Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to respond to one other point that was mentioned by my good friend from North Carolina. We have heard a lot about fixing the price, but maybe I am missing something. It seems that that is just what this feudal system is about, fixing the price. Mr. Chairman, if we do not want to fix the price and mess with the market, then let us let it go free on the market. What we are doing here is actually price-fixing by keeping this in place.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and I are offering this amendment today to ensure that the minor reforms, and I say minor reforms, to the peanut program that were included in the farm bill are actually implemented. I do not think that is too much ask. The peanut program epitomizes wasteful, inefficient Government spending and it supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 million American consumers and taxpayers. This is an outdated program. It is based on a system reminiscent of feudal society. Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation to generation. And let us remember that two-thirds of the people who own these quotas do not even farm. They do not even live on the farm. They probably do not remember what a farm looks like. Mr. Chairman, the GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut prices to consumers. To my good friend from North Carolina I would like to say I know that there are a lot of studies, but there is a study done by Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, between 1988 and 1993, that showed that as the Government-set price of peanuts went up, the retail price went up and as the Government-set price went down, the retail price went down. I know that there are a lot of studies, but this was on study that testified to that fact. Mr. Chairman, the Kolbe-Lowey amendment is a reasonable approach to ensuring that the reforms that were actually passed in the farm bill are implemented. The amendment ensures that the average price of peanuts is no greater than $640 per ton, which is $38 lower than last year's price, and $30 higher than the price support rate included in the farm bill. As many of my colleagues know, I was not satisfied with the reforms to the peanut program included in the farm bill, but the very least we can do is to ensure that these reforms are implemented and executed. Lowering the price of peanuts is also good for American jobs because the price of peanuts in the United States is so high, peanut butter and candy bar manufacturers are actually leaving the United States to open up plants in Canada and Mexico because the peanuts can be purchased there are at the world market price, which is half the United States price, and the finished product can be brought into the United States and sold here. Seems to me that what we have to do is artificially lower the high price of domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers, pass the amendment. It is good policy, and it is only asking that the reforms passed as part of the farm bill are implemented.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. The gentleman is saying that the committee and the freedom to farm bill passed some very important reforms, and I would agree that there have been some reforms made. It is my understanding, and I am trying to understand why he objects, that this amendment, which we are proposing, is just making sure that these reforms, which are an important step in the right direction, are implemented. The question that I have, with these reforms, the prices continuing higher than the $610. My colleague is saying that it is the market. There may be a case to be made that, because the quota is squeezed and the quota is reduced, that continues to push the price up. Maybe there is a faulty administration of the quota system.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Frank amendment to eliminate international military education and training funding for Indonesia. First of all, I would like to commend Chairman Callahan for his efforts to address my concerns on this issue. I appreciate his support for expanded IMET for Indonesia when I know he might rather have allowed Indonesia to receive full IMET assistance. However, as the chairman knows, I still have very serious concerns about Indonesia's human rights record. In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's country report on Indonesia was released in March, and according to the report, ``The Government continued to commit serious human rights abuses.'' The State Department report also said that in Indonesia ``reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same. Increased. Should we really be sending Indonesia more military assistance now when they have not addressed these critical human rights issues? I don't think so. Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975; 200,000 killed out of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to Indonesia that we will not tolerate continued human rights abuses.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert H. Boyle, a tireless environmental advocate who has pioneered the fight to save the Hudson River from environmental degradation. On Friday, June 7, the Pace University School of Law in White Plains, NY, will honor Mr. Boyle for his leadership in the fight to protect and revitalize the resources of the Hudson River by dedicating the Robert H. Boyle Environmental Advocacy Center in the new offices of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic. Mr. Boyle's efforts to combat pollution in the Hudson River and bring polluters to justice span more than 30 years. In 1966, he founded the Hudson River Fishermen's Association, which went on to win the first prosecutions of industrial polluters in the United States. Then, in 1983, Mr. Boyle founded the Hudson Riverkeeper Fund as a successor to the Fishermen's Association. Together, the Fishermen's Association and the Riverkeeper Fund have won nearly 100 cases against polluters in Federal court. The Hudson Riverkeeper Fund has also been a model for other areas in our country, with ``keeper'' programs established for Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, San Francisco Bay, and the Delaware River. Robert Boyle recognizes that the Hudson River belongs to the residents of the State of New York. That is why he has