Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly, OSU, who on July 1 will complete 25 years of outstanding service as president of the College of New Rochelle. I am privileged, as the Member of Congress who represents the college, to have worked with Sister Dorothy Ann. I know her to be a widely respected and admired national leader in the areas of higher education and women's issues, who also has found the time to play an active role in community organizations and events. Innovative, insightful, instrumental--these are merely a few words that can be used to characterize Sr. Dorothy Ann Kelly, who has served as president of the College of New Rochelle for the past 25 years. Under her determined leadership, the college has grown from one school of 800 students in 1972 to four schools with seven campuses and a current student population of over 6,500. Sr. Dorothy Ann played a vital role in the establishment of three of the college's four schools--the graduate school, now offering programs in art, communication arts, education and human services, the School of New Resources, an international model in adult education, and the School of Nursing, which remains on the cutting edge in preparing nurses to meet today's health care needs. The School of Arts and Sciences, the original unit of the college, still enrolls only women students as it did when founded in 1904. Throughout her 40-year career in education as associate professor of history, academic dean, acting president, and now president, Sr. Dorothy Ann has demonstrated a deep devotion to providing equal rights and access to education for all, regardless of general or ethnic background. This commitment is particularly evident in the School of New Resources' innovative baccalaureate degree program designed specifically for adults and the college's bold act of bringing the new resources program directly into the community, crossing all perceived barriers of geography and socio-economic background. The school now maintains seven branch campuses in the New York metropolitan area, including in the South Bronx, Harlem, and Brooklyn. Sr. Dorothy Ann is no stranger to being the first or only woman to achieve a particular goal or status. In 1995, she was the only women's college president appointed by the President of the United States to be a member of the official U.S. delegation to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing, China. In recognition of her leadership role in independent higher education, in 1994, Sr. Dorothy Ann became the first woman to receive the Henry D. Paley Memorial Award from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities [NAICU] and in 1978, Sr. Dorothy Ann became the first woman chair of the New York State Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities. She currently serves on the boards of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association--College Retirement Equities Fund [TIAA-CREF] Community of the Peace People, U.S.A.; The Catholic University of America; the Commission on Higher Education--Middle States Association; the Advisory Board of The National Museum of Women in the Arts; Sound Shore Hospital Medical Center in Westchester County, NY; and The Ursuline School in New Rochelle, NY. For these, and many other reasons, Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly truly deserves our thanks and congratulations, as she moves on to the newly created position of chancellor of the College of New Rochelle.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable woman from my district who recently left us. For more than 40 years, Mildred Jones served her community and nation. She represented the World YWCA at the United Nations for 15 years, worked for UNICEF, chaired the Mission Commission in the 1990s, and helped organize several international conferences on women-- including the 1995 Beijing Conference. Closer to home, she served her community at the White Plains Presbyterian Church, soliciting support for programs that provide food and shelter to the homeless and housing for senior citizens. Mildred Jones touched the lives of people all over the world. She will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, in her honor, I wish to have portions of her 1997 United Presbyterian Church ``Woman of the Year'' nomination included in the Record for all to read. May she inspire each and every one of us. Woman of the Year Nomination United Presbyterian Church, USA 1997 Mrs. Jones represented the World YWCA at the United Nations from 1971 until 1996. As a representative of a non- governmental organization at the UN, she chaired the NGO committee for UNICEF. During the International Year of the Child in 1979, she worked professionally in the UNICEF office and was the U.S. representative and side to Canon Moerman, head of the UN's International Year of the Child. In her work with UNICEF, Mrs. Jones was instrumental in aggressively promoting a boycott of the Nestle Company to combat the marketing of baby formula milk to mothers in African countries. (Formula milk requires the addition of water, and the water in many African communities was typhoid- ridden. UNICEF presented alternative educational programs for breast feeding.) As a church elder and chair of the Mission Commission in the 1990's, Mrs. Jones was an important spearhead in developing a Mentoring Program involving church members who work with the children of homeless families living in temporary housing. Throughout her more than 40 years of service to the YMCA, UN and UNICEF (as well as her concurrent service in the White Plains Presbyterian Church), Mrs. Jones has worked creatively and effectively for the well-being of children. She helped organize international causes to reduce high child-mortality rates by means of methods such as breast-feeding, immunization, oral rehydration therapy, and growth monitoring. Helping to empower the powerless does not happen without critics. During the planning for the International Year of the Child, Mrs. Jones received an angry letter from an executive in a prominent woman's organization demanding that the U.S. withdraw support for the IYC because it was a ``Communist Conspiracy''. Mrs. Jones firmly rejected that idea, pointing out that, in fact, the Soviet Union had refused to participate in the IYC, stating that their children were well cared for and didn't need help. In her mission work with the White Plains Presbyterian Church, Mrs. Jones was active in gaining support for several outreach programs: SWAP (a program to renovate old buildings in inner-city Yonkers); Ecumenical Emergency Food Pantry; Kingsley House (a senior citizens' apartment house jointly funded by the White Plains church and New York State); and SHORE (Sheltering the Homeless is Our Responsibility, a community-wide program). Mildred Jones served on the Board of Directors of the National YWCA, 1955-1970, and was vice-president of the Board, 1967-1970. She was a member of the Executive Committee of the World YWCA, 1967-1975, and VP of the World YWCA, 1971- 1975. As part of her UN and UNICEF work, Mrs. Jones helped organize three world conferences about and for women (Mexico, Copenhagen and Beijing.) She was a model for women in her church work, also: one of the first women to be ordained an elder in White Plains, Clerk of Session for eight years, a member of Session, off on an, for nearly 25 years.