Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everyone again, this amendment is very clear. If Members vote against this amendment, they are sending a message to the women of America that the victims of rape must carry that rapist's child, that the victims of incest must carry their father's child. The law is very clear. States' rights is always the last resort of scoundrels.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe-Lowey amendment. In response to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the reason the 11 States lose is that the Federal law is very clear that States do not have an option. I strongly support this amendment; the right to choose is meaningless without the means to choose. Without Medicaid funding, a poor woman who has been the victim of a crime will not be able to obtain a legal abortion. She will be forced to spend 9 months reliving the crime. I cannot believe that anyone in this room would want to compel a woman to carry a child that is conceived as the result of rape or incest. Support the Lowey-Kolbe amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment with my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. This amendment strikes the language in the bill that would allow States to eliminate funding of abortions in the case of rape and incest. This provision callously victimizes victims, it is draconian, it is extreme, it is cruel, and it is unfair. As the bill is now written, States are given the green light to eliminate Medicaid funding of abortions for the most vulnerable Members of our society, impoverished victims of rape and incest. This bill subjects women who have been raped or subjected to incest to further indignity. This bill sends rape victims a very clear message: You must have your rapist's baby. It tells victims of incest, you must have your father's child. Mr. Istook's own State of Oklahoma sent that message last year to a 20 year old poverty stricken woman impregnated by her own father. This woman could not obtain an abortion because Oklahoma refused to comply with Federal law. Make no mistakes, my colleague: If this amendment is adopted, States like Oklahoma will stop providing abortion coverage for victims of rape and incest. In fact, we can be fairly certain that 27 States will stop providing this coverage. Let us be very clear however: This provision has nothing to do with States rights. The Medicaid statute does not give States the right to pick and choose which procedures they will cover and which they will not. A State's participation in Medicaid is voluntary. However, once the State chooses to participate, it must comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements. States rights, Mr. Chairman, is just a smoke screen designed to hide the fact that this amendment would deny poor victims of rape and incest the means to exercise their reproductive rights. Mr. Chairman, this provision is not merely a clarification of the Hyde amendment. Since the 1993 statute change, three Federal appellate courts and Federal district courts in 11 States have rejected challenges by States that did not want to comply with the rape and incest language. There is not a single case, Mr. Chairman, in which a court has sided with States that did not want to comply. The law is very clear: States must fund Medicaid abortions in the case of rape, incest, and life of the pregnant woman. So we are clear, this is not just the way the Clinton administration has interpreted the law, it is the law as it has been interpreted by the courts. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Scalia, an abortion opponent, refused to stay an order to a State to pay for abortion services for victims of rape and incest. The reason for his refusal was that the law is clear, States are obligated to pay. The provision added by the full committee does not clarify existing law; it changes it. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let us not be fooled. This provision is about denying poor victims of rape and incest the right to have an abortion. It is extreme, it is out of the mainstream. It is very clear that Americans do not believe that victims of rape and incest should be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. I know my colleagues, regardless of your views on choice, many of my colleagues would support this amendment. Let us not victimize the victims again. Please support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear Mr. Blute and my Republican colleagues speak so glowingly about LIHEAP. I know how important this program is in New York and the Northeast and other areas of this country, and I support those words. However, the only way we can fix it, and let us face it, let us talk about the facts, is to defeat this bill and send it straight back to the committee. Because I want it made very clear to the American people what this amendment does. It will cut breast cancer screening $3 million; Healthy Start, $1 million; Head Start, $68 million; mental health services, $7 million; drug treatment, $24 million; student aid, $140 million; maternal and child health, $14 million; and on and on and on. This bill is broken. It is making severe cuts not only in vital programs like LIHEAP but in all the programs I talked about. Let us defeat this bill. Let us send it back to the committee and let us hope we can do it right the next time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement with the majority, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, because there could not possibly be enough resources allocated in this bill to make up for the cuts.