dedicated himself to ensuring that those who pollute the River are held accountable. In addition to bringing polluters to justice in court, he has authored numerous publications on the Hudson, including ``The Hudson River: A Natural and Unnatural History.'' Boyle has testified on environmental issues before committees in this body, and has won a number of awards, including the Outdoor Life Conservationist of the Year Award in 1976 and the 1981 Conservation Communication Award from the National Wildlife Federation. I know I speak for many here in Congress--and citizens across the Nation--in expressing our gratitude for Robert Boyle's energy and commitment to protecting our environment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 81st 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 twentieth 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. Unfortunately, there are still some who refuse to admit that this genocide occurred. The Turkish Government has actively denied that the Armenian genocide happened. This amendment will encourage the Turkish Government to end this campaign of denial and recognize the suffering of the Armenian people. Mr. Speaker, after the genocide, the Armenian people 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.'' I rise today to make sure that those cries were not uttered in vain. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Visclosky amendment to strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This amendment would make it more difficult for countries to block U.S. humanitarian assistance from reaching its destination. Mr. Chairman, Turkey continues to impose a cruel and illegal blockade against Armenia. Critical humanitarian assistance is not making it to the needy people of Armenia because of this blockade. This is unconscionable, and this amendment will help to lift this terrible blockade. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which was included in last year's foreign aid bill, prohibits United States assistance to countries like Turkey that impose cruel blockades of humanitarian assistance. This amendment strengthens this important provision to ensure that it actually accomplishes its goal: to end blockades of humanitarian assistance. Mr. Chairman, in 1993 Turkey began its blockade of Armenia by refusing to allow passage of International Red Cross workers bound for Armenia. Since then, Turkey has continually refused to allow these relief workers into Armenia. Very simply, this is a fundamental violation of human rights. We continue to give Turkey economic assistance each year, and Turkey continues to disregard our calls for improvements in its human rights. Turkey has been illegally occupying Cyprus for over two decades, it has used United States assistance to threaten our ally Greece, and it has engaged in atrocious human rights violations against the Kurds. We cannot tolerate this any longer. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not solve all of the concerns we have about Turkey's human rights record. But it will send a clear signal that we will not tolerate any blockade of humanitarian assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to know that, and I am pleased that there has been some negotiations and discussions and important arrangements made for security between Israel and Turkey, and I would hope that this amendment would encourage the Turks to certainly acknowledge the Armenian genocide and would take a stronger role in freeing Cyprus and in speaking out and acting against some of the human rights abuses. I understand, Mr. Chairman, the importance of Turkey, in fact, in our regional needs. I understand the importance of Turkey as an important ally. And what we hope to do with this amendment, as with other actions that we hope to take, is send a very strong signal to Turkey although they are an important ally, they must certainly stand up and speak out against all kinds of human rights abuses.

Mrs. LOWEY. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment that will restore necessary funding to international family planning. For our colleagues on the far right to call the restrictions on international family planning in this bill a compromise is ludicrous. Not only do the provisions in the bill slash funding for the programs, but they also force programs to abide by the Mexico City restrictions in order to get adequate funding. My colleagues, this is not a compromise, this is the worst of both worlds. Our chairman, Mr. Callahan, has crafted an excellent foreign aid bill and I will support it. However, I will fight to have this extreme language removed from the bill in conference. It is simply unacceptable. Last year, this bill was held up by the antichoice caucus' insistence that the bill contain some restrictions on international family planning. Well, here we go again. They have included a provision in this bill that they know both the Senate and the administration will reject. And as for their suggestion that this is a compromise, let us not forget who was involved in this so-called ``compromise.'' This is not a deal between the pro-choice caucus and the antichoice caucus, this is a deal between Chris Smith and Dick Armey, two antichoice leaders. The bottom line is that this provision will slash by over one-third one of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries: family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Let me illustrate for you the impact of these cuts. It has been estimated that the slashing of these funds will result in: 7 million people in developing countries that would have used contraceptives now will not have access to them; 4 million women will have unintended pregnancies; as a result of those pregnancies, there will be 1.9 million unintended births; 1.6 million more abortions; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth; and 134,000 more infant deaths. These tragedies will be the direct result of this provision. And as we have said repeatedly on this floor, the Mexico city restrictions, including the international gag rule, are simply unnecessary. Not a single U.S. dollar pays for abortions overseas. The members of the antichoice caucus are so obsessed about this issue that they see problems where they simply do not exist. International family planning programs decrease the number of abortions by making them unnecessary. Certainly that is a goal that we can all support. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We cannot let them cut international family planning. There is just too much at stake.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I must say I sympathize with my moderate Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle. After months of urging your leadership to allow a straight up-or-down vote on increasing the minimum wage, you thought you had finally won that most basic opportunity. But at the 11th hour, Speaker Gingrich unleashed a killer amendment that would repeal the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for up to 10 million Americans. I continue to be amazed by the Republican leadership's policies that seek to bring us back to the days when workers were routinely exploited, polluters fouled our air and water with abandon, and college was only an option for the privileged few. But today with the Goodling amendment they are at it again, turning the clock back to a darker day. Make no mistake about it, the Republican leadership doesn't believe hardworking Americans deserve a raise. The record of the Gingrich gang on the minimum wage is undeniable: delay, distort, and derail. Inflation has been chipping away at the value of the minimum wage since it was last raised 5 years ago. Its value is now at its lowest level in 40 years. Forty years, Mr. Speaker. Americans who work full- time simply cannot live on $8,800 a year. Making the minimum wage a liveable wage through two 50-cent increases will lift 300,000 families out of poverty, including 100,000 children, and help people move from welfare to work. An increase in the minimum wage won't solve all of our Nation's economic and social ills. But it is clearly an overdue step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, let's end the double talk and get a clean, up-or-down vote to give American workers a raise.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, because of the thunderstorm earlier this evening, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote 180. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's 6-year balanced budget. This debate is about much more than dollars and cents--it is about our Nation's fundamental priorities and values. The differences between the Gingrich budget and the President's budget are very clear. These plans offer competing visions for America's future, and they present all Americans with a stark choice. The President's plan balances the budget and provides tax relief for the middle class while protecting key priorities like Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. President Clinton's budget will guarantee Medicare's solvency through 2005, while giving our seniors greater choice and flexibility. It cuts down on fraud and abuse in Medicaid, shakes up the welfare system, and provides hard working families with tax credits to pay for college or to start a business. The Gingrich budget hits the elderly and our children the hardest. New York alone will lose $14 billion in Medicare funding and $10 billion from Medicaid under Newt Gingrich's budget. Seniors will lose long-term care and children will be denied health care. Financially strapped school systems--like the one in Yonkers, NY, will lose millions in Federal aid. The choice is clear--the President's balanced budget provides tax relief for hard working Americans while protecting the priorities of the American people. Newt Gingrich's budget increases spending at the Pentagon while slashing Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. Let's listen to what a very senior Republican from my State of New York recently had to say about the Gingrich revolution: Americans did not vote to cut funding for education and cut funding for the environment and cut funding for programs they care about it. Those were Al D'Amato's words--let's take his advice, reject the Gingrich budget and support the President's plan. announcement by the chairman

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the provision in this amendment that authorizes international military education and training assistance for Indonesia. In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's Country Report on Indonesia was released in March, and according to the report, ``The Government continued to commit serious human rights abuses.'' That doesn't sound to me as though the situation has improved. The State Department report also said that in Indonesia ``reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same. Increased. Should we really be authorizing IMET assistance for this government now when they have not addressed these critical human rights issues? I don't think so. Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975--200,000 killed out of a population of 700,000. It is about genocide. Mr. Chairman, this provision should be debated fully by this House, not slipped into an en bloc amendment. Mr, EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose passage of the fiscal year 1997 DOD Authorization Act because I believe it funds expensive and unneeded cold-war programs that will compete with fundamental defense spending priorities. I am concerned that this bill, as did the fiscal year 1996 Authorization Act, puts us on a course to buy cold-war weapons systems such as the F-22, the new attack submarine and national missile defense--star wars. Funding these types of programs puts immediate spending priorities at risk. The number of big ticket and unnecessary procurement items authorized will make it difficult to fund basic defense needs in the outyears. The bow wave of increasing procurement costs that the bill establishes will make it much harder to ensure basic defense capabilities and needs. While I agree with some of the priorities funded in this bill that help us meet new and changing threats, such as avionics upgrades and the V-22 program, I believe that the extra $7.5 billion authorized in this bill for procurement will threaten more important defense priorities. This increase will have direct consequences on specific readiness needs, such as: adequate funding to operate and maintain our forces, stable pay and benefits for our military service members, the ability to retain a steady and capable civilian work force, and the modernization of less glamorous hardware programs such as artillery systems.