Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just hung up the phone on Minnie Wilensky from Queens County. She cannot even watch this debate because she cannot afford cable. You can talk about big numbers and little numbers and how we have to raise it and cut it. All she knows is that her copayments are going to go up and her premiums are going to go up and she will not get a cost-of-living increase in Social Security. And Minnie Wilensky, who is making constant choices about whether she buys the chicken or whether she cannot buy the chicken, because she lives on $11,000 a year, I just want to tell you the story because it is not a number in your statistics. Minnie lives in Queens County and she knows it is going to cost her more and she is going to pay more for the choice of doctor and more premiums and more deductibles, and that is what she knows. Day after day we have heard how the Republicans have kept their promises to the American people. One after another the Republicans told us that promises made are promises kept. Well, Mr. Chairman, today we learn that Republican promises made are Republican promises broken, a promise broken to a person like Minnie Wilensky from Queens County. Now, Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority promised that they would not cut her Social Security benefits, but they are going to cut her COLA. They promised not to cut her Medicare, but they are going to raise her fees that she is going to have to pay. What is the truth? What does [[Page H5137]] the new budget say? The Republican budget does cut $24 billion from Social Security. Seniors who have worked hard their whole lives will lose hundreds of dollars in Social Security benefits. Social Security is a contract. The Republican majority has been saying that for years. They said they would not touch it. Well, they have, they have broken that contract into pieces. They are proposing the largest Medicare cut in history, close to $300 billion. The bill will cost individual seniors over $1,000 more a year for Medicare benefits by the year 2002. How will this affect real people like Minnie Wilensky? She has a heart condition. She has glaucoma. She and so many other seniors in my district cannot afford what they are already paying in prescription copayments and deductibles. How are they possibly going to afford these increases? As I mentioned, she lives on $11,600 a year. She was telling me, ``I am grateful for what I have got, but I have to make choices. If I have to buy more medicine, I cannot buy the chicken. If I have to buy more in a grocery store, I have to constantly make those choices.'' How can she possibly afford these increases? And she is also worried about her generation; she is worried about her grandchildren, not only her own generation. She worries that her grandchildren will not be able to afford to go to college. She told me that with the average increase of $5,000 which is proposed in this budget, they are not going to be able to go to college. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget breaks faith with the millions of American seniors, like Minnie Wilensky, who depend on Medicare and Social Security. This is how the Republicans kept their promise, cutting Medicare, cutting Social Security, cutting education.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget cuts $24 billion from Social Security. Seniors who have worked hard their whole lives will lose hundreds of dollars in Social Security benefits. Social Security is a contract that we've made with our Nation's seniors. The Republican budget tears that contract into pieces. The Republican budget cuts $283 billion from Medicare. The Republican budget will eliminate Medicare as we know it by herding seniors into HMO's and by charging them $3,500 more for their health care. Seniors who depend on Medicare will be out of luck. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget breaks faith with the millions of American seniors who depend on Medicare and Social Security to make ends meet. Day after day we have heard how the Republicans have kept their promises to the American people. One after another the Republicans told us that promises made are promises kept. Well Mr. Speaker, today we learn that Republican promises made are promises broken. Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority promised that they would not cut Social Security benefits. They promised not to devastate Medicare. But what is the truth? What does their new budget say? This is how the Republicans keep their promises: By cutting Medicare. By cutting Social Security. The American people deserve better.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may have an additional 5 minutes.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first it was school lunches, student loans, and Medicare. Now the Republican leadership has trained its sights on clean water. As cochair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I rise to support the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. Unlike H.R. 961's sweeping, 326-page rollback of one our most effective environmental laws, the substitute recognizes that the battle for clean water has not yet been won. Unlike H.R. 961, this proposal will not be a boon for polluters, and penalize anyone who bathes, swims, fishes, boats, or recreates in lakes, rivers, and oceans. Unlike H.R. 961, this substitute recognizes that if you allow polluters upstream to discharge more pollutions into the water--as H.R. 961 does--it's the people downstream who will ultimately get saddled with the bill to clean up the pollution. As my constituents who live near Long Island Sound and the Hudson River know, all is not well with our rivers and bays. More than half of New York's rivers and 85 percent of its estuaries are closed to activities such as fishing and swimming at some time during the year. According to the most recent statistics available, New York's ocean beaches were closed completely on 93 occasions and more than 400 fishing advisories were issued to protect the public from ingesting contaminated fish. In New York and Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental groups have set aside old disagreements and joined together in developing--with the aid of the EPA--a plan to clean up Long Island Sound. None of this would have been possible without the underpinning of the Clean Water Act, and now is certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet. If H.R. 961 is enacted, it will only cause more delay and more expense to move forward with environmental clean-up in my region. The vast majority of New York's water quality problems are caused by nonpoint pollution--from sources other than factory or sewage