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the budget agreement approved last month because I do believe that our Nation must have a balanced budget that protects our priorities and respects our values. But, unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not even wait for the ink to dry on the deal before changing it. In fact, the bill before us violates the budget deal in several critical ways. First, it fails to provide basic assistance to legal immigrants, which means that 16,000 elderly and disabled legal immigrants in New York will have the safety net cut out from under them. The bill cuts more than $12 billion from hospitals and other health care providers in New York, and the children's health program fails to provide coverage for more than 4 million children. It denies American workers basic workplace protections, and it will hurt seniors and their families who depend on quality nursing care. And this bill violates the basic reproductive rights of American women. Tucked away in the fine print of this legislation is an extreme provision, the Hyde amendment, that would permanently, for the first time, prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortion. This punitive prohibition would prevent millions of lower income women from obtaining vital reproductive health services and would personally create a two- tiered health care system. We must not allow this to occur. Federal health programs must cover the full range of reproductive health care services, including abortion. This abortion restriction was not in the budget deal, and it should not be in the budget bill. We must not allow the Republicans to use the budget process to enact their radical anti-choice agenda. Again, the abortion restriction was not in the budget deal; and, therefore, it should not be in this budget bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Harman amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act went much further than a limitation on the use of government funds for abortion. It actually barred military women and dependents from using their own money to pay for abortion services at military bases, just as they would use their own funds to pay for those services if they were in the United States. The current law puts the health of our military women at risk. Many of these women are stationed in countries where there is just no access to safe and legal abortions outside of the military hospitals. A woman forced to seek an abortion at local facilities or forced to wait to travel to apply safe abortion services faces tremendous health risks. This amendment does not force the Department of Defense to pay for abortion. It simply gives women access to health care that they could receive if they were at home. It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that Congress would reward the American service women who have volunteered to serve this Nation by violating their constitutional right to assess abortion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution congratulating the Israeli people on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Today we in this House reaffirm our commitment to Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel now and forever. It is especially fitting that we rise today to celebrate the Israeli capital as the people of the Middle East are struggling to bring peace to the region. In these difficult times it is critical that we show our support for a safe and secure Israel, with Jerusalem as its undivided capital. Jerusalem has been and must remain a center of ethnic and religious diversity where individual rights of worship are respected and protected. Torn apart by war for almost two decades, Jerusalem was united as the capital of the State of Israel 30 years ago and so it shall remain. I commend my colleagues for bringing this important resolution to the floor, and I urge its passage.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment which condemns the deplorable policy and practice of murdering Palestinians because they have sold land to Jews. I want to thank my colleagues the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for introducing this amendment. There has been considerable evidence in recent weeks that Palestinian officials have endorsed, either directly or tacitly, the death penalty for Palestinians who sell land to Jews. As a result, at least three Palestinian businessmen have been ruthlessly murdered. This must not be allowed to happen again. Whether Palestinian officials have explicitly supported this policy or approved of it with a wink or a nod is irrelevant. The facts are that Palestinians are being killed for selling land to Jews and the Palestinian authority has done nothing to stop it. This amendment calls on all Palestinian officials to unequivocally condemn this policy and bring the murderers to justice now. Mr. Chairman, the United States has afforded the Palestinian authority several benefits that come with internationally recognized autonomy. We have entered into cooperative agreements with them on regional issues. We have engaged in direct diplomatic negotiations with them. We have provided them with economic assistance. In return we must demand adherence to the rule of law. These recent killings, which have even been linked to Palestinian security officials, represent a total disregard for the rule of law. We must demand more. If the parties are going to work together in the Middle East to bring a real peace to that region, and I for one heartily endorse our active work as facilitators to work with the parties to move us closer to peace, then we must demand more from the parties. I rise in strong support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and urge its adoption.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment to urge that military sanctions be imposed on Indonesia because of Indonesia's terrible human rights record. I certainly have no objection, and I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] to the amendment because I think that we should be ready to condemn atrocities and brutality wherever they occur. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Chairman, in recent years to criticize Indonesia because of that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement in Indonesia's human rights record and the opposition of myself and many of my colleagues, Indonesia continues to receive United States military assistance. According to the State Department's country report on Indonesia, quote, the government continues to commit serious human rights abuses. The State Department report also said that in Indonesia reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody by security forces increased, not decreased; not stayed the same, increased. Should we really be sending Indonesia more military assistance now, when they have not addressed these critical human rights issues? I do not think so. Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975, 200,000 killed out of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to Indonesia that we will not tolerate continued human rights abuses, and I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy, for bringing these issues to our attention and speaking so eloquently on these issues. I do hope that this body will respond to the specific stories which my colleagues have shared, which my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], has shared. I have not been to East Timor, but I have met many times privately with people who have recounted these stories to us, and we cannot let this record stand. We must take action, and I want to just tell the gentleman, ``I support you.''

