Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to thank the gentlewoman for her cooperation and agree with the chairman in assuring her that because of her generosity and understanding our situation on this legislation, we will work nonetheless to assure her and those that feel like her that we will give them ample opportunity. In the meantime, we ourselves are trying to correct any deficiencies in the program. So I am assuring her we will work together, and we appreciate her understanding of the issue this evening.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to know that there is progress made on this issue, because I think the gentleman is aware of the serious concerns that I and many of our colleagues have with this program. I look forward to seeing the result of the Committee on Agriculture deliberations, but if the reform plan that the gentleman's committee comes up with does not adequately address the problems I and many of my colleagues have with this program, can the gentleman assure me that there will be an opportunity to discuss and vote on this issue on the floor during debate on the farm bill?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will not offer the amendment this evening. I appreciate the gentleman's consideration of this very important issue. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to also make it very clear that those of us who consume the products of all your hard work on the farm are very involved with this issue, and we appreciate the gentleman's comments and we look forward to working with him.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and our minority ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for the cooperation they have shown me on this committee. This is an extraordinary bill, in fact, because, as our member said, Mr. Durbin is from Illinois, this bill serves all of our communities across this country. It has really been an honor and a privilege for me to serve on this committee. I want to especially thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help and for the knowledge which they have offered, and certainly our staff. At this moment I would like to engage the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] in a colloquy. I understand that there is quite a bit of discussion about the proper venue in which to alter the federal peanut program. But I must say that those of us who favor elimination of the program have heard that we are not going to be able to sufficiently debate and vote on this matter during consideration of the farm bill. I would ask the gentleman if he believes that debate on the agriculture appropriations bill is the only time during which we will be able to get a vote on this issue?

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I see the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] leaving the room, and I just want to say to the distinguished gentleman that I have great respect for the gentleman. We work together on many issues. In fact, on my committee I have been a strong advocate for the Adoption Opportunities Act, and I do think we have to encourage those who choose to have a child, and we want to help those mothers and those families protect that child and take care of that child, and that is why I am such a strong supporter and I have always advocated funding for that act. I just want to comment on a few things the gentleman said when we talked about the fact that we believe abortion is a good thing. I am a mother of three beautiful grown children. I have been married for 34 years. I try to teach my children, and I hope some day I will have grandchildren, and, yes, I agree with the gentleman, to teach responsibility, to teach responsibility for one's own actions. I think we agree on that. But I do not think anybody in this room, or any woman I know who had to face that very difficult decision, would say that abortion is a good thing. When a woman has to make the very difficult decision with her religious counselor, her family, her doctor, or with whom she chooses to make that decision, it is very difficult. My distinguished colleagues, are we going to say to people who are victims of rape, ``Victims of rape, you have to carry that rapist's child''? Are we going to say to victims of incest, to Federal employees who are victims of incest, ``You have to carry that person's child''? That seems to me to be uncommon indecency. So I would like to say it is unfair for us to treat Federal employees with discrimination, and, in fact, why should we be taking women backward?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is no good reason for the expenditure of these funds, expecially at a time when we face the possibility of actually closing down national parks. I want to remind my colleagues that there had been an ongoing effort over the past few years by New Jersey to build a permanent bridge between New Jersey and the island. I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the gateway for more than 12 million immigrants between 1982 and 1954, Ellis Island holds a unique position in our Nation's history. While I certainly share the desire to promote visitor access in the Island, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey. The temporary construction bridge that was erected in 1986 between Jersey City and Ellis Island was built for trucks--not pedestrians. It does not meet applicable safety codes for pedestrian use and, according to the National Park Service, it would cost at least $1 million to make the necessary structural safety improvements to the bridge. But, Mr. Chairman, the problems don't stop there. If pedestrians were to be allowed