discharges. And yet H.R. 961 repeals the only Federal program that can reduce nonpoint pollution. In fact, two-thirds of coastal States have invested millions of dollars over the past 4 years crafting runoff control programs that are nearly ready for approval under the auspices of the Clean Water Act. In keeping with the wishes of the coastal States themselves, the substitute preserves this important program. The substitute also removes some of H.R. 961's more egregious rollbacks of environmental protection. Across the Nation, swimming and fishing are not available to millions of Americans because of pollution that runs into waterways every time it rains. In fact, more than one-third of all our Nation's water quality impairment is the result of stormwater discharge. Yet, H.R. 961 repeals the entire EPA stormwater permitting system, thereby ending all monitoring and enforceable requirements for the 342 cities and 134,000 industrial facilities that currently have stormwater discharge permits. Thankfully, the substitute preserves the act's stormwater permitting program, while providing a 10-year moratorium on any new requirements for cities under 100,000 or small industries. The substitute also repeals 961's disastrous wetlands classification system--adopting the National Governors Association's reasonable wetlands proposal instead. Now is not the time to relax our efforts to ensure clean water. Estuaries like Long Island Sound--a $6 billion-a-year resource for the entire region's fishing, boating, and recreation industries--are at stake. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute. Let's not turn back the clock.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misinformation in this Chamber about the widespread support this bill has from State and local governments. The truth is that the State's interests were ignored when it came to the coastal nonpoint pollution program because their wishes differed with those of polluters and special interests. Today, coastal counties are growing three times faster than the rest of the country. Already about half of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas. Without adequate protection, this continuing growth will only exacerbate coastal pollution--resulting in more beach closings, more polluted shellfish beds, more contaminated fish, and millions of dollars in lost tourism revenue. To tackle these threats, Congress enacted the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program (section 6217) under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In fact I sponsored the amendment at that time. Section 6217 establishes sensible, State-managed partnerships to address the threats to coastal waters--the majority of which comes from nonpoint sources. It is the only program that will bring about significant reductions in nonpoint source pollution. Yet, H.R. 961 repeals this important program--even though the coastal States themselves want it preserved. The Coastal States Organization [CSO], which represents the 35 coastal States, territories and commonwealths, has made it clear that the urgency of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem compels us not to pull the plug on this program. Let's be clear: This amendment does what the States asked us to do. It adopts their suggestions for providing flexibility and targeting of coastal nonpoint programs. Our amendment will put an effective Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program in place in less than a year. Two-thirds of coastal States have invested millions of dollars over the past 4 years crafting innovative runoff control programs that are nearly ready for approval. My own State of New York has invested considerable time and effort in developing a plan that will benefit Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, and the New York City watershed. By making sensible investments early-on, it also promises to save taxpayers millions of dollars down the road--or downstream as the case may be. Long Island Sound is a $6 billion a year resource for the region's fishing, boating, and recreation industries. In New York and Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental groups have set-aside old disagreements and joined together in developing a plan to clean up the sound. They have forged a powerful coalition. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program is an integral component of those efforts, and now is certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet. As the coastal States themselves are asking: Why throw 4 years of diligent work out the window 2 months before the completion date? There is no reasonable answer. I urge my colleagues to support their States by supporting this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Jim Hyland--a resident of the 18th Congressional District of New York--for his enduring commitment to our community. Jim Hyland exemplifies both leadership and service to his community. For 36 years, Mr. Hyland has worked with Citibank in the areas of lending and marketing. During his impressive career with the company, Mr. Hyland has served both as branch manager and as area director. Jim Hyland's tireless community work is firmly evidenced by his current position as Citibank's Government and community relations officer for the Westchester, Mid Hudson, and Long Island regions. As the bank's representative in the community, Mr. Hyland brings Citibank's resources to the neighborhoods it serves. Mr. Speaker, Jim's tenure at Citibank alone would have been enough to merit recognition. However, his grassroots campaign to improve the quality of neighborhood life does not end with his efforts at Citibank. In addition, he serves on several area boards of directors, including: Food Patch; Private Industry Council; Westchester Light House; Westchester/Putnam Affirmative Action; National Conference of Christians and Jews; and the Long Island Housing Partnership. Aside from his commitment to community service, Jim Hyland is a dedicated husband, father and grandfather. Jim and his wife Joan, a registered nurse, live in Yorktown, NY. They have 7 wonderful children and 11 grandchildren. Jim truly represents Citibank to the communities he serves. His love of people has compelled him to give of himself to help others. Jim's community outreach work, coupled with his remarkable sense of humor, have brought laughter and joy to so many over his 36-year career. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the friends, colleagues, admirers, and family of Jim Hyland, I hereby express heartfelt appreciation for his years of service and recognize the joyous occasion of his retirement. I am pleased to salute him.