must send a strong message to Mr. Kies and the Joint Tax Committee that the manner in which this provision was slipped into the tax bill is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join with my colleagues; and not really delighted, I would say to the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Susan Molinari, but we want to wish the gentlewoman lots of good luck and success. I am not sure who I am going to miss more, Susan Molinari or Susan Ruby, because she clearly cheers up all our days. From one mother to another mother, I can tell you we are going to miss you both. Susan and I have been fighting together on so many issues for the years I have been here, whether it is fighting to keep those planes in New Jersey away from New York, and I am going to have to call you, Susan, for some reinforcement. We just keep sending these planes back and forth, but we are going to make sure that they are not flying over Staten Island while you are away. We are going to make sure we continue to fight to make sure that our transportation in New York serves all the people of all of our districts. The gentlewoman has been right there on the front line. Whether it is fighting together on Ellis Island, one thing after another, Susan is there to fight for New York. I know we are going to work very hard, Susan, to make sure that the battles continue in support of all the issues that we care about. So we wish you good luck, with lots of love and admiration and support. You have always stood up for the right things, and I have been honored to be there with you.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] in honor of an outstanding constituent from Yonkers, New York, Betty Shabazz. We have worked on so many issues, fighting for families, fighting for women, fighting for children. Just recently, I served on a panel with Betty Shabazz, could not have been more than probably a couple months ago. So I thank my good friend from New York, [Mr. Rangel] for introducing this resolution which I support.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2159. I want to thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], our outstanding ranking member, who have worked so very hard in a bipartisan way to report out a bill that strikes a delicate balance on a number of very difficult issues. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect. The overall funding in the bill is substantially lower than what I would have liked, and several specific accounts are also too low. But this bill does represent a very serious bipartisan compromise. And again, I want to thank the chairman and our ranking member. The bill also includes the full $3 billion in aid package for Israel and the critical $80 million for refugee resettlement assistance. With the tragic bombings today in Jerusalem, we have seen once again how very important it is for the United States to express its strong support for Israel and the Israeli people. Although the development assistance account is lower than the administration requested, an issue I would like to see corrected in conference, it does include a critical $10 million increase for international microcredit programs, which I think are absolutely critical to help raise the level of prosperity around the world. Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned about the item in the bill for International Development Association, which is unacceptably low. The $606 million included in the bill is only slightly more than half of what the administration has requested for IDA, and I would call on the chairman to work with me and my colleagues to increase this amount in conference, as well. Mr. Chairman, the bill does have some compromises which we worked very hard to support. The bill preserves current law, prohibiting the U.S. funds for the performance of abortions or to lobby for or against abortion. It also prohibits the funds from being used to support any biomedical research that relates to the performance of abortions. Mr. Chairman, I offer my very strong support for this bipartisan bill. In the past, we have spent many hours debating amendment after amendment on the floor regarding Greece, Turkey, and the Caucasus region. This year, we have reported out a bill that addresses most of our concerns in this area. Now there are some provisions I would have written differently, and I'm sure some of my colleagues feel the same way, but what is in the bill represents a good balance on this issue. And I want to thank the chairman and Ms. Pelosi, and also Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Porter for all of their hard work on this issue. Microcredit is a critical tool in the fight to eradicate poverty worldwide and enjoys wide bipartisan support in the Congress and the administration. Providing these small, low interest loans to the millions of low- income entrepreneurs around the world would be a major step toward the eradication of poverty. This is especially true among women, who are very often the heads of households, and benefit tremendously from microcredit programs. This is a critical time for microcredit. We have come a long way this year alone, but we must do more. The increase for microcredit in this bill will allow us to help thousands of people pull themselves out of poverty. IDA makes critical investments in the development of the world's poorest countries. It provides assistance in health care, education, and other areas of human capital, creating the climate needed for sustainable growth and helping to turn these nations from aid recipients to trading partners. This bill also strikes a balance in the area of international family planning assistance, one of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth--most live in developing countries. Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions. Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented. Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot obtain them. This bill preserves current law prohibiting the use of U.S. funds for the performance of abortions or to lobby for or against abortion. It also prohibits the funds from being used to support any biomedical research that relates to the performance of abortions as a method of family planning. These restrictions represent a compromise in this area and I hope that we will pass this bill without upsetting this compromise. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues see this matter differently and are planning to offer an amendment that, if passed, could hold the entire foreign aid bill hostage for the third year in a row. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these efforts to disrupt our bipartisan compromise. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I do have some very serious reservations about specific provisions in this bill. But on the whole, it represents a good compromise between Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Pelosi, and all of the members of the subcommittee. I urge passage of this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 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 Americans, consumers and taxpayers. The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut costs to the consumers. 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. Now that is not peanuts. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers and support this amendment. It is good fiscal and consumer policy.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard that this amendment is mean-spirited and that it will hurt tobacco growers. The simple fact is that tobacco is one of the most lucrative crops in America. Our amendment will not stop these farmers from growing tobacco. The amendment says they can continue to grow tobacco, but they will have to purchase crop insurance on their own. Now if that is a hardship, it is a hardship for all the small businesses in America that they manage to overcome. My colleagues on the other side of this debate will also say that this amendment will not end smoking. They are right. This amendment is not a cure-all, but it will bring us one step closer to a consistent Federal policy on tobacco. Every year 400,000 Americans die from cancer. One of them was my dad. My father smoked three packs a day. At the age of 54, he died. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cook].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Linda Smith], a cosponsor of the amendment and a fighter on antitobacco programs.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bipartisan Lowey-DeGette-Hansen-Meehan-Smith amendment will eliminate Federally-based crop insurance for tobacco and begin to get the Federal Government out of the tobacco business for good. According to the CBO, this amendment will save taxpayers at least $34 million. Tobacco products kill 400,000 Americans each year. 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 should not be subsidizing this deadly product. The Federal Government is spending millions on crop insurance for tobacco; at the same time, we are spending almost $200 million to warn Americans about the dangers of tobacco and prevent its use. It is time for this hypocrisy to end. We must make our agricultural policy consistent with our public health policy. Mr. Chairman, opponents of this amendment will say that we are denying a service to tobacco growers that is available to all other farmers. That is simply not true. Only 65 of nearly 1,600 crops grown in the United States are eligible for Federal crop insurance; honey, broccoli, watermelon, squash, cherries, cucumbers, not covered. Opponents of this amendment will also say that it will hurt small tobacco farmers. But what they do not tell us is that tobacco is one of the most lucrative crops in America. An acre of tobacco yields a 1,000- percent higher price than an acre of corn. Today we have an historic opportunity to dissolve 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. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Schumer amendment. I have people in my district who are working hard to support their families. What we are seeing is that this anticompetitive program costs consumers over $1 billion per year in higher prices. Because of this program, it is threatening jobs in my district. We see it at Refined Sugars in Yonkers. At Domino's in Brooklyn. It is so critical that we reform the program. I rise in strong support of the Miller-Schumer amendment.