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island again for his leadership.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend and colleague that I recently came back from a trip to Egypt. This amendment would have a chilling effect on programs such as exist in Egypt which are lifesaving to women and children, helping them space their children, giving them the information. If an organization such as we find in Egypt that provides these valuable services to these women uses their own money or even provides some factual information in response to a question, they could be defunded. So we are saying here, and I believe with all due respect to my friend and colleague, that this is not about family planning; it is because, in speaking to the health professionals, they make it very clear that this would have a tremendous impact on family planning.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in strong support of the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey substitute. My good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and other proponents of the Smith amendment, claim that the amendment simply cuts abortion funding. What they do not tell us is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. This amendment would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to zero. Therefore, the Smith amendment must be after something more. 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. Let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women around the world. Complications of pregnancy, child birth, unsafe abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive health problems; each year 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions. 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. Most of these deaths can be prevented. The Smith amendment would impose a gag rule on U.S.-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multilateral organizations that provide U.S. supported family planning aid overseas. The gag rule is written, in fact, so broadly that it would prohibit the publishing of factual information about maternal morbidity and mortality related to unsafe abortion. Finally, the Smith amendment cuts funds to UNFPA, an organization that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 countries. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and to support the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], again I would like to respectfully disagree. It has been our policy that educating the populations of the world, spreading democracy, has been in the interests of the United States. I would like to close by saying that it is in the interest of our country, of our constituents, that we do what we can to strengthen the United States, to invest in world peace. Hopefully this will keep our community safe here at home. I would like to work with the gentleman to invest in our communities at home, to help our families be strengthened through education and through housing and health care programs. But in order to keep our constituents safe at home, we have a responsibility, in my judgment, to strengthen our role in the United Nations, to be sure that we have a United Nations that can continue to work for world peace. That is in the interest of our constituents here at home.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. With all respect for my colleague, I think we have an obligation as Members of Congress to lead. I understand that there are constituents of the gentleman's and perhaps constituents of mine who are concerned with daily life. They are worried about how they are going to pay the bills, they are worried about how they are going to send their youngsters to college, they are worried about how they are going to pay the mortgage. These occupations consume them. But as Members of Congress, I think we have a responsibility to explain to those constituents that the United States plays a key role in this world, and we are the leaders of the free world. For those of us who have an opportunity to see the important works of the United Nations, we have to speak out loudly and clearly that by raising the economic standard, by raising the standard of living of people in countries that many of our constituents have never visited, we are helping ourselves here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we have to pay our U.N. dues. We have to pay our arrearages. We have been a leader in the United Nations, and the fact that we have not paid our dues and have not met our responsibility does harm to our position in the United Nations. When we look at the programs of, for example, the United Nations development program, and we see that this program has a real impact in many of the areas of the world in health care, in education, in giving people the opportunity to work and get a job and raise their standard of living, this helps us. Ignorance breeds violence too often in distant corners of the world. Therefore, I think we have to explain to our constituents that if we give a person in Kenya, for example, or Botswana the opportunity to create a job for themselves, sometimes $300 to a microcredit program helps a woman stand tall, and this supports a whole family. This can support a whole community. We have an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to help educate our constituents. Now, the United Nations is not perfect. There are many things that I would agree with my colleague on. We have to work, work with the new Secretary General, to make sure that these areas are reformed. But I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and in fact, take a strong position to support the United Nations and to make sure that the United States can stand tall and fulfill our responsibilities as a leader in the world by paying our arrearages.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor and congratulate Francis Fraenkel on his 60th birthday. The name Francis Fraenkel is synonymous with success. Francis is currently president of Delta Capital Management, Inc., the investment advisory firm he founded in 1992. Prior to establishing DCM, he served as president of Salomon Brothers Asset Management Inc. and as managing director of Salomon Brothers Inc. Before joining Salomon Brothers, Francis served as chairman and chief executive officer of Lehman Management Co., and senior executive vice president and director of Lehman's parent company, Shearson Lehman Brothers. Francis earned his undergraduate degree in business from Tulane University's School of Business Administration in 1954, and has remained involved with the school ever since. In recognition of his career accomplishments and his continued support of the business school, he was honored as Freeman Business School's Distinguished Alumnus in 1984. Three years later, he was honored again by the school with the first bachelor of Science in Management Award for Excellence in Business. For the past 17 years, Francis has served on the Freeman Business School Council, which has given him the opportunity to help shape the future of the thousands of Freeman graduates who have followed him. While Francis' commitment to business excellence is clear, work is not the only thing that matters to him. For example, he has volunteered his time at Community Synagogue in Rye for years, and served as president from 1982-1984. Our community is a better place because of him. Perhaps most importantly, Francis Fraenkel is a dedicated husband and father. He has been married to his wife, Cecele Ross Fraenkel for 43 years. He is the proud father of two daughters, Sally Fraenkel Zuch and Julie Fraenkel Mamis, and the grandfather of Emily and Melanie Zuch and Max Mamis. His example sends a message to us all that we need not choose between career and family. I know his family is proud. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the friends, colleagues, and family of Francis Fraenkel, I hereby express my heartfelt congratulations on his 60th birthday and wish him many more to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of seven outstanding women who exemplify the best that the legal profession has to offer. These women will be honored next week by the New York City National Organization for Women because they have displayed the intelligence and perseverance that is absolutely essential to be a successful attorney, and possess an unswerving dedication to advancing the rights of women in society. Janet Benshoof is one of the premier experts on reproductive rights and privacy law in America. As the founder and president of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, she had been involved in most of the landmark Supreme Court cases involving reproductive rights. Ms. Benshoof had been previously honored by the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship and by the National Law Journal as 1 of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Sylvia Law is the Elizabeth Dollard professor of law, medicine and psychiatry and codirector of the Arthur Garfield Hays Program at New York University Law School. She has been involved with many landmark cases, including Goldberg versus Kelly, in which the Supreme Court recognized that welfare is an entitlement that cannot be discontinued without reason or an opportunity to protest. She is also the author of several books and articles on jurisprudence, welfare, and health care policy. Donna Lieberman is founder and director of the New York Civil Liberties Union's reproductive rights project, and one of the leaders of the New York pro-choice movement. She has broadened the base of the reproductive rights movement, linking reproductive rights with the issues of HIV/AIDS prevention, gender equity, and education. Elizabeth Mason has gained national recognition in her representation of victims of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. Elizabeth has been instrumental in drafting legislation to guarantee an employee's right to seek relief against an employer if she is sexually assaulted in the workplace. Valorie Vodjik argued the groundbreaking Supreme Court decision that overturned the 152-year-old male-only admission policy at the Citadel. In that case she won the opportunity for women to obtain an undergraduate, military-style education. Ms. Vodjik is an expert on sexual discrimination and supervised the NYU sexual harassment law clinic. As the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, Mary Jo White is a preeminent role model for women. Under her leadership, the U.S. attorney's office has prosecuted large-scale securities and financial frauds, other white collar offenses, international terrorism, money laundering, official corruption, organized crime, and drug trafficking. Her leadership has led to the dismantling of some of the largest and most violent gangs in New York. Patricia J. Williams is an internationally renowned expert on race relations and women's studies. She is a professor at the Columbia University School of Law and the author of a number of books, including ``The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor.'' She wrote an amicus brief in support of planned parenthood in the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Mr. Speaker, these seven women together have changed the course of the women's rights movement in America. Almost every woman in America has benefited from their actions. I am truly honored to recognize their accomplishments in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute budget. This alternative budget contains a number of key improvements to the bipartisan budget agreement and one of them includes money to fix our crumbling schools. School construction funding should have been part of the budget agreement. The Republican leadership's opposition to this program is seriously misguided. The need is real. Today all over America our schools are inadequate, overcrowded and literally falling down. A GAO report released last summer confirmed the worst. Record numbers of school buildings across America are in disrepair. One-third of our schools serving 14 million students need extensive repairs. About 60 percent of schools need to have their roofs, walls and floors fixed and with school enrollment skyrocketing the problem will only get worse. The state of our schools is a national disgrace. We simply cannot prepare America's children for the 21st century in 19th century schools. Students cannot learn when the walls of the classrooms are crumbling down. This amendment makes a big difference in school construction and we are going to keep fighting until we win because our children deserve nothing less.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Michael Bloomberg on the occasion of his receiving the prestigious Herbert Lehman Award, presented by the American Jewish Committee. As a member of the tribute committee, I am well aware of Michael's leadership in civic and community service, as well as success in New York's financial community. A 1964 graduate of Johns Hopkins University, and a 1966 graduate of Harvard Business School, Michael has achieved one success after another. Following graduation, Michael spent 6 years at Salomon Brothers where he headed equity trading, sales, and systems development. During his tenure at Salomon Brothers, Michael created the company's first computerized information system. As Michael has said, ``There might be better traders than me, and there might be people who know more about computers, but there's nobody who knows more about both.'' At 39 years of age, Michael created the Bloomberg, would become the largest computerized information resource in the financial world. During the last 15 years, The Bloomberg Corp. has grown to include an internationally syndicated radio station, a direct broadcast television network, the Bloomberg monthly magazine, and of course, the Bloomberg on-line service. As Michael's company has grown, so have his revenues. Annual revenues rose from $100 million in 1989, to $2 billion in 1995. Perhaps more important than his successes are his philanthropic endeavors. Among numerous other distinctions, he is a trustee of the Jewish Museum, the N.Y. Police & Fire Widows' and Children's Benefit Fund, the New York Academy of Medicine, and the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. He is also chairman of the board of trustees of Johns Hopkins University. Michael Bloomberg has not only exerted tremendous influence on Wall Street; he has literally transformed the way the world does business. Traders now have instant access to a tremendous repository of information, not only real-time financial data, but also historical trends, corporate analysis, and new developments as well. Business transactions are now more efficient and more profitable because of Michael Bloomberg. For this, and many other reasons, Michael truly deserves the American Jewish Committee's Herbert H. Lehman Award.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that is affecting many of my constituents on a very personal level. A number of Irish nationals living in my district in New York and elsewhere have been unfairly targeted for deportation. Many of my colleagues and I have sent letters to President Clinton, Attorney General Reno and other United States and British officials raising this issue and calling for justice for these members of our community. Most of the individuals who are facing deportation have established their lives here. They are married to American citizens, have American children and have been productive members of their communities for many years. The threat of deportation has taken an enormous emotional and financial toll on these families every day. They wake up to the possibility that the lives they have worked so hard for will be shattered by deportation. We must demand that these families are treated fairly. They deserve at least that much.