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to comment on the profound words of my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. Adolph Hitler himself said that the world's indifference to the slaughter in Armenia indicated that there would be no world outcry if he undertook the mass murder of Jews and others he considered less than human, and he was right. It was only after the Holocaust that the cry ``never again'' arose throughout the civilized world, but it was too late for millions of victims, too late for the 6 million Jews, and too late for the 1.5 million Armenians. I too appreciate your having that special order. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues to honor the 1.5 million Armenians who were murdered during the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923. Mr. Speaker, Armenians wiped away their tears and cried out ``Let us never forget. Let us always remember the atrocities that have taken the lives of our parents and our children and our neighbors.'' I rise today to remember those cries and to make sure that they were not uttered in vain. Unfortunately, this tragedy is still not even acknowledged by the Turkish Government, and today the Armenian people continue to suffer. Mr. Speaker, as many of us know, the ongoing conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh led last year to an Azerbaijan-orchestrated blockade. I am deeply concerned for the innocent people who are suffering as a result of this blockade, which left many in Armenia without power, food, or medicine. As my colleagues and I stand here today to remember the events of 80 years ago, let us not lose sight of the events that have transpired recently. Let us take this opportunity to pledge to do everything in our power to settle the ongoing dispute in Nagorno- Karabakh. Let me be perfectly clear: The United States must stand firm against any dealings with Azerbaijan until it ends the blockade against Armenia and against Nagorno-Karabakh. the 1995 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act earmarked for Armenia. Regrettably, too few of my colleagues shared my belief that we must set aside these sorely needed funds for Armenia. It is critical that we take the time today to make explicit our commitment to the people of Armenia. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so. Strongly support section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which restricts aid to Azerbaijan until that nation lifts its embargo against the people of Armenia. Cosponsor H.R. 942, the ``Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act,'' which would prohibit U.S. assistance to any country which in any way restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. This legislation will ensure the speedy, unhindered, and effective delivery of needed United States humanitarian assistance to Armenia. And finally, I implore my colleagues to call on Azerbaijan to negotiate a peace settlement under the guidelines established by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE]. It is tragic that Azerbaijan's tactics denied food and medicine to innocent men, women, and children within Armenia, and created thousands of refugees. The war over Nagorno-Karabakh has set a dangerous precedent for the resolution of conflicts among the many new nations that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. We must make clear that warfare and blockades aimed at civilians are unacceptable as means for resolving disputes. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that I will always remain mindful of the terrible suffering the Armenian people have endured during this century. I cannot stress enough that we must never forget the Armenian genocide, and that we must do everything in our power to ensure that the Armenian nation can live in peace and security from this time forward.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today Congresswoman DeLauro and I are once again joining with a geographically diverse group of our colleagues in reintroducing legislation to renew and expand the Federal Government's role in controlling pollution and in stewarding our coastal resources. Our legislation--the Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Financing Act--was first inspired more than 4 years ago by the dedication of citizens in our communities who have spearheaded the effort to save Long Island Sound. In fact, labor, business, and environmental groups in New York and Connecticut have taken the bold step of setting aside historic differences to work together to address the need for effective water pollution step forward with the signing of the Long Island Sound Clean-up Plan by the States of New York and Connecticut and EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Despite these achievements for Long Island Sound, much remains to be done to take our Nation's estuaries off the endangered list. Nationally, we face an appalling backlog of water quality infrastructure upgrade needs that threatens to choke our economy just as it is robbing our waters of life-giving oxygen. Quite simply, we need leadership at the Federal level to match the energy and ingenuity of our communities that are working toward a better environmental and economic future. Without strong Federal leadership and substantial funds to back it up, we run the risk of squandering over 20 years of progress in cleaning up and protecting our waters. Therefore, our legislation will re-ignite Federal, State, and local cooperation in water pollution control by significantly increasing annual authorization levels for the State Revolving Fund [SRF] Program to $4 billion and then $5 billion beginning in 1998. In the context of our continuing budgetary problems, these authorizations may appear high. But without a renewed Federal commitment to clean water, the estimated $200-billion shortfall over the next decade in sewage treatment upgrades leaves our States with two unacceptable alternatives: swamp their residents with higher taxes, or allow vital waterways to die and their economies to stagnate. It is encouraging that the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment has recently approved an increase in the SRF to $3 billion. This is an important step in the right direction, but I hope this Congress can do better before the bill becomes law. In addition to expanding and modernizing the Nation's water pollution control infrastructure, we must support efforts to spend clean water dollars as intelligently as possible. To that end, our legislation departs from past practice by earmarking a portion of the SRF funds for the implementation of comprehensive estuary management plans. These comprehensive conservation and management plans are designed to utilize the