Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], for organizing this special order, and thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] for coming down and talking to us about Medicare and Medicaid. I, too, was sitting in my office when I heard the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] talking. There is a lot of confusion out there. People are wondering what this alphabet soup is all about. OMB, CBO. Frankly, we know that it is hard enough to predict what the budget is going to be next year. It is hard enough to predict what economic conditions are going to be next year. For the Republicans to tell the President that his numbers are not right because they differ 7 years from now does not make sense at all. So what really counts is that the President is standing firm and saying, ``I will balance the budget in 7 years but I have got to protect Medicare, Medicaid, the environment and education.'' Really I think the public is a little bit fed up at this point and would like us to get together, come to some conclusion. I was at the Statue of Liberty this morning, frankly, and to see the Statue of Liberty closed because the Republicans are saying do not use these numbers, do not use those numbers, use these numbers. The public really wants to know why the Social Security offices are closed, why the Statue of Liberty is closed, why they cannot get their passport. I would suggest that while we are debating these very serious issues, we get a continuing resolution and get the Government going again, because it is unfair to penalize the people for what is going on here in this House of Representatives. So we should be adults, get the Government going, and then continue to debate these very serious issues. Frankly, I want to applaud the President again for standing firm. Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment are issues that are worth us standing firm on. Frankly, I was in my office looking through my mail, and rather than talk in generalities, I was looking at a letter from a constituent of mine by the name of Lorie Kraft. She is from Forest Hills, NY. She has a 79-year-old mother, Rena Payne. Like many children, Lorie is her mother's primary caretaker. You were talking about your father. Her mother has a form of dementia. Her mother needs a lot of care. What Lorie was saying, ``I already supplement my mother's income by buying her groceries, paying her utility bills, purchasing health care supplies. If Medicare benefits are cut,'' Lorie says, and I quote, ``it would be absolutely a devastating strain added to an already very difficult burden.'' We have to know that what the Republicans are proposing is the largest cut in history. We know we have to reform Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, there is fraud in the program and we have to continue to make it better, but cuts of $270 billion just do not make any sense. I hope all the people out there understand that there is no reason to shut the Government down. We should be adults, get together and come up with proposals that make sense for the American people. If the Republicans would stop tacking on these extremist proposals on all the appropriations bills, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and I sit on the Committee on Appropriations, we know that the Republicans did not do their work. They should have completed their work by October 1. That is why we are in this pickle that we are in, because they did not complete the work. It is because on all these bills they want to tack on extremist provisions, whether it is provisions in the environmental bills that cut back on our protection for the environment, or cutting back on education, or cutting back on health care. We were sent here to stand up and fight for the Lorie Krafts of this world and their mothers, and I am very proud that our President is standing firm, that we are here tonight to make it clear to the American people. I hope you let Members of Congress know that we have to continue to fight to make sure that Medicare and Medicaid are preserved. This is an important battle, and it is a battle for the soul and the values of our Nation. I thank the gentlewoman again. I want to turn to my colleague the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in very strong support of the President's veto of the Republicans' devastating cuts in environmental protection and housing programs. This bill is one of the more glaring indications of the extremist, anti-environmental policies of the Republican majority. We should not be here having this debate. We should have funded the EPA, Housing and Veterans Program 2\1/2\ months ago. But the Republican leadership insists on adding extremist provisions, and I applaud the President for having the courage to reject them. How anyone who is truly committed to ensuring clean water and clean air can, in good conscience, stand before the American people tonight and support this bill is more than I can fathom. This bill is an attack on our natural resources and the environmental health and safety of the American people, plain and simple. This bill cuts the Environmental Protection Agency by more than 20 percent, but that's only the tip of the iceberg: The Devil is in the details: A 30-percent cut in loans to States that help keep raw sewage off our beaches and out of our rivers, A 45-percent cut in funds that provide critical assistance to local communities to keep drinking water safe, a 20 percent cut in the program that cleans up hazardous waste sites, a complete termination of the EPA's authority to stop toxic dumping in wetlands and a 27-percent cut in EPA enforcement activities--that means the environmental cop will not be on the beat. So much for getting tough on crime. In the area I represent, Federal loans are critical in helping clean up Long Island Sound and preserve the purity of the New York City water supply. And yet this bill cuts more than $750 million from these funds to the States. There is no denying that these environmental rollbacks will cripple the EPA's ability to protect the quality of our air and water and because of their insistence on these extremist provisions, the Government is now shut down--less than 1 week before Christmas.