Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], a cosponsor of this amendment. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], a proud cosponsor of the amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule which would severely restrict debate on several very important and complex issues. I will be offering an amendment shortly to eliminate federally subsidized crop insurance for tobacco. It makes no sense that we spend almost $200 million each year on programs designed to prevent the terrible health effects of smoking and then we turn around and spend millions of dollars more to encourage the growth of tobacco. My amendment will simply make our tobacco policy more consistent. Now, whether Members support my amendment or oppose it, this rule denies all of us the right to debate the issue fully. I will be the first to admit that some of my very good colleagues on both sides of the aisle disagree with me on the issue of tobacco subsidies, and many more of my colleagues agree with me. All of us deserve to be heard on this matter, but few of us will have that opportunity. Last year we spent more than 7 hours having a thorough debate on these issues. This year we will spend a fraction of that. There are new amendments, new facts, new Members that deserve much more than this rule gives them. I have a list of more than 25 Members that want to speak on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, no matter whether they support or oppose the amendments, to oppose this restrictive rule. These issues deserve to be heard and to get a full hearing.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond briefly to my good friend and colleague from New York [Mr. Solomon], just following up on what the distinguished chairman of our committee has said, rather than go backward, Mr. Speaker, rather than talk about what happened and what did not happen, I think what our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] wants to do is move forward. Our bill is ready. The appropriation bill is ready to go on the floor. The discussions and the differences of opinion have to do with authorizing language. Our distinguished chairman is just saying, we have a bipartisan solution. Let us move it. Let us make that determination now and let us do it. Otherwise, if we do not resolve this now, we are going to be having great differences of opinion for the next week and not get our business done. I would just respectfully suggest and request of the chairman that either we bring this bill to the floor without a rule or that the leadership has the responsibility to put a rule together. I would say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the issue is not the agriculture bill. The issue is that the Republican leadership can put together a rule in a bipartisan way to move the foreign operations bill forward.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, consistent with the arguments of my colleague, it just does not make sense at all to know that we are spending $200 million to prevent our youngsters from using tobacco, and yet we are going to limit our debate to make our policy on crop insurance consistent with our health policy to 15 minutes a side. And we are not talking about the billions of dollars that are being spent in Medicaid and Medicare. Many of my colleagues have a lot to say on this issue. Tobacco is on the minds of thousands and thousands of our constituents. I would ask my colleagues, and I know I am joined by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to reconsider any rule that would limit the discussion to 10 minutes on either side, or even 15 minutes on either side. This is an important issue and we should give it fair time.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleagues in strongly protesting the proposed rule, and I have not seen the rule as yet, but I would hope that this misguided rule is just a rumor, and not reality. I have an amendment with the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and many other Members join us in support of this amendment, that would also deal with the tobacco subsidy and would try to bring some consistency to this policy, to make sure that our health policy is consistent with our subsidy policy. It just does not make any sense at all. And to think that we are going to limit this debate on this very important issue to 15 minutes a side, and we hear about this at 11:25 at night when we have been waiting all day and all night to debate this issue, this just does not make any sense at all. I would appeal to my colleagues, our distinguished chairman on the other side of the aisle, to protest this rule, because limiting this important discussion to either 5 minutes a side on the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] or 15 minutes a side on our amendment just does not make any sense at all.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a dubious anniversary. As we sit here, after 23 years of Turkish occupation of Cyprus, it is especially appropriate to recognize the struggle for the freedom of all Cypriots that has been waged for more than two decades. It was over two decades ago that 6,000 Turkish troops and 40 tanks landed on the north coast of Cyprus, and more than 200,000 Cypriots were driven from their homes and forced to live under foreign occupation. Over two decades ago, and still Turkey has thousands of troops on the island. Over two decades ago, and we still don't know what became of the 1,614 Greek Cypriots and 5 American citizens missing since the Turkish invasion. That is why I'm pleased that we have this opportunity today. Today, we remember what happened in Cyprus 23 years ago and we pledge to fight to end the occupation. Today, we also look toward the promise of the future. President Clinton recently demonstrated his commitment to solving this difficult issue by appointing Richard Holbrooke as the special envoy to Cyprus. I applaud the President for this decision and I hope that it will lead to a real solution for Cyprus. I hope that this time next year we will be standing here on the House floor celebrating the end of the Turkish occupation. We must continue to fight against injustice in Cyprus. We must continue to provide aid to Cyprus to help that country deal with the terrible problems caused by more than two decades of Turkish occupation. And, above all, we must continue to keep the plight of the Cypriots on the minds of everyone around the world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment to ensure that States continue to operate vocational educational programs for women and girls. Last year we passed a welfare reform law designed to help individuals become self-sufficient. Many of those struggling to get off welfare are single parents and displaced homemakers. Unfortunately, traditional vocational training programs do not focus on the unique obstacles faced by women trying to raise a family. If we truly value families, we must value those programs that allow parents to provide for those families. The Mink amendment will preserve important programs that help assure equitable education and employment opportunities for women and girls. The Perkins programs for displaced homemakers, single parents, and sex equity have been very successful. For more than a decade these programs have helped women move into careers that provide higher wages, better benefits, and the possibility of advancement. Not surprisingly, women in nontraditional occupations earn 20 to 30 percent more than those in traditionally female occupations. We must protect and support programs that help women move into these higher paying jobs. That is how we end welfare dependency and increase family incomes. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that under this bill programs would ignore the needs of women. My colleagues will recall that last month we celebrated the 25th anniversary of title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination in education. We have made progress in promoting gender equity in education since the title IX law was passed in 1972, but we have not put an end to discrimination entirely. We must not undermine the mission of title IX by eliminating the role played by gender equity coordinators in vocational education. The Mink amendment will keep this important activity alive. When we discussed these programs some time ago, I spoke about Kelly Miles, a single mother of three from New York City who was on public assistance for many years. Through a nontraditional employment training program for women, Kelly was able to move off welfare and begin a career as an electrician. She is a wonderful example of what women can achieve through these very important programs. The programs preserved by the Mink amendment help us reach thousands of Kelly Miles, women who want to be self-sufficient but need to develop the tools to get there. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Mink amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican leadership voted to kill the National Endowment for the Arts, and today unfortunately they are dancing on its grave. With all due respect to my colleague from Michigan, this amendment is not a compromise, it is a sham. It will not undo the damage that will be inflicted on communities across the Nation by eliminating the NEA. We do not need a new bureaucracy at the Department of Education, a new distribution system to support the arts. The NEA, particularly under the leadership of Jane Alexander, already has the expertise and a proven record of getting the job done. Let me remind my colleagues that out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 are controversial. That is less than four one-hundredths of 1 percent of all grants. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water simply because a few grants years ago were controversial. As I mentioned yesterday, this battle is not about defending the values of mainstream America. This is about pandering to Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. The assault on the arts, on cultural expression itself, is an outrage, and it must be defeated. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area, even with a fully funded NEA. But let us be honest. This is not a fight over money. The leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of artistic expression in a free society. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports Federal funding for the arts because students, artists, musicians, teachers, orchestras, theaters, dance companies across the country benefit from the NEA support. For many Americans, whether they live in the suburbs or cities or rural areas, the NEA is critical in making the arts affordable and accessible. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Ehlers-Hunter amendment. Preserve the NEA.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. As the gateway for more than 12 million immigrants between 1892 and 1954, Ellis Island holds a unique place in our Nation's history. More than 90 million Americans trace their roots to Ellis Island, and 1\1/2\ million visitors from around the world tour the island every year. Unfortunately, some parts of the island are not receiving the attention they deserve, and last month the National Trust for Historic Preservation included the south side of Ellis Island on its annual list of the 11 most endangered historic places in the United States. The south side of Ellis Island consists of more than two dozen buildings that served as hospital wards during the first part of this century. These buildings have great historical significance. In fact, the cure for pink eye was discovered there. Due to years of weather-related damage, however, the hospital complex is seriously decayed. Roofs are caved in, walls are crumbling, and in some buildings stalactites of lime hang from the ceiling. These buildings are literally falling apart, and allowing them to decay beyond repair would be a national disgrace. I am very pleased that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has included report language in the bill at my request that directs the Park Service to come up with an immediate plan to stabilize these buildings. I also want to reiterate my hope that, working with the Senate, we may be able to find a small amount of money in the bill to begin basic emergency repairs in the future.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, this is not about raising taxes. It is not often that we have an opportunity to enhance environmental protection, reduce the deficit and end corporate tax subsidies in one single vote. But that is exactly what this amendment offers us today. For years the Forest Service has provided taxpayer-funded subsidies to timber companies to construct nearly 400,000 miles of logging roads through our national forests. These subsidies not only provide a handout to the timber industry for costs they should be paying on their own, they also underwrite activities that take a serious toll on our forests' fragile ecology. These are the habitats for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. Logging roads fragment habitats, increase erosion and siltation into rivers and streams. As for the expense to taxpayers, the General Accounting Office estimates that between 1992 and 1994, the logging road program cost the Treasury more than $245 million. And just for a point of reference, that is almost three times the cost of the entire budget for the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment is plain common sense. Trout Unlimited, hardly a bastion of environmental extremism, is among the many groups supporting this measure. Let us be very clear. This amendment will not prohibit timber companies from building new logging roads. It simply says, do so at your own expense; go build them but pay for it at your own expense, not with taxpayer dollars. Do not expect the taxpayers to give you a handout. Is that not what welfare reform is all about? The Forest Service's logging road construction program epitomizes the kind of wasteful, environmentally destructive corporate welfare program that we have a duty, a responsibility, to terminate as we move toward a balanced budget. My colleagues, for all those who want to move towards a balanced budget, I urge support of this bipartisan amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to express my great respect for our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Regula] and our outstanding leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. And although he fought vigorously to defeat the rule, which would have given us an opportunity to support the National Endowment for the Arts, we lost, and I would like to direct my remarks to the Ehlers-Hunter amendment regarding the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. Chairman, in a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that we are here today debating the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year. One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area, even with a fully funded NEA. But let us be honest, my colleagues. This is not a fight over money. The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are concerned about artistic expression in a free society. This battle is not about defending the values of mainstream America, this is about pandering to Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. The Republican assault on the arts, on cultural expression itself, is an outrage and it must be defeated. Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports Federal funding for the arts because students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, dance companies across the country benefit from the NEA. For many Americans, whether they live in the suburbs, our cities, or our rural areas, the NEA is critical in making the arts affordable and accessible. If those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let us just talk dollars and cents. Because for every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the Government's investment, and we certainly do not need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy. Instead of debating this issue on the merits, the NEA opponents delight in telling sensational stories about objectional projects. Let us be very clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA funded grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That is less than 0.04 percent of all grants. Moreover, under the very able leadership of Jane Alexander, the NEA has restructured the grant process to ensure the mistakes of the past cannot be repeated. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Ehlers-Hunter amendment and preserve the NEA.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. We really owe it to the memory of our ancestors and for the benefit of future generations to preserve these buildings. I am very appreciative of the chairman's support for getting us on the path to do just that.