Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since a band of terrorists hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, holding the crew and passengers hostage for several days. It has also been 10 years since these murderous terrorists shot to death Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American citizen, and threw his body and his wheelchair overboard. This hijacking and murder stunned all of us, and showed us--in no uncertain terms--that terrorism threatens all Americans. In the decade since the Achille Lauro incident, we have seen many more incidents of terrorism around the world and in this country. Each incident underscores that we need to pass tough antiterrorism legislation. We cannot tolerate the terrible and cowardly acts of violence that have rocked the United States and the world. It is time to close the door on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, Leon Klinghoffer's death was a horrible tragedy. And now, a decade later, it is clear that we have not done enough to stop terrorism. We must do more to ensure that no other families face the tragedy that Mr. Klinghoffer faced 10 years ago. We must pass tough antiterrorism legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], who is not only my cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, but has truly been a leader and a fighter for domestic violence issues. Let us hope we can together reach that day when all this work will not be necessary. I am particularly pleased to be here with the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard, who has been the chair of the Domestic Violence Tax Force. I thank the gentlewoman for leading us in this special order this evening. Mr. Speaker, 1995 has been a landmark year in raising this Nation's consciousness about domestic violence. Together, we listened in horror to the 911 tapes on which Nicole Brown Simpson pleaded for her life with a radio dispatcher while her husband raged in the background. We were shocked to discover that a judge in Maryland sentenced a man to only 18 months after he had been convicted of murdering his wife, explaining the sentence by stating that murder was a reasonable response to finding one's wife in bed with another man. We watched as the first criminal was convicted under the Violence Against Women Act, a man who beat his wife senseless, put her in the trunk of his car and drove around for 6 days before taking her to a hospital. And for the first time we have a President who is dedicated to eradicating domestic violence from this Nation, a President who was raised in a home violated by abuse, a President who remembers seeing his own mother struck by her husband. At this moment in the Nation's history, one would expect that Congress would be leading the fight to combat domestic violence. And yet, at the very time that we should be attacking violence against women, the programs that protect women are under attack. This summer, the House leadership attempted to gut the funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs. The Violence Against Women Act was passed just last year by a bipartisan, unanimous vote. And yet, the House leadership tried to cut over $169 million of funding to the programs authorized under the act. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of women Members stood up for these programs. Together, we ensured that Congress would not break its promise to the American people to protect victims of domestic violence. Working together, we restored $90 million of funding for these programs. Currently, the Senate proposes to fully fund these vitally important programs. I can think of no better recognition of domestic violence awareness month than an agreement by the House to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act programs. Domestic violence is an epidemic that is sweeping this Nation. The Violence Against Women Act programs are necessary to roll back this tide of violence. Just listen to these statistics: The FBI estimates that a woman is battered every 5 to 15 seconds in America; 28 percent of women who were murdered in 1992 were killed by husbands or boyfriends; Domestic violence will occur in at least 50 percent of all marriages; Estimates show that one in six women in this country is, or has been, a victim of domestic violence; The cost of domestic violence to U.S. health care is estimated between $5 to $10 billion a year; The American Medical Association estimates that anywhere from 22 to 35 percent of women seeking emergency medical care are there due to injuries incurred by domestic violence. These statistics are horrifying. The Violence Against Women Act was the Congress' way of signaling that this epidemic of violence must end. The failure to fully fund the programs makes the Violence Against Women Act meaningless. And it signals to the American people that this House is turning its back on America's families by cutting funding that protect its mothers, sisters, and children. What will it take for the House leadership to realize the importance of funding these programs? How many women must be terrorized in their own homes? How many women must die? as Domestic Violence Awareness Month comes to a close, I urge all of my colleagues to remember that focusing on this issues just once a year is not enough. In the months that come, we must all work together to ensure that women are safe from domestic violence. We must come together to demand that the Violence Against Women Act programs are fully funded. It is literally a matter of life and death. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], the chair of this task force, and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], with whom I have worked very closely in fighting for the full funding of these programs. I thank the gentlewoman very much for this special order this evening.