Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned all of the factors that really working women are not just concerned about, many of them are frantic about. In my district in Westchester County, this morning Secretary Reich spoke on the teleprompter, or whatever those big TV screens are called, to a large group of women that were there for a Working Woman Conference. They got together because these women are so frustrated. It takes two to support a family today, both the husband and the wife are there working, and there are a whole lot of discussions about child care, how are they going to pay for child care, how are they going to send their kids to college? They are worried about everyday living. That is why the President's proposal for a $10,000 tax credit was talked about today, because it is so important. I am hoping that we can really work together to get some of these proposals in the families first agenda through this Congress, because they are not pie in the sky, they are practical proposals, creating partnerships between the public and the private sector to create more child care positions, to make pension reform a real part of our congressional agenda, to help women go out and start businesses. We have been involved with the glass ceiling, and you know what happens when a woman hits that glass ceiling in a big corporation. She takes all the skills she has learned in the community as a mother, as a boss, and goes out and starts her own business. But a lot of these proposals in the families first agenda are real, they are doable, and we can get them done, if we really focus and work together. So with President Clinton's leadership, working with those of us who have been fighting for women and families and children for a very long time, I think we can achieve our goals.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman mentioning those riders again. As we know, if the President did not stand firm working with the Democrats in Congress and eventually some of our colleagues on the other side hearing from their constituents in the district came around, if we did not stand firm with strong Presidential leadership, where would we be today? Those riders would be in place.

Mrs. LOWEY. I think it points up how important a role all of our constituents have. They attended town hall meetings. They wrote to their Members of Congress. They wrote to the President saying, we want to go forward, we want to continue to work, to clean up bodies of water like the Long Island Sound and the Hudson River and other estuaries around the country. They do not want to go backward. They understand that, yes, you can make these laws work better, you can cut out a lot of the waste, and we know there is plenty all over the place. But they still want us to invest in cleaning up these bodies of water because they understand that, in order to create jobs, in order to create businesses, in order to keep our economy strong, our environmental regulations have to be in place because it is that balance that you, I, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and so many of our colleagues are trying to preserve.

Mrs. LOWEY. The gentleman from New Jersey brings up a very important point and why this session for me was like a nightmare. It is hard to believe, first of all, that Members of Congress who were duly elected would want to shut down the Government as these Republicans did. It reminds me of, as the mother of three children, we have seen some kids that want to stand in the corner and said, ``I'm going to scream and scream until I get my way.'' It is kind of hard to believe that they would have shut down the Government.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Twice. But it is that kind of attitude that is amazing. When you think about it, it really is extraordinary that elected representatives would do that. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress now for about 8 years. We have had differences of opinion among Republicans and Democrats, among Democrats and Democrats. But eventually you sit down, you discuss it, you come up with something that is common sense, that makes sense. The gentleman mentioned the kinds of reforms and changes that we have been talking about all along. We had the 30th anniversary of Medicare this year. We talked about various ways to improve the program, to make it better, ways that we can root out real fraud and abuse. We know that. But we have been talking all these years, not about getting rid of it. The American people had one revolution. They do not want another one. We have been talking about how we make it better, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, or even Social Security. We know that women, for example, who are the majority of the poor elderly in this country have been penalized for the years that they took off from work to raise their children. We have been working together to improve these programs so that women will not be penalized if they stay home. In fact, the bipartisan congressional caucus on women's issues, and there are very few things that are bipartisan around here these days, has been working on a group of what we call economic equity bills so that we can improve the lives of seniors as they get older. We should be there working on those kinds of changes, making it fair, and not trying to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, not making deep cuts in the programs so they cannot function. Now, we know we have held off the Republicans in this session because there has been such an uproar in the community. But I am hoping that with the Democrats actively working with the President, and with those colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who want to join us, we can continue working on changes to Medicare and Medicaid to make these programs more efficient, but not cut back, not have deep cuts, because that does not accomplish anything. So I am very glad that the gentleman brought up the kinds of things that he discussed in his town hall meetings, because I see that, too. I have been going to senior centers, I have been talking to my seniors. I have been talking to families. It is not just seniors that care about this, because the average family that it feeling squeezed because they have to pay tuition to send kinds to college, the average family that has a couple of kids is worried that if there are these deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that are proposed by our Republican colleagues, they are worried that they are going to be caught in the middle. They are going to have to pay their college tuition, they are going to have to take care of their seniors that they love, and they just cannot handle it all. So I am very glad that we were able to hold off these draconian cuts, and hopefully we can work together in a bipartisan and constructive way in the future to really continue to make changes, but not to cut back.