on the bridge, the landings on both the island and the mainland--which are presently routed through service and maintenance yards--would have to be relocated. This would require the abatement of asbestos and fuel-soaked soils and extensive landscaping, at a cost of at least another million dollars. There is no good reason for the expenditure of these funds, especially at a time when we face the possibility of actually closing down national parks. Let me remind my colleagues that there has been an ongoing effort over the past few years by New Jersey to build a permanent bridge between New Jersey and the island. Earlier this year this body voted to stop funding for this project, which would cost as much as $25 million and which--in the words of a Park Service report--would have an unmitigateable, adverse impact on the island's historic and cultural resources. The supporters of this amendment would like you to believe that pedestrian access is critically needed because the ferry is too expensive or inconvenient. The reality is that a family can spend the entire day at Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty for less than the cost of going to a movie. Is it worth asking the taxpayers to spend millions of dollars to provide another means of access, particularly when the vast majority of visitors to the island say they prefer to take the ferry anyway? Every year, more than a million and a half visitors from around the world tour the island. Like their predecessors, visitors travel to the island by boat. Not surprisingly, most tourists to the island say they consider the ferry ride to Ellis Island an essential part of their visit. The Park Service's use of scarce Federal dollars at Ellis Island would be better spent on the island's historic buildings that are in desperate need of repair. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, currently, Federal employees, like other American workers, are permitted to choose a health care plan that covers the full range of reproductive health services. The new majority wants to change that and take American women backward. This is one of the first steps in the radical right's campaign to eliminate the right to choose. The issue before us today is whether or not this House will allow American women the freedom to choose a private health insurance plan that includes coverage of abortion. The Hoyer amendment is about giving American women options--of the 345 FEHBP plans, just about half--178--currently cover abortion. If women want to participate in a plan that covers abortions they can. If they find abortion objectionable they can belong to a plan that doesn't cover abortion. The choice is theirs--not mine--and not this institution's. This is the status quo--and unless we approve Mr. Hoyer's amendment, this House will be taking away health care coverage that Federal employees currently have. There are 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care--1.2 million American women who would lose the right to choose if the Hoyer amendment isn't adopted. In fact, the provision that Mr. Hoyer seeks to strike is so extreme that it doesn't even allow FEHBP plans to cover abortions in the case of rape and incest. So if you are a Federal employee and you have been raped and become pregnant, the new majority says that you cannot use your own private insurance to have an abortion. That is an outrage. Basic women's health care includes the full range of redprocutive health services, including abortion. We should not be singling this procedure out. I urge my colleagues to support the Hoyer amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. You'd think that the opponents of the arts and humanities would be satisfied with a 40- percent cut next year and a 2-year phase-out of the National Endowment for the Arts--but it is very clear that their vendetta against these programs knows no bounds. All over America, artists, musicians, orchestras, dance companies, theaters, and public schools rely on the National Endowment for the Arts for essential support. Their work has enriched our communities and our quality of life. But this amendment will pull the rug out from under many of these organizations and damage our cultural heritage. The argument that the programs supported by the NEA would survive--or even flourish--in the marketplace is dubious. According to the president of the J. Paul Getty Trust, foundations would have to raise an $8 billion endowment in order to generate a reliable [[Page H 7060]] stream of money to replace Federal funding for the NEA, NEH, and the Institute of Museum Services. And, given the massive cuts in education and social services my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing, foundation giving will be under even greater stress than usual. The total budget for the NEA costs each of us about the same price of a candy bar. In fact, the total cost of the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is still less than the cost of one B-1 bomber. Eliminating the NEA is a classic case of being penny-wise and pound- foolish. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. This has a huge economic and cultural impact on our society. We did not abolish the Department of Defense because of $400 toilet seats, we did not abolish the U.S. Navy because of the Tailhook scandal, and we certainly should not abolish the NEA because a small fraction of projects a few years ago were controversial. It's simply absurd. Defeat this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. My colleagues, when the National Taxpayers Union, the Sierra Club, the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste, the Cato Institute, Ralph Nader, the National Academy of Sciences and the House authorizing committee all agree, I would submit that we have to pay careful attention. This diverse group has concluded that the gas turbine modular helium reactor, a proposed gas-cooled nuclear fission reactor in San Diego, fails the [[Page H 6804]] important test of scientific merit, environmental safety, and cost effectiveness. And yet, unless we act today, this project will continue to receive significant Federal support. How much will taxpayers be saddled with before this project is completed? The General Accounting Office says the project will cost $5.3 billion, and taxpayers will have to pick up half of that tab. Adopting this amendment will save taxpayers $20 million next year and more than $2.5 billion when all is said and done. Two years ago the Senate voted to cut off funding for the reactor. Now is the time for this body, once and for all, to do the right thing. At a time, my colleagues, when we are told that we must make massive cuts in Medicare that are going to affect thousands and thousands of people in my district and all of our districts and when we are going to be cutting student loans and when we will be cutting a whole range of education programs, it would be a shameful abdication of our responsibilities not to stop this wasteful spending. I urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and in support of the Meyers amendment. Mr. Smith's amendment is an extreme piece of legislation that aims to end family planning aid overseas. Mr. Smith claims that his amendment simply cuts abortion funding. What Mr. Smith has not told you is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. His amendment would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to zero. Therefore, Mr. Smith's amendment must be after something more. That something is family planning. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the needs 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. The Smith amendment is extreme in that it would defund family planning organizations that perform legal abortions--even if the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. money. It would also impose a gag rule on U.S. based organizations and indigenous nongovernmental organizations that provide U.S. family planning aid overseas. The gag rule is written so broadly that it would prohibit the publishing even of factual information about maternal morbidity and mortality related to unsafe abortion. Finally, the Smith amendment cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 countries. The pretext for the Smith amendment 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. Mr. Smith is 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 Mr. Smith's anti-abortion rhetoric. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. It is an extreme piece of legislation that, no matter how Mr. Smith tries to disguise it, is ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning assistance overseas. A vote for the Smith amendment is a vote against sensible, cost-effective family planning programs. amendment offered by mrs. meyers of kansas to the amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I do, I want to thank the gentleman again and commend him for his outstanding leadership of this committee. It has really been a privilege for me to work with the gentleman. He has been open. He has worked in a bipartisan way. He has approached each issue in a very thoughtful manner. I want to thank the gentleman, again, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. In response to the gentleman's request, I do want to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we will be watching expanded IMET for Indonesia over the next year. And if the human rights records does not improve, we will work to cut off all IMET funding next year.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wilson amendment. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] for his comments regarding the inappropriate policies that he referred to. However, I also want to note that in the report to which you referred, you specifically said, ``until such time as new policies have been put in place.'' In other words, the funds should be cut until such time as new policies have been put in place. I will not go on because you have heard so much from my colleagues this evening. But I think we have received a lot of information which clearly lays out changes that have been put in place, and thereby the Wilson amendment, which says that we should cut it an additional $10 million, I think is appropriate, and I would strongly oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] which would cut out all the money. We have heard this evening that the GEF secretariat consults biannually with a wide range of environmental and indigenous groups. We have heard that this sort of participation is unique to the GEF among multilateral institutions. As a result, environmental groups like the NRDC now endorse the GEF and support continued strong U.S. participation. Project development procedures have been streamlined. There has been extensive consultation with communities affected by GEF projects, and that is now required for every project. Mr. Chairman, as this report suggests, there have been policies and procedures put in place to ensure that this money is spent wisely. We have also heard that this has been supported by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. I would like to add my support to the Wilson amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote with me.