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill, which establishes a time-frame for the United States embassy in Israel to be relocated to Jerusalem. I, along with many of my colleagues, have been fighting for this relocation for many years now. It is fitting that as we celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of King David's establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, we will finally pass this bill to move our embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it shall always remain the capital of Israel. Yet Israel is the only country in which the United States embassy is not located in the capital. This is not right. By having our embassy anywhere other than Jerusalem, we are sending mixed signals about the United States' position on Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish homeland. This is not the type of message we should be sending. Our position should be unequivocal: the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible bill that puts into law what we have been talking about for all of these years.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Medicare cuts in the Republican bill will have a devastating impact on the quality of care New York seniors receive. It is very clear that the cuts will double the premiums, eliminate protections against higher medical fees, and make it harder for seniors to see their own doctor. For seniors living on fixed incomes, this Republican plan will mean real hardship. The Republican Members know that, and that is why Speaker Gingrich has been making back-room deals to win votes. Unfortunately, when Newt Gingrich plays ``Let's Make a Deal,'' America's seniors lose. Frankly, all this deal-making is absolutely shameful. Let me just ask our Republican colleagues, if this is such a great bill, if it [[Page H 10458]] is so good for seniors, why all the deals? You do not have to make deals to get votes for good bills, just bad ones.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this year marks the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. I can think of no more appropriate action to honor the women who strove to gain the vote than by placing this portrait monument in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Currently, the statues in the rotunda are part of a males only club. It certainly seems to me a very fitting symbol that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott will integrate the rotunda of the capitol--the very symbol of our democracy--just as they integrated voting booths 75 years ago. The effort to move the portrait monument to this place of honor has been made in a truly bi-partisan spirit. I would like to thank Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn for offering this important resolution on the floor. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Connie Morella and Congressman Gene Green for all of their efforts in the past month. I would also like to add a special thank you to the Members of the House Oversight Committee who convened for an emergency session yesterday evening, so that this resolution could be acted on today. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams, a delegate at the convention, and urged him to ``Remember the Ladies'' when forming the new republic. Unfortunately, it was not until 146 years later that the 19th amendment was passed, finally giving women the right to vote. It was passed largely due to the efforts of suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. These women, and thousands of women like them, made great personal sacrifices to ensure that American women would have a voice in their Government. In the past 75 years, women have used that voice, and have moved into important positions in every aspect of the Government. Currently, there are 47 women in the House of Representatives and 8 women in the Senate. We have worked, on both sides of the aisle, to bring a woman's viewpoint on all the key issues facing this country. I believe that it is fitting that on the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage, we remember the ladies in this manner, and move them out of the basement and into the rotunda. I support this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do so. Although I certainly respect the views of the gentlewoman from North Carolina, I would share the views of my colleague from Maryland that we can work to raise private funds but this is the time to act. It has taken a very, very long time, and I would suggest that we give unanimous consent and pass this resolution.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is true that H.R. 2274 purports to provide an incentive to States to adopt zero tolerance by making .02 BAC a basic criteria. Unfortunately, the incentive provided is minimal at best and will not accomplish our goal. My amendment is the only one with teeth. The bill says if the States adopt .02 BAC in addition to other safety measures, they will get an incentive grant. Well, let us read the fine print. Right now the section 410 program says to the States, ``undertake the following countermeasures to drunk driving and we will give you X amount of dollars.'' The trouble is when the States have complied with the criteria outlined in the 410 program, they do not get what they are promised, they get about half of what they were promised. So if we use the incentive grant as outlined in the bill, we are saying to the States, pass zero tolerance, and we promise not to give you any more of the money we already are not giving you. What kind of an incentive is that? In 1984, we could have used incentive grants to encourage the States to pass 21 as the drinking age. Had we done that, 21 would not be the law of the land. It would be the law in part of the land. How many more of our children--and as a mother of three, I feel this very deeply--would have died as a result? The key word in the Uniform Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 was uniform. We wanted all the States on a uniform basis to adopt 21 as the drinking age in a specified period of time. To those who favor the carrot over the stick, let us be honest. If we adopt my amendment, we will get zero tolerance in every State. We will get it soon. And as was the case with 21, no State will experience the withholding of any highway funds. Mr. Chairman, I met with members of MADD in my district, in front of Mamaroneck High School just this week. I met with members of SADD, Students Against Drunk Driving. I spoke with the Mamaroneck police chief and his officers. I spoke with a father who lost his daughter in a drunk driving accident. No one in Mamaroneck, Mr. Chairman, spoke of States rights. They spoke instead of the moral imperative of passing drunk driving laws. Too many Americans have been personally affected by the tragedy of drunk driving. Too many Americans have died. As parents, we owe it to our children to close this deadly loophole. Let us do everything we can to ensure that no parent will be awakened in the middle of the night with the awful news that their child has been killed in a drunk driving accident. Mr. Chairman, we just cannot be too tough on drunk driving. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a letter from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to close a loophole in the law that tragically claims thousands of lives each year on our Nation's [[Page H 9300]] roadways: Drinking and driving by minors. While everyone knows that it is illegal to purchase alcohol if you are under 21 years of age, 23 States still permit underage drivers to drive legally with alcohol in their system as long as their blood alcohol content does not exceed the State's legal limit. So incredibly, in 23 States it is illegal for minors to purchase alcohol, it is illegal for them to publicly consume alcohol, but it is perfectly legal for them to drink and drive. This loophole still exists despite the clearly lethal consequences of teenagers who mix drinking and driving. What is the result? Each year between 2,000 and 5,000 youths, age 15 to 24, are killed in alcohol- related crashing. In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 40 percent of traffic fatalities involving underage drivers are alcohol related. Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward issue. It is an issue of getting tough on a crime that kills thousands of Americans every year. Since it is illegal in every State for children under the ago of 21 to purchase and possess alcoholic beverages, it should also be illegal for children under 21 who have been drinking to drive. My amendment sends a very clear message. If you are under 21, consumption of alcohol combined with driving will be treated under State law as driving while intoxicated. End of story. And to any of my colleagues who think it might be okay for a teenager to have a beer or two and then drive, let us look at the facts. According to a 1991 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, male drivers between 16 and 21 who have a blood alcohol level of .01 to .04 are six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than drivers 25 years and older. Under my amendment, which was adopted by the Senate in June by a 2-to-1 margin, if a State fails to adopt a zero tolerance standard for drivers under 21 by the beginning of fiscal year 1999, they would lose 5 percent of their Federal highway funds for that year. In subsequent years if that State has failed to act, if would lose 10 percent of its funds. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not contain the zero tolerance measure adopted by the Senate. My amendment will make the House bill identical to the Senate in this life-saving measure. What can we expect from enactment of zero tolerance laws nationally? For the States that have adopted zero tolerance laws, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, they have experienced a 34- percent decrease in traffic fatalities among young drivers at night. Let me repeat, a 34-percent decrease in traffic fatalities. If all States adopted zero tolerance laws, at least 375 fatal crashes would be prevented each year. Very simply, we are talking about saving lives. In designating the National Highway System of some 160,000 miles of road deemed to be of national significance, we in this Chamber have a responsibility to ensure the safe usage of those roads. Nothing is more detrimental to highway safety than drunk driving. The approach my amendment takes has saved lives before. Since passage in 1984 of the bipartisan uniform minimum drinking age, or 21 law, State which fail to adopt 21 as the minimum age for the purchase or public possession of alcohol beverage, face a withholding of a portion of their highway construction funding. As a result, each State has made 21 the drinking age, and 1,000 American lives are saved each year. Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious crime. The swift and certain way to achieve zero tolerance of this crime by minors is to pass this amendment. My amendment builds on the success of the 21 law passed by Congress in 1984. Please support this amendment. We cannot be too tough on drunk driving. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt my amendment.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment. In a Congress where we have debated at length methods of moving families off welfare, and methods of helping individuals become self- sufficient, we must protect vocational educational programs for women and girls. It is a fact that the earning power of American women directly impacts the well-being of the American family. Unfortunately, women who work full-time still only make 72 percent of their male colleagues' earnings. This is a particularly disturbing fact when viewed in the context of a recent survey that found that a majority of American women earn at least half of their family incomes. If we are going to value families, we have to value those programs that allow parents to care for their families. The Mink amendment will preserve important programs that help assure equitable education and employment opportunities for women and girls. The Perkins programs for displaced homemakers, single parents, and sex equity have been very successful. For the past 11 years, these programs have helped women move into new jobs that provide higher wages, better benefits, and the possibility of career advancement. Women in nontraditional occupations earn 20-30 percent more than women in traditional occupations. Let me tell you about a woman from New York City, Kelly Miles. Kelly is a single mother of three, who was on public assistance for many years. Through a nontraditional employment training program for women, Kelly was able to move off of welfare, and is now a second year apprentice electrician. Kelly holds down a job, and goes to classes twice a week at the Electrician's Union so that she can keep advancing. Kelly is a perfect example of what women can achieve through these very important programs. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Mink amendment. Through these programs we can reach thousands of Kelly Miles--women who want to be self-sufficient and just need a little bit of help. Please help us to protect these programs.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to close a loophole in the law that each year tragically claims thousands of lives on our Nation's roadways: drinking and driving by minors. My legislation is entitled ``The Common Sense Highway Safety Act of 1995'' because it is simply a matter of common sense: Since it is illegal in every State for persons under the age of 21 to purchase and possess alcoholic beverages, it should also be illegal for persons under 21 who have been drinking to drive. However, the reality is that only 24 States and the District of Columbia have zero tolerance laws that make it illegal for minors to drink and drive--regardless of the degree of intoxication. This loophole exists in half of the States, despite the lethal consequences of teenagers who mix drinking and driving. [[Page E 1779]] According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 40 percent of traffic fatalities involving underage drivers are alcohol related. In 1994, 2,200 people were killed in crashes because minors were drinking and driving. The majority of those killed--1,600 to be exact--were teenagers themselves. In 1993, 2,364 teenagers between the ages of 15-20 were killed in alcohol-related crashes. The tragic statistics go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and they all confirm the lethal combination of driving and underage drinking. The bill that I am introducing today will build upon the successes of the past in curbing this deadly mix. The Common Sense Highway Safety Act of 1995 sends a very clear message: If you are under 21, any level of alcohol consumption combined with driving will be treated under State law as driving while intoxicated. It is that simple. My legislation is modeled on the 1984 law that encouraged States to adopt laws making it unlawful for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase or possess alcohol. That law has saved an estimated 8,400 lives since its enactment, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You cannot argue with success. Therefore, under this bill, if a State fails to adopt a zero tolerance standard for drivers under 21 by the beginning of fiscal year 1998, they would lose 5 percent of their Federal highway funds for that year. In subsequent years, if that State has failed to act it would lose 10 percent of its funds. With the backing of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a provision virtually identical to my legislation was adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate in June as part of the designation of the National Highway System. The 2 to 1 margin in favor of the zero tolerance provision is testament that this issue is a ``no brainer.'' What can we expect from enactment of zero tolerance laws nationally? Four of the States that have adopted zero tolerance laws--Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin--have experienced a 34-percent decrease in traffic fatalities among young drivers at night. Too many Americans have been personally affected by the tragedy of drunk driving. They have lost a family member, relative, or friend. While the 21-year-old drinking age has made significant strides in reducing these tragedies, we must not stop there. We owe it all members of society--particularly our children--to close this deadly loophole.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership says it is cutting student aid by more than $10 billion in order to shrink the deficit. What are the priorities of this Congress? Education is an investment that we must protect. Yesterday, I talked to students from Purchase College and Manhattanville College. Michael Henry is a 22-year-old Purchase College student from Forest Hills, NY. He works two jobs while in school. He drives a truck during the graveyard shift so he can attend classes during the day. I do not know when Michael sleeps. He is studying economics and hopes to start his own business. Without Federal financial aid, Michael said that he would not be able to attend college. What does this budget do? It threatens to rob us of the contribution of a bright, talented young person like Michael. It jeopardizes the dreams of a future entrepreneur who could contribute enormously to society. We need to shrink the deficit. We can not keep paying billions in interest payments on the debt. But we can lower the deficit without cutting education and robbing deserving young people of the chance to earn a decent living. A college education is an economic necessity. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's deserving youth.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment, which strikes language that bars military women and dependents overseas from purchasing abortion services with their own money. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the Dornan amendment. The Dornan amendment goes much further than simply limiting the use of Government funds. It actually bars military women and dependents from using their own money to pay for abortion services at military bases, just as they would use their own funds to pay for those services if they were in the United States. The Dornan amendment also puts the health of our military women at risk. Many of these women are stationed in countries where there is no access to safe and legal abortions outside of the military hospitals. A woman forced to seek an abortion to 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. I urge you to support the DeLauro amendment and to reject the Dornan amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last night's vote on H.R. 2127, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill, represents a tragic setback for this Nation and particularly for our young people. The cuts embodied in that legislation are a full-fledged assault on the prosperity of this Nation's next generation. Fortunately, the action of this House last night is far from the last skirmish in the battle for a solid commitment to educate America's young people. Before my colleagues leave to return to their districts, I want to share with all of you a speech given this past Sunday by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., chairman and CEO of the IBM Corp. which is headquartered in Westchester County, NY, parts of which I represent. His remarks were to the National Governors Association. They are, without a doubt, a call to arms in the pursuit to revolutionize and dramatically improve education in America. I could not agree more with Mr. Gerstner's sense of urgency about the need for a true commitment to enhance education in America. He is right that much more clearly needs to be done. He hit the nail on the head when he said, ``A true change agent puts their money where their mouth is.'' Unfortunately, last night's vote tells the American people that the House has made a decision not to be a partner in pursuing the changes in America's schools that we all know are needed. Mr. Speaker, change is possible. I have seen the innovations that are occurring in schools in Westchester, the Bronx, and Queens. Over the years, I have been deeply involved in major education reform initiatives, including Goals 2000, title I reforms, and a newfound commitment to professional development and technology through the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the Technology Learning Challenge. Unfortunately, the bill passed last night makes precisely the wrong kinds of changes. It eliminates funding for Goals 2000, cuts funding for title I by 18 percent, and slashes the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. This bill also undermines our commitment to preserving the American dream by cutting student financial assistance and higher education program. As we head back to our districts, I urge my colleagues to reflect on Mr. Gerstner's message. I sincerely hope that, when we return to Washington in September, this body will do what is right for America's future and correct the serious mistakes included in the bill approved last night. When so much is at stake, this House should not abandon our bipartisan commitment to America's schools--and our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Gerstner's speech be included at this point in the Record. Remarks of Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Chairman and CEO--IBM Corp. at the National Governors' Association Annual Meeting Thank you, Governor Dean. It's good to be back in Vermont. In 1983, the report A Nation at Risk focused the country's attention on the deficiencies in our public school system. Here's a quote from that report that has stuck with me for many years: ``If an unfriendly foreign power had imposed our schools upon us, we would have regarded it as an act of war.'' That was 12 years ago. What's happened since? Lots of hand wringing, lots of speeches, lots of reports. Not much change--very little improvement. It's twelve years since A Nation at Risk was published, and U.S. students still finish at, or near, the bottom on international tests of math and science. I wonder what the national reaction would have been if in the 1984 Olympic games we had finished dead last. A national outrage, in all likelihood, that would have brought about sweeping changes in amateur athletics in this country. Believe me, by now, 11 years later, we would have seen massive improvements. But in public education? None--and no national outrage or frustration 12 years after A Nation at Risk. Let's move from 1983 to the education summit in 1989 when, at a meeting similar to this, President Bush and the nation's governors set the wheels in motion for the Educate America Act: Goals 2000 that President Clinton helped shape and then signed in June of 1994. Let me read just a few of those goals we set for ourselves for the year 2000: All children in America will start school ready to learn; the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent; all students will leave grades four, eight and 12 having demonstrated competency in English, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, art, history and geography; every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning and productive employment in our nation's modern economy. Six years have passed since those wonderful goals were set. More important, 1616 days remain until the year 2000 arrives. I wonder how many people in our country are committed to achieving those goals. I wonder how many people think we have a chance of achieving them. I often think how many people even know they exist. One of the goals I just cited talks about graduation rates, and another the need for standards. I read recently that Milwaukee now has a requirement that high school seniors must demonstrate a proficiency in math before they are allowed to graduate. That is great. And we need more cities and states doing the same. But the same article I read reported that 79 percent of the junior class failed in a warm-up test this spring. That's dismal. And it's reflective of our country at large. Now, that's not the whole story. The test consisted of complex, open-ended problems, which--for these kids--was a new approach to math. Exactly the right approach, of course. Exactly the direction we want to head in, and they'll have a full year to master it. But what happens then? What happens next year if a large percentage of the senior class fails to demonstrate the required proficiency? Will Milwaukee refuse to graduate those who fail? If they don't, so much for standards. But it's not easy. What do we do about the students we've promoted for 13 years through the public school system without demanding high