Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to read the list of groups that support this amendment: The American Medical Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Pediatric Society, the American Psychological Society, the American Society of Human Genetics, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Academic Level Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities, and on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs LOWEY

Mrs LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Along with my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, I am very pleased to offer an amendment to the bill that will provide $2 million in funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act programs. Currently, the bill eliminates funding for these important educational programs. Abolishing the critical WEEA program is simply unfair to girls and women throughout this Nation. These programs successfully opened previously closed doors for girls in school and in the workplace. The WEEA programs cost $2 million, and that money pays off in a big way. As my colleagues all know, women still earn only 72 cents for every dollar earned by men. The glass ceiling has kept women from achieving success in upper management. The best way for women to break through these economic barriers is by becoming better educated, particularly in nontraditional jobs which are generally higher paying. The Women's Educational Act programs will give today's girls the ability to become tomorrow's high-wage earners. These programs help girls to succeed in math, the sciences and other nontraditional classes. In addition, WEEA supports programs that keep girls from dropping out, in keeping with the national goal of increasing graduation rates to at least 90 percent by the year 2000. Other programs are designed to eliminate discrimination against girls in the classroom and to develop programs, materials, and curricula free of gender bias. Let me tell my colleagues about a few of the successful projects funded by WEEA. In Massachusetts, the Preengineering Program helps girls to enhance their performance and their participation in math and science, classes and encourages them to pursue careers in engineering, science and technology. In Chairman Livingston's State of Louisiana, the Women's Leadership Development Program works with high school girls, teen mothers, and female educators to keep girls in school and, by graduating, to increase their independence and self-sufficiency. In Florida, Project Can provides young women with training and information about high-skilled, high-wage careers that can provide them with economic self-sufficiency. My amendment will be offset by reducing funding for research at the Department of Education by $2 million. In this bill, research is increased by $16 million over fiscal year 1996 and over $15 million more than the administration requested. While I certainly support the research efforts of the Education Department, I believe that we must save the successful Women's Educational Equity Act programs. Cutting these programs is incredibly shortsighted. We may save some money this year, but we are sacrificing the future of today's young women. With the WEEA programs, these girls can learn the skills they need to become independent and economically successful. Let us not let them down. Our amendment is supported by the American Council on Education, the PTA, the American Association of University Women, the Association of Women in Science, the National Organization of Women, the Older Women's League, and many other organizations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Patsy Mink].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, to close this debate, I would like to thank my colleagues with whom I have worked so closely on this issue over the years. Having seen the results of these programs, having seen the educational programs that have encouraged women to get into fields of math and science and engineering, I would again like to appeal to all my colleagues to support this very important amendment. We can work to cut out a lot of programs, but this is one in which we should invest.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his leadership for funding for the National Institutes of Health. This bill provides for a 6 percent increase which I wholeheartedly support. This increase will enable important research to continue in the area of breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS and many others. The bill also increases funds to train child welfare workers to better care for abused and neglected youngsters. In addition, I thank the chairman for working with me to prevent cuts in public television funding, and I also thank him for continuing to work with me to fully fund domestic violence programs. However, Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my deep concern with this bill. This bill has always been called the people's bill. But again, for the second year in a row, this bill falls short of meeting the needs of the people of this Nation: our schoolchildren, college students, elderly, and hard-working men and women across the country. Unfortunately, this bill represents a serious reduction in our Nation's investment in education. While the draconian cuts above $4 billion proposed by the majority party of last year have not been repeated, the bill still fails to make the necessary investment in our Nation's schools. It was the proposed $4 billion in education cuts, coupled with steep reductions in job training and worker protection, which led to two government shutdowns and an 18-month stalemate over the budget. Finally, the majority retreated from their extreme position and 90 percent of the cuts in education, 60 percent of the cuts in job training, and 75 percent of the cuts in worker protection programs were restored. But the bill before us today takes us down the same path as last year. Under this bill, the Federal Government is further shirking its responsibilities to our local schools. In the 1994-95 school year, when Democrats were still in control of the Congress, the Federal Government contributed 5.6 percent of State and local expenditures for education. Under the bill before us today, the Federal contribution to local schools is down to only 4.7 percent. This bill also shortchanges students in colleges, universities, community colleges and training programs across our Nation. By the year 2002, an additional 1.5 million students will be enrolled in college. This is an increase of almost 10 percent in student enrollment. The cost of a college education is increasing faster than the rate of inflation. