Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 82d anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, an act of mass murder that took 1.5 million Armenian lives and led to the exile of the Armenian nation from its historic homeland. It is of vital importance that we never forget what happened to the Armenian people. Indeed the only thing we can do for the victims is to remember, and we forget at our own peril. The Armenian Genocide, which began 15 years after the start of the 20th century, was the first act of genocide of this century, but it was far from the last. The Armenian Genocide was followed by the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, and other acts of mass murder around the world. Adolf Hitler himself said that the world's indifference to the slaughter in Armenia indicated that there would be no global outcry if he undertook the mass murder of Jews and others he considered less than human. And he was right. It was only after the Holocaust that the cry ``never again'' arose throughout the world. But it was too late for millions of victims. Too late for the 6 million Jews. Too late for the 1.5 million Armenians. Today we recall the Armenian Genocide and we mourn its victims. We also pledge that we shall do everything we can to protect the Armenian nation against further aggression; in the Republic of Armenia, in Nagorno-Karabagh, or anywhere else. Unfortunately, there are some who still think it is acceptable to block the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance around the world. Despite our success in including the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in the foreign operations appropriations bills for the last 2 years, Azerbaijan has continued its blockade of United States humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It is tragic that Azerbaijan's tactics have denied food and medicine to innocent men, women, and children in Armenia, and created thousands of refugees. The United States must stand firm against any dealings with Azerbaijan until it ends this immoral blockade. We must make clear that warfare and blockades aimed at civilians are unacceptable as means for resolving disputes. Mr. Speaker, after the Genocide, the Armenian people wiped away their tears and cried out, ``Let us never forget. Let us always remember the atrocities that have taken the lives of our parents and our children and our neighbors.'' As the Armenian-American author William Saroyan wrote, ``Go ahead, destroy this race * * * Send them from their homes into the desert * * * Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh again, see if they will not sing and pray again. For, when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.'' I rise today to remember those cries and to make sure that they were not uttered in vain. The Armenian nation lives. We must do everything we can to ensure that it is never imperiled again.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Christopher Shays, legislation to end the use of steel jaw leghold traps in the United States. The majority of Americans believe this measure is long overdue. I hope this House will debate and pass it as soon as possible. Steel jaw leghold traps slam with bone-crushing force upon their victims. These devices are completely nonselective. They threaten small children, cherished pets, and endangered species. Less cruel trapping alternatives exist for the 2,100 Americans that earn their living by hunting or trapping. A recent survey demonstrated that three out of four Americans believe the trap should be prohibited. This past November, Colorado and Massachusetts joined New Jersey, Florida, and Rhode Island in outlawing the use of these traps; several other States are considering similar laws. The American people want the traps outlawed now. The best way to accomplish that is by passing my legislation. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that it's not just the American people that oppose the use of these traps. Eighty-eight nations have already banned the use of these inhumane traps. The belief in this ban is so strong in Europe that the European Parliament adopted a law prohibiting the importation of furs from nations that continue to use these devices. When this law is implemented, the United States will no longer be able to export furs to Europe--unless we pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, in the 104th Congress, more than 90 Members cosponsored H.R. 1404, which is nearly identical to the bill Congressman Shays and I are introducing today. As news of this legislation spreads, I expect we will gain even more congressional support. I hope we can hold hearings on the issue quickly, and then bring this bill to the floor. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in pushing for the elimination of these cruel and unnecessary traps once and for all.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1122. This is a highly emotional and personal issue. There are deeply held views on both sides of the debate, and I know that my colleagues who oppose a woman's right to choose do so sincerely and with great conviction. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends, I respect their beliefs but I oppose this bill. The legislation before us today is clearly unconstitutional. It endangers the lives and health of American women. It would put doctors in jail, and it is the first step on the road to the back alley. Mr. Speaker, this bill tramples on Roe versus Wade and is a direct assault on the constitutionally protected right to choose. The legislation bans abortions prior to fetal viability, a prohibition that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared unconstitutional. Prior to viability, women have the right to choose without Government interference, and although the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that abortion restrictions after viability must protect the life and health of the pregnant woman, the bill contains only a narrow exception to protect a woman's life, and no exception at all to protect her health. The bill says that the health of the woman does not matter. I say it does. Women from around the Nation testified before Congress that this procedure protected their lives and health, women like Tammy Watts, Claudia Addes, and Maureen Britel, who would have been harmed by this bill. These women desperately wanted to have children. They had purchased baby clothes, they had picked out names. They did not decide to abort because of a headache. They did not choose to abort because their prom dress did not fit. They chose to become mothers and only terminated their pregnancies because of tragic circumstances. Mr. Speaker, who in this body stands in judgment of them? Who would impose himself in the