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it will effectively eliminate funding for international family planning. Our colleagues on the far right continue to hold up this bill with their extreme legislative agenda. This has got to stop. Let us pass this bill. After all, this amendment is just another way to masquerade the issue and stop all family planning funding. Let us stop it and let us get this bill passed today. Our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], has crafted an excellent foreign aid bill. This extreme language, I say to the chairman, is preventing this critical bill from being enacted. Let me tell my colleagues exactly what is happening here. Our anti- choice colleagues have attempted to place restrictions on the international family planning programs in this bill, despite the fact that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. Their restrictions have been rejected by the Senate three times. We have heard the message loud and clear. Now their solution to the Senate's refusal to accept their extreme restrictions is to do something even more extreme, to eliminate the programs altogether. This bill is already 2\1/2\ months late, and rather than offer a true compromise or simply accept that their restrictions have failed 3 times, our colleagues on the right now offer an amendment that they know both the Senate and the administration will reject. Why do they insist on wasting our time with this? This is the fourth time that we have voted on this appropriations bill. Why do they continue to play politics with a bill that contains funding for so many vital programs throughout the world? Their amendment will effectively end one of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries, family planning assistance. The amendment exempts the family planning program, and only the family planning program, from the waiver in the bill that allows funds to be appropriated even though the foreign aid authorization bill has not passed. What our colleagues have not told you is that the foreign aid authorization bill has not passed in a dozen years, and I know the chairman is optimistic. The Senate has already indicated that it will not pass the authorization bill this year. The reality is, it could be years before an authorization bill is signed into law. We know that. In the meantime, we will have failed to fund vital family planning programs throughout the world. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent. The aid we provide is valuable and worthwhile. The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 40 years our planet's population will more than double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more to deter the environmental, political and health consequences of this explosive growth. Let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, unsafe abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive health problems. Each year 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions. Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot obtain them. Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented. This amendment will stop us from continuing our fight against these tragedies. Simply put, this amendment will end our family planning programs. Period. that is what it would do. I urge my colleagues, once again, oppose this amendment. We cannot let them eliminate international family planning. There is too much at stake. Let us pass this excellent appropriations bill. Let us take off this extreme amendment. Let us not vote on this again. We need this bill. I again salute the chairman on this outstanding bill. Let us pass it here today. Let us not bow to the right that continues to tack on the extreme amendments. Let us not do it. Let us join and pass this bill today.

Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield, let me just say that I am happy the holidays are coming and we all have wishes. I do wish the authorization bill would pass as well as you do but it has not passed in 12 years and I would rather deal with fact rather than fiction, although I wish you and the authorization bill well.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure the gentleman from Michigan that I respect your views on the issues of abortion, just as I respect the views of every one of my colleagues. I just think it is so unfortunate that every appropriations bill is tied up in abortion. I do wish we could isolate that issue, have a real debate, and move this appropriations bill now.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, voting whether or not to send American troops abroad is the most difficult decision that any Member of Congress will ever face. I still have questions and concerns about our exit strategy and about the dangers our troops will face on the ground in Bosnia. The peace agreement we will help enforce is not perfect. The risks and the dangers are real. But what is the alternative? We have all been horrified at the events in Bosnia over the last several years. Mass executions. Torture. Systematic rape. Ethnic cleansing. For the past 3 years, we called for an end to the horrors. We condemned. We impose sanctions and embargoes. We bombed. And finally the prestige and the armed might of America brought both sides to the negotiating table to achieve peace. So what now, now that peace is won? Will we turn our heads and look the other way as Central Europe descends further into barbarism? Will we shut our eyes to the ethnic cleansing and the genocide? Will we walk away and doom this peace agreement to failure? We dare not. Make no mistake: Refusal to send United States troops to Bosnia will end the peace. There will be no peace without the leadership of the United States. Some argue that we have no national interest at stake in Bosnia. I must disagree. We have a national interest in assisting and supporting our NATO allies. We have a strong national interest in preserving peace in Central Europe. And we have a compelling national interest in stopping ethnic cleansing and genocide. At stake today is whether the United States will continue to assume a leadership role in the world, or whether we will retreat into isolationism. This debate is about our national character, our moral leadership Mr. Speaker, the United States still stands for something very special in this world. Since World War II this Nation has maintained freedom's watch around the globe. We have paid a heavy price for our vigilance--but that is the price we must pay to ensure the success of liberty. We are the world's moral leader--and we must not shirk that leadership. Our troops are the world's best. They are brave--and they are ready. Mr. Speaker, we must help bring peace to Bosnia. The United States has the ability to respond, we have the obligation to respond, and we must respond. Let's support this resolution. Let's support our troops.