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into account increased college enrollment or increased college tuition. The Pell Program is the cornerstone of Federal college assistance, providing aid to 4 million needy students. Pell recipients are not well-off, and more than 90 percent of the aid goes to students from families and incomes below $30,000. The Pell Program is one of the few sources of grant aid still available. Pell helps to cut down on the crushing college debt burden assumed by so many students and their families today. But in the bill before us today, the maximum Pell grant is $2,500, only $30 above last year. This $30 increase in the Pell grant would buy a single college textbook. The Pell funding in this bill is simply inadequate to meet the costs of higher education today. The bill is also inadequate when it comes to the Perkins Program. The bill provides no capital contributions to the Perkins Program. Three- quarters of a million low income students depend on the Perkins Program. In my state of New York, Perkins provided low-interest loans to nearly 60,000 deserving students. In addition, the bill before us today completely eliminates the SSIG Program. In fiscal year 1995, SSIG was funded at over $60 million. Last year we funded SSIG at $31.3 million, but only after a long and protracted fight over funding priorities. If we added a modest $31.3 million to the SSIG Program, we could provide aid to 105,000 students and generate over $100 million in State students aid funds. The bill also fails to fund the President's important teen pregnancy initiative, provides no funding for school infrastructure, and eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act. The bill was flawed from the start because it was a direct outgrowth of mixed-up Republican priorities. Like last year, the House gave the Pentagon billions more than Pentagon requested. This year the House voted to give the Pentagon $11 billion more than it requested. This is wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is shortsighted. We cannot afford to keep shortchanging the important priorities of this Nation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Today we are confronted with a very difficult decision. China is one of our Nation's most important trading partners. China contains one-fifth of the world's population and is the fastest growing market in the world for American goods and services. Trade with China creates jobs here at home and stimulates economic growth in the United States. Yet we also know that the Chinese Government abuses the civil rights of its citizens. It violates international trade laws. And China continues to harass Taiwan and violate nuclear proliferation treaties. Our Government must never tolerate these actions. We must hold the Chinese Government responsible for its behavior and convince them to change it. We must continue to pressure China to improve its record. Mr. Speaker, revoking China's MFN status will not accomplish these goals. In fact, I believe that continuing our free trading relations with China is the best hope we have of bringing real progress there. If we cut ourselves off from China we lose any leverage we have over the Chinese Government. The United States must remain engaged in China to promote our ideas, to promote democracy, and to promote human rights. Renewing MFN allows us to shine a flashlight on China's problems and change them. And approaching China with a policy of engagement also has rewards for United States foreign policy beyond the borders of China. China has played an active and constructive role in securing the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum's commitment to free trade and investment in the entire Asia Pacific region. China has also played critical roles in United States efforts to secure a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and the historic four-party peace proposal announced by Presidents Clinton and Kim in April. Mr. Speaker, MFN does not extend any special treatment for China. Indeed, all but six nations in the world have MFN status. Rather, MFN is about engagement. MFN status will pressure China to improve its behavior and encourage China's integration into the world economy through exposure to United States values. The United States must also continue to pressure China through diplomacy and ongoing trade talks. We can get results from the Chinese without revoking their MFN status. Of course, revoking MFN would also jeopardize thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in United States exports to China. At least 170,000 American jobs are supported by United States exports to China, and that number rises every year. Exports to China increased 27 percent last year alone, bringing total United States exports to nearly $12 billion. My home State of New York alone sent over 368 million dollars' worth of machinery, transportation equipment, fabricated metal products, and other goods to China last year. Mr. Speaker, the debate over China's most-favored-nation status cannot bear the weight of the entire bilateral relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. We have serious disagreements with China, but we cannot turn our back on the world's most populous nation. Cultivating and engaging trading partners must be the cornerstone of our economic and foreign policies. I urge the resolution's disapproval.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with him. I appreciate his support for this extraordinary institution. I know together we can be successful in providing Federal support.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be sure that I expressed my strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California to remove funding for the National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology at the American Museum of Natural History. I do so not merely as a New Yorker, but as someone who recognizes the need to enhance our knowledge--especially our young people's knowledge--of science and technology. For more than a century, the American Museum of Natural History has been one of the world's preeminent institutions of scientific research and education. More than 3 million people from across our Nation and from around the world visit the museum every year. And the museum's research stations span the globe--from Long Island to China, from Arizona to Madagascar, from Georgia to Mongolia. Why should the Federal Government spend $13 million out of NASA's $13.6 billion budget for this project? Well, the American Museum of Natural History is really the institution best suited to further the purposes of NASA's ``Mission to Planet Earth'' by telling the story of our planet--from the big bang, to the age of the dinosaurs, to global warming. The resources and capabilities of the American Museum of Natural History