operating room and circumscribe their options? In those tragic cases where family hear the news that their pregnancies had gone horribly awry, who should decide? When the couple gets the news that their baby's brain is growing outside of its head, that it has no spine, who should decide? The one thing I know for sure is that this body, this Congress, should not be making that decision. At that terrible, tragic moment the Government has no place. Yet this ban will put Congress directly in the operating room, and impose the Federal Government in the doctor-patient relationship. It will force trained physicians to choose between the health of their patients and imprisonment. We know that women will continue to seek abortions, even if they are criminalized. We remember the days before Roe versus Wade. We know that thousands of women died undergoing unsafe, illegal abortions, and we will not allow this Congress to force American women into the back alley ever again. This is just the beginning. The Republicans will not stop with one procedure. They want to ban all abortions at any time by any method. Mr. Speaker, as a mother of three beautiful grown children, as a recent grandmother, as one who respects life with every ounce of my soul, I urge my colleagues to vote against this ban.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to clarify several statements that we heard from our colleagues. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, and I quote, ``D&X may be the best and most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'' My colleagues, do we want to compromise that physician's judgment in the delivery room and perhaps cause hazard to the health or life of a woman? Let us think carefully.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. That is why I had hoped that we could work with the GOP leadership to reach consensus on this legislation. We have repeatedly tried to compromise with the Republican leadership to write a bill that the President could support. As my colleagues know, the President has said very clearly that he will sign this legislation if it contains a narrow exception to protect those few women who need this procedure to preserve their health. I personally asked the leadership to work with us, to craft a narrow health exception to the bill. They were unwilling. The GOP leadership was also unwilling to allow a vote on the bipartisan Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. That legislation would have banned all late-term abortions, all late-term abortions, except those performed to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman. The President will veto the bill in its current form. He has made that very clear. So rather than work with us to send the President a bill that he will sign, the Republican leadership would rather pass legislation that he will veto. Let us be clear. This vote today is about the value of women's health. The President said that he will not sign a bill unless it protects women's health, and the GOP leadership will not go along. I am sorry that the leadership chose to turn this sensitive matter into a political issue. Unfortunately, it has become very clear that this leadership does not want to ban this procedure, they want a political issue. I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule so that we can include a health exception to the bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called comptime legislation and in support of the Miller substitute. America's workers need to know that this bill is a sham. It would effectively eliminate workers' fundamental guarantee of overtime pay-- without providing any genuine flexibility in return. I think every Member in this Chamber supports greater flexibility for working men and women. I raised three kids while working. I know how important it is for working parents to be there for their family. Some working parents out there may be learning about this legislation for the first time, and may be saying to themselves, ``This bill means I could attend my child's first school play, or high school basketball championship.'' Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Under this bill, it would be too easy for an employer to coerce employees to take comptime instead of the overtime pay so many families depend upon. And under this bill, a worker who agrees to comptime instead of overtime pay--whether by choice or by force--has no guarantee they can use the time they earned when they need it most. Mr. Chairman, where is the flexibility? My colleagues and I who oppose this bill want to make clear how a genuinely family friendly law would work. A profamily law, unlike this one, would give the employee--not the employer--the choice between time off and overtime pay. It would allow the employee--not the boss--to choose when to use comptime. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet this fundamental standard. Frankly, this bill is a step backward for working parents. It takes away important worker protections and could mean a paycut for too many families. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1, and vote for the Miller substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, while there are those in Westchester who may not know Joan Gilbert personally, her work has touched the lives of countless people in our community. As manager of Community Affairs in the Public Relations Department of Texaco Inc., Joan has worked tirelessly on behalf of the citizens of Westchester. In addition to her responsibilities at Texaco, Joan has been personally involved in many community-based organizations. Currently, she serves as chairman of the board of the Street Theater and is a member of the boards of the American Red Cross, Westchester Philharmonic, the Private Industry Council, and the Youth Counseling League. Joan has received numerous awards for her outstanding civic activities. Organizations bestowing Joan with awards include: The American Heart Association, the Harrison School District, Westchester Putnam Affirmative Action Program, Rotary International, the Urban League of Westchester, and the Girl Scouts of Westchester. Joan's corporate and personal support helped to sustain and expand nonprofit organizations throughout our region. She has contributed in enumerable ways to the quality of life in Westchester. In spite of her retirement, Joan's influence will continue to be felt throughout our community. I know that Joan will begin this next chapter of her life with the same vitality that she has displayed while at Texaco.