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Anshe Sholom on its centennial anniversary. Congregation Anshe Sholom, of New Rochelle, with its long and distinguished history, is one of the preeminent religious institutions in Westchester County. For 100 years, Jews have prayed, questioned, celebrated, and discussed at Anshe Sholom. Beginning in the 1890's, Anshe Sholom, or Ancy Scholam as it was known then, became a center for Jewish learning in Westchester. The initial services of Anshe Sholom, held in a simple home, replaced earlier services, which were held on empty street corners. Despite their simplicity, these services laid the foundations for the thriving Jewish community that currently exists in New Rochelle. Anshe Sholom has come a long way since construction of the first synagogue was completed in 1904, and Rabbi Itzchak Leib Kadushin was hired, for the grand sum of $5 per week, as the congregation's spiritual leader. The original structure stood the test of time until the tenure of Rabbi Solomon Freilich, who assumed leadership in 1946. Two years later the entire synagogue, still located on Bonnefoy Place, was renovated and expanded. Anshe Sholom's move to its current North Avenue location in 1959, under the tenure of Rabbi Philip Weinberger, marks the beginning of the modern age of the synagogue. It is hard to imagine Jewish life in New Rochelle without the influence of Anshe Sholom. As a mother of three, and a new grandmother, I know the impact that institutions such as these can have on the quality of life for local families. For generations, children have attended Hebrew school at the synagogue, become Bar/Bat Mitzvah, gone on to become active adult participants themselves in the synagogue, and had the good fortune to see their own children begin the process anew. Anshe Sholom has helped raise generation after generation of Jewish families for more than 100 years. As Rabbi Ely Rosenzveig leads the synagogue towards its second centennial, I would like to recognize the tremendous accomplishments and the future promise of Temple Anshe Sholom.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], for coordinating this very important discussion on the problem of drunk driving in America. As the House sponsor of the 1995 zero tolerance law for underage drunk driving and the current cosponsor of two pieces of legislation that will strengthen our Nation's drunk driving laws, I wholeheartedly agree that Congress must focus more attention on this issue. As we heard tonight, drunk driving fatalities are on the rise for the first time in a decade. In 1995, the year for which most of the recent statistics are available, more than 17,000 Americans were killed in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. The sad reality is that our drunk driving laws have failed thousands of families across the Nation. Our criminal justice system has been too lax for too long on drunk drivers. In fact, impaired driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in America. That is an outrage. A license to drive should not be a license to kill. Back in 1995, Senator Byrd and I launched an effort with Mothers Against Drunk Driving to close a legal loophole in 26 States that allowed underage drivers to drive legally with alcohol in their system, as long as their blood alcohol content did not exceed the State's legal DWI limit. That loophole existed, despite the lethal consequences of teenagers who mixed drinking and driving. In fact, 40 percent of traffic fatalities, as the gentleman knows, involve underage drivers, and they are alcohol-related. As a result of this law, 39 States have now adopted zero tolerance laws that send a very clear message: If you are under 21, consumption of alcohol combined with driving will be treated under State law as driving while intoxicated, end of story. These laws have saved hundreds of lives across the country, and I am very hopeful that all 50 States will make zero tolerance the law of the land. Zero tolerance was an important victory in our war on drunk driving, but we must do more, much more. That is why Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Mike DeWine and I have joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving, highway safety advocates, law enforcement groups, drunk driving victims, in introducing two important pieces of legislation to strengthen our Nation's drunk driving laws. Using the proven sanctions methods of the 1984 national minimum drinking age law and the 1995 zero tolerance law, these bills will compel States to lower the legal level of driving while intoxicated to a more reasonable level, and strengthen penalties for repeat drunk drivers. Mr. Speaker, more than 3,700 Americans were killed in 1995 by drivers with blood alcohol concentration below .1. This is the legal definition of driving while intoxicated in 36 States. In recognition of this problem, 14 States, including Florida, California, Virginia, and Illinois, have adopted laws lowering the DWI level to .08. The .08 laws have also been adopted by many industrialized nations. Lowering the DWI level to .08 is supported by the American Automobile Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and our Nation's largest insurance companies. The American Medical Association even recommends .05 DWI. Why should we lower the DWI standard to .08? First, .08 is a level of intoxication at which critical driving skills are impaired for the vast majority of drivers. Second, the risk of a crash increases substantially at .08 and above. In fact, a driver with .08 BAC is 16 times more likely to be in a fatal crash than a driver with no alcohol in his system. Third, Americans overwhelmingly agree that you should not drive after three or four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach, the equivalent of .08 blood alcohol level. Last, but certainly not least, .08 laws save lives. A study of the first five States to enact .08 found that those States experienced a 16-percent reduction in fatal crashes involving drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher, and an 18-percent decrease in fatal crashes involving drivers with a BAC of .15 or higher. Overall, the study concluded that up to 600 lives would be saved each year nationwide if every State adopted the .08 standard. Now there are some who are trying to claim that .08 BAC is too low a level of intoxication and that our bill will target social drinkers who drink in moderation. This could not be further from the truth. It takes a lot of alcohol to reach .08 BAC. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, a 170- pound man with an average metabolism would reach .08 only after consuming four drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach. A 137-pound woman with an average metabolism would need three drinks in an hour to reach that level. We should keep in mind that if you have any food in your stomach or you snack while you are drinking, you could drink even more if you choose and not reach .08. That is a lot of liquor. In addition to lowering the legal definition of DWI, we need legislation to establish mandatory minimum penalties to convict drunk drivers and keep them off our roads. We must stop slapping drunk drivers on the wrist and start taking their hands off the wheel. That is why The Deadly Driver Reduction Act will require States to mandate a 6-month revocation for the first DWI conviction, a 1-year revocation for two alcohol-related convictions, and a permanent license revocation for three alcohol-related offenses. Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that about one-third of all the drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat offenders. Drivers with prior DWI convictions are also more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. This second piece of legislation will close the loopholes in State laws that too often allow convicted drunks drivers to get right back behind the wheel. Mr. Speaker, last Friday at the National Press Club, Redbook magazine and Mothers Against Drunk Driving honored five mothers who are the foot soldiers in this battle. These courageous women have vowed to make something good come out of a tragic loss of a child to a drunk driver. One of those mothers, Mary Aller, is a constituent from Mamaroneck, NY, whose 15-year-old daughter, Karen, was killed by a drunk driver in 1991 who spent only a few months in jail. Mary went on to establish the Westchester County chapter of MADD. She is truly an inspiration to us all. The evidence, Mr. Speaker, is compelling that adopting .08 as the national DWI standard and establishing mandatory minimum penalties will reduce the carnage on our Nation's roads. Our Government has an obligation to act when lives are at stake, and we owe it to all those mothers to adopt these bills. I thank my colleague for having this session tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to share some words with you. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend to all my colleagues' attention the article ``Drunk Driving Makes a Comeback'' from the May edition of Redbook magazine, and I submit that article for the Record. [From Redbook, May 1997] Drunk Driving Makes a Comeback (By Joey Kennedy) Anyone who knew Dana Ogletree knew he was a devoted father. Whether the 36-year-old Brooks, Georgia, resident was fishing with his five children, taking them to the Six Flags amusement park, or going to car races with his only son, Dana Jr., he was involved with his family. But today Shandra Ogletree, 37, is raising her children (now ages 10 to 20) alone. On December 20, 1995, as Dana was riding to work with a coworker, the car was struck broadside by a 17-year-old boy who had been drinking and also smoking marijuana. Dana died the following morning, after emergency surgery. Also killed were his coworker, David Harris, and the three young children of David's fiancee, whom he was going to drop off at their father's. ``It has been hard,'' Shandra Ogletree admits. ``We think of all the things Dana won't get to see. The birthdays. The graduations. He won't ever get to walk his daughters down the aisle. And my son won't get to have man-to-man talks with his dad.'' She is also bitter that the driver received a prison term of only ten years--``though he killed five people.'' Meanwhile, Shandra notes, ``I lost my busband of 19 years, my high school sweetheart. And my children lost a wonderful father.'' Dana Ogletree was one of 17,274 people who died in alcohol- related traffic crashes in 1995, the last year for which statistics are available. Each of those deaths represents a catastrophe for another American family. What's shocking to many is that the figure also represents, for the first time in almost a decade, an increase in the number of drunk-driving fatalities compared to the preceding year. The long national campaign against drunk driving has stalled, it seems. While deaths from drunk driving are up, fund-raising for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is down, as is the amount of media coverage given to the drunk- driving issue. Efforts to lower the legal blood alcohol concentration from .10 to .08 percent continue to founder in many states, thanks to vigorous lobbying by the liquor and hospitality (restaurant and bar) industries. Nationwide, the number of arrests for driving while intoxicated went down from 1.8 million in 1990 to 1.4 million in 1995. Despite these discouraging facts, the anti-drunk-driving campaign--begun by MADD in 1980 and joined by legislators, the law enforcement community, and other public safety groups--can look back on notable successes. Public awareness of the issue has dramatically improved. ``There was a time when drunk driving was treated pretty much as a joke, like some kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar,'' says Dwight B. Heath, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Brown University who studies behavior related to alcohol. ``Not anymore.'' Efforts by MADD and others have led to raising the minimum drinking age to 21 and to so-called zero-tolerance laws that punish underage drinkers who are caught driving with any alcohol content in their blood. ``You've heard so much about drunk driving that there is a perception that it's a problem either fixed or almost fixed,'' says Katherine Prescott, national president of MADD. But the problem is not fixed, as so many families can attest. In fact, 41 percent of all traffic fatalities involve alcohol. While the anti-drunk-driving message has clearly gotten through to many Americans (see Redbook's national survey, page 93), thousands of husbands, wives, and children are still being killed by those who party hard and get behind the wheel. ``There's still a segment of our population that thinks it's perfectly appropriate when you drink, to drink all you can,'' says Susan Herbel, Ph.D., vice president of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving. Researchers who conducted a recent large-scale national survey of drinking-and-driving behavior estimated that there were 123 million incidents of drunk driving in the U.S. in 1993. Is there any way to jolt legislators and the public out of their complacency, make drunk driving a hot issue again--and make the roads safer for our families? Anti-drunk-driving advocates are urging action on a number of fronts. get through to the guys If drunk driving is, as MADD says, a ``violent crime,'' then who is committing it? Says Dr. Herbel, ``Drunk driving is very much a male problem.'' Men are four times more likely than women to drive after they've been drinking, one study found. And the segment of the population most likely to drink and drive is made up of white males between the ages of 21 and 34, in blue-collar jobs, with a high school education or less, according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health. How to stop them? Strict law enforcement--sobriety check- points, saturation patrols by police departments--does change drinking-and-driving behavior in the short term. But Dr. Herbel points out that these efforts require a huge commitment of resources by state and local police, and their effects taper off unless they are kept up consistently. ``There are those who feel you can rely on enforcing laws to solve the drunk-driving problem, but I don't agree with that,'' she says. ``Until drunk driving gets to be a behavior that is just not socially acceptable, we're not going to stop it.'' Dr. Herbel believes the anti-drunk-driving message should be modeled after the antismoking campaign, with its many community-awareness programs and education efforts that start in grade school. Employers could play a role as well through education efforts and even spot-checks of the status of employees' drivers' licenses. ``The