Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to a dubious anniversary. As we sit here, after 22 years of Turkish occupation of Cyprus, it is especially appropriate to recognize the struggle for the freedom of all Cypriots that has been waged for more than two decades. It was over two decades ago that 6,000 Turkish troops and 40 tanks landed on the north coast of Cyprus, and more than 200,000 Cypriots were driven from their homes and forced to live under foreign occupation. Over two decades ago, and still Turkey has more than 35,000 troops on the island. Over two decades ago, and we still don't know what became of the 1,614 Greek Cypriot and 5 American citizens missing since the Turkish invasion. That is why I'm pleased that we have this opportunity today. Today we remember what happened in Cyprus 22 years ago and we pledge to fight to end the occupation. We must continue to fight against injustice in Cyprus. We must continue to provide aid to Cyprus to help that country deal with the terrible problems caused by more than two decades of Turkish occupation. And, above all, we must continue to keep the plight of the Cypriots on the minds of everyone around the world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Legal Services Corp. The funding cuts contained in the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill that we are considering today will force the Legal Services Corp. to abandon many of the critical legal services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence. in 1995, legal services programs handled over 59,000 cases in which clients sought legal protection from abusive spouses and over 9,300 cases involving neglected, abused, and dependent juveniles. In fact, family law--which includes domestic violence cases--makes up one-third of the 1.7 million cases handled by legal services programs each year. Let me tell my colleagues the story of one women who received help from a legal services program. To escape an abusive husband, this woman took her three children and fled to Texas. The husband followed her, beat her up, and held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her. Let us support the increase for legal services. Let us not cut it for women like this one.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two issues in this bill which directly affects women and their families. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for fully funding the Violence Against Women Act. These funds are needed desperately, and we appreciate the attention to this issue. However, I would like to reiterate the concerns of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] which were mentioned previously. Because the bill was so late and was not signed until April, the funds for 1996 are just being processed. The Department of Justice is doing a valiant job in getting these funds out. Many of my colleagues may not think of legal services as a women's issue, but it clearly is. The funding cuts contained in this bill will force the Legal Services Corporation to abandon many of the critical legal services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence. In 1995, legal services programs handled over 59,000 cases in which clients sought legal protection from abuse of spouses and over 9,300 cases involving neglect and abused and dependent juveniles. In fact, family law, which includes domestic violence cases, makes up one-third of the 1.7 million cases handled by legal services programs each year. In addition to helping victims of domestic violence, the lawyers of the Legal Services Corporation help poor women with many necessary legal services. For example, the lawyers at legal services assists mothers and their children to enforce child support orders against deadbeat dads. They also help women with employment discrimination cases and parents who are trying to protect their children's educational interests. If we slash funding to the Legal Services Corporation, we will be abandoning hundreds of thousands of women who desperately need legal help. These women have nowhere else to turn. So please, I ask my colleagues, let us make sure that we do not short-shrift the women of America and not turn our back on their families.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican welfare bill and in support of the bipartisan alternative, the Castle-Tanner bill. We all agree that reform of our failed welfare system is long overdue. The system is failing both the taxpayers who fund it and the individuals that it is supposed to help. Welfare must be reformed to better reflect and reinforce our shared American values of work and responsibility, but, unfortunately, the Republican welfare bill does not reflect our values. It is just too tough on children and too weak on work. The American people want welfare reform to move Americans into the work force, not to punish children. This bill fails this fundamental test. In reforming the welfare system, our focus must be on moving people into real jobs. Unfortunately, this bill will not move welfare recipients into the work force. It does not create a real incentive for the States to move people off welfare and on to jobs, and it does not improve access to education and training so that people have the skills they need to get a job. Quite simply, this bill imposes time limits without giving recipients the skills and education they need to find jobs before the time limits kick in. That is cruel and unfair. Real welfare reform should move recipients off the dole and on to jobs, not off the dole and on to the streets. The other major flaws in the Republican bill: The legislation prohibits Federal assistance from going to children if their parents reach the bill's time limit. That is wrong. We must not punish children for the failures of their parents. By contrast, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner bill requires States to provide help to children if their parents reach the time limit. Castle- Tanner also preserves the nutritional safety net for our children instead of giving States the option to block grant food stamps. The Republican bill is also bad for New York. The Republican bill shifts Medicaid costs from the Federal Government to State and local governments, and we are going to lose $1.8 billion in Medicaid costs.