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the Partnership for Rebuilding America's Schools Act of 1997. This is an exciting day for me. I began working on this issue with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun nearly 2 years ago. Now, thanks to the leadership of President Clinton, we are finally beginning to tackle this problem. Today, all over America, our schools are inadequate, overcrowded, and literally falling down. In Miami, students learn to read and write in temporary trailers. Here in our Nation's Capital, schools are closed for violating the fire code. In New York City, students dodge falling plaster and attend class in hallways and bathrooms. A GAO report released last summer confirmed the worst. Record numbers of school buildings across America are in disrepair. One-third of all schools--serving 14 million students--need extensive repairs. About 60 percent of schools need to have roofs, walls, or floors fixed. With school enrollment skyrocketing, this problem will only get worse. It's time for the Federal Government to act. The bill we are introducing today will provide $5 billion in Federal funding for school construction across the Nation. Funds will be distributed to the 50 States and the 100 largest school districts based on the numbers of school children in poverty. This bill won't completely solve the problem, but it will make a crucial difference. For the first time the Federal Government will enter into a partnership with our local communities to rebuild our schools. We know that America is only as good as our schools--and we know that this is a local problem that deserves a national response. The situation in New York City is dire. A survey conducted by my office revealed 25 percent of New York City public schools hold classes in bathrooms, locker rooms, hallways, cafeterias, and storage areas. Almost half of school buildings have roofs, floors, and walls in need of repair. A report by the New York City Commission on School Facilities revealed the following: Nearly half of New York City's school children are taught in severely overcrowded classrooms; 270 schools need new roofs; over half of the city's schools are over 55 years old; and approximately one-fourth still have coal-burning boilers. We simply cannot prepare America's children for the 21st century in 19th century schools. Students cannot learn when the walls of their classrooms are crumbling down around them. We can't teach computer technology next to coal-burning boilers. I expect that there will be opposition to this bill. We know that not everyone believes the Federal Government should address this problem. I join today with the 41 original cosponsors of the Partnership for Rebuilding America's Schools Act to state that the Federal Government can no longer afford to ignore this ticking timebomb. Government at all levels must work together to solve this national crisis.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 176th anniversary of Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire, and to celebrate the shared democratic heritage of Greece and the United States. I thank my colleague from Florida, Congressman Bilirakis, for organizing this special order and for his leadership on issues of importance to the Greek-American community. On March 25, 1821, after more than 400 years of Ottoman Turk domination, Greece declared its independence and resumed its rightful place in the world as a beacon of democracy. The people of Greece and the United States share a common bond in their commitment to democracy. Our Founding Fathers looked to the teachings of Greek philosophy in their struggle for freedom and democracy. And the American experience in turn inspired the Greek people who fought so hard for independence 176 years ago. This bond between our two peoples stretches beyond the philosophy of democracy. The relationship between the United States and Greece has grown stronger and stronger through the years, and Greece remains today one of our most important allies. And the contribution Greece makes to life in America is even stronger than the ties between our two countries. Greek-Americans are a vital part of our cultural heritage. My district in New York would not be what it is today without the valuable contributions made by the Greek- American community. I am proud to stand today in commemoration of Greek independence and in recognition of the contribution Greece and Greek-Americans have made to our country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a giant in the civil rights movement. Arnie Aronson is one of the true champions of civil rights in this country. As one of the founders of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Arnie has been a lifelong crusader for civil rights. Over the years Arnie has avoided publicity, but his lack of publicity does not diminish how indebted we are all to him. Arnie turns 86 today, and I can think of no better place to honor him than on this House floor, where some of his toughest battles were fought and won. Arnie's championship of human rights in this country has shaped the Nation's policies since the Roosevelt administration. From Roosevelt's Executive order barring discrimination in war-related industries, to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, Arnie has helped coordinate the efforts to pass every landmark civil rights legislation this body has considered. Arnie also devoted his life to uniting the Jewish and African- American communities in the struggle against discrimination. The strong ties that exist between these two communities today are a testament to Arnie's hard work. I think Vernon Jordan said it best when describing the impact Arnie's work has had. He said, ``You have the gratitude of countless millions who may never have heard of your name but whose lives are better, whose prospects are brighter and whose dreams are coming true, thanks to you.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today in honor of Arnie Aronson. His commitment to racial justice has touched all of our lives and the lives of many others who will never know his name but benefit from his legacy. Happy birthday, Arnie.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith resolution. The Mexico City restrictions which this bill would impose will have a devastating impact on international family planning services throughout the world. Here we go again. Every time we discuss international family planning, Mr. Smith offers these restrictions. I certainly respect his views, and we have worked on many other issues together; however, his insistence on imposing these restrictions held up the foreign operations appropriations bill last year and could derail our efforts to get lifesaving family planning money released this year. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] claims this resolution is not antifamily planning, just antiabortion. That just does not make sense. Currently no U.S. dollars are spent on abortion services overseas. In fact it has been illegal since 1973. These restrictions are stringently enforced by USAID. In addition, as has been stated today on this floor time and time again, family planning services reduce the number of abortions worldwide. The Smith resolution will not stop abortions. It will only increase them. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is family planning assistance. We have heard countless stories today about the critical work done throughout the world by international family planning programs. These programs improve the health and well-being of men, women and children, they strengthen the economy, protect the environment, enhance the quality of life in developing nations, and most importantly save lives. The Smith resolution is dangerous and extreme. It would defund family planning organizations that perform legal abortions with their own money, not United States money. It would also impose a gag rule on U.S. based organizations and nongovernmental organizations that provide U.S. family planning overseas. I would like to explain that to my colleagues. Doctors from USAID have told me personally about the horribly chilling effect of the gag rule. They have interviewed doctors in small villages who turned away women from botched illegal abortions bleeding to death, and they were afraid to refer this woman. They did so because they feared losing their U.S. funding if they helped the women or even gave her the name of another doctor. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith resolution. It is an extreme piece of legislation that no matter how it is disguised, it is ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning overseas. A vote for the Smith resolution is a vote against sensible, cost effective family planning programs. My colleagues, it is a vote against lifesaving services.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. The need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Our international family planning programs promote economic and social development, improve basic standards of health and actually reduce the number of abortions worldwide. Nevertheless, securing funding for these critical programs continues to be a battle. In an effort to resolve this issue and pass the omnibus appropriations bill last year, the White House and the Republican leadership reached an agreement to hold a clean vote this month on the resolution that we just passed, fortunately. We agreed to release these funds 5 months into the fiscal year instead of 9 months. Alternate legislation was never a part of this agreement. We never agreed to give opponents of family planning one last opportunity to gut these programs. But if H.R. 581 is considered by the House today, that is exactly what will happen. Allowing consideration of this bill will raise serious concerns about our ability to negotiate in good faith during this year's budget process. That is really the key. An agreement was made. Promises made should be promises kept. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge Members to defeat this rule. The restrictions on population funds in H.R. 581 are not new to us. We have faced these program gutting provisions several times before and we will undoubtedly face them again. Today's vote should be the one vote we just took on the resolution and that one only. Anything else is a deal breaker. Again, promises made should be promises kept. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge Members to defeat this rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the privileged resolution to release the funds for international family planning programs on March 1. I have personally visited clinics supported by this aid, and I have seen firsthand the very critical work they are doing for our families, for women, for children, for infants. Each year approximately 600,000 women worldwide die of pregnancy- related causes, leaving 1 million children without mothers. These are unnecessary, tragic deaths that could be avoided through access to family planning services. Recently several of my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and I visited Misr El Kadima, a maternal and child health center in Cairo, Egypt. This center is a success story and is one of the many successful facilities supported by USAID worldwide. Family planning is just one of the basic health care services provided at the center. The doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians who spoke with us provide immunizations for children, routine prenatal care, treatment for common diseases, general outpatient care, not abortion. Some of these clinics in Egypt are 5 miles from the nearest city. If these clinics are shut down, as would happen if these funds do not go forth, what are these women going to do for these vital services? In Cairo and in the rest of the developing world, family planning services are literally a matter of life and death. In Egypt, largely due to USAID support, contraceptive use has doubled in the last 15 years and the increase has been directly linked to decreases in infant mortality and maternal death. Over the last decade, as the rate of contraceptive use in Egypt rose, the infant mortality rate dropped 42 percent. As the doctors explained, family planning services allow families to plan and space the birth of their children. If the funds at issue are withheld until July 1, USAID's main contract in Egypt will be suspended. This disruption would force clinics like the one that I visited to stop providing these life- savings services, and would have a devastating impact on thousands of men, women and children. So let's be clear--a ``no'' vote closes clinics that save lives. I urge you to remember what this vote is really about. This vote isn't about abortion--the clinic that I visited in Egypt does not provide abortions nor do any United States funds go to abortion services. This vote is about releasing funds for medical services that save the lives of mothers and babies worldwide. Vote for these families. Vote for the resolution.