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in September 1994, the Congress passed a historic piece of legislation--the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA]. VAWA passed the House of Representatives with unanimous, bipartisan support. One of the major purposes for VAWA was to assure that the legal system treated domestic violence as the very serious crime we know it is. A very important provision of the act is entitled ``Equal Justice for Women in the Courts.'' These provisions assure that the arbiters of justice in our Nation--judges and the courts--treat domestic violence in a serious and fair manner. It has come to my attention that some Members of the Senate inserted a colloquy into the Congressional Record challenging the merit of the gender fairness task forces provided for under the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts provisions. I could not disagree more strongly. Sections 40421-22 of the act allow each Federal judicial circuit to conduct studies of ``the instances, if any, of gender bias * * * and to implement recommended reforms.'' A this time, a majority of the Federal circuits are conducting gender fairness studies to ascertain whether women receive disparate treatment in the courts, and, if so, how best we can address this critical problem. Clearly, the judicial branch has the authority, and an obligation, to discover any bias in the dispensation of justice in our Nation. There is no place for unequal justice in the United States. In addition, recently there have been a growing number of press reports--most notably about the O.J. Simpson case in California--about victims of domestic violence who availed themselves of the courts and received little or no protection from their batterers. The failure of the courts to respond to complaints of domestic violence puts the very lives of American women at risk. Further, the mere impression that courts do not take domestic violence seriously will cause some women who desperately need the protection of the legal system to not reach out for help. Finally, I would like to note that the colloquy entered by the Senators on this issue has absolutely no binding effect on the Federal judicial circuits. The colloquy is merely the opinion of three Members of Congress; it is not law. The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill contains no legislative language barring courts from establishing gender fairness studies. Nor does the conference report, the Senate Appropriations Committee report, or the House Appropriations Committee report. If the Congress intended to bar these very important studies, then we would have done so in the legislative or report language. The judicial circuits clearly have the right under this bill to establish the gender fairness task forces. When the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, we made a promise to the people of this Nation that we would fight to end domestic violence. If the legal system, our first line of defense against his heinous crime, is not properly addressing this issue, then we cannot even begin the process of ending domestic violence. I strongly support any efforts by the judiciary to investigate gender bias in the courts, and to provide for recommendations to eradicate it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 20th anniversary of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. The people of East Timor have lived for two decades under a cruel and repressive regime that has killed and starved almost one-third of their population. Violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations in East Timor have continued throughout this occupation. First, innocent protestors are massacred and then the military rounds up and jails the witnesses so that the world will never know what happens. Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of those who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people of East Timor. It is about genocide. Today, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and I are introducing the East Timor Human Rights Accountability Act, which will prohibit United States aid to Indonesia from being used to further the occupation of East Timor or to violate the human rights of the East Timorese people. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this repression and violence to end.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in very strong opposition to Speaker Gingrich's and the Congressional majority's attack on clean water, clean air, and our national parks. No one who has followed the legislative activities of this Chamber over the last several months can deny that there has been--and continues to be--a concerted effort underway to roll back a host of laws that protect our natural resources and the environmental health and safety of the American people. Already this body has voted to gut the Clean Water Act, to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from grants to local communities that help keep drinking water safe and beaches swimmable, to allow oil and gas drilling in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- America's last frontier, to cut the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by 33%, including a 50% cut in enforcement activities and a 19% cut in the program that cleans up hazardous waste sites, to slash funding for land acquisition for national parks and wildlife refuges by 40%, to cut major wetlands habitat conservation programs by 24%, and terminate altogether the EPA's role in protecting wetlands, to accelerate timber sales and logging road construction in our national forests, including the Tongass, a vast temperate rain forest in southeastern Alaska, to cut by one-third the recovery program for the grey wolf in Yellowstone National Park, to repeal a key component of the California Desert Protection Act, to cut climate and global change research by 41%, and to terminate recovery research programs on whales and other marine mammals. Thankfully, an attempt to sell off our national parks was defeated. But the list goes on and on. This summer, the Republican majority voted in favor of seventeen special interest loopholes that would restrict the EPA from enforcing programs important to public health, such as controls on airborne emissions of benzene, dioxin, and other cancer-causing pollutants from oil refineries, cement kilns, and paper plants. When the American people found out about these outrageous provisions, it did not take long for some Members to do an about-face. Most of those special interest riders have been removed. However, we are still faced with a bill that imposes deep cuts in the EPA. Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know what is next on the Republicans' environmental chopping block. Well, the Endangered Species Act, for one, is on life-support in critical condition. Apparently some feel that because the bald eagle is no longer [[Page H 14142]] in imminent danger, we do not need to worry about endangered species any more. Another area in jeopardy concerns global warming. Despite the clear consensus of the international scientific community, some politicians are disputing the role that chemicals such as cholorofluorocarbons have in the depletion of the ozone layer. Unbelievably, we have leaders on the Republican side of the aisle who claim they know more about the threat to the Earth's ozone layer than Nobel prize-winning scientists and who are working to repeal bans on these harmful chemicals. Is this how public policy is supposed to be made? Certainly not. What seems to underlie all these environmental attacks is the false assumption that a strong economy and a clean environment are natural enemies. Because the vast majority of Americans do not support their attack and the facts do not back their arguments up, the proponents of these rollbacks have to resort to polarizing the debate into a choice between jobs and environmental stewardship. Well, my colleagues, do not be fooled. A strong environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand. I come from an area in New York that borders Long Island Sound. The people I am privileged to represent in New York know first-hand that pollution-based prosperity is short-sighted and ends up costing more than it gives back. That is why business leaders, labor groups, and environmental organizations in New York and Connecticut have come together and are working in unison to restore the ecological health of the Sound. With the help of the EPA and the Federal rules it enforces, Long Island Sound is slowly coming back to life. Now is not the time to turn back the clock. Many in this Chamber like to talk about the importance of learning from history, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past. Well, history around the world has clearly shown that there is a high price to be paid for abandoning environmental stewardship. Mr. Speaker, what it all comes down to is a choice between the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt--a Republican, I remind you--and James Watt. One saw the wisdom of preserving nature's beauty for future generations, the other sought to sell off national parks to the highest bidder. The American people know who is right. It is high time that Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership wake up and recognize this too.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as a great New Yorker, Yogi Berra, once said, ``This is like deja vu all over again.'' Time and time again we have debated this issue on the floor. We have gone back and forth and back and around. Frankly, it's time for these gratuitous attacks on Penn Station to stop. Seventy-five million passengers pass through Penn Station every year--that's 500,000 passengers a day. Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest station in the country. In fact, it serves more than 40 percent of all of Amtrak's passengers nationwide. It is also the hub for the New York City Transit System, the Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey transit. But Penn Station is falling apart. It's dark, it's dangerous, and within 10 years the station is projected to exceed its maximum pedestrian occupancy level. In order to address this situation, the Federal Government, the State of New York, and New York City have embarked on a cooperative plan to rebuild Penn Station. This project enjoys bipartisan support, including that of Senators Moynihan and D'Amato, Gov. George Pataki, and Mayor Guiliani. And despite all the roadblocks put up in our way we are almost there. So why has Penn Station generated such fierce opposition? Opponents of the Penn Station project don't like it because it's in New York. Plain and simple. We have learned time and time again that New York bashing is always in season here in Washington. We know that our friends on the other side of the aisle just can't help themselves-- New York is just too inviting a target.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker,

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the conference report. Although admittedly an improvement from the draconian version originally passed by this body a few months ago, this bill still is a glaring indication of wrong-headed priorities. In addition to slashing funding for housing and veterans programs, this appropriations bill severely curtails the Government's historic role in ensuring the most basic guarantees of clean air and clean water. It cuts the Environmental Protection Agency by 21 percent, including a 19-percent cut in the program that cleans up hazardous waste sites. It also cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from wastewater treatment grants that provide critical assistance to local communities in keeping drinking water safe and beaches swimmable. In the area I represent, these funds are critical to helping to clean up Long Island Sound. This legislation is premised on the false assumption that a strong economy and a clean environment are natural enemies. The authors of this bill try to polarize the debate as a choice between jobs and environmental stewardship. Well, my colleagues, do not be fooled. A strong environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. My constituents and I know from our experience with Long Island Sound that pollution-based prosperity is shortsighted and costs more-- financially and otherwise--in the end. There is no denying that these environmental rollbacks will cripple the EPA's ability to protect the quality of our air and water. Let us not turn back the clock on environmental protection. Defeat the conference report.