performance? How will they get the skills necessary to earn a living? And, of course, it is much worse than a single class of seniors. We have given high school diplomas in this country to a whole generation of Americans who cannot basically read those diplomas--they are functionally illiterate. The bottom line is that if our kids are failing in the classroom, it's not just their fault. It's our fault. And that, my friends, underscores a very frightening reality. Setting goals for U.S. education is one thing. Reaching them is another. And the only way it will happen, the only way that we have even a ghost of a chance of getting there, is if we push through a fundamental, bone-jarring, full-fledged, 100 percent revolution that discards the old and replaces it with a totally new performance-driven system. Which is what brings me to Vermont today. I'm here because of Willie Sutton. Willie robbed banks, the story goes, because he realized that's where the money is. I'm here because this is where the power is--the power to reform--no, to revolutionize--the U.S. public school system. You are the CEOs of the organizations that fund and oversee the country's public schools. That means you are responsible for their health. They are very sick at the moment. And we are past the time for incremental change and tinkering at the margin. Fortunately, we're not past the point of no return. I've spent a lot of time of education. So have many of you. We all have scars to prove it. But, I've also spent a lot of time helping troubled companies get back on their feet. It's hard work. Lots of hard work, and it invariably involves massive structural change. But here's the good news. When companies do turn around, they often go on to bigger and better things. I'm convinced that our public schools can do just that. We can win gold medals in the education Olympics. But it will take a world-class effort and it will only happen if you, the CEO's of the system, reached out, grab it by the throat, shake it up and insist that it happen. The turnarounds we've seen in corporate America don't come close to the complexities of the job you face in fixing our public schools, but I believe the principles of structural revolution are the same: First, it takes a personal commitment on the part of the CEO. This is not a job you can delegate; second, it takes a willingness to confront and expel the people and the organizations that are throwing up roadblocks to the changes you consider critical; third, you need to set high expectations. You can't have too many goals. One or two are best. Certainly no more than three; fourth, it's critical to measure the progress against those goals-- relentlessly and continuously; and finally, there must be a willingness on the part of the change agent to hold people accountable for results. Nothing pleases me more than to see some of you moving in this direction in your state. You are responsible for some very bright spots in an overall dismal picture. But there aren't nearly enough. So what do we do now? In the spirit of my views on how one goes about radical restructuring of institutions, I want to suggest three, and only three, priorities for public education for the next year: The first is setting absolutely the highest academic standards and holding all of us accountable for results. Now, Immediately. This school year. Now if we don't do that, we won't need any more goals, because we are going nowhere. Without standards and accountability, we have nothing. But if we do have standards and accountability, I would suggest two other priorities that are critical to allow our institutions of education to reach those goals, and they are: Financing change and exploiting technology. Let's talk very briefly about each. First, standards and accountability. If we don't face up to the fact that we are the only major country in the world without an articulated set of education standards--and without a means of measuring how successfully we are reaching them, we're lost before we get started. Which pretty much sums up where we are today. To turn the tide, we must set standards. Immediately. And we must have a means of measuring how we are doing. Without standards, educational reform is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic I have to confess I find the whole thing baffling. In virtually everything else we do in the United States, we set high standards and strive to be No. 1. Why not in education? In basketball, you score when the ball goes in the hoop, not if it hits the rim. In football, you score when you cross the goal line, not when you show up in uniform. In track and field, you must jump over the bar, not go under it or around it. And who would practice baseball with the fences 150 feet from home plate? Why can't we establish standards of excellence for our schools? Why isn't winning in the classroom important in America? We put a man in space because we set a goal that was beyond--not within--our grasp. We need the same approach for education. And we must be relentless in its pursuit. The lessons we understand so well in every other aspect of our lives must be translated into education or else we will lose. We cannot be side-tracked by academicians who say it will take five years just to set the standards. Nor can we be misled by misinformed people who will argue that certain Americans aren't able to reach high standards, so it's inappropriate to even set them. I find that insulting and demeaning to those people, not supportive. It boils down to the fact that we can't just settle any more for mediocrity. We must commit to the highest levels of student achievement. And we must do it now. We can't allow our schools to simply sit back, complacently convinced that their only responsibility is to keep students at their desks until they are 18 years old. They'll get to 18 fast enough and regardless of what we do. What they need from us are tools to help prepare them for success as they go off to college or work, raise families and join the adult community. This requires an articulated set of academic standards that recognizes the real world they'll be entering. In many places, they