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gilman amendment that would slice $25 million from the Development Assistance Fund. The Development Assistance Fund, which finances family planning programs, has become the slush fund of choice for Members of this body. Everyone is raiding the development assistance pot--a pot that is almost empty already. Currently, this bill designates approximately $669 million for development assistance for all sectors including population assistance, once the child survival and disease programs earmark is deducted. Under the current bill, population assistance will get approximately a 49- percent cut from the 1996 request level. Now, Mr. Gilman asks us to cut an additional $25 million. This cut would have a devastating and irreversible effect on the well-being of women and children throughout the world. These cuts would directly result in the loss of family planning and other reproductive health services to millions of women who need them. Ultimately, cuts in USAID population funding will affect the size of the world's population for decades to come. Our decisions here today will determine whether the world's population stabilizes under 10 billion, or whether it doubles from its current size to reach 12 billion by 2050, and continues to grow thereafter. Among the immediate consequences of a 50-percent cut are an estimated 1.6 million unintended pregnancies per year, which would have been directly prevented through USAID supported family planning activities. These pregnancies will result in 1.2 million unwanted births, 363,000 otherwise unneeded abortions, and 8,000 maternal deaths. Programs lost or dramatically reduced due to severe budget cuts would include research programs developing new contraceptive methods and methods to help prevent HIV/AIDS transmission. In addition, programs targeted at reducing the heavy reliance on abortion in countries like Russia and the New Independent States would have to be reduced or discontinued. Moreover, with the cuts proposed here today, USAID will be unable to continue its mission of bringing family planning and reproductive health services to the world. Over 120 million women have an unmet need for family planning services today. During the next decade, 200 million more women will reach their reproductive years, creating increased demand for services. The world cannot afford for the USAID programs to be crippled by severe budget cuts. One of the most important forms of aid that the United States provides 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 that we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Mr. Gilman's additional cut of $25 million is a gratuitous swipe at family planning. To demand additional cuts on top of the 49-percent reduction, is to say to the world that the United States does not care. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gilman amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for Ukraine. Ukraine is one of our most important allies among the New Independent States [NIS] of the former Soviet Union. Since its independence, Ukraine has instituted democratic reforms, making it the most stable country in the region. In 1994, Ukraine held democratic elections, voting in a new parliament and a new president. They have accepted all of our requests, including the ratification of START and NPT, and are in the midst of economic reform that has won praise from the IMF and G-7. In the wake of this significant show of stability in an otherwise fragile region, it is imperative that the United States show strong economic support for Ukraine. Although Ukrainians make up almost one- fifth of the population of the NIS, they receive less than 10 percent of United States aid under the Freedom Support Act. Although there are reductions in foreign aid in this bill, we must continue to make clear our international priorities. If we do not earmark $150 million for assistance to Ukraine, we send the wrong signal to that country, and all other countries that are instituting democratic reforms. We must not tell Ukraine that there is nothing to be gained by adopting democratic reforms, maintaining a good human rights record, progressing with economic reforms, and unilaterally disarming their nuclear arsenal. There are battles being waged right now between President Kuchma and the Ukarainian parliament over Ukraine's economic reforms and unilateral disarmament. Many members of parliament are pointing to the lack of past support from the United States for Ukraine's reforms, and questioning the benefits of continuing down this road. We cannot afford to let the Ukrainians turn back. Ukraine and the other young nations of the world, struggling with the implementation of democracy, must know that they will benefit from those reforms. Mr. Chairman, Ukraine is deserving of our respect, praise, and commitment. I urge my colleagues to support increased aid to Ukraine.