are virtually unparalleled anywhere. The museum offers the largest natural history library in the Western Hemisphere, more than 30 million cultural artifacts, the world-renowned Hayden Planetarium, 200 research scientists in nine departments, and the experience that comes from having over 3 million visitors every year--including over 500,000 school children. The funding contained in NASA's budget for this important scientific and educational project is only 10 percent of its total cost. In fact, over half of the $130 million needed to establish the national center have already been raised through a unique public/private partnership between the city of New York and numerous private foundations, individuals, and corporations. Mr. Speaker, the national center will allow the American Museum of Natural History to translate ground-breaking science into exciting, real-life programs for millions of Americans--precisely one of the purposes of the Mission to Plant Earth. This is far from a waste of Federal tax dollars. It is about providing a nominal amount of support for a program of the highest quality that will benefit millions of school children and enhance our competitiveness in the global economy. I urge defeat of the Brown amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, [Mr. Boehlert], my outstanding colleague from New York who has truly been a leader on this issue. It has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman and to see this project actually become a reality. I also want to thank the gentleman, because we know that for more than 150 years, Mr. Chairman, the residents of the New York metropolitan area have received their drinking water from reservoirs in upstate New York. This 2,000-square-mile watershed has the distinction of being the largest unfiltered surface drinking water supply in the entire Nation. As my colleagues from New York State know, protecting the New York City watershed is absolutely critical, and it is simply a matter of dollars and cents. Why? Reserving the purity of the city's water system at its source in the upstate reservoirs will avoid the need to construct a filtration plant that would cost more than $6 billion, I repeat, $6 billion. For too long, there was antagonism and mistrust between residents of the metropolitan area, who want to ensure the water's purity, and upstate residents, who rely on the land for their economic livelihood. It used to be that the interests of upstate residents were diametrically opposed to the interests of my constituents in Queens and Westchester County, but not anymore. Late last year, the city and State of New York, the Environmental Protection Agency, and farmers and local officials from the watershed agreed to a landmark watershed protection program that will avoid the need for costly filtration while still safeguarding public health and allowing those who make a living off the land to continue to do so. If successful, this program promises to become a national model for locally driven, economically friendly environmental protection. New York City alone has pledged to invest over $1.2 billion over the next 15 years to implement the program, but a modest investment by the Federal Government is also needed. Regrettably, the first installment of these funds has not been included in the EPA's budget for 1997. But I will withdraw my amendment. I will not offer my amendment, which would provide the $15 million that is needed. I appreciate the leadership again of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the willingness of our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], to work with us to ensure that these vital funds will be provided. So thank you again, thanks to our chairman, thank you to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this vital issue for the entire region.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the chairman of the committee the need for a training program for chief fire officers at the U.S. Fire Academy. This training program will assure that chief officers are fully prepared before being thrust into disaster situations. Currently there is no national training program available to chief fire officers. These officers are usually the first to arrive at a fire or a disaster, and their leadership is crucial to saving lives and property. Yet these officers receive little or no formal training. I have been working with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, to put this training program in place. It is estimated that this program would only cost $400,000, and it seems to me that $400,000 is a small price to pay in order to assure that chief fire officers receive the training that they need to protect the lives and property of American citizens. There is a national consensus that this training is needed. In fact, petitions containing over 5,000 signatures supporting this program have been collected from all over the country. This training program is supported by leading firefighting publications, including Fire Engineering, Fire Chief, Firehouse, and the American Fire Journal. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would work with me to add report language at conference to direct the U.S. Fire Academy to develop this program and to offer the course as soon as possible. There are many lives at stake.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his support, and I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to ensure that this invaluable resource, not only to New York but to the country, can be supported by the Federal Government. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to serve with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and I thank him for his support. I look forward to working with him on this language. I do believe this training will save many lives. I thank the chairman very much. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Brown of California. The U.S. Government spends billions of dollars a year on science and technology, particularly for defense programs and NASA space exploration. Surely we can spend $13 million to bring some of that technology home to the American people. Especially for a project where 90 percent of the $130 million required is coming from private and non-Federal sources. Let's not send the message to all these private contributors that the Federal Government is not willing to participate in the project that will make our Federal science and technology initiatives accessible to the citizens. The American Museum of Natural History is the one institution that can attract this support because it is truly national in its scope, mission, and resources. For more than 125 years, the American Museum of Natural History has been nourishing young minds with scientific enlightenment in a readily understandable form. Three million people from all 50 States flock to the museum every year to learn about the cutting edge scientific research interpreted, explained, and performed by the museum's 200 scientists and leaders in their fields. The landmark project--whose Federal funding this amendment would prevent--would greatly expand the range and the capabilities of the world-renowned Hayden Planetarium, and would bring more of its treasures home to all Americans. The project calls for a new Sky Theater, a Hall of the Universe, a Hall of the Planet Earth, and a Hall of Life's Diversity. And it will allow the museum's exhibitions to be visited not just by Americans who can afford a trip to New York, but by anyone with access to the World Wide Web at work, at home, at school. Just imagine: real-time images from the Hubble Telescope will no longer just be available to Government bureaucrats and scientists at NASA headquarters in Houston. They'll be available in a user-friendly format to students, as well as other scientists and educators. Mr. Chairman, for all that the American museum has done for scientific understanding in our country, the museum has never once come to the Federal Government for a major funding initiative. Granting this modest request is the least we can do. Denying it would be a tragic setback and loss to scientific literacy in this Nation. I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Brown.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are offering this amendment today to add badly needed funding to the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program. Our amendment will increase funding for HOPWA to the pre-rescission fiscal year 1995 level, only a $15 million increase over what is currently in the bill. This increase will provide housing opportunities to over 4,000 individuals and families living with AIDS around the country. More than 4,000 people who would otherwise be put out onto the streets. And make no mistake, the cost to society of throwing these people out onto the streets is far greater than the cost of providing them with housing. It should come as no surprise that individuals without housing will turn to hospitals and American taxpayers will foot the bill. The average cost of hospital care for people with AIDS is between 10 and 20 times the cost of home care. The HOPWA program saves $47,000 per person per year in emergency health care costs. Mr. Chairman, the HOPWA program has been funded at the same level since fiscal year 1995, but more than 20 communities have become eligible for these funds since that time. That translates into a 23 percent decrease in funds available for communities that received HOPWA grants before fiscal year 1995. Up to 60 percent of Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. It is estimated that while someone can live for 10 years with AIDS, the life expectancy for a person with AIDS who is homeless is 6 months. The HOPWA program will save money, keep families together, and extend lives. AIDS is a public health emergency, and we should treat it that way. The HOPWA program is cost-effective and humane. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this bipartisan amendment to repeal one of the most far-reaching and environmentally destructive assaults on our national forests in decades. Last year the Republican majority unleashed a concerted attack on a host of critical environmental protections: Over many objections, including my own, this body voted to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; to gut the Clean Water Act; to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from low-interest loans to local communities that help keep drinking water safe and beaches swimmable; to slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, hazardous waste cleanups, and land acquisition for national parks; and to impose a moratorium on programs that prevent the extinction of endangered species. Included in this shameful list is the so-called timber salvage provision, which was misleadingly touted as being necessary to reduce forest fires by harvesting dead and dying timber. The sad truth is that it is now being used to clearcut healthy forests in the Pacific Northwest. Hundreds of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forests have been logged in recent months in Oregon and Washington. Because the measure suspends several environmental laws that help minimize potential degradation of our natural resources, this logging is damaging wildlife habitat and fouling rivers and streams, including spawning grounds for endangered salmon. And, as if the destruction of acre after acre of forests were not enough, the logging rider is going to cost American taxpayers millions of dollars because mandating subsidized timber sales cost the Federal Treasury more than the revenues they bring in. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that this logging will cost $50 million this year alone. This amendment simply will ensure that timber sales comply with environmental safeguards. It's hardly a radical idea, and it's good for the environment and good for the American taxpayer. I urge its adoption.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to say to my distinguished colleague I am very respectful of his knowledge on this program, but many of us as consumers do face the impact of these programs. And all we are saying is we are not changing by this amendment any of the improvements, any of the modifications that were put in place that the gentleman supported, or many of my colleagues supported, in the freedom to farm bill. All we are saying is let us not be able to squeeze the market, squeeze the quota so we push the price higher. CBO has estimated that this amendment will be zero cost. The growers will not have to pay anything. It is my understanding that that is all the amendment does. My distinguished colleague is actually making sure that the reforms, as modest as they were, be implemented.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if, in fact, this amendment is implemented, and I hope it is today, then what it is trying to do is just to be sure that the reforms which my colleague states were made, and they were in the freedom to farm bill, are implemented correctly.

Mrs. LOWEY. But my colleague agreed to $610 already.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I just want to say again that, respectfully to my good friend, the only difference in our view is, you are calling price fixing our amendment which attempts to put in place the change in the freedom to farm program where we are saying that this feudal program is price fixing all along.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.