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to be here this evening. Mr. Speaker, as I just came back from a few weeks in my district, talking to seniors, talking to parents, understanding the needs of the people in my district, I come back here ready to fight once more, just to stop this amazing, amazing move to take us backwards. I sit on the Committee on Appropriations, where I remember in the late night seeing our colleagues on the Republican side trying to cut student loans, cut drug-free school money, trying to cut after-school jobs for youth. The gentleman and I know, and it is the same in New Jersey and New York, that the families, the mothers and fathers with whom we speak, want us to be investing in education. They want to take our kids forward to the 21st century. They do not want to see us go back. In fact, many of our communities are really distressed about seeing school buildings that need so much work. I was delighted when the President suggested that we put forth a bill that would invest over $5 billion in rebuilding our schools. We have a lot of talk about computers and bringing us forward to the 21st century. Yet these kids go to schools where they are crumbling. We should be really investing in our young people, in education, so we can move forward. I also live in a district where we are bordered by the Long Island Sound on one side and the Hudson River on the other side. What a year we have had, where we have seen so many environmental regulations by our colleagues in the Republican Party; we have seen these regulations, at least attempts to destroy these regulations. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has been a real leader in this area. I know the majority of our constituents want us to, yes, try and reform some of these rules so that they work more effectively, but they do not want to see us go backward. They want us to continue to fight for clean water, clean air. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and I have been working to upgrade sewage treatment plants, as the gentleman from New Jersey has, because we understand that there is a real balance between jobs, economic development and cleaning up our environment. So we do not want to go backward. We want to go forward, whether it is fighting for a clean environment or fighting for a strong education, just to make sure that our families and our children have a bright future ahead. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office doing some work. I heard the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] talking about the important challenges ahead, and I am so pleased that we have leadership in the White House working with us to make sure that we go forward to the 21st century. We have a lot of work to do, and working together I know that we are going to accomplish our goals. As I am thinking about these various issues, I remember sitting on this committee and seeing my Republican colleagues trying to cut out 60 percent of the funds for prevention in trying to make sure that our youngsters do not go near drugs. We need programs like DARE, other substance abuse prevention programs, to be sure that the kids understand in their gut that drugs should not be part of their lives. We hear a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric about drugs are no good and we have to do more. Yet the bottom line is on that committee the Republicans cut out 60 percent of the funds for substance abuse prevention programs. I am hoping that we can continue to work together to make sure that our schools are strong, that our environment is clean, that we protect our family and our children and the future and make sure we get that bridge to the 21st century, not let any of our colleagues take us back. I thank the gentleman for all the work he his doing and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. It is a pleasure to stop by and talk with them.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 120, a resolution acknowledging Ukraine's commitment to democracy. Ukraine is one of our most important allies among the New Independent States [NIS] of the former Soviet Union. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has instituted democratic reforms, making it the most stable country in the region. In 1994, Ukraine held democratic elections, voting in a new parliament and a new president. Ukraine has accepted all of our requests, including the ratification of START and NPT, and instituted economic reforms that have won praise from the IMF and G-7. I am proud to congratulate Ukraine on its democratic record. Ukraine has the sixth largest population in Europe, and plays an integral role in European peace and stability. Given Ukraine's importance in the region, it is critical that the United States show strong economic support for Ukraine. Although there have been reductions in the foreign aid budget, we must continue to make our international priorities very clear. We must send a clear signal to Ukraine, and other emerging democracies, that the United States supports efforts to adopt democratic reforms, maintain a good human rights record, progress with economic reforms, and unilaterally disarm their nuclear arsenal. Mr. Speaker, Ukraine is deserving of our respect, praise, and commitment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, and on behalf of a constituent whose daughter was lost in TWA flight 800, because this bill is an outrage and a disgrace to that family, and an outrage and a disgrace to this body. This bill should include both taggants and enhanced wiretapping provisions. Instead, it has neither. Law enforcement has repeatedly asked for these critical tools to combat terrorism. Yet this Congress has repeatedly denied them. When, Mr. Speaker, when are we going to say enough is enough? How many bombs have to go off? How many daughters do we have to lose? How many Americans have to die before the GOP leadership will give us a tough antiterrorism bill? Once again we had an opportunity today to protect Americans from terrorism, and once again the Republican leadership took its marching orders from the National Rifle Association and gutted the bill. The NRA opposes taggants because it says they will be placed in the types of gunpowder that hunters and marksmen use. Taggants will also be placed in the gunpowder that terrorists use in bombs like the ones that killed and injured more than 100 in Atlanta last weekend. The taggants in these bombs will lead us to the terrorists who planted them. Today, this Congress has hoisted the white flag of surrender in the fight against terrorism. It is a repeat of the last time we considered terrorism legislation, when the Republican leadership talked tough and acted weak. Those responsible for weakening this bill yet again should be ashamed of themselves, because they have put Americans at risk.