most cost-effective mix of policies to reduce water pollution in sensitive coastal regions. And, rather than heavy-handed mandates from Washington, these plans are founded on voluntary partnerships among people with a shared vision for reinvigorating our economy and revitalizing our bays, rivers, and beaches. At present, communities in and around 21 of our Nation's estuaries are at work developing plans; another half dozen will be added to the National Estuary Program [NEP] later this year. Moreover, our legislation would strengthen section 320 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the National Estuary Program. First established under the Water Quality Act of 1987, the NEP provides a mechanism for bringing together Federal, State, and local authorities-- and interested citizens--to develop comprehensive, watershed-based plans for cleaning up and protecting nationally significant estuaries. In Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, Massachusetts Bay, and a number of other estuaries, the NEP has helped bring about unprecedented cooperation aimed at saving these threatened waters and the economies that rely on them. Our bill would build on the success of the NEP by clarifying the funding and staffing responsibilities of Federal agencies concerned with the program, including the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Specifically, the bill states that implementation of estuary management plans is a non- discretionary duty of the EPA. The measure seeks to improve Federal leadership in the NEP by directing the EPA to promulgate guidelines for development, approval, and implementation of comprehensive management plans. Other important proposed changes include measures to improve coordination of clean-up efforts with other Federal activities in estuaries. In short, this bill is designed to make certain that those plans do not end up on shelves in bureaucrats' offices, but instead truly clean up these critical bodies of water. In the 103d Congress, the DeLauro-Lowey Water Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Financing Act received strong bipartisan support and backing from a unique nationwide coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups who recognize the ties that bind the condition of our waters and the state of our economy. Provisions similar to our bill were included in the clean water reauthorization bill reported last year by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As we reintroduce our legislation today, however, we do so at a time when the Clean Water Act is under attack. The act's reauthorization that is being developed in committee threatens to undermine much of the progress that has been achieved in approving our Nation's water quality. For example, by decreasing protection for our Nation's remaining wetlands and repealing provisions in the Coastal Zone Management Program that require coastal States to develop enforceable polluted runoff control programs, this legislation would turn back the clock on environmental protection and pose new threats to our Nation's vital waterways. We must not allow this to happen. Mr. Speaker, our legislation is a call to action that says through sensible investments in water pollution control we can help ensure our economic and environmental future. Without Federal assistance, our estuaries will die while the long-term growth of our economies suffers. In conclusion, I want to thank all 36 of my colleagues who have joined Ms. DeLauro and myself in introducing this legislation. We all are keenly aware that by failing to help our municipalities meet their infrastructure needs, we are forcing them to tie up scarce local dollars that otherwise could be used to improve schools, fight drugs and crime, provide housing and health care, or meet the needs of the elderly and disabled. In the end, every one stands to lose. We also understand that clean water is a national priority. Just as rivers and coastal waters affect and are affected by the policies of various States, an interstate commitment is essential to success. The time has come to act, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to end the use of steel jaw leghold traps. More than 50 of our colleagues have already endorsed this legislation. I want to be very clear: this bill would not end trapping, but would simply end the use of this particularly barbaric instrument. Less cruel alternatives do, in fact, exist. Mr. Speaker, this device was invented in the 1820's and has continued to inflict needless pain and suffering for over 170 years. Mr. Speaker, since then we've passed a host of animal welfare statutes, including the Humane Slaughter Act and the Cruelty to Animals Act, to name just two. Yet we continue to allow the use of a device that slams with bone- crushing force upon any animal that steps into it. This trap does not discriminate between the front paw of a fox, the hind leg of a golden retriever, or the hand of a small child. It is a brutality that we should stop. More than 60 countries--including the European Union--have recognized and acknowledged the inhumanity of these traps. As of January 1, 1996, countries that have not ended the use of this device will no longer be permitted to sell furs in European markets. Unless we act now and follow their wise lead, the United States will be sanctioned as one of those countries. Mr. Speaker, some trappers are concerned that passing this bill would require adopting alternative trapping methods that already exist. That is true. But they must understand that, without this law, the demand for their furs will decline when the only buyers to be found are those within our borders. Mr. Speaker, most Americans support the abolition of steel jaw leghold traps. It's time to join the growing circle of enlightened nations that have realized that they can end the use of these instruments without killing the trapping industry. If we don't act now, both the animals and trappers themselves will suffer the consequences. I encourage my colleagues to join this effort to make this sensible change.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed and restrictive rule. I cannot believe that my colleagues in the majority, who claimed that they would open up this House, could come to us with a straight face and gag this Chamber with a rule that restricts us to 5 hours of debate on a matter of such gravity for the Nation's future--$630 billion to be exact. While I dare say that H.R. 1215 is far from the crown jewel that it has been touted to be by some, I will be the first to admit that the bill makes several changes in the Tax Code that I think are long overdue: easing the tax burden on senior citizens, providing tax credits for expenses incurred when adopting a child or caring for an elderly parent or grandparent in your home, and indexing capital gains. I would like to support provisions such as these, but this rule doesn't allow me to do that in a fiscally responsible manner. We are told to take all or nothing, and if that is the case I will have no choice but to vote no. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for a bill that will enable some of our wealthiest corporations to avoid taxes altogether while giving just $90 in tax relief for a family with an income of $20,000, and then forces massive cuts in programs that would have a devastating impact on hardworking Americans. For the citizens I represent in New York, this bill spells higher transit fares, devastating cuts in Medicare, reduced student loans, hungrier school children, less affordable child care, and fewer police on the beat. One of the bill's more offensive provisions is the repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, which was instituted in 1986 because more than half of the Nation's most profitable corporations had been able to utilize various loopholes in the Tax Code to pay no Federal income taxes, even though they were reporting huge profits. The inequity of this situation was so clear that the Reagan Administration supported establishment of a corporate AMT. Repeal of the corporate AMT would clearly represent an inequitable shift in the tax burden. Seventy-four percent percent of the corporations who pay the corporate minimum tax have assets greater than $250 million. Given these facts, it is not surprising that its repeal was not originally part of the Contract With America. Instead, it was added in at the 11th hour, when the American people weren't looking and special interest lobbyists were hard at work. Let me remind my colleagues that under this rule we will not have the opportunity to vote to restore the corporate AMT; to make the Social Security tax repeal effective immediately, as it should be; to help students pay for college; and to decide if the child tax credit should be available to the families of 35 percent of our Nation's children who need it most but who would not benefit from the credit as it is currently written in this bill. I urge a no vote on this rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, 174 years ago today, the Greek people began their revolution in pursuit of independence from the Ottoman Empire. In doing so, just as our Founding Fathers looked to the ancient Greek democracy in establishing our own form of government, Greek intellectuals translated our own Declaration of Independence and used it as their own as they pursued freedom. Over the years, Greece and the United States have been close allies. In fact, Greece has been allied with the United States in every major international conflict in this century. During World War II, fully 9 percent of the Greek population--over 600,000 dedicated individuals-- fought and died in pursuit of the Allied cause. Likewise, as the Greek people fought Communist rebels after that war, the American people were committed to their success. Our relationship over the years is clear proof of the strength both of democracy and of alliances of free peoples. And our ties have added immensely to world culture and knowledge. All Americans have benefited by the contributions of our Greek-American friends. Thanks to Dr. George Papnicolaou, lives have been saved because of the Pap test which he developed. Thanks to Dr. George Kotzias, suffers of Parkinson's disease have found help in L-dopa. Thanks to Maria Callas, we have all been blessed by the beauty of exceptional musical talent. And, thanks to many Greek-American leaders, this Nation of ours is a better land than it would otherwise have been. As we recognize this special occasion, let us all join together in support of a strong and secure Greece. Our two democracies have nurtured one another at times of stress and our cultures have enriched each other in many ways over the years. Today, as in years past, I pledge my full effort to maintain the ties which have served both of our Nations so well. I urge every American to join in this celebration of freedom, democracy and friendship between Greece and our own United States.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that reform of the welfare system is long overdue. The current system is costing billions of dollars and is not solving the problem. It is not putting people to work but instead has created an unhealthy cycle of dependency. work In reforming the welfare system, our focus must be on moving people into real jobs. I will vote against the Republican bill for many reasons--but primarily because it makes no guarantee that welfare recipients will move into work. In fact, a recently released Congressional Budget Office report found that their bill is doomed to fail in achieving that end. Furthermore, under that bill, there is less accountability for the dollars spent than under the current system. They do nothing to improve access to and the quality of existing education and training, so that people have the skills they need to get a job. Last year, I introduced my own Work First welfare reform plan that was designed to get people off of welfare and into jobs. My bill removed the crazy disincentives to work that exist in the current welfare system. The majority of Americans get up every morning and go to work to support themselves and their families--and they resent the fact that billions of tax dollars are spent supporting people who don't have to do the same. We must reform welfare to assure able-bodied Americans work. That is a matter of simple fairness. effective programs--child care and nutrition We cannot afford to fail in this effort. But moving to the extreme-- as the majority's proposal will do--will only create another system that fails families and taxpayers. Their proposal will push families with young children into the street and create a whole class of women and children with no hope of becoming self-sufficient. The Republican proposal cuts child care and nutrition--programs that are critically important to supporting working families. Why does this bill block grant the WIC Program--when leaders of corporate America have testified to its cost-effective benefits to the health of women and children? Why does this bill do away with the School Lunch Program as we know it, when this program helps children from working families get the nutrition they need to succeed in school? Why does this bill cut assistance for child care, when Americans know that child care is crucial to the ability of people who truly want to work to stay in the work force? teenage pregnancy There is another area of critical importance on which this bill fails the American people--the crisis of teenage pregnancy. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill to: First, require teenagers who are parents themselves to live with an adult family member or in an appropriate adult-supervised setting in order to receive benefits; and second, require teenage parents to continue to receive education and training in order to receive assistance. In addition, my bill would provide grants to localities to design teen pregnancy prevention programs. This approach balances responsibility with opportunity. It promotes responsibility so that teenage parents understand that they must assume responsibility for the consequences of their action. At the same time, it invests in preventing teenage pregnancy so that fewer children are born to teens. The majority's bill denies most benefits to teenage parents and their children, but goes no further. It includes no provisions to encourage responsible behavior among teenage parents--and no provisions to realistically discourage teenagers from becoming parents in the first place. Most troubling, the majority bill punishes innocent newborns for the actions of their parents. child support enforcement There's another issue of great importance in this debate: Child support enforcement. The Republican bill was originally silent on the need for parental responsibility for child support--in spite of the fact that each year deadbeat parents fail to pay more than $5 billion they owe to support their own offspring. Many of their children are reliant on welfare as a result. This is more than 40 percent of the entire Federal cost of AFDC. At the beginning of this Congress, I cosponsored H.R. 785, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, along with other members of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. The caucus leadership testified on behalf of our bill before the Ways and Means Committee. I am pleased that--as a result of persistence on our part--the bill has now been modified to include strong child support enforcement provisions. I do, of course, support these provisions and hope that they will become law through some means very soon. the deal substitute The Deal substitute provides a balance in this debate. It is tough on work, requiring participants to establish contracts detailing what they will actually do to secure private sector employment. The substitute provides a serious deadline: Participants can participate in a workfare program for 2 years. After 2 years are up, States have some flexibility to work with these populations--but ultimately people must work, or they lose their cash benefits. The Deal substitute also provides States with resources to improve existing workfare systems, so that participants actually obtain the skills they need to get and hold a job. Without those skills, any employer will tell you, they just won't find work. The Deal amendment increases State resources for child care, so families can work while ensuring adequate care for their children. The Deal amendment preserves the nutrition programs that are essential underpinning for the health of our Nation's children. I support the Deal substitute because it reforms welfare programs without destroying programs that have proven effective and important to millions of working Americans and their families. The Deal amendment includes tough provisions to strengthen the current child support enforcement systems so that millions of young people will be supported by parents who have the means to do so--instead of being supported by taxpayers. Finally, the Deal amendment helps address the crisis of teenage pregnancy and provides communities with the resources they need to prevent teenage pregnancy. In short, the Deal substitute provides sensible responses to the American public's demand for reform, but does not in the process hurt vulnerable children or simply shift costs to other programs. The Deal substitute does reform legal immigrants' eligibility for benefits. It builds on good ideas that already exist in the law, but which have not worked as they should. First and foremost, legal immigrants would be required to have sponsors who agree--in a legally binding document--that they will be financially responsible for the immigrant for the life of the immigrant or until the immigrant becomes a citizen. This amendment recognizes the problems that exist in current law--that sponsorship currently ends after 5 years regardless of the citizenship status of the immigrant and that sponsorship is not a legally binding obligation--and effectively corrects them. I urge my colleagues to support the Deal substitute. We must reform the welfare system to move people from welfare to work. We cannot afford to fail.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that reform of the welfare system is long overdue. The current system is costing billions of dollars and is not solving the problem. It does not put people to work but instead has created an unhealthy cycle of dependency. In reforming the welfare system, our focus must be on moving people into real jobs. I will vote against the Republican bill for many reasons--but primarily because it makes no guarantee that welfare recipients will move into work. Under that bill, there is less accountability for the dollars spent than under the current system. They do nothing to improve access to and the quality of existing education and training, so that people have the skills they need to get a job. The majority's bill moves to the extreme--and will only create another system that fails families and taxpayers by creating a whole class of women and children with no hope of becoming self-sufficient. The Deal substitute provides a balance in this debate. It is tough on work, requiring participants to establish contracts detailing what they will actually do to secure private sector employment. The substitute provides a serious deadline: Participants can participate in a workfare program for 2 years. After 2 years are up, States have some flexibility to work with these populations--but ultimately people must work, or they lose their cash benefits. The Deal substitute also provides States with resources to improve existing workfare systems, so that participants actually attain the skills they need to get and hold a job. Without those skills, any employer will tell you, they just won't find work. The Deal amendment provides State resources for child care, so families can work while ensuring adequate care for their children. The Deal amendment preserves the nutrition programs that are essential underpinning for the health of our Nation's children. The Deal amendment includes tough provisions to strengthen