men who are most likely to drink and drive usually work, and their jobs are important to them,'' Dr. Herbel says. ``Employers should make it clear that drinking and driving is not acceptable.'' Better yet, employers could refer at-risk workers to counseling programs--so long as local communities cooperate by making such programs readily available. The best way to reach at-risk men may be through their wives or girlfriends. Focus groups have found that men aged 21 to 34 are more likely to be influenced on the drinking- and-driving issue by the women in their lives than by public service announcements, bartenders, or male friends, according to Bob Shearouse, national director of public policy at MADD. Experts are unsure how to translate this finding into a public-awareness campaign, however. The Harvard study on at- risk men found that some of their wives and girlfriends ``described fear of verbal or even physical retribution'' for trying to stop drinking-and-driving behavior. ``For the unlucky woman involved with a man who has a tendency to be violent, especially after drinking, intervening could be dangerous,'' note MADD's Prescott. ``You have to be careful about advising women to do that.'' let the media send the message While a certain segment of males may be the most likely to drink and drive, they obviously aren't the only culprits; the gospel about drunk driving must be preached to everybody. And Jay Winsten, Ph.D., director of the Center for Health Communication at the Harvard School of Public Health, says the message is fading and deaths are up for one reason: ``The mass media is paying far less attention to this problem than it was several years ago.'' Since the issue of drunk driving was widely covered in the eighties and early nineties, it stands to reason that there would be fewer news stories on the issue now. After all, why should journalists report on a story that already feels familiar to much of the public? Because doing so saves lives, Dr. Winsten says. He cites a period of high media attention in 1983 and 1984--a time when MADD was fresh on the national scene--that was accompanied by a drop in alcohol-related deaths. In 1986, Dr. Winsten says, deaths went up and remained fairly level until 1988, when the Harvard School of Public Health recruited the entertainment industry to help promote the notion of the designated driver (an idea imported from Scandinavia). During the next four television seasons, more than 160 episodes of prime-time shows, including Cheers, L.A. Law, and The Cosby Show, featured designated drivers in some way, and networks sponsored public-service announcements. The result? A 26 percent decline in drunk- driving fatalities over that four-year period. ``These days, we're getting designated-driver mentions in about a half dozen episodes per season,'' says Dr. Winsten. ``The public has bought the concept of the designated driver, but they have to make the decision to use it over and over and over again. And they rely in part on cures and reminders from the media.'' MADD's Prescott acknowledges that her organization is no longer a ``hot topic'' with the media. ``It's as though our having becoming credible and being successful hasn't helped us with the media. Now, we're like all the other charities.'' Further crowding MADD's issue are major news stories that thrust other worthy causes, such as car-airbag safety, into the spotlight. ``That's been a major topic of conversation in Washington. Now, the last thing I want to do is offend anyone who has lost a child,'' emphasizes Prescott, who herself lost a son to drunk driving. ``But we're talking about a dozen deaths in 1995, when we know that more than 17,000 people died in 1995 because of drunk driving.'' As advocates for a variety of causes, from breast cancer research to recycling, have discovered, those who want coverage for their message must find ways to make it feel fresh. Dr. Winsten thinks that, for drunk driving, a debate over ``social host responsibility'' might serve that purpose. ``Should you be liable for a civil lawsuit if your party guest kills someone on the way home, as is already the case in some states?'' he asks. ``People disagree on this issue, but it doesn't matter as long as the issue of drunk driving is being discussed.'' One of the ways MADD will bid for a higher profile this year is to focus on drinking by people under age 21. ``Our current environment makes it acceptable for underage people to drink, to walk into a store and buy liquor even though it's illegal,'' Prescott says. ``We think this youth initiative will get the public's attention. Underage drinking has to be dealt with by communities, schools, churches, and homes.'' MADD will kick off its effort this month by hosting a National Youth Summit on Underage Drinking in Washington, D.C. Student delegates from each of the nation's 435 congressional districts will discuss possible solutions to the underage-drinking problem and deliver recommendations to members of Congress. And in June, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hopes to stir public debate when it launches Partners in Progress, an ambitious program that has brought together numerous groups to develop strategies to curtail drunk driving. Their goal: to reduce yearly alcohol-related fatalities to no more than 11,000 by the year 2005. take on the alcohol lobbyists Anti-drunk-driving advocates have also been tangling with the liquor and hospitality industries over the issue of lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration limit from .10 to .08 percent, an effort that has thus far been successful in only 14 states (see ``How to Save Hundreds of Lives This year,'' page 92). In practical terms, .08 means that an average 160-pound man can still have four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach before he would reach the legal limit for driving--a level that seems surprisingly lenient to many people. Dr. Herbel says the liquor and hospitality industries are fighting hard against the .08 limit because they see it as a step toward zero tolerance--that is, making illegal any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream of someone who is driving--which could, obviously, have a big impact on their businesses. ``Those industries believe that, as soon as .08 passes in all states, somebody will start a movement for .06 or .04,'' says Dr. Herbel. While that battle is being waged, anti-drunk-driving advocates are pursuing other legislative remedies: the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), which would ensure that victims of all kinds of crime, including drunk driving, have certain basic rights; and the Deadly Driver Reduction Act, which would entail license revocation for drunk-driving offenders. The boy who killed Dana Ogletree was an underage drinker. ``Where did he get that beer?'' asks Shandra Ogletree, angry that the details haven't come out. ``Did someone sell it to him? Or did he have an older friend buy it for him?'' Until everyone who might be responsible for a drunk-driving accident--not only the drinker, but store clerks, friends-- recognizes his or her role, the problem won't be solved, Shandra argues. And thousands of families will continue to suffer the consequences.