Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it denies us the opportunity to make critical decisions about our spending priorities. This bill contains deep cuts in education and student aid, in assistance programs for seniors, in veterans programs, in health programs for pregnant women, and in antidrug programs. On the other hand, the bill contains no cuts in pork projects, no cuts in unnecessary weapons systems, and no cuts in wasteful programs. This bill cuts the muscle and leaves the fat. Worse, the rule doesn't give us chance to offer any real amendments to make the bill better. For example, I had hoped to offer an amendment today to eliminate the cuts in funding to Public Broadcasting contained in this bill--but this restrictive gag rule would force me to make additional cuts in education or health programs that have already been cut too deeply. There are other programs rule will not let me. The $141 million cut in funding for Public Broadcasting contained in this bill would result in 80 stations being forced to shut down and would mean the elimination of locally produced public television and radio shows. And this is only the beginning. This cut was not made to save money--it was made to eliminate public television entirely. Make no mistake: this bill is a wrecking ball aimed straight at ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' and at ``Sesame Street.'' Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership is waging an ideological holy war against public broadcasting. Opposing this effort are millions of American families who watch public television and listen to public radio every day. Mr. Speaker, this bill will mean a lot fewer cookies for my friend here--and as a mother of three children I can tell you that Cookie Monster and the other Muppets are among the best friends that any kid will ever have. Anyone who wants to take the Muppets off public television will have a lot of explaining to do to the children of America--and their parents too. Make no mistake: this debate is about Oscar the Grouch, and Big Bird, and Ernie, and Bert. The new Republican majority has put them on the chopping block. Mr. Speaker, ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' is much more popular than Mr. Gingrich's. ``Sesame Street'' is a far healthier environment for children than Capitol Hill. The Muppets are far more popular than this Congress, and we should think twice before we eliminate them. Defeat the rule so that we can offer an amendment to save Sesame Street from the wrecking crew.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Crane amendment to impose further cuts on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In fact, had the rule not be so restrictive, I would have offered my own amendment to cut those cuts even further rather than increasing them. The House Republican leadership has launched an all-out attack against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as wasteful government spending and as culturally elite. This amendment hastens the planned demise of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and reveals very clearly the extremist agenda of the Republican majority. If you oppose violence in the media, you will oppose this amendment. Public broadcasting, Sesame Street, Prairie Home Companion, and other public programming provide an alternative for preschoolers, families, elderly Americans who want to avoid the violence of too much of commercial broadcasting. If you disagree with the Republican leadership claim that public broadcasting represents a subsidy for the culturally elite, you will oppose this amendment. Nearly half of public broadcasting's audience are middle-income- family individuals. Calling public broadcasting culturally elite is an insult to the millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans who watch public television or listen to public radio. If you oppose the commercialization of public broadcasting, you will oppose this amendment. You will oppose this amendment, because opponents of public broadcasting seek to privatize public broadcasting and allow commercial interests to take it over. The fact is public broadcasting could not support itself solely through revenues from its successful shows and should not support itself through commercials. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Crane amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear what this is all about. As a member of the committee, there is no question in my mind that the Republican majority just wants to get rid of OSHA. This is just a downpayment in putting OSHA on the chopping block. There is no question about it. Let us also make it very clear that there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. In fact, this rulemaking was started under a Republican administration. Former Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole made the decision to develop an ergonomics rule in 1990. Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin initiated the rulemaking with the request for comments in 1992. What they want to do is just to stop all discussion and stifle any debate. Mr. Chairman, this should proceed so there can be careful, thoughtful consideration by employers, workers, unions, and others that can have input on this important rule. This ergonomics rule has not even been proposed right now. I suggest that we vote down this amendment so we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