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to these attempts to block cooperative threat reduction funding to Russia. Cooperative threat reduction, also known as Nunn-Lugar, is not foreign aid. It is an investment in United States security. This program reduces the threat to the United States from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Nunn-Lugar funding improves the security of these weapons to keep them out of the hands of terrorists and aids in critical denuclearization efforts in Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine. I share many of the concerns raised in this amendment. I strongly support the sovereignty of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, and would oppose any efforts on Russia's part to violate this independence. I also want to ensure that Russia is not providing assistance to Iran, Iraq, Libya, or Syria. But this amendment is not the way to do that. Mr. Chairman, cooperative threat reduction is strengthening U.S. security. Blocking funding for these critical programs would only hurt U.S. efforts to expedite the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. I urge my colleagues to defeat this destructive amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro- Torkildsen-Ward-Harman amendment. This amendment does not impact or require the use of State funds. What this amendment does is put 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 violating their constitutional right to a safe abortion. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the DeLauro amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for their hard work, perseverance, and endurance. Mr. Speaker, I rise in grudging support of this budget deal. This is not a great bill. It is certainly not the bill I would have written. But it is the best bill that Congress can pass this year. We are at the end of a very long process that began over a year ago. From the very beginning it was clear that the Republican majority was determined to cut funding for vital education and environmental programs. The bills that passed this house last year cut funds to our local schools by 16 percent, eliminated the Summer Jobs Program, and slashed the EPA by a third. Those bills would have reduced funding to New York City by Almost $600 million--or 18 percent. And when Bill Clinton refused to accept these draconian cuts Newt Gingrich deliberately shut the Government down--not once, but twice--in order to get his way. Thankfully, the President stood his ground and forced the Republicans to compromise. Cuts, confrontation and shut down have failed. The President remained firm and won. Let us pass this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 81st 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 last year in including the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill signed by the President, 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 unaccept5able 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.'' 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, I rise today in strong opposition to the provision in this bill that authorizes international military education and training [IMET] assistance for Indonesia. In 1992, we voted to end all IMET assistance for Indonesia because of that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of the people of East Timor. Despite the lack of improvement in Indonesia's human rights record, and the opposition of myself and many of my colleagues, a modified IMET program was approved for Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. When this provision was added to the foreign aid bill last year, we said we would monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia very carefully and act accordingly this year. Well, the State Department's Country Report on Indonesia was released last month, and according to the report, ``The government continued to commit serious human rights abuses.'' So what do we do a month after this report came out? We attempt to slip reauthorization of IMET for Indonesia into a supposedly noncontroversial bill that is being considered on the Suspension Calendar. This is an unacceptable way to legislate. Mr. Speaker, in the past we have debated this issue extensively. Last year, I offered an amendment to the foreign aid bill to prohibit this assistance from going to Indonesia. There is significant opposition in Congress to Indonesian IMET. That doesn't sound noncontroversial to me. A month ago, the State Department said that in Indonesia ``reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody by security forces increased.'' Not decreased. Not stayed the same. Increased. Should we really be authorizing IMET assistance for this government now when they have not addressed these critical human rights issues? I don't think so. Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who have been slaughtered since the Indonesian occupation in 1975--200,000 killed out of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide. Mr. Speaker, this is not a noncontroversial issue, and should never have been brought up under suspension.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth amendment to the Constitution that the Republican leadership has forced the House to vote on in the past 16 months. This radical assault on our Nation's most sacred document is an outrage, and I rise in defense of our Nation's Constitution and against this resolution. This resolution before us is the product of a poll and a focus group. It is election-year political theater at its worst. Our Constitution is the greatest political document ever written, yet Speaker Gingrich is convinced he can do better. Does the Speaker really think he can improve upon the work of Madison and Hamilton? Congress ought to be approaching the Constitution with reverence and humility. Instead, the Republican leadership is treating the Constitution as a rough draft. This amendment flies in the face of the principle of majority rule that has guided this Nation since its founding. It would vest unprecedented power in the hands of a small minority and prevent the majority from enacting the will of the American people. If the principle of majority rule was good enough for James Madison, it should be good enough for Newt Gingrich and the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.