don't even exist at a rudimentary level. Many states still require only two years of math and science for a high school diploma. Why? Math isn't something that students can finish in the tenth grade, and think they'll never need it again. And, if we are going to do this right, we must make sure our high school students take real math, academic math--not what the students call ``dummy math.'' And they must take laboratory science, not general science. We must find innovative ways to help students master these complex subjects, and we we must hold schools accountable for what students learn. It's not enough to memorize facts and figures. Whether we're dealing with the requirements in the job market or skills needed to participate in society, the bar is higher * * *. When the Labor Department recently asked businesses what they expected our schools to teach, the answer was clear--a foundation of reading, writing and arithmetic, combined with an ability to use information to solve problems and to communicate them effectively. These are not esoteric or complex concepts. They are, however, for every one of these children, the difference between success or failure in their lives. We must find ways to teach them, to measure whether they have been taught and to reward teachers and administrators at schools where students succeed. And we must have serious sanctions for those at schools where students are not learning. Obviously, Milwaukee will have a difficult choice to make next year because it's out in front. But the fact remains that until we are prepared to penalize students, and administrators for lack of performance, the system will fail. We have a word for that in business. Accountability. It works. Without it, institutions atrophy and die. Let's turn quickly to the second and third priorities beyond standards. True accountability for performance will depend on exploiting technology and financing change in the system. You've all heard about information technology. Bear with me if this sounds a bit stuffy, but information technology is the fundamental underpinning of the science of structural reengineering. It is the force that revolutionizes business, steamlines government and enables instant communication and the exchange of information among people and institutions around the world. But information technology has not made even its barest appearance in most public schools. Look around. The most visible forms of technology remain the unintelligible public address systems, which serve largely to interrupt the business of learning, and the copier in the principal's office, which spews out the forms and regulations that are the life blood of the education bureaucracy. Before we can get the education revolution rolling, we need to recognize that our public schools are low-tech institutions in a high-tech society. The same changes that have brought cataclysmic change to every facet of business can improve the way we teach students and teachers. And it can also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of how we run our schools. I'd like to make you a personal offer. I'd like to invite you, the governors, and your key people to a conference that I will organize and run next year. I'll get experts from all parts of our industry--including our competitors--to participate and, together, we will show you how technology created for business and government can be used to help re- shape the public schools of America. We'll put it all together but we'll need your help. And you'll have to be there. You'll have to invest a day--not a few hours. Because, as I said before, real change requires the participation of the CEO. It will be worth it. I think you will be excited by the innovative things that are beginning to happen in some classrooms. And some of you are already moving in that direction. Let's think about how technology is benefiting students right here in Vermont. For example, the portfolios used to measure student development are being taken out of manila folders and put on digital discs. This allows educators to make evaluations based on a student's entire output rather than on simple multiple-choice exams. Chicago is combining the power of telecommunications and the Internet to train teachers in math and science. Schools in Charlotte, North Carolina are using video technology to reach into the home. Philadelphia schools are using voice technology to teach language skills to learning-disabled students. And outside the classroom, technology is cutting away at the school bureaucracy and dealing with routine matters like bus routing, meal deliveries and purchasing. Which brings me to my third priority--financing change. It is my experience in business, and especially in turnaround situations, that if you want to bring about real change, budget allocations must support the new direction. Reforms perish from lack of support. And that means resources. A true change agent puts their money where their mouth is. The educational aparatchiks fight hard to starve the reformers. So how do we finance the revolution? How do we use our education resources to reward success and encourage performance? Let's start with the $150 billion or so that you, as the CEOs of our states, invest directly in the public school system. I've done some homework, so I know that a state's education budget is typically constructed by adding a percentage increase to the prior year's outlays. The basic formula--which many describe as arcane--is largely driven by the number of pupils in the system, supports priorities set decades before, and rarely, if ever, is linked to performance, success or change. Here's my proposal. Let's try something new. This year, instead of following the old formula, hold back ten cents of every dollar and earmark it for strategic investments. Where would we put this $15 billion to work? It if were me, I'd invest a portion of it in moving teacher training out of the horse and buggy era. We expect doctors to get their training in teaching hospitals. We wouldn't send an NBA player on the court if his only training consisted of lectures on the theory of the jump shot, case studies