Mrs. LOWEY. I would just like to thank the gentleman for clarifying my statement even further. In fact, what this amendment does do, as you suggest, is hasten the demise of public broadcasting, because, in fact, you are increasing from 15 to 36 percent the cuts in 1996 and from 30 percent to 68 percent the cuts in the following year. So you are hastening the demise of public broadcasting, and I thank you for your clarification.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158, the omnibus rescissions and disaster supplemental appropriations bill. I strongly disagree with the priorities laid out by this bill. This bill cuts the muscle but leaves the fat. We owe the American people deficit reduction that builds on the major reductions we have made in the last 2 years. There are cuts we should make. We can and should cut the strategic petroleum reserve, abolish numerous Federal commissions, eliminate the Aerospace Marketing Division within the Department of Commerce, modify the Triad force structure and delay the F-22 aircraft. These are just a few of the cuts I have advocated and will continue to push. But the bill does not touch these programs, and the rule does not allow us to offer amendments to make those cuts instead of the cuts in this bill, fighting drugs and crime in the schools, helping students attend college, providing nutrition to infants and pregnant women, supporting education and public broadcasting, offering summer job opportunities. These are not the cuts we should be making. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jack Scarangella--a resident of the 18th Congressional District of New York--for his enduring commitment to our Nation's senior citizens, and for his extraordinary service to the best traditions of public leadership. On January 20, Jack Scarangella retired as the District Manager of the Social Security Administration for the New Rochelle, NY area, which I proudly represent. Jack has dedicated the last 46 years of his life to Government service, overseeing tens of thousands of Social Security claims each year. He began his career with Social Security as a claims examiner in 1951, and 5 years later became the New Rochelle District Manager, a post he then held until the day he retired. Jack's inspired leadership, creative decision making, and insistence on reevaluating the way the Social Security Administration conducts business have improved the efficiency of the Social Security Administration and helped enhance service to Social Security beneficiaries. He has been recognized for the improvements in operational procedures he has helped implement over the years through the receipt of numerous awards for performance and service. The fact that Jack received another such award just last year is testament to the fact that he was as ambitious and dedicated at the end of his career as he was when he first joined the Social Security Administration almost five decades earlier. Jack was not content to help only those recipients who came through his doors or whose problems crossed his desk. That is why he enlisted the support of prominent citizens and local celebrities in information campaigns, hosted a weekly radio show on WVOX featuring questions and answers on topical agency issues, and hosted a community access show on TCI cable. Initiatives and public forums such as these have allowed Jack to expand public knowledge and, in turn, assist countless older Americans and their families with the Social Security system. Mr. Speaker, these years of service alone would have been enough to merit recognition. Jack Scarangella, however, has been more than a dedicated worker. Jack has felt committed to his entire community, not just those in need of assistance with Social Security. He has been active in civic life through his work with Westchester 2000, the Chamber of Commerce, the Boys' and Girls' Club, the American Heart Association, Legal Awareness of Westchester, and several other local service organizations. I am confident that his service will continue for years to come. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the friends, colleagues, admirers, and family of Jack Scarangella, I hereby express heartfelt appreciation for his years of service and recognize the joyous occasion of his retirement.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I unavoidably missed rollcall vote No. 220. Had I been there, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to Commemorate International Women's Day. Today we celebrate the victories and commemorate the struggles of women around the globe. While women have made considerable progress in the struggle for civil rights and equity, we still have a long way to go. Women have gained greater access to education. But currently, throughout the world there are about 85 million fewer girls enrolled in school than there are boys, despite nearly equal numbers of girls and boys in the world. We must do better. Women have gained greater access to jobs and the economy, but currently, women compromise nearly two-thirds of the world's illiterate population. We must do better. Women have fought, in this country and around the world, to gain access to adequate health care and full reproductive rights. But an estimated 500,000 women die each year from pregnancy related causes, including unsafe abortions. And in this country, the debate over abortion rights, and recent actions to eliminate that right in the case of victims of rape and incest, threatens to undermine the health and safety of women. We must do better. Mr. Speaker, the upcoming U.N. Fourth International Conference on Women will provide us an opportunity to look at how we might do better. I join my colleagues in commemorating today, International Women's Day. It is for women.