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, yes, in the words of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], there really is a difference in philosophy, and nothing has made it clearer than the debate we have seen over this amendment, and in fact through the entire bill. We have heard people say ``Cut the bureaucrats.'' Mr. Chairman, we are cutting kids; we are not cutting bureaucrats. These are loans to middle-income kids, families who are striving, who are working hard to find the American dream. We are not cutting bureaucrats. Let us tell it to Denise, let us tell it to Sebastian in my district, let us tell it to the million or more youngsters who are not getting a student loan as a result of our actions today. And the best is yet to come, because we have seen promises in the budget, in the reconciliation bill of the leadership, that would cut [[Page H 8354]] even more deeply into student loan programs. We are talking about the American dream. We are talking about investing in our youngsters. We are talking about giving youngsters the opportunity to get that education, to work hard, so they can be something. Government should not be a handout, government should be a hand up. I cannot think of any program that fulfills that philosophy. Oh, yes, the distinguished chairman of the committee said that we have the gall, the audacity, to fight for these programs. Yes, we have the gall, yes, we have the audacity, to stand up for working families, to stand up for their children, to stand up for the future of our country. Let us be sure that our student loan program is protected. Let us be sure that we continue to establish our priorities and invest in our young people and our future.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked as amendment No. 30.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the bill's cuts in student aid. Unfortunately, these cuts only foreshadow the $10 billion in student aid cuts which will be made this fall in the reconciliation bill. This bill alone cuts the Perkins loan program, one of the oldest and most important Federal student aid programs in this country. Three-quarters of a million students across America depend upon the Perkins program. In my State of New York alone, Perkins provided low interest loans to nearly 60,000 deserving students. As you can see on this chart, over 88 percent of undergraduate students who benefit from Perkins loans come from families with incomes under $50,000. These are kids from hard-working, middle-class families who are feeling squeezed, squeezed in whatever they do in their life. These families need more, not less, help to send their kids to college. The bill completely eliminates another program, State student incentive grants. Over 200,000 students depend upon these grants. The modest $63 million which the Federal Government spends on the program drives over $650 million in State funds, a huge return on the Federal dollar. The elimination of SSIG will not be made up by other sources of student aid. Where will these 200,000 students turn for help? Let me tell my colleagues about two students who depend on Federal student aid. Sebastian Tuccitto of the Bronx attends St. John's University in my district. Sebastian is in his junior year studying accounting. Unfortunately, like so many other families in this country struggling to get by, Sebastian's parents cannot contribute much to his education. His father is a carpenter who was injured on the job and his mom works at a supermarket. Neither of his parents went to college, and let me say, school is anything but fun and games for this young man who works several jobs struggling to get that education. He works at least 20 hours a week while he attends school and he still gets a 3.1 GPA. Does this Congress really want to make it more difficult for young men like this to go to college? Or Denise Fiacco who will be a senior at a State school where she will major in chemistry and math. Like Sebastian, Denise is on her own. Her parents are not able to help with her tuition so Denise works to earn money for school which supplements her student aid. She even had to drop out of school for a year in order to earn money for college. Is this Congress willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that they cannot be part of the American dream? Are we today in the United States of America, the most prosperous Nation in the world, going to tell these young people that we are not going to invest so they can get the skills so they can earn their way in this great country our ours so they can compete in the global marketplace? A college degree today is simply a matter of economic survival. Again, my colleagues, look at this chart. Look at the fact. A person with a college degree earns close to twice as much as someone with only a high school education earns. The more a person learns, the more a person earns. Are we willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that we do not care about their future today? I certainly am not. I cannot find any way, my colleagues, to defend these cuts. We are going to hear a lot of excuses, but there is no way to defend these cuts. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's future, our students. Let us give each and every student the same chance at the American dream that our own children have. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I have great respect for the chairman of the committee, and we have worked together on many of the issues in this bill, and also, of course, for the ranking minority on this committee. I understand the terrible choices that our chairman and our ranking minority had to face with us, because this bill, the bill that really reflects the priorities of this Nation, was cut $10 billion. Therefore, although I am rising in strong opposition to the bill, it has no reflection on the chairman's commitment to some of the issues we face. Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation has always been called the people's bill, but today the people will find out whether Congress truly understands their needs and the needs of their families. They will find out how serious we are about making investments in our most precious resource, our children. The people of this Nation will learn whether it matters to Congress if elderly Americans have the means to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in the 100-degree summer heat, or we are going to just stand by when elderly people lose their lives; 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. These are people, real people with families. They will discover if we are truly committed to giving young people with little hope and laid-off workers with few opportunities the means to find a job. Today the American people will find out whether Congress is willing to disregard our children and make unprecedented cuts in education, cuts which will deprive local schools of billions of dollars and hardworking college students of the aid they need to have a shot at the American dream. Mr. Chairman, as a mother of three and a former PTA president, I can tell the Members that this bill will have a devastating impact on America's children and our community schools. Let us not make any mistake about it, this bill will lead to increased local property taxes, because our mothers, our parents, will not stand for their children not having the best education they can. Therefore, if we cut, guess where it is going to come from? Cut here, pay at the other end. We will also vote on whether to force poor women who are the victims of rape and incest to carry those pregnancies to term. We will vote to eliminate an unprecedented intrusion in this bill into medical school curriculum which will endanger the health of women. We will have an opportunity to restore critically needed family planning funds. It is shameful, and I am embarrassed to serve on this committee where I was once so proud, to be at a place in history where we are zeroing out family planning funds. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what is happening in this bill. Members are going to hear all kinds of alibis, but we are zeroing out family planning funds. Yes, I am pleased that the increases at the NIH were not on the Christian Coalition agenda. I am pleased that important investments, investments in breast cancer research will continue. I am pleased that the CDC breast and cervical cancer screening program is still alive. But this bill takes women backward. The GOP leadership has proudly touted its plan to reduce the deficit. Today we are seeing, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing what that plan will mean, what GOP priorities really are. This bill cuts spending, but it does it on the backs of average Americans and on the backs of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens. These cuts in education, training, student loans, low-income energy assistance, are being made to finance the Republicans' proposal to provide a tax cut for the most privileged, and to build new weapons that the Pentagon did not even ask for. As I sat in committee and subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, two things were very clear: first, this bill was deeply flawed from the start, because it was a direct outgrowth of mixed-up Republican budget priorities. We need to go back to scratch. We need to fix this bill. Then the bill was made even worse as the Christian Coalition sent their legislative language and had everyone dutifully follow it, passed that legislative language, passed that special interest language that hurts workers and flies in the face of basic constitutional rights. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. Let us send it back and do it right.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood- Lowey amendment to restore funds to our Nation's family planning programs. The amendment would restore $193 million to the bill for the network of family planning services provided through the title X program. Those who oppose this amendment and support the Livingston-Smith amendment say that they are not cutting family planning, they are just putting the money somewhere else. They contend that family planning services will continue as before. Well, my colleagues, this is simply untrue. Here are the facts: By law the maternal and child health program will be able to spend only the $34 million it would receive under this bill for family planning. That is a cut in family planning services of 72 percent. The rest of the title X funds that go to community health centers may or may not be used for family planning. We simply do not now if community health centers will use these new funds for family planning or for other very crucial health services. Here is what we can be sure of. Without a designated source of Federal funds for family planning Congress' commitment to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, to the prevention of out-of-wedlock births, is merely empty rhetoric. If we fail tonight to restore funds for family planning, we are reneging on our commitment to reduce this epidemic. My colleagues, let us be clear about why title X was eliminated in committee. Title X is on the Christian Coalition's hit list, and I quote. They call it the notorious family planning program. Despite the fact that title X funds are not and may not be used for abortions, the Christian Coalition has chosen to make this a fight over the right to choose. I frankly just do not understand it. We may disagree in this body about the right to choose, but why can we not work together to support a program to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Can we not work together, my colleagues, to prevent abortions? To my colleagues who do not believe that government should be in the business of family planning, failure to restore title X funds today would affect more than just family planning services. Title X clinics provide over 4 million American women with their primary health care. If we fail to restore title X family planning funds today, the health of millions of American women will be jeopardized. Eliminating title X would cut out pap smears and exams for cervical and breast cancer. It would cut prenatal and postnatal care. Earlier this year the House passed a welfare reform bill which stated that reduction of out-of-wedlock births was an important Government interest. How can this body claim it wants to decrease out-of-wedlock births while at the same time eliminating the cornerstone of our Nation's family planning efforts? Family planning services prevent abortions, prevent teenage pregnancies, help keep women off welfare. Let us work together, my colleagues, to maintain our Nation's commitment to family planning. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Greenwood- Lowey amendment and ``no'' on the Livingston-Smith amendment. I urge my colleagues to save the Nation's family planning program.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to one of most fundamentally flawed pieces of legislation that this body has considered in the 7 years I have been privileged to serve. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us today is by far one of the worst-- indeed one of the most fundamentally flawed--pieces of legislation that this body has considered in the 7 years I have been privileged to serve. Make no mistake about it. This bill will mean more sewage in our waterways, more pollution in our air, and more risks from pesticides in our food. Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue. I commend those on the other side of the aisle who are speaking out against the bill, who--to their great credit--cannot hold their nose and toe the party line. Why are they doing this? Because their constituents, like mine--regardless of party identification--want clean air, clean water, and food free of deadly pesticides. This bill severely hampers the Government's historic role in ensuring these most basic guarantees. A 33-percent cut in the EPA's budget is bad enough. But this bill adds insult to injury by loading it up with an array of legislative riders--requested by industrial polluters and other special interests-- that will prevent the Agency from doing its job. I hope the American people are tuned in to this debate. If anyone was still unconvinced of the new majority's assault on health and environmental safeguards, this bill will assuredly dispel them of any lingering doubts.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Ms. Norton's amendment. My colleagues, what we have seen throughout this appropriations process is a direct assault on the right to choose. The ban on Federal funds for abortions for women in prison is just the next in a long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. This assault on the constitutional rights of women must be stopped. The antichoice forces have not directly confronted the basic right, because they know that the vast majority of American people support women's reproductive rights. Rather, they have chipped away at it, hoping that American women will not notice. We must prove them wrong. We must stand up and say ``We do notice, and we will not stand for it.'' What is particularly shameful about the strategy of the abortion foes is that they have singled out groups of women for attack. I suppose that their theory is that most American women will not notice until it happens to them, and then it will be too late. Just look at their record in both the appropriating and authorizing committees this summer: In the Labor-HHS bill, funding for abortions for indigent victims of rape and incest was cut; Also in the Labor-HHS bill, funds for family planning services for poor women were zeroed out; In the Treasury-Postal bill, Federal employees have been barred from purchasing insurance with abortion coverage; Earlier this summer, in the DOD authorization bill, military women were barred from purchasing abortions on bases overseas with their own funds; At the Judiciary Committee, they are considering authorizing legislation that would ban one of the safest procedures for women who face a late-term abortion due to a severe threat to her life or health, or a severe fetal anomaly; And now, they want to ban abortion funds for women in prison. Poor women. Victims of rape and incest. Federal employees. Women in the military. Women facing severe health crises. Women in prison. Who is next? It could be any of us. We must stop this assault on reproductive rights now. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment, and to say no to this rolling back of the reproductive rights of American women.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment speaks for itself. The intent is clear, and, if the gentleman does not have a point of order, I believe we should proceed.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the intent of this amendment is very clear. We want to be sure that the farm subsidy programs are helping the farmers who are farming the land, keeping the farmers on their land. This amendment only pertains to those people, too often very wealthy investors with more than $100,000 in off-farm income. We understand many of the questions which have been posed to us today. They are just not relevant. This amendment only pertains to those investors with off-farm income over $100,000. They should not be receiving a subsidy in these very difficult times. We were on a committee today that was cutting student loans and cutting all kinds of programs that help our people in all of our communities around this country. Why should somebody with an income over $100,000 get a farm subsidy paid for with taxpayer dollars? It is the right thing to do. I hope Members will support this amendment.