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, I introduced the Prescription Drug Benefit Equity Act--Federal legislation that would ensure that Americans are free to obtain their prescription drugs from a neighborhood pharmacy rather than through the mail. This bill will protect consumers' choice and help keep local pharmacists in business. It will put a stop to an emerging trend that has forced some individuals to obtain their medications through the mail. Mr. Speaker, some health coverage policies require patients to pay significantly more to use their local pharmacist. A few have eliminated that option altogether. That's not right. Hard-working Americans should not be forced to entrust their health to pharmacists working at a firm thousands of miles away. They deserve the right to continue seeing the neighborhood pharmacists they've grown to trust. While most plans do not require beneficiaries to purchase medication through the mail, a growing number of plans are now charging consumers substantially more for the privilege of using their neighborhood pharmacist. That includes the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which charges Federal employees nothing for mail order prescriptions, but a 20-percent copay for medications purchased through their neighborhood pharmacist. In an era when health care costs are eating away at the earnings and savings of too many Americans, especially our seniors, forcing them to pay significantly more to use their trusted pharmacist really means no choice at all. My bill will eliminate this cost discrepancy and give Americans a real choice. Mr. Speaker, the Prescription Drug Benefit Equity Act will give consumers peace of mind. Purchasing medication through the mail means no face-to-face interaction with a pharmacist. This one-on-one relationship is critical to consumers who rely on their pharmacist to ensure that a prescribed drug not only is right for them, but that they can obtain the product without the fear that it will be damaged, delayed, or lost in the mail. Many people are satisfied with their mail order service. That's great. This bill is not designed to eliminate the mail order industry. It is simply designed to give customers a choice, and through that choice--peace of mind. Under my bill, those who are happy with their mail order can continue using it. However, those who prefer the trip to their neighborhood drug store would have that option as well--no extra charge. There is an equally important benefit of this legislation. The Prescription Drug Benefit Equity Act will help keep community pharmacists in business. Neighborhood pharmacies have played an important role in our communities for as long as any of us can remember. My bill will ensure that local pharmacists can compete on a level playing field with large mail order firms. That's good news for pharmacists and good news for patients. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Prescription Drug Benefit Equity Act and invite my colleagues to join me in support of this sensible measure.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY.Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined several of my colleagues in introducing President Clinton's America Reads Challenge Act. This legislation will help mobilize reading specialists and trained volunteers to ensure that every child can read by the end of the third grade. Today I want to share with the House an essay written by Adam Frankel, the 18-year-old grandson of two of my constituents. Adam writes eloquently about the joys and benefits of reading. As we pledge our efforts to ensure that all children enter fourth grade reading on their own, I thought it might be helpful to hear how one young American uses this gift to learn about the world. I insert the text of Adam Frankel's essay at this point in the Record. Reading Can Open Many Doors (By Adam Frankel When I hold a book between my hands, I do not feel the paper and I do not see the words. I feel as though I am holding ``knowledge'' in my hands, and the more complicated the book, the better. That way, it is not just entertaining, but it is something far more enjoyable: challenging and revealing. After reading and understanding a complicated phrase or book, you feel a sense of accomplishment. When I hold in my hands William James and move my eyes slowly across each word, I know I am looking into the mind of James himself. The words he uses to describe things are as much a part of him as his fingerprint. When writing, your words build up within and explode out onto paper with your own patent on them. A word can be so much more, if it is allowed to be. The difference between a word's various connotations determine the feeling of a character, or description of a scene. The word can even determine the future of a state, depending on whether it is used correctly or not in policy planning. Walter Lippman once said that he wrote each sentence as if the article were to be judged on that sentence alone. It is this appreciation of the written word that I try to give to everything I read. And what I have chosen to read has largely defined not only my interests at the moment, but even my character and future interests. Reading a biography of Allen Dulles led me to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a century of wise men. Reading about the Russian Revolution led me, through a limited understanding of Karl Marx, to other political philosophers. Philosophy opened up great new doors for me that I had previously not known existed. I suddenly found myself fascinated in how different people saw life and how I could attain that higher form of being. Lippmann helped answer that question for me. He wrote that the best way to live life is to keep removed enough from anything that could affect you negatively, so that you could see it in an objective light. From his biography I learned that he was going through an awful marriage at the time he wrote that and was probably developing a plan to deal with it, but it nevertheless affected me greatly. It taught me to ``storm the barricades'' if a problem arises rather than ``retreat into a monastery.'' He also taught me to never waste time, but to evaluate any action I take in regard to how it will affect me now, and in the future and whether it is really worth doing. And so now, I collect as many books as I think are worth collecting, not because I will read them all now, or read all of them later. I collect them because when I look at my bookshelf, I feel I'm looking at my potential, and when you are constantly reminded of your potential, it is hard not to do your best to fulfill it. Perhaps by reading philosophy, but probably even before that, I have always had a great sense of history, and my future. I sit sometimes on the porch with my father and grandfather in Bermuda or Scarsdale. We sit around, look up at those stars that are so noticeably lacking in New York City and we philosophize: My grandfather explains the theory of ``priming the pump'' one minute and then gives lessons from those days when he was living through the Depression. He tells me the story of a speech he submitted for Hubert Humphrey, which opposed the Vietnam War and was firmly rejected by the candidate, who was then vice president. We all sit around: my grandfather, a testament to history; my father, a testament to intellectualism, and I, a testament to potential. I think of how much they have influenced me and how much I want to be as intelligent and as well read as they are. And then I realize that I have a long way to go; and that through reading the books which I collect, I will slowly chip away at the large block of space between theirs and my intellectual stamina. I can't wait until college, when required reading will be Nietzsche and Hegel. Hopefully, by then, I'll be able to grasp more of them than I can now. I do know that the pride of my household will always be my library. For, looking into the books' eyes, I see, I know, my future.