the current child support enforcement system so that millions of young people will be supported by parents who have the means to do so--instead of being supported by taxpayers. Finally, the Deal amendment helps address the crisis of teenage pregnancy and provides communities with the resources they need to prevent teenage pregnancy. In short, the Deal substitute provides sensible responses to the American public's demand for reform, but does not in the process hurt vulnerable children or simply shift costs to other programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Deal substitute. We must reform the welfare system to move people from welfare to work. We cannot afford to fail. I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Roukema amendment to the child support enforcement provisions contained in this bill. Many members of the congressional caucus for women's issues, particularly Congresswomen Barbara Kennelly and Lynn Woolsey, have long worked for comprehensive, fundamental reforms of the child support enforcement system. We are pleased that many of the provisions of the caucus bill were incorporated into the current bill by the Ways and Means Committee. Child support enforcement is essential to the reform of the welfare system. Deadbeat parents in the United States owe over $34 billion to their children--more than the cost of the entire welfare system. To help families stay off welfare in the first place, we must strengthen the child support enforcement system and demand that parents support the child they bring into this world. This amendment, building on the work of Congresswoman Kennelly, does just this: It strengthens the enforcement provisions in the bill. We're reforming the system now, because families and children can't enforce the laws on their own. They need our help. By requiring States to establish procedures under which they would withhold, suspend, or restrict the State-issued licenses of persons who are delinquent in making court-ordered child support payments, the amendment provides the leverage States need to convince deadbeat parents to pay-up. This amendment, by giving children and families the assurance that States will take away privileges this society has granted to parents, should send a strong message that those parents must fulfill their obligations to their own offspring. What is more, we know this works in the States that have already established license revocation procedures. Let us build on what works and pass this amendment. Let's help children recover the support owed to them.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment that would grant preference for obtaining Federal housing assistance to families that participate in required State welfare work programs. While I share the goal of my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia-- to assure that working people are rewarded for playing by the rules, I have concerns about the unintended consequences of this amendment as drafted. By providing a housing preference for people participating in the State welfare work programs, this amendment will create a bias against women with young children. It should come as no surprise that when young children are involved, the primary caregiver often stays at home--especially when safe, affordable, child care is not available. If this amendment were to pass, those parents who are at home with their children for whatever reason--would be penalized--and could be denied of appropriate, affordable housing. Furthermore, in discussing this amendment with housing officials in my district, I have heard serious concerns that this amendment might undermine preferences which have been carefully developed. For example, some communities have given preference for section 8 housing for residents of their own communities. I do not want to see this House run roughshod over reasonable requirements that have often been in place for some time. While I know the intention of the amendment is to reward people who work, the unintended effect would be to penalize a parent who stays home with a young child. It could also damage perfectly appropriate locally established preferences. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of the Deal substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that reform of the welfare system is long overdue. The current system is costing billions and not solving the problem. It does not put people to work but instead has created an unhealthy cycle of dependency. But this bill does nothing to improve the welfare system so that children in poor families can themselves be successful and avoid a cycle of dependency. It does not make welfare work for children by moving their parents into work--rather, it would hurt children by moving their parents off the welfare rolls and onto the streets. Let me outline the effect the majority's bill would have on children in New York: Over the next 5 years, 24,240 children would lose access to child care; 16,592 children would lose access to assistance and medical services under the SSI Program; 477,000 children living in poverty would lose cash assistance by the year 2000; in 1996, some 8,500 children would no longer receive assistance to buy school lunches. Mr. Speaker, the majority's bill will not work for children and their families. That's why we support a bill that promotes work--and works for children. Welfare to work--not welfare to nowhere.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my opposition to the Hyde amendment and to raise serious concerns about the effect of the amendment. The author of the amendment states that the amendment would prohibit states from using funds under the bill for any medical services. But it seems to me that the amendment could have two effects--both of which would hurt the health of women and children. First, the amendment would seem to broadly prohibit funds under the bill for medical services. While the author of the amendment states that the amendment does not prohibit the use of funds for family planning services--and I am pleased that the author does not intend the amendment to cover family planning services--the amendment still raises numerous questions that could pose grave problems for women and children. For example, would medical services to disabled children be denied by this amendment? With the cash families receive under the temporary assistance block grant, would families be prohibited from meeting the medical needs of their children? If any of the amendment has any of these effects, it clearly hurts the health of children and women. If, on the other hand, the intent of the amendment is more narrowly focused on abortion, as the author stated, I am concerned that the amendment