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act of 1996, a bill that has bi-partisan support. This bill will provide for in-depth evaluation of teen pregnancy prevention programs nationwide. This bill is one of the first initiatives of the Congressional Advisory Panel to the National Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy--a bi-partisan panel that was announced earlier today. I am very proud that I am introducing this bill with my co-chair of the Advisory Panel, Rep. Mike Castle, and the vice-chairs of the Advisory Panel, Reps. Nancy Johnson and Eva Clayton. Several other members of the Advisory Panel join us as original co-sponsors. This bill provides for very needed in-depth evaluation of promising teen pregnancy prevention programs. At a time when we are discussing making serious investments in teen pregnancy prevention programs, it is critical that we understand which programs are truly effective, why they are effective, and whether they can be replicated in other communities. Teen pregnancy is one of the most critical issues facing America today. The explosion of out-of-wedlock teen births in the United States is a moral crisis that threatens to undermine our Nation. Each year, 1 million American teenagers become pregnant and approximately 175,000 teens give birth to their first child. The number of teen mothers in the United States has risen by 21 percent in the last decade. As a result, the United States now has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western World. The odds are stacked against the children of teen mothers from the minute they are born. These children are more likely to be born prematurely and have lower birth weights than other children. As they grow older, the children of teen mothers are more likely to drop out of high school, wind up in jail, or end up on welfare. Teen mothers also face serious problems. They are more likely to drop out of high school and end up on welfare. In fact, a new report just released by the non-partisan Robin Hood foundation revealed that the teen pregnancy crisis costs our Nation an estimated $29 billion a year in increased education, welfare and prison expenses. As a nation, we can no longer afford the consequences of teen pregnancy. We must provide teens with positive options to pregnancy. We must expand employment and educational opportunities for teens so that they have realistic alternatives to pregnancy. Public policy must help our children learn and help them to get jobs. Community leaders must also speak out and use their influence. Our Nation's culture must change. We must encourage America's teens to remain abstinent and responsible before marriage. We must restore the stigma that used to accompany teen pregnancy and make it very clear to America's teens that pregnancy is just not an option. Teen pregnancy robs teens of both their childhood and their futures. It also robs their children, and their children's children. As leaders in our communities, we must speak out on this issue. This bill is one of the first steps we need to take in order to break this tragic cycle.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I oppose this conference report for many reasons, including the fact that it appropriates over $11 billion more for defense programs than the Pentagon requested. But one of the main reasons why I oppose this conference report is that it fails to protect the rights and health of American servicewomen serving overseas. As you all know, the House version of the bill contained a ban on military women purchasing abortion services on military bases overseas with their own funds. This provision remained in the bill despite bipartisan efforts to remove it. The Senate rejected this provision outright. This ban penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose. It also puts the health of our military women at risk by forcing those stationed in countries where there is no safe and legal abortion available to seek an abortion at local facilities or to travel to acquire safe abortion services. It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that we would reward American servicewomen who have volunteered to serve this Nation by burdening them this way. I urge you to vote against this report.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. I oppose this conference report for many reasons, including the fact that it appropriates over $11 billion more for Defense programs than the Pentagon requested. But one of the main reasons why I oppose this conference report is that it fails to protect the rights and health of American servicewomen serving overseas. As you all know, the House version of the bill contained a ban on military women purchasing abortion services on military bases overseas with their own funds. This provision remained in the bill despite bi-partisan efforts to remove it. The Senate rejected this provision outright. This ban should have been removed at conference. Removing it would not obligate any State funds. It would merely allow military women and dependents to use 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 ban contained in the conference report penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose. The irony that this Congress will limit the constitutional rights of the very women who have sacrificed so much to protect our Constitution should not be lost on any of us. This ban also puts the health of our military women at risk. Many of these women are stationed in countries where there is 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 acquire safe abortion services, faces tremendous health risks. It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that we would reward American servicewomen who have volunteered to serve this nation by burdening them this way. I urge you to vote against this report. Thank you.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill. While not perfect, this bill is a major step toward improving the health security of hard-working Americans and their families. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been working on this issue for a long time. Senator Kennedy and his colleague, Senator Kassebaum, introduced their bill nearly a year ago today. The President endorsed the plan in his State of the Union address in January. Democrats in both Houses have been fighting for it ever since. The time has come to finally enact these reforms. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the days of having a 40-year career at a single company are over. Americans today change their jobs often, but can't take their health insurance with them. Too many hard-working Americans and their families have faced a troubling threat--if they change or lose their job, they lose their health insurance. That is wrong. This bill will give more Americans the peace of mind that they will continue to have access to health insurance, regardless of their job situation. In addition, this health reform bill will: prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to Americans because they are sick; help seniors suffering from Alzheimer's and other chronic illnesses to afford the cost of long-term care; allow the self-employed to deduct more of their health insurance costs; and create a demonstration project to determine whether tax-preferred medical savings accounts are a promising way to control costs and protect patients' choice of doctor. While I strongly support this bill, I am extremely disappointed that it does not ensure that mental health benefits are treated like other health benefits. The Senate unanimously supported mental health parity and nearly 100 of my colleagues in the House expressed their strong agreement. Sadly, it is not included in this bill. Mental illness is no different from physical illness. It should no longer be stigmatized. I hope we can work to end discrimination against mental illness. For now, we must pass this bill--for it is a step forward for millions of American families. I urge my colleagues to support this health insurance reform bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this summer an important anniversary is being celebrated in my district, one that is a vital part of the American experience. The Queens Borough Public Library has now served the residents of Queens for 100 years. During that time, millions of people have walked its halls seeking knowledge and self improvement. Students have found help with their homework, researched information for school reports, and read the classic literature of the world. Newly arrived immigrants have learned the basics of U.S. citizenship, improved their English and received assistance in finding a good job. Families that have been in America for generations have used it to trace their roots. What is more American than the public library? Public libraries like Queens Borough give people a chance to learn and to become contributing citizens. Such opportunities have nurtured the leaders that have made America the great nation that it is today. Today, the Queens Library is the backbone of the community, offering 18,000 programs to Queens residents free of charge. Most of the nearly 2 million borough residents live within walking distance of a Queens Library branch. Libraries are more important now than ever. Increasingly they serve as on-ramps to the information superhighway for those who cannot afford computers of their own. The Queens Borough Public Library ensures that the educational opportunities offered on the Internet are available to all the residents in my district. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Queens Borough Public Library on its 100th anniversary, and applaud its continuing effort to serve the Queens Borough.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks in America. The Republican leadership must schedule a vote immediately on stronger measures to fight terrorism. These proposals--requiring taggants in explosives and enhanced wiretapping authority--are absolutely critical in the war against terrorism. These provisions should already be law, but were dropped from the original antiterrorism bill that Congress passed earlier this year. They were dropped because this Republican Congress followed the orders of the National Rifle Association and took them out. That was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable now. Speaker Gingrich must not allow the NRA to hold up swift passage of tough antiterrorism legislation. The Republican leadership must choose the safety and welfare of the American people over the objections of the NRA. This Republican Congress has spent the last 17 months following the orders of the NRA and it must stop. Congress must take a united stand against terrorism both foreign and domestic now. We must make it very clear that we will use all the resources at our disposal to prevent and punish acts of terror.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to this moving letter from Diane Reiner in support of President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833. Mrs. Reiner, like so many of the women we have heard from, discovered late in her wanted pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying was terribly deformed and would not survive. After carefully weighing all of the options, Mrs. Reiner and her husband decided to have an abortion. As I, and others, have stated throughout the debate on this bill--this tragic decision must belong to the woman, her husband, her doctor, her clergy and the friends and family that she chooses to consult. The one group of people it clearly does not belong to is the Congress. July 25, 1990. Hon. Nita Lowey, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Lowey: I am writing to let you know that I have tremendous respect for your efforts in standing up for women and our right to choose. I thought you would be interested in seeing this letter that I sent to President Clinton to thank him for his brave and compassionate veto of