of the fast break and films of games played years ago. Why, then, do we entrust our children to teachers who have only listened to lectures, written essays on classroom management and read text books on the theory of child development? It's time teachers learned their craft in real schools side-by-side with expert teachers. It's time they got the kind of hands-on experience most other professions consider vital for certification. If it were up to me, I'd invest some of that $15 billion in reorganizing how our kids spend their time in school. In Japan, where the school year runs 240 days a year, the average 18-year-old has spent more cumulative time in school than the average American MBA. And while I challenge you to find a teacher anywhere in this country who truly believes that every subject--or any subject, for that matter--is best taught in exactly 45 minutes, we still ring the bell at the end of each period, as though there was a natural order to it all! A science project may take a full six hours to complete. Other subjects may be best taught in 15-minute slots over a two-week period. The school day, week and year need to re-shaped fundamentally to reflect reality. There are hundreds of good ideas out there about how to use the $15 billion. I know about them, so do you. Some of the most promising are emerging from the New American Schools Development Corporation which is funding development of breakthrough reforms across the country. All that's lacking is the courage to shift funding from the status quo that has failed unarguably, to the agenda of reform and hope for our children. Obviously, my three suggestions are sure to generate howls of protest from the education establishment and from others who are happy with the status quo and are unwilling to change. They will say that setting standards is not possible in education. Or that setting high standards will only raise the dropout rate. Others will attack the focus on technology, maintaining it's a self-serving business scam or a vain grasp for a silver bullet that won't work. Still others will attack the $15 billion we're reallocating for strategic investments, saying it's just a gimmick, it won't work and it is really an approach to disguise cutting education budgets. I see it as just the opposite. Everyone in the education community talks reform and supports reform, but when push comes to shove, they back off and attribute the lack of progress to the lack of financial wherewithal. Well, now we have it. Our $15 billion fund will provide a way to kick-start a major effort for reform. And here's the real kicker, we're only going to give $15 billion to the schools and systems that actually implement true reform.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a crisis in our society. The violence that we see on television each day is part of an overall trend of desensitization toward the violence that exists on our streets. This violence has transformed American society into a place where violence rules our communities, and law-abiding citizens are afraid to be outside their homes. Clearly, violence on television is not solely responsible for this breakdown in American society; but it does contribute to it. Our children are assaulted by a barrage of violent, sexually explicit, and otherwise obscene images each night on television. This constant stream of morally reprehensible acts being committed by their favorite characters on their favorite shows has a very real and a very frightening effect on them. Our children are becoming numb to real acts of violence through such constant exposure to ``fantasy'' violence on television. It is time that we take real steps to stop this trend. It is time for the V-chip. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as a mother of three and a former PTA president, I wish I had a V-chip in my TV when my kids were growing up. The V-chip will help to stem this dangerous tide by allowing parents to stop their [[Page H 8489]] children from viewing violent programs on TV. But make no mistake, the V-chip is not about censorship, and it is not about legislating morality. It is about parental responsibility. And it is about giving parents the choice to protect their children from the harmful effects of violent television programming. There are very few people left who dispute the notion that violence on television is hurting our children. For 25 years, we have been hearing about the negative consequences of broadcast violence, and today we have the chance to take a real and important step toward solving this problem. The V-chip puts responsibility in the hands of parents to determine what their children should and shouldn't see on TV. It lets parents decide whether they want their children to be exposed to violence. And it will finally tell broadcasters, in very real terms, that violence and pornography and obscenity are not what we want to see on television. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, every day I hear my Republican colleagues say we should keep the Government out of business, we should keep the Government out of education, we should keep the Government out of the environment. Yet, here we are debating whether our not the Government should interfere with the decision-making process of a private organization. Mr. Chairman, we are debating whether the lawyers and the business people who sit in Congress should be deciding the curriculum for graduate medical education. So much for small government. The medical experts at ACGME understand that basic women's health includes the full range of reproductive services, including abortion. They understand that women's lives will be put at risk if OB-GYNs are not trained to serve all of their health needs. Mr. Chairman, who are we in this body to impose our medical expertise on the doctors and patients of America? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and it should reject the hypocrisy of so-called proponents of small government.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Slaughter].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]. (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)