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague made it very clear, last year the anti-choice majority included a ban in this bill that prevents the FEHBP from offering insurance that covers abortion services. The ban does not make any sense. What it does is relegate Federal employees to second class status. American women should not have their constitutional right taken away by Congress simply because they work for the Federal Government. The issue before us today is very simple. Should women be allowed the freedom to choose a private health insurance plan that includes coverage of abortion, or should Congress dictate their choices to them? Federal employees, like other American workers, should be able to choose a health plan that covers the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion. Like other workers, Federal employees pay for their insurance with their own funds. It is simply not right that the Congress would bar women from purchasing the reproductive services they need with their own money. Before this ban was put in place, Federal employees had many options. Of the 345 plans, just about half, 178, covered abortion. If women wanted to participate in the plan that covered abortions, they could. If they found abortion objectionable, they could belong to a plan that did not cover abortion. The choice was theirs, not mine, not this institution's. When we passed the bill last year, we took health care choices away from Federal employees. There are 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care, 1.2 million American women who lost the right to choose when this bill was enacted. The bill was wrong last year, it is still wrong, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us return the choice to the people that deserve it, the women who work for this Government.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Metcalf-Luther amendment to deny Members of Congress a cost-of-living adjustment. Given our current deficit, I do not believe that this is the appropriate time for Members to receive a pay raise. I am concerned, however, that this amendment will keep Federal judges from receiving a cost-of-living adjustment. I do not think that it is appropriate for the salaries of Federal judges to be tied to the salaries of Members of Congress. This Nation has the premier justice system in the world. We rely on judges to make some of the most important decisions in our democracy-- decisions that determine the reach of our Constitution, and decisions that are literally a matter of life or death. Given the fact that judges sit at the pinnacle of our justice system, it is outrageous that judicial salaries are held back by congressional politics. Judicial salaries are completely overshadowed by salaries in the private sector. Many of our judges are forced to take a sizable pay cut to serve on the bench. Many other highly qualified individuals walk away from public service because the financial sacrifice is too great. Our Nation is the poorer for that loss. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2701, a bill that will separate judicial salaries from congressional salaries and will put in place an automatic annual increase for judges. Our Federal judges deserve no less. After all, they are the keepers of our democracy.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], a member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment that will require consent for minors receiving title X services and in strong support to the Obey-Greenwood-Lowey amendment to the amendment. Let us make it very clear, when a teenager comes to a family planning clinic, the family planning clinic is not making them sexually active. I am the mother of three beautiful grown children, and I want to make it very, very clear that the medical and public health community overwhelmingly supports confidentiality for adolescents seeking family planning services Let us debunk the myth, these kids are not coming to that clinic and suddenly becoming sexually active. In fact, what we are trying to do is provide these services for these youngsters who come to the clinic so that they can avoid spreading sexually transmitted diseases. I think it is important to note that the bill as it is now encourages family participation. That is exactly what we want to do, encourage family participation, not mandate it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment that will require parental consent for minors receiving title X services. In addition, I am proud to join Mr. Obey and Mr. Greenwood as a sponsor of the amendment to the amendment. The Istook amendment will just lead to an increase in teen pregnancies and abortion, and in teens with STD's and HIV. Last year, as you all remember, opponents of family planning attempted to eliminate the title X family planning program. Their efforts, thankfully, were rejected by this House and by the American public. However, they clearly did not learn anything from their defeat. This amendment is just one of several assaults against the title X program this year. Two earlier attempts to limit the program were defeated in committee 2 weeks ago. Why would anyone try to limit a program that successfully prevents