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, NetDay is a tremendous opportunity to ensure that all of our children will be able to compete in the high-technology world of tomorrow. I would like to commend NetDay and its organizers for the tremendous efforts that they have made in the last year to wire all of our Nation's schools to the information superhighway. Through NetDay, 20 percent of U.S. schools were wired to the Internet in 1996 alone. Almost every community in the country, including my own, have been able to reap the benefits of this organization. NetDay is the perfect partnership between businesses, government, educational institutions, and local communities that provides ongoing support for our schools. NetDay is made possible through the technical support of companies such as IBM, and Bell Atlantic who provide the technical skill to wire schools, financial sponsors who purchase the wiring packages for classrooms, and thousands of volunteers who give up their evenings and weekends for our children. This effort demonstrates the powerful impact that voluntarism can have on our community. Usually, connecting a classroom to the Internet costs approximately $1,000. NetDay has been able to bring this cost below $400. The Internet is transforming the way we live, communicate, study, and conduct business. On the Internet, the educational opportunities that are open to our children are limited only by their own imagination. Students can browse a library in Europe as easily as they can browse one just down the hall. More importantly, resources which were once only available to affluent suburban schools can now be accessed by students in remote rural areas or poor inner city areas. In the future, our children's access to the information superhighway will not only be a determining factor in whether or not America can remain competitive, but whether we will truly be able to remain the indispensable Nation. President Clinton has set a goal of wiring every school in the country to the Internet by the year 2000. Thanks to service organizations such as NetDay, and similar smaller programs throughout the country, we are well on our way to achieving that goal.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in strong support of the President's education initiative. Working together, the Congress and the White House can ensure that every 8-year-old can read, every 12-year-old work the Internet, and every 18-year-old attend college. These are lofty goals. However, if we can fulfill them, we will help ensure that the 21st century, like the current one, is America's century. Last night the President spoke of setting world-class educational standards. I wholeheartedly support this goal. Setting high standards means challenging our teachers and students to be the very best they can be. It means challenging business to support education. It means challenging legislators at every level to ensure that our schools have the resources they need to provide every child in America with a world- class education. Mr. Speaker, I want to work with my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, Democrat and Republican, to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its commitment to education. In the President's State of the Union, the President announced the America Reads initiative, which will harness the volunteer spirit of our citizens and the knowledge of our Nation's educators to ensure that every fourth-grader can read on his or her own. I am proud that a college in my district, Pace University, is one of the 60 colleges that has already pledged to place work-study students in tutoring programs. This initiative epitomizes the types of activities we all should encourage and support: students working their way through college by helping to improve the lives of their neighbors' children. My home State of New York is well on its way to setting rigorous academic standards for all children. New York's plan will challenge every school to graduate every student with a diploma that businesses and colleges will recognize as proof of a rigorous education. Those local schools that struggle at first will be given a helping hand and a chance to improve, but no one gets a free pass. I would encourage other States to look at New York's plan as they work on their own State's standards. Mr. Speaker, some of the greatest support for higher standards comes from teachers and parents, but they cannot turn things around on their own. They do need the Government's help to ensure that every school is prepared for new challenges that await them. Sadly, however, too many of our public schools are in no condition to meet these challenges. I would hope that my colleagues would check the physical conditions of schools in their own area. I did, and found too many examples of unsafe conditions and serious overcrowding. Last year I released a GAO report, along with my colleague in the Senate, Carol Moseley-Braun, that confirmed what too many students and teachers already know: that some of our Nation's schools are literally falling down. The problem is especially severe in New York City, where two-thirds of the schools reported that their environment is inadequate for learning. Right now, not far from this Capitol building, there are public schools that were temporarily closed because they are unsafe. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's adults are letting our children down. That is wrong, and it must change. Last year I introduced the School Infrastructure Improvement Act, which would have provided interest subsidies to schools to make needed repairs. I also offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to provide $150 million to make urgent repairs in the most dilapidated schools around the Nation. Local communities can sometimes find it just too tough to do it on their own and they need our help. In response, the President has announced that his budget will include $5 billion to help finance $20 billion in school construction and repair over the next 4 years. This money can also be used to help link our schools to the Internet so that one day soon every 12-year-old will be able to walk into his classroom or school library and link up with the Library of Congress or a local university, or a national newspaper, or a student on the other side of the world. I am working closely with the President on this initiative and plan to introduce legislation to help make it happen. The President's education vision also includes affordable college for every student. His plan includes a series of monumental student aid initiatives that will ensure that cost is no longer an obstacle to a college degree. His $1,500 HOPE scholarships, available for 2 years of college, will put a community college degree within reach of every family. More than 4 million lower- and middle-income students would be helped by these scholarships. Families can opt instead for an annual $10,000 tax deduction to help send their sons and daughters to college. In addition, families could begin saving for their child's future college education while they are still young by opening a tax-free education saving account. These education IRA's will create investment capital for business now, and provide tax free withdrawals for college tuition down the road, when high school graduation rolls around. And as a mother of three grown children, I know that that time arrives before you know it. I strongly support these targeted tax cuts to make college more affordable. In addition, the Federal Government must maintain its commitment to grant-based aid for those families and students struggling just to get by each day. The President recognizes this. That's why he has proposed to increase Pell grants from $2,700 to $3,000--the largest increase in Pell grants in two decades. Over 3.6 million students now eligible would receive a much needed $300 grant increase, and an additional 130,000 families could take advantage of the Pell program. Practically everyone in this body went to college. That same opportunity should exist for all Americans. These proposals will help give them that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, the President's education plan will make it clear once and for all that he is, indeed, the Education President. I hope that when the dust settles and the 105th Congress adjourns next year, this Congress will be known as the Education Congress. I will certainly do what I can to make that happen.