could set a precedent for denying coverage of abortion services to poor women. If this is the case, we must beware. If a subsequent decision is made to block grant the Medicaid Program, would this Hyde amendment then apply to Medicaid? By passing this Hyde amendment now--as part of welfare reform--are we forfeiting the opportunity to fight on behalf of the rights of poor women who are victims of rape and incest? I don't think we should take that chance. Again, the amendment's intent is unclear--but regardless of intent or interpretation, the amendment would seem to hurt the health of women and children. I strongly oppose the Hyde amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do, however, support the Roberts Amendment which is part of this package. That amendment takes a strong first step toward dealing with the true problems facing the Food Stamp program: fraud and abuse. All too often in the past several weeks we have heard our colleagues calling for cuts in the benefits provided by the Food Stamp program. These cuts--including a cap on the program approved by the Agriculture Committee--will undermine the ability of many American families to put nutritious meals on their tables and that will have a real impact on the health of those families. But while doing that, these misguided cuts do not get at the fraud and abuse in the Food Stamp program that is really wasting taxpayer dollars. This fraud is the true crime against this important program. To be sure, Mr. Chairman, the perpetrator of this crime is not the single mother trying to feed her children; it is not the parents who work all day, every day, and still do not make enough to send their children to school with nutritious lunches; and it is not the family that saves up for a month to treat themselves to their favorite cereal. The real perpetrator of this crime is the bogus produce retailer right here in Washington who bought over $50,000 worth of food stamps for a reduced, cash price and tried to redeem them for full value; it is the owner of an Atlanta restaurant who illegally redeemed over $1.6 million in food stamps; and it is the restaurant owner in Maryland who bought almost $250,000 in food stamps from undercover Federal agents in exchange for cash and guns. Under this amendment, these criminals, who are taking food away from American families and dollars from American taxpayers, would be hit where it hurts the most--in their wallets. Forfeiture programs have proved to be a dramatic success in other Federal agencies, and it is time we create a disincentive for those who would traffic in food stamps. This amendment will tell these criminals, in no uncertain terms, that when they steal from the American taxpayers, we are going to get back all that was lost. Make no mistake, the Roberts Amendment is not about cutting the budget blindly, and it is not about punishing American families. It is about protecting food stamps for those who do not go hungry. And it is about declaring our commitment to protecting the American taxpayer.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As David McCullough said, it is like getting rid of the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I find it tragically ironic that in this era of fiscal belt-tightening some are trying to slash one of the wisest and cost-effective investments the Federal Government makes in its citizens. Eliminating funding for the NEA is a classic case of being pennywise and pound-foolish. The total budget for the NEA costs each citizen only 65 cents a year, and yet it leverages more than $1 billion every year from private donors. The activity generated by the NEA produces a huge economic and cultural impact on our society. In fact, a study by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey found that the total impact of the arts in the New York metropolitan region was more than $10 billion a year. 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. This amendment will undermine many of these organizations and do damage to our cultural heritage. It will take funds of out of our schools and away from our children. I urge my colleagues to heed the words of two witnesses at a recent hearing before the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee: Ken Burns, producer of the highly acclaimed ``Civil War'' and ``Baseball series'' on PBS, and David McCullough, Pulitzer Prize winning author of the biography on Harry Truman. Ken Burns declared emphatically that his Civil War series would not have been possible without the Endowment's support. And David McCullough pointed out that abolishing the NEA just because of a few ill-conceived or offensive programs would be like abolishing the U.S. Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. I couldn't have said it better myself. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will harm our Nation's schools and damage our cultural heritage. It must be defeated.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The cuts in this bill to the HOPWA Program, which this amendment restores, will be devastating to thousands of individuals with AIDS and their families. In New York City alone, almost 1,000 people living with AIDS would be in danger of being put out onto the streets if these funds are rescinded. And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the costs to society of throwing 1,000 persons with AIDS out onto the streets are far greater than the cost of providing them with housing. Hospitals are, by law, prohibited from denying emergency medical care, and it should come as no surprise that these individuals without housing will turn to hospitals. The average cost of hospital care for people with AIDS is 10 times the cost of home care. AIDS is a public health emergency, and we should treat it as such. The HOPWA Program is cost-effective and humane, and its elimination will result in greater costs to our entire social network. It will tax our already overcrowded hospital system, and will leave members of one or our Nation's most vulnerable populations homeless. It is estimated that while someone can live for 10 years with AIDS, the life expectancy for a person with AIDS who is homeless is 6 months. Mr. Chairman, eliminating this program would be cruel and unusual punishment to AIDS patients and their families who are already suffering immensely. The HOPWA Program will save money and keep families together. Support the Shays amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order.

Mrs. LOWEY. This to me just seems so unreasonable. This was taken out of the budget, it was taken out of the appropriate account. Not to be allowed to take a vote on this issue, considering the devastating impact of this on cities, on people----