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to correct a critical flaw in the bill before us. In 1992, we voted to end all international military education and training assistance for Indonesia because of that country's abysmal human rights record and their continued oppression of the people of East Timor. Regrettably, this bill reinstates IMET funding for Indonesia, which has shown no significant improvement in its human rights record since the IMET ban was imposed. In fact, the State Department's own human rights report notes that there have been only cosmetic changes in East Timor. Violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations in East Timor continue. First, innocent protestors are massacred and then the military rounds up and jails the witnesses so that the world will never know what happens. Is this the type of oppression we want to be rewarding with U.S. assistance? I don't think so. The State Department report goes on: ``Extrajudicial arrests and detention, torture of those in custody, and excessively violent techniques for dealing with suspected troublemakers continued'' throughout Indonesia. ``The Armed Forces continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights abuses.'' In November 1991, in the city of Dili, the Indonesian military slaughtered 200 people in full view of news cameras. Sixty-five people are still unaccounted for, and yet the Indonesian Government does not apologize for these killings. On the contrary, the regional commander of East Timor, Gen. Herman Mantiri, said: ``We don't regret anything. What happened was quite proper. They were opposing us.'' Mr. Chairman, Indonesia's policy in East Timor is about the oppression of people who oppose Indonesia's right to torture, kill, and repress the people of East Timor. It is about the 200,000 Timorese who were slaughtered by the Indonesian military when they invaded in 1975. Two-hundred thousand killed out of a total population of 700,000. It is about genocide. The language in this bill is the first step toward releasing pressure on the Indonesian Government to clean up its act. Without passage of this amendment, we will continue to support a government that laughs in the face of the human rights principles that we hold dear. We, in Congress, made the right decision in 1992 when we cut off all IMET funding to Indonesia. But we must not go backward now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to Indonesia that we will not tolerate the oppression of the Timorese people.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H 6362]]

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let's be very clear. This amendment does not commit the use of Federal funds for abortion. It simply allows American servicewomen to use their own money to pay for abortion services at military bases abroad. This amendment is critical to preserving the basic rights of American servicewomen. The bill before us penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. This Congress should not limit the constitutional rights of the brave women who are serving our Nation. The bill also puts the health and lives of our servicewomen at risk. It says to a 19-year-old American woman who has been raped, if you become pregnant, go back to the back alley, go back to that back alley in some foreign country for an unsafe, illegal abortion. It tells our brave servicewomen that in your hour of greatest need, your own country will abandon you. I urge Members to vote for the DeLauro amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and in support of the Morella perfecting amendment. The Smith amendment would do nothing to stop China's policy of coerced abortions to which I object just as strongly as does the gentleman from New Jersey. It is merely an attack on international family planning efforts which I strongly support. The coercive abortion policy in China violates all principles of a modern society. Despite overwhelming evidence of forced abortions and involuntary sterilization, the Chinese Government denies it is conducting a campaign of intimidation and violence against the Chinese people. We must condemn this brutal policy, which deprives families of real choices and threatens hundreds of thousands of lives. We must ensure that no United States funds contribute to China's repression and violation of individual liberties. That is why we have a compromise that strikes a sensible balance between the need to censure China for its deplorable policies, while restoring the United States commitment to critical family planning programs in other nations that are trying hard to struggle with exponential population growth which makes their economic development goals even more difficult to meet. The family planning portion of the bill before us today accomplishes these goals. It imposes strong policies to confront the abuses, and imposes tough restrictions on the use of United States funds. We continue to ensure that no UNFPA would be used in China. One of the most important forms of aid we promise 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 abortion. 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. Today we have the opportunity to ensure funding for the United Nations populations fund, funding which has been held hostage to anti- abortion politics in the past. Today, we can make a real difference in the lives of millions of women, and the future of our planet. Yet despite the opportunity to make real progress in world health, some would punish UNFPA, developing nations, and many other public health organizations around the world for China's policies. Approval of the Smith amendment would mean denying funds not only for UNFPA, but for critical projects all over the world. Let us be frank. The language currently in the foreign aid bill makes clear that no United States funds shall be used in China. A vote for the Smith amendment is a vote against sensible, cost-effective international family planning programs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. And support the Morella perfecting amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is important for me to respond to the gentleman from Ohio who asked me how Minnie Wilensky from Queens County knew about the increase in the deductible, the increase and the copayment, and I think it is very important that we be honest in this debate. I say to the gentleman, page 5, page 18 of your budget, Mr. Kasich, talks about----