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleagues, I rise today to call your attention to an important centennial anniversary that occurred in New York State last month. On January 28, the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants celebrated 100 years of distinguished service to the public. In fact, the society is the oldest State professional accounting association in the Nation. The founding members established the society to facilitate and support the establishment of the New York State CPA licensing law, the first such law in the United States. The New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants represents the CPA profession, which was created to maintain the integrity of our Nation's capital markets. The society has continuously served its members for 100 years by providing educational and professional information to enable them to better serve the public interest. Its code of conduct provides the framework for the highest ethical behavior and professionalism issues to protect the public interest. The committees of the society have assisted state, local, and Federal regulators and other government groups in the discharge of their oversight of financial reporting, soundness, and integrity. Please join me in wishing congratulations to the New York State Society of CPA's on its 100th anniversary.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Charlotte Watson on her 10th anniversary as executive director or My Sister's Place in Tuckahoe, NY. I know that I speak for everyone in Westchester County when I thank Charlotte for her dedication and commitment to ending the epidemic of domestic violence. She has truly made Westchester County a safer place for women and children. For 20 years Charlotte has been a leading advocate for survivors of domestic violence. Since 1976, when Charlotte founded the Grayson County Women's Crisis Line in Sherman, TX, she has dedicated her life to helping survivors of domestic violence, childhood sexual assault, and rape. Charlotte has served on many boards, committees and coalitions to assist battered women in both Westchester and New York City. These include the National Organization of Women, New York State Task Force on Domestic Violence & Childhood Sexual Abuse, the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Womencare Inc., the National Council for Safe Families, and the Battered Women's Justice Center at the Pace University School of Law and New York State's Governor's office. Under Charlotte's leadership, My Sister's Place has grown into one of the leading providers of shelters and services for victims of domestic violence in the New York City area. To date, My Sister's Place has answered more than 13,897 hotline calls and sheltered more than 1,353 women and 1,901 children. My Sister's Place has residential facilities in Yonkers and Mamaroneck, and provides educational programs and counseling services throughout Westchester Country. Its community education program reaches 4,000 people every year, and its educational programs for students reach 5,000 young people annually. Charlotte Watson has had a positive impact on Westchester County, and has improved the lives of countless women and children. I congratulate Charlotte on her 10th anniversary at My Sister's Place, and hope that in the next 10 years we reach our mutual goal of ending domestic violence once and for all.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the National School Infrastructure Act. I recently conducted a survey of the more than 1,000 public school buildings in New York City. I found seriously overcrowded and deteriorating schools. Unfortunately, the poor physical condition of schools is not New York's problem alone. A GAO report released in June showed that $112 billion nationwide was needed to bring our Nation's schools into decent condition. The GAO found that one-third of all schools across the country required extensive repair or replacement, Rural, suburban, and urban districts all face serious problems. The National School Infrastructure Act will provide interest subsidies over the next 4 years to help school districts pay for school repair and construction. It is modeled after the President's proposal. This is not an ongoing program but instead a one-time incentive to States and local communities to address the poor physical condition of our schools. The program is fully paid for by auctioning off a specific portion of the broadcast spectrum. Under by bill, the cost of local borrowing for school construction and rehabilitation would be cut by up to 50 percent, depending upon need. School districts with severe infrastructure needs and/or high concentrations of poverty would be eligible for funds. Large school districts would apply directly to the Department of Education for the interest rate subsidy. Smaller districts would apply through a designated State authority. The interest reduction is equivalent to subsidizing $1 out of every $4 in construction and renovation spending. The $5 billion made available by the legislation would result in an estimated $20 billion in State and local construction across the country, over the next 4 years. I look forward to working with local, State, and Federal officials in the months ahead to further refine the legislation so that it can be enacted in the 105th Congress. We simply cannot ignore the poor physical condition of our schools any longer. Children cannot learn when their classroom walls are literally falling down. The Federal Government helps to build and maintain our Nation's roads. Now we must fulfill our obligation to our Nation's children and come to the aid of our schools.