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by what the Gingrich budget will mean for Americans across the country. As a member of the New York delegation, I am alarmed by its impact on New York. New York hospitals are the best in the world. Our hospitals are the city's crown jewels and the Gingrich budget plan smashes them to bits. The Gingrich budget will also mean hardship for the elderly who depend upon Medi- caid for nursing home care. Under this budget, low- income seniors who must look to Medicaid for assistance will have no guarantee of help from the Federal Government. This budget hurts seniors in other ways. I tried to offer an amendment this spring to repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. I urged the Republican leadership to offset the cost of this repeal by keeping the corporate minimum tax. Last year, the GOP promised to repeal it. Today, the truth comes out--under the Gingrich budget, tax relief for seniors is jettisoned so that multimillion dollar corporations can avoid paying any taxes at all. My colleagues, the Gingrich budget also hurts women and children-- across America and across New York. Hundreds of thousands of children in New York will receive less assistance for food, medical care and other basic needs. Under this budget, many disabled, abused and neglected children will no longer be able to count on the Government for help. This budget does not reflect the priorities of the American people. The more they learn about the Gingrich budget, the less they like it. The American people have a sense of fairness and so do I. I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair budget plan.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, George Will's conservative credentials are second to none, but in the case of the Istook amendment, even card- carrying conservatives like Mr. Will cannot hold their nose and support this legislation. This amendment slams the doors of the political process in the faces of the Girl Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and thousands of community-based nonprofit organizations across this great Nation. In doing so, it will create untold amounts of government redtape and bureaucracy for America's charities. Mr. Chairman, we need this lobby reform bill now more than ever. This is a Congress where the NRA writes the gun laws, the polluters write the Clean Water Act, and the Christian Coalition dictates social policy. That's the problem--and the American people know it. But does anyone in this Chamber, or anyone in America, really think that the Girl Scouts and the YMCA have too much power and influence in Washington? Of course not. Several weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I was successful in passing legislation in [[Page H 13107]] this body that will finally get tough with underage drinking and driving, a crime that claims thousands of lives every year. My zero tolerance legislation was offered with the encouragement, support, and cooperation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. As a charity, MADD operates under the existing laws that govern charities, including those which limit advocacy work. However, MADD will be directly impacted by the Istook amendment because it works with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to combat drunk driving and assist the victims of this crime. In the words of MADD's national president, the Istook amendment will have ``a chilling effect'' on MADD's ability to fulfill its mission. Mr. Chairman, MADD was started in 1980 Candy Lightner, who in attempting to bring the drunk driver who killed her daughter to justice, found the system rigged against her. Since 1980, it has been MADD's leadership that has been instrumental in curbing the carnage on our roadways. However, had the Istook provision been in effect 15 years ago, MADD would not have been able to bring us to where we are today. As George Will has stated, the Istook amendment will ``erect a litigation-breeding regulatory regime of baroque complexity.'' Let's not punish Girls Scouts. Defeat this extremist amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion before us. This motion aims to completely eliminate family planning aid overseas. Mr. Speaker, this motion is one of the reasons why the Federal Government is shut down today. The Republican leadership has insisted on putting extreme provisions in appropriations bills like this one that have no place here. Every appropriations bill that comes up has an abortion rider attached to it. Collectively, these riders have brought the budget process to a grinding halt. This language is a substantial change in law that should not tie up passage of an important spending bill like this one. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Chairman Callahan. He has crafted a good bill here that makes sense for America and the world, and it is a shame that this critical legislation is being held up by extremist language. Proponents of this language claim that it simply cuts abortion funding. What they have not told you is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. This language would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to zero. Therefore, this motion goes after family planning, not abortion. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is 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. The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 40 years our planet's population will more than double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more to deter the environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive growth. And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and unsafe abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive health problems. Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions. Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot obtain them. Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented. This motion would defund family planning organizations that perform legal abortions--even if the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. money. The motion also cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 countries. The pretext for this provision is that the UNFPA operates in China, and therefore the funding must be cut. However, the law currently states that no United States funds can be used in UNFPA's China program. Proponents of this language are clearly using the deplorable situation in China as an excuse to eliminate funding for this highly successful and important family planning organization. The UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in China, and should not be held hostage to extremist antiabortion rhetoric. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. No matter how its proponents try to disguise it, this motion is ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning assistance overseas. A vote for this motion is a vote against sensible, cost-effective family planning programs. It is also a vote to continue these destructive budget games at the expense of the American people. Let us face it. The reason October 1 has come is because we have not done our work, my colleagues.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is throwing a budget tantrum that has shut our Government down. Speaker Gingrich and his freshman troops decided months ago to force their extreme agenda on the American people by creating this crisis. Accept our cuts in Medicare, education, and the environment, the Republicans say, or else we will shut the Government down and cause a default. Mr. Speaker, that's no way to run a country. Newt Gingrich should not be shutting the Government down in order to force his agenda on the American people. Republicans and Democrats should sit down together and pass bipartisan bills to keep the Government running. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is more interested in provoking confrontation that they are in governing responsibility. The American people overwhelmingly support our budget priorities-- they agree that we should not cut Medicare, education, and the environment. We should not raise premiums on Medicare 25 percent. The President is fighting for the priorities of the American people, and he is clearly standing firm.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, just 11 days ago I joined with Yitzhak Rabin at the U.S. Capitol to celebrate Jerusalem's 3,000 anniversary. As I shook Prime Minister Rabin's hand to say goodbye, I said the words we all know so well: ``Next year in Jerusalem.'' Next year has come too soon. On Sunday I traveled to Jerusalem with a pain in my heart--a pain I know we all share. Today we join with the Israeli people to commemorate the life of a great man. Yitzhak Rabin lived the life of the State of Israel. He fought for its independence, and he fought to keep it free and secure. He dedicated his life to the cause of creating and defending a homeland for the Jewish people. To everything there is a season, Yitzhak Rabin said on the White House lawn. And when it was time for war, Yitzhak Rabin was the greatest of warriors. And when it was time for peace, Yitzhak Rabin was the greatest of peacemakers. With his own hands we waged war, and then, with his own hands, outstretched, he waged peace. Of course Yitzhak Rabin did not choose peace because he loved Israel's former enemies. He chose peace because he loved Israel--as we all do. And so today, let us rededicate ourselves to Yitzhak Rabin vision. Let us heed the words of one of Yitzhak Rabin's partners in peace, ``Let us not keep silent. We are not ashamed, not are we afraid. Let our voices rise high to speak of our commitment to peace for all times to come.'' Noa Ben-Artzi Philosof called her grandfather a pillar or fire, and so he was. May his spirit always shine brightly to show us the way.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Stokes motion and I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are courageously speaking out against this outrageous assault on public health and the environment. This bill's 33 percent cut in the EPA's budget is bad enough, but loading it with an array of legislative riders requested by industrial polluters and other special interests that will prevent the EPA from doing its job is an outrage. And shame on those who would sacrifice public health and environmental stewardship to the highest bidder. Shame on those individuals. The vast majority of all of their constituents, all of our constituents, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, want clean air, clean water, and food free of deadly pesticides, and they recognize that the Government has a role in ensuring these most basic guarantees. This bill rejects all that. Mr. Speaker, where I come from in New York these riders will allow more sewage in Long Island Sound, more contamination of the New York City watershed, more pollution in our air, and more risk from pesticides in our food. To the supporters of these riders, take note: The American people are watching. They have had enough of your assaults on health and environmental safeguards. Let us make sure we pass the Stokes motion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, as a mother of three beautiful grown children, I just have to express how deeply offended I am by this discussion today. Thank God, my husband and I never had to make a painful decision like this. But how can we send this message to those few families that have to face this tragedy, that received a message that the fetus could not live and their wife was in danger of losing her life? Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would ban a specific type of medical procedure used to perform abortions in cases where the life and health of the mother is threatened by her pregnancy. It would make it a crime for doctors to use this procedure to save the lives of their patients. This legislation undermines the right to choose by directly challenging the historic Roe versus Wade decision; and, my colleagues, I wish we would deal with that issue head-on rather than undermine it in this backhanded way. The bill provides no exception for cases where the life and health of the mother is endangered. Not only is it immoral, it is unconstitutional, and the fact that this closed rule does not allow us to protect the life and health of the mother is an absolute tragedy. Mr. Speaker, we tried to offer amendments, but the Republican leadership said ``no''. Let me explain very clearly what this bill does instead. Doctors who perform this procedure to save their patients' lives would be arrested, indicted and tried. At trial, that doctor would have to prove the patient's life was in danger. In other words, the doctor is guilty until proven innocent. This bill places doctors in an untenable situation. They have to choose between saving their patient's life and a 2-year jail term. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond and remind my colleagues once more to be very careful of their rhetoric. The analogy between abortion and drive-by shootings is extremely inflammatory. I also would like to remind my colleagues that during this debate it has been reported that there are two serious bomb threats on clinics, so let us be careful to watch our rhetoric and not use political advantage in a very serious issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to alert the proponents of this bill that as we speak, two clinics have received bomb threats. I think we have to be very careful for our rhetoric and take responsibility for our words. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is another attempt to make sure that doctors who perform abortions, which are legal in this country, are harassed. Around the country, anti-choice extremists are targeting doctors and their patients for harassment and violence, and it looks like on Capitol Hill anti-choice politicians seek to criminalize abortions and put the doctors who perform them in jail. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Proponents of this bill attempt to exploit one of the greatest tragedies any family can ever face by using graphic pictures and sensationalized language and distortions. Families facing a late-term abortion are families that want to have a child. These couples have chosen to become parents and only face terminating the pregnancy due to unavoidable circumstances. Unfortunately, our technology is still not sophisticated enough to detect all possible medical problems early in a pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, this bill is not about choice; it is about necessity. As the mother of three grown children, I thank God every day that my children were born healthy and strong. However, not everyone is so lucky. Yesterday, my office received a call from Claudia Ades. She lives in Santa Monica. She had heard about this bill and called to beg us, called to ask us if there was anything she could do to defeat it. Claudia said so passionately, ``this procedure saved my life and saved my family.'' Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago Claudia was pregnant and happier than she had ever been in her life. However, 6 months into her pregnancy she discovered that the child she was carrying suffered from severe fetal anomalies and made its survival impossible and placed Claudia's life at risk. After speaking to a number of doctors, Claudia and her husband finally had to accept that there was no way to save this pregnancy. Again, this was a desperately wanted pregnancy and she had to make this very difficult decision; not the Congress.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833 which would ban second- and third-term abortions in the case of severe threats to the life and health of the mother and cases of severe fetal anomaly. Proponents of the bill attempt to exploit one of the greatest tragedies any family faces by using graphic pictures, sensationalized language, and distorted truths. Families facing a late-term abortion are families that want to have a child. These couples have chosen to become parents and only face the decision of abortion due to unavoidable circumstances. Unfortunately, medical testing is still not sophisticated enough to detect fetal anomalies until late in the pregnancies. Also, some illnesses such as diabetes or kidney failure can suddenly flare up and put the health and life of the mother at risk. The decision to abort at this stage in a pregnancy is agonizing and deeply personal. This bill is not about choice. It is about necessity. As the mother of three grown children, I thank God every day that my children were born healthy and strong. However, not everyone is so lucky. Yesterday my office received a call from Claudia Ades, a woman who lives in Santa Monica, CA. She had heard about the bill and called to ask me if there was anything we could do to defeat it. As Claudia said so passionately, ``this procedure saved my life and the life of my family.'' Three years ago, Claudia was pregnant and happier than she had ever been in her life. However, 6 months into her pregnancy she and her husband discovered that the child she was carrying suffered from a number of severe fetal anomalies, including acute brain damage, a very malformed heart. It was doubtful that the child would survive birth; and, if it survived, its short life would be filled with pain and suffering. After speaking to a number of doctors, Claudia and her husband finally had to accept their view that there was no way to save this pregnancy. They chose to go to Dr. James McMannus because his procedure would allow Claudia to get pregnant in the future and would allow them to have a family. ``This was a desperately wanted pregnancy,'' Claudia said yesterday, ``but my child was just not meant to be in this world.'' Who here cannot sympathize with the pain that Claudia and her family faced? Those of us with healthy children can only imagine the horror that Claudia felt when she received the news about her child's condition. It is the news that all mothers pray every day they will never have to hear. But in those tragic cases where families do hear this horrible news, who should get to decide? If, God forbid, this ever happened to me or somebody in my family, I would want the decision to be mine just as any of you would. The one thing that I know for sure is that the decision should not be made by the Congress of the United States. At that horrible, tragic moment the Congress, the Government, just has no place in the home, in the hearts, in the decisionmaking of these agonizing families. I beg my colleagues to think very carefully, to vote against H.R. 1833. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is not a pro- choice or an anti-choice issue. This tragedy can strike any family regardless of party affiliation. Defeat this bill so that women in Claudia's situation can get the best medical care possible. Defeat this bill because it is the right thing to do.