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we see the actions of the extreme, mean- spirited Republican majority every day cut school lunch, cut student loans, cut drug-free schools, and tomorrow the extreme Republican majority will introduce an amendment to prohibit the most vulnerable in our society, victims of rape and incest, from terminating an abortion; it is hard to believe, the most vulnerable, victims of rape and incest. In fact, the majority of the American people think that that should be legal. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, in saying that he would speak out against the Istook amendment and vote against the Istook amendment. I do hope he can contain the extreme right wing radical part of his Republican majority.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today's New York Times poll demonstrates that the new right-wing Republican majority is thoroughly out of the mainstream and completely out of touch. On issue after issue the American people overwhelmingly reject the extremist proposals being offered by the right-wings Republicans. Just look at the Republican agenda: They refused to protect Social Security from the budget ax, they gutted legislation to put 100,000 new police on the beat, they promise to cut student loans, and they slashed school lunches for hungry children. To middle-class parents struggling to send their children to college the Republicans say: Tough luck. They tell 7-year-old children who cannot afford a school lunch: Go hungry. To seniors worried about Social Security the Republicans say: Take our word for it--the check's in the mail. Mr. Speaker, Democrats know that the American people want sensible change--not a radical right-wing revolution. It is time for the Republican reign of terror to end.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I rise today in strong opposition to the $1.4 billion in nondefense rescissions contained in H.R. 889, and in support of the Obey amendment. Pouring an additional $700 million into the Pentagon's coffers, above and beyond what it needs, makes absolutely no sense. But offsetting those increases with cuts in funding for programs such as job training, school restoration, and the renovation of a vital component of our Nation's transportation infrastructure is bad policy, plain and simple. Is this the mandate that the voters sent last November? I don't believe so. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the priorities reflected in this bill are fundamentally flawed. This is a classic guns versus butter debate. Instead of having the Pentagon trim some of its own fat this bill asks our children to shoulder the costs. Talk about short-sightedness: cutting $100 million needed for the repair, renovation, and construction of public elementary and secondary schools and slashing $200 million from the Department of Labor's training and employment services should make very clear who is serious about job creation, wage enhancement, and the American dream. Actions speak louder than words. The legislation will also have a devastating impact upon one of the linchpins of our Nation's entire transportation infrastructure. I am speaking of the proposed rescission of $40 million for the redevelopment of Penn Station in New York City. Mr. Chairman, it's pick on New York time again. Seventy five million passengers pass through Penn Station every year--that's 500,000 passengers a day. Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest station in the country. In fact, it serves more than 40 percent of all of Amtrak's passengers nationwide. It is also the hub for the New York City transit system, the Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit. But ask any one of those passengers and they will tell you that the principal rail station of the largest city in the United States is falling apart. Penn Station is dangerous, and within 10 years the station is projected to exceed its maximum pedestrian occupancy level. In order to address this situation, the Federal Government, the State of New York, and New York City have embarked on a cooperative plan to rebuild Penn Station. This project enjoys bipartisan support, including that of Senators Moynihan and D'Amato, Gov. George Pataki, and Mayor Guiliani. Mr. Chairman, the contract on America has claimed it's first victim from New York, it is outrageous that the Republican majority is stealing from Penn Station to increase the Pentagon's budget. There is no good reason why this project was singled out for the budget ax-- except for the fact that New York bashing is always in season. Only a third of the funds for this project will come directly from the Federal Government, but much will be gained by that investment: the renovation of the station will make Amtrak less dependent on Federal subsidies. It will increase train travel, reducing our Nation's dependency on foreign oil, cutting down on harmful auto emissions that dirty our air, and easing the growing gridlock on our highways. The shops, restaurants, and other businesses that will develop in and around the station will also mean much-needed revenues for the local economy and the Federal Treasury. The same people who criticize New York City for being too dirty and crowded are the ones most against efforts to improve Penn Station. But anyone who doubts the merits of the station's redevelopment project need only look a few blocks from where we stand today--to Union Station. Once an uninviting and unsafe gateway to our Nation's Capital, Union Station--rebuilt with millions of Federal dollars--now stands as a national model for urban renewal. I think most of my colleagues would agree that the money spent on Union Station was a wise investment. So, too, will be this investment in Penn Station.