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor Stephen Jerome for his 30 years of ongoing commitment and service to the students and residents of the 18th Congressional District of New York, which I am proud to represent. The name Stephen Jerome is synonymous with both educational leadership and dedication to community. As president of Monroe College, with campuses in both the Bronx and New Rochelle, Stephen Jerome has carried on his family's commitment to educating the young men and women of New York City and Westchester. His aunt, Mildred King, founded the school in 1933, and his father joined her 3 years later. Stephen came aboard as an instructor in 1966, and held various positions over the next 12 years before beginning his tenure as president in 1978. It is fitting that as we honor Stephen Jerome on his 30th anniversary, Monroe College will honor his aunt by dedicating the recently acquired King Hall, which now houses the office of student services, as well as the learning center, gymnasium, and cafeteria. Mr. Speaker, Stephen Jerome is not content to help only those students who pass through his institution's doors. He is a former member of the college presidents' council for the Governor's Office on New York State Financial Aid, former president of the Association of Proprietary Colleges in New York State, and a former commissioner of the Accrediting Commission of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools. Stephen Jerome's endeavors also extend beyond the educational sphere. He has worked to improve the ties between business and the community by serving as director of the Bronx Chamber of Commerce and then as president of the Fordham Road Area Development Corp. In addition, he routinely organizes neighborhood cleanup and improvement projects, and arranges an annual Christmas party for the children of his students. Aside from his commitment to Monroe College and to his community, Steven is a dedicated husband and father. His wife, Leslie, is the director of career services at Monroe's New Rochelle campus. One son, Marc, is the director of the New Rochelle branch campus, and his other son, Evan, heads a television production company. Stephen's daughter, Lauren, works in public relations. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the friends, colleagues, and family of Stephen Jerome, I hereby express my heartfelt appreciation for his 30 years of service to Monroe College and the Bronx, and hope that he will continue to serve the institution and his community for many years to come.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his views and trust that the EPA will implement the statements in the conference report in a manner consistent with the views we have expressed tonight.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, before I enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], I, too, as a member of the committee, want to thank the chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the distinguished ranking minority leader for their outstanding work on this bill, and I am very pleased to support it. Recently this Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, legislation which I championed in the House designed to address the potential threat to human health posed by chemicals and pesticides that mimic human hormones. There is considerable concern in the scientific community that chemicals that mimic human hormones may be disrupting the human endocrine system and in this way may be linked to breast cancer in a wide range of reproductive problems. Therefore under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, Congress has ordered EPA to develop a screening program to determine if certain pesticides and chemicals have an effect on humans similar to an effect produced by estrogen or other endocrine disrupter effects. Under this legislation EPA has 2 years to develop the testing protocol and 3 years to begin testing. In selecting the testing protocol, EPA is required to develop a validated approach and to secure the outside review of the test program from one of two science advisory boards. The entire provision is intended to screen substances for potential further review, an action pursuant to EPA's existing programs. Much to the disappointment of many Members, nothing in the provision gives EPA any new regulatory authority. As a modestly sound first step, the estrongenic substances testing provisions were widely supported by Members from both sides of the aisle and were heralded by leaders of both parties as a responsible response to a serious women's health and environmental issue. Because of the strong bipartisan support for the estrogenic substance screening program, I was quite shocked to see in the joint explanatory statement the conferees' language which could be construed to put roadblocks in the way of EPA developing the necessary testing protocols. Specifically, the statement calls for EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a massive study on the entire issue of endocrine disrupters, looking at human health effects, comparative risk issues and a myriad of other issues. While all of these issues may be relevant to EPA finalizing regulatory action on endocrine disrupters, they are not relevant to the more modest goal of developing a screening test for pesticides and chemicals. Yet the conferees' statement seems to state that EPA cannot develop and implement screening tests unless and until the study is completed. So I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] a question regarding this language in the conference report. Is it fair to say that, while conferees did intend for EPA to ensure that a comprehensive study of the endocrine disruption issue is completed by the NAS, it did not intend to freeze the EPA's ability to develop and implement a screening test as mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I do not speak as a doctor. I speak as a woman with three beautiful grown children. And, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, let us be very clear that this debate is all about. President Clinton stated very clearly that he would sign this bill if it contained a narrow exception to protect the lives and health of American women. The President does not believe that this procedure should be commonly available, he does not believe it should be available on demand, but that it must remain an option for women facing serious risk to life and death and health. In cases where a woman faces a serious health risk like kidney failure, cancer, or diabetes, the decision of how to proceed must be left to the women and the doctor, not this Congress. So I say to my friends on the other side, let us sit down together, as we offered several times, and write a bill that we could all accept and that the President could sign. In fact, we went to the Republican leadership 3 times, asked to craft a narrow health exception to this bill. Three times we were refused. Why? Because this Republican Congress does not want to ban, it wants an issue, and that is so unfortunate. This is not about abortion. It is about politics, election-year politics, plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is a fitting way to end the most anti- choice Congress in history. This vote is the 52d taken in just the past 2 years to restrict the right to choose, a new record. Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have spent the last 2 years trying to eliminate abortion rights completely, and American women know it. Thankfully, President Clinton has used his veto pen to protect American women from the back alley. He has stood with American women by protecting the right to choose. He has stood with women like Claudia Ades and Coreen Costello who have had this procedure to save their lives and protect their health when they wanted pregnancy, they wanted a child, but this pregnancy went wrong. President Clinton recognizes that Congress has no place in the operating room during a crisis pregnancy. The President, Mr. Speaker, will sign a bill if it contains a narrow exception to protect the lives and health of women like Claudia Ades and Coreen Costello. This is not too much to ask. I urge my colleagues to support the President's veto.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight, the UJA-Federation of New York will honor the 56 women who have chaired the Women's Campaign since 1934. These women of vision dedicated themselves to the UJA-Federation's mission of safeguarding and caring for the Jewish community throughout the world. They understood the importance of the United States-Israel relationship, and worked tirelessly to bring together Jews in Israel and the diaspora. We can all take pride in the contributions these women made to the well-being of the Jewish people. What is striking about these women is both the depth and breadth of their commitment to the Jewish community. Through their outstanding efforts with the UJA-Federation, they left their mark on New York, on the Nation, on Israel and on the world. These women were truly leaders. Many of these women fought for education and for the arts, for human rights and for religious freedom, raising funds for a local and overseas network of health and human service organizations. In the 1930's and 1940's, these women led the fight to bring European Jews to safety in America. They were at the forefront of efforts to establish and then secure the independent Jewish homeland of Israel. And, more recently, they led Operation Exodus, which transported Jews in peril to Israel and the United States. Each of these women devoted her time, her heart, and her life to Jewish communal service. And each is proof that just one woman can make a real difference. The chairs of the Women's Campaign, past and present, are: Barbara Ochs Adler (1934-35), Adele Lehman (1936), Edith Limburg (1937-38), Adele Levy (1939), Hortense Hirsch (1939-41), Cecile Mayer (1939-40), Rose Goldenstein (1941-43), Leonie Guinzberg (1942-43), Elinor Bernheim (1943-44), and Jane Heimerdinger (1943-44). Bess Lazrus (1944-45), Dorothy Geller (1945-46), Sophie Udell (1945- 49), Rose Carlebach (1947-48), Evelyn Asinof (1949-50), Lea Horne (1950-51), Louise Schwarz (1951-52), Gertrude Oresman (1952-54), Elinor Guggenheimer (1953-54), Berenice Rogers (1955-56), Doris Rosenberg (1955-56), and Margaret Kempner (1957-58). Erna Michael (1957-58), Syd Goldstein (1957-58), Phyllis Siegel (1958-60), Elaine S. Winik (1958-60), Phyllis Tishman (1959-60), Jean P. Bloustein (1961-63), Rena A. Cohen (1961-64), Jennie Whitehill (1961-62), Elinor Gimbel (1963-65), Fan Harris (1964-66), Pat Gantz (1964-66, 1976-77), Jane Marx (1966-67), Bobbie Abrams (1967-69), and Blanche Ross (1967-69). Elaine Guld (1968-71), Eleanor Sack (1970), Blanche G. Etra (1970- 71), Adele Block (1971-73, 1975), Betty Dreifuss (1972-73), Lilian Marcus (1972-73), Myrtle Hirsch (1974-75), Bernice L. Rudnick (1974- 75), Peggy Tishman (1975), Mary Froelich (1976-78), Mildred Geiger (1978-79), and Elaine P. Moore (1980-81). Esther Treitel (1982-83), Phyllis Carash (1984-85), Naomi Kronish (1986-87), Klara Silverstein (1988-89), Frances Brandt (1990-91), Bryn Cohen (1992-93), Arlene Wittels (1994-95), and Mady Harman (1996-97).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good friends, for their really outstanding work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion which includes 3 provisions that are critically needed by American families. One of the provisions included in this motion will provide health care, vocational rehabilitation and compensation to Vietnam veterans and their families who are dealing with the effects of exposure to agent orange. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences showed a link between Vietnam veterans' exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children. This provision will give the families of our proud veterans the support they need to care for their children suffering from spina bifida as a result of their military service. This motion also includes a provision that will insure that mothers and newborns receive adequate hospital coverage during the critical time following a delivery. We have all read the tragic stories of women and babies forced from the hospital before they were ready to go because of the increasing number of health insurers limiting hospital coverage to 24 hours or less. I know as a mother of three grown children how very important this time is to a new mother. The Bradley amendment mandates minimum hospital coverage of 48 hours for a normal delivery and 96 hours for cesarean section. The standards are set by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This provision does not mandate how long any single patient should remain in the hospital but assures that the decision about what is best for each mother and baby's health is made by the patient and her doctor and not by an inflexible insurance policy. Finally this motion takes us another step toward improving the health security of hard-working Americans and their families. Sadly the health insurance reform bill passed earlier this summer did not include a simple provision to insure that mental health benefits are treated like other health benefits. Not long before the Senate unanimously approved mental health parity, and nearly 100 of my colleagues in the House signed a letter to the Speaker in support of it. Yet when the final bill reached the floor it was gone; shame on this House. With this motion to recommit we have a second chance to end discrimination against mental illness and help remove its stigma. Mr. Speaker, we must not let this opportunity to do what is right slip away yet again. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.