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion before us. This motion aims to completely eliminate family planning aid overseas. Proponents of this language claim that it simply cuts abortion funding. What they have not told you is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. This language would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to zero. Therefore, this motion goes after family planning. The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 40 years our planet's population will more than double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more to deter the environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive growth. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is 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. And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive health problems. Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortions. Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot obtain them. Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented. This motion would defund family planning organizations that perform legal abortions--even if the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. money. The motion also cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 countries. The pretext for this provision is that the UNFPA operates in China, and therefore the funding must be cut. However, the law currently states that no United States funds can be used in UNFPA's China program. Proponents of this language are clearly using the deplorable situation in China as an excuse to eliminate funding for this highly successful and important family planning organization. The UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in China, and should not be held hostage to extremist anti-abortion rhetoric. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. No matter how its proponents try to disguise it, this motion is ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning assistance overseas. A vote for this motion is a vote against sensible, cost-effective family planning programs.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my outstanding colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney, for organizing this special order. Mr. Speaker, over 15 years ago I lost my mother to breast cancer, and tonight I rise not only in honor of my mother, but of all the mothers, all the sisters and daughters, the wives, who have died of breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, I also rise tonight to salute the many women who have survived this terrible disease--and there are many survivors. We know the grim statistics: in the last 20 years, the incidence of breast cancer has increased by 20 percent. Twenty years ago, 1 in 20 women developed breast cancer. Today, it is 1 in 8. Most Americans have known someone--a mother, sister, friend or coworker affected by this terrible tragedy. Breast cancer is an extremely complex disease and we are unfortunately far from a cure. We have many more questions about breast cancer than answers. Solving the mystery of breast cancer is like working on an incredibly complicated and frustrating puzzle. Each piece of this puzzle solved is a small victory. The Federal Government's research is helping us to solve this puzzle and to slowly answer these unanswered questions. One of these unanswered questions is the role the environment plays in breast cancer. Another is the importance of genetics in determining who develops the disease and who does not. Still another question is whether diet can reduce a women's risk of breast cancer. There is mounting evidence that exposure to pesticides may contribute to breast cancer. For example, a study done several years ago at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York found that women with the highest levels of a pesticide compound in their blood were four times more likely to have breast cancer than other women. Another study in Israel found a 10-percent drop in breast cancer during the same time that there was a drop in the levels of pesticides in human and cow milk. The Long Island breast cancer study will help to answer many other important questions regarding the link between environmental and occupational factors in breast cancer. But again, many unanswered questions remain. Science has also recently begun to document a genetic link to breast cancer. The breast cancer gene is thought to account for 5 percent of all breast cancer cases but 25 percent of the breast cancer in women under age 30. Last month, researchers found a particular mutation of this breast cancer gene in 1 percent of a study of Jewish women of Eastern European background. Jewish women with a family history of breast cancer who were found to have this gene had a very high risk of developing breast cancer. However, we don't know what kind of risk women face who have this gene but do not have a family history of breast cancer. So it makes no sense to test women for this gene until we know more. Again, many unanswered questions remain. Lastly, scientists are beginning to develop a link between nutrition and breast cancer. But again, our knowledge is scanty. We know that the risk of breast cancer increases with the degree of obesity. One small study showed that moderate alcohol use might even increase a woman's risk of cancer because of the influence of alcohol on hormones. Research continues to tell us that a low-fat, high-fiber diet may decrease our risk of many cancers including breast cancer. Exercise may also reduce the risk of the disease. But again, many unanswered questions remain. Breast cancer poses one of the major scientific challenges of today. I urge my colleagues to look at the many unanswered questions as a challenge to continue to maintain the Federal Government's commitment to breast cancer research and the enforcement of environmental regulations. We must not abandon our commitment to the women of America. But funding research is not enough. We must support efforts to regulate exposures to chemicals strongly suspected of being linked to breast cancer. Tomorrow we will vote on a motion by Representative Stokes to allow the EPA to enforce the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause protects processed foods from contamination by known carcinogens but Congress has voted to restrict EPA from enforcing the Delaney clause. Congress has also tied EPA's hands by cutting its budget by one-third. This is an outrage. Members have a chance tomorrow to support the Stokes motion to demonstrate that they are truly serious about addressing the breast cancer epidemic.