teen pregnancies and abortions? They do it because the Christian Coalition tells them to. A recent Christian Coalition legislative alert called this amendment one of ``the first steps to end the infamous Title X program!'' The Istook amendment will place the health of young American women at great risk. Approximately 1 million teens currently receive some medical services from title X clinics. This requirement will create a real barrier to these services for hundreds of thousands of teens. Studies show that many teens--especially those who are abused or who fear an extreme reaction from their parents--will stop seeking medical services for STD's if forced to get their parent's consent. In addition, most teens will continue to have sex but just forgo contraceptives rather than seek parental consent. I do not believe that any of us think that those are acceptable results. The title X statute already requires providers to encourage family participation in reproductive health services. The Obey amendment reflects the spirit of the current statute. In fact, the majority of young people already involve a parent or other responsible adult when they seek family planning services. The Istook amendment will ultimately only cause those teens who do not want to tell their parents to forgo needed services. I think that we need to debunk one myth right now. Parental consent laws do not keep teens from having sex. I support abstinence-based programs for teenagers, but the fact is that most teens are already sexually active when they first come to a title X clinic seeking family planning services. The Istook amendment will just keep those young people from getting the family planning services they need. In addition, I would like to note that the medical and public health community overwhelmingly supports confidentiality for adolescents seeking family planning services. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all oppose this amendment. In conclusion, my colleagues, I urge you to defeat the Istook amendment. Barring teens from family planning services will only lead to horrible results--more teen pregnancy, more kids having kids, and more abortions. This amendment will just create thousands of unnecessary tragedies.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be anxious to know if the distinguished gentleman does support in vitro fertilization.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, many of us have lost friends and family members to breast cancer, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, and so many other diseases. We have shared their pain, we have shared their heartache. I want to make it very clear: We are not talking about creating embryos. Many of us have friends and families who have been through a procedure of in vitro fertilization with the hopes of having a beautiful child. We are talking about embryos, cells, four live cells no larger than a pin. These cells have been created as part of the process of couples wanting to have a child. These couples then have to make a decision as to whether they discard these embryos or whether they want to give some other family the hope of life. That is what this is all about, allowing these embryos, these cells to be used to save another life. I just received a call today from a family hoping that perhaps this will be the answer. I heard from my colleagues, my distinguished colleagues, that there has been no research that has been successful. I have lost many family members to breast cancer. Mr. Chairman, we have spent millions and billions on trying to solve that problem. Do we say, well, we have not solved the problem, so we just give up? Yes, we have made important advances, and I am hoping that perhaps there will be a great breakthrough in other illness because of this research. When we look at the list, almost every medical association; I just received a letter today from 15 medical and educational organizations that support this amendment. I am not a physician. But when 15 medical and educational organizations support this amendment, this Congress is going to tell these physicians, the National Institutes of Health, that they cannot use this procedure to perhaps bring life to people who have no hope? What this Lowey-Johnson amendment does is simply allow research on embryos that would otherwise be discarded or allowed to naturally deteriorate. And remember, the embryos used in this research are less than 14 days old. Embryos at this stage consist of a few cells, have not developed organs or a spinal cord. The cells are the size of a dot, as I mentioned. President Clinton again has made it very clear that early-stage embryo research may be permitted but that the use of Federal funds to create embryos solely for research purposes would be prohibited. We can all be assured that the research at the National Institutes of Health will be conducted with the highest level of integrity. No embryos will be created for research purposes, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to support life.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a member of the committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to my dear friend, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], I find it very offensive to compare this debate to the activity in Nazi Germany. In fact, perhaps the gentleman compares all the research that is being done at the National Institutes of Health to Nazi Germany. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to strike the ban on early-stage embryo research contained in this bill. The ban will bar the Federal Government from pursuing lifesaving research. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 40 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)