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I join you here today to tell you that an era is coming to an end. For the last 30 years, May Del Rio has been on the frontlines of the battle to protect women's reproductive rights. She has been a leader in this fight on both the national and local levels. Next month, May will retire from Planned Parenthood-New York City. I would like to congratulate May on her incredible career--a career that has literally made the difference between American women having access to safe, legal abortions and being forced to the back alley. I have to admit, though, that my happiness for May is tinged by a little sadness. I will miss working with her. In addition to being a valued colleague in the fight for the right to choose, May is also someone that I have come to know as a friend. Anyone who has had the honor of spending time with May will tell you that her great gift--aside from her obvious intelligence, tenacity and with--is her warmth. May has an incredible spirit, and she radiates with kindness and enthusiasm. No wonder may has been so successful at lobbying, what legislator could say no to her? May began her work on behalf of reproductive rights in 1965, when abortion was still illegal. She tells me that one of her proudest and happiest days was April 9, 1970. She was in the gallery of the New York State Legislature when the bill legalizing abortion in New York was passed. That day was the fruition of years of work for May, and the beginning of a new mission for her--assuring that every women had access to that hard-won right. May has worked for Planned Parenthood for the past 18 years. She began working at Planned Parenthood-New York City as its director of public issues and action in 1978. In that role, she lobbied legislators in both Albany and Washington to raise funds for family planning services and to assure that poor women had access to abortion services. In 1989, May moved to Planned Parenthood Federation of America as the national director of field operations. Eventually, May returned to Planned Parenthood-New York City as vice president of public affairs. There, she has continued to fight on behalf of a women's right to obtain safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health services--including abortion. May has spent a lifetime protecting the rights of American women. Those of us who have had the honor or working with her will miss her greatly, and we wish her nothing but the best in her future endeavors.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight we gather to mourn the loss and celebrate the life of Congressman Hamilton Fish, Jr. Hamilton Fish was one of the kindest, elegant, finest Members with whom I have had the pleasure of working with in this House. I had the good fortune of working with Ham for 6 of the 26 years that he spent in Congress, and during that time I came to appreciate the fact that Ham was not only deeply concerned and involved with local issues, he certainly can be considered one of the most expert Members in policy. Ham served as the Ranking Republican on the Committee on the Judiciary and Immigration Subcommittee. More important, Ham was a moderate and a fair man who could work with Members on both sides of the aisle and rise above partisan politics to achieve the goals of the American people. Hamilton Fish was part of a true political dynasty in New York's Hudson Valley, a dynasty as old as the republic itself. It is from Nicholas Fish, who fought in the American Revolution and mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Congress, to Ham's great grandfather who ran as a Whig in 1842, to Hamilton Jr., who served his country honorably in the Navy during World War II and in the House of Representatives for 26 years, from 1969 to 1994. Although there were times when his congressional district was more conservative than he was, Ham never strayed from his moderate, fair ideals. Despite the fact that his father, Hamilton Sr., was an isolationist, Ham was an advocate for human rights issues and refugees worldwide. He worked tirelessly during the cold war to allow for Soviet Jews to enter the United States. During the 1970's, Ham was an outspoken critic of the Nixon administration and its involvement in the Vietnam war. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Ham was one of the first members of his party to call for President Nixon's resignation. Ham also had an exemplary record on civil rights issues. Ham fervently supported the 1978 extension of the equal rights amendment and the 1982 Voting Rights Act. He also supported the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. As Ralph Neas, the former director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said, ``Many of the almost two dozen civil rights bills passed in the 1980's would not have become law without him.'' Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to the Fish family. While this country has lost a great civil leader, his wife, Mary Ann, has lost a dear, devoted husband, his children, Ham, Nick, Peter, and Alexa, have lost a father, and of course his eight grandchildren have lost a friend and a role model. As a freshman Member of Congress in 1988, I learned from Ham Fish. This Congress would do well to heed his legacy. He was a leader, a colleague, and a friend. He will be sorely missed.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] very much. His assistance and leadership on these issues is greatly appreciated.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are very troubled about the reductions in funding provided in this bill for the Maritime Administration which will adversely affect the six State maritime academies located in New York, California, Texas, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Maine. The administration requested $9.3 million for the academies which represents level funding since 1989. A Federal contribution of $9.3 million represents a small fraction of the academies' funding. In fact, even though 89 percent of their funding comes from student tuition and State support, the State maritime academies produce 75 percent of our Nation's licensed Merchant Marine officers, the young men and women who enter the maritime industry and who activate the ready reserve force in national emergencies requiring sealift. Without a doubt, assisting the State schools to train Merchant Marines is a cost-efficient way to produce the U.S. crews we need for our national security. A portion of the funds derived from the sale or disposal of ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet are intended to be used for training and other expenses at the State maritime academies. However, the reality is that no ships have been scrapped from the NDRF for more than 2 years because of legal disputes relating to certain hazardous materials on some of these ships. Because this dispute has made it virtually impossible to sell NDRF vessels in foreign countries, an intended source of funding is unavailable to the States' academies. I must also add, Mr. Chairman, even if two academy ships were to be funded under the Department of Defense's ready reserve force, it would in no way compensate for the budget cuts in this bill. Can the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of the subcommittee provide us some assurance that if NDRF ships continue to be ineligible for scrapping, he will work with the Senate to ensure that the Maritime Administration has the flexibility it needs to provide adequate funding for the State academies?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.