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the League of Women Voters on 75 years of extraordinary service to our democracy. In 1920, women throughout the Nation cast their first ballot for Congress and President of the United States, forever changing the character of our country and of our politics. It was the League of Women Voters which informed and engaged these millions of newly enfranchised citizens. Today, the League of Women Voters has over 1,000 chapters with some 150,000 members, both women and men. It continues to shape our public dialogue through study of major policy questions, and through the encouragement of community service and participation. In Westchester County, where I live, the League of Women Voters is a leading sponsor of progressive reforms. Each year, the league produces thousands of voter guides to help us make informed decisions, publishes a directory of elected officials, and sponsors scores of debates with ample opportunity for citizen involvement. That vibrant tradition has helped produce leaders such as Ruth Hinerfeld, who rose to lead the national league organization after a long and successful experience with the Westchester chapter. I am also very proud to say that the founder of the League of Women Voters, Carrie Chapman Catt, chose to spend the last decades of her life in New Rochelle. Today, the city of New Rochelle and its local league chapter are temporarily renaming Paine Avenue, where Mrs. Catt lived, League of Women Voters Avenue. It is a fitting tribute to a leader whose remarkable works continue to shape our lives. Mr. Speaker, 75 years after its founding, the league's mission is as essential as ever. For though the right to vote is secure, the responsible exercise of that right remains an ideal for which we shall ever strive. It is a pleasure to thank the league for all it has done, and all it will do.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the escalating levels of violence directed at reproductive health facilities around the Nation. That is the shame. The violence has been elevated by the extremists, the radical right wing, not this debate. The tragic murders in Brookline last December were just the latest and most horrible in a series of violent incidents that have left five Americans dead and nine wounded. Every day reproductive health clinics and the doctors who staff them are subject to harassment and intimidation. In the last year alone over half of all reproductive health clinics in the United States experienced a violent incident. There have been literally hundreds of arson and chemical attacks and bomb threats against clinics around the Nation. This nationwide terror campaign is clearly designed to undermine the constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. We must respond. The Schroeder amendment would help address this problem by allowing local law enforcement to use a portion of their block grant to enhance the security of reproductive health clinics within their jurisdictions. Make no mistake: The Schroeder amendment would help save the lives of doctors and their patients. To those who say that reproductive health clinics should accept routine violence as a cost of doing business, we say that organized terrorism and murder must never become routine in the United States. Before my colleagues cast this vote I urge them to consider the hundreds of doctors in this Nation who wear bulletproof vests to work every day. I urge them to think of the millions of American women who receive their basic medical care from reproductive health clinics every year. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't turn your backs on them. They are our daughters, mothers, sisters, wives. They are in danger, and they need our help.'' Mr. Chairman, a vote against the Schroeder amendment is a vote against protecting doctors and women. Let us help put the network of pro-life violence out of business. Let us pass the Schroeder amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the radical right opposes Dr. Foster's nomination for one reason, and one reason only: because he performed abortions. The other objections are just a smokescreen. This is not about Dr. Foster's credibility and it is not about hysterectomies. It is about the right to choose. The American people will not allow a narrow band of extremist special interest groups to derail Dr. Foster's nomination. The majority of Americans do not want the right to pick our Nation's next Surgeon General. The new anti-choice majority in Congress wants to use this nomination to take American women backward. They want to completely roll back the right to choose. This is just the opening round in that battle. Mr. Speaker, we will not back down. We will not tolerate the harassment of doctors, whether it occurs in front of clinics or on Capitol Hill. Dr. Foster is in this fight to the finish and he is going to win.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the right to terminate a pregnancy is contained in our Constitution, affirmed by our legislatures, upheld by our courts, and supported by the American people. It has been the law of the land in all 50 States for over 20 years, and by vast majorities, the public believes it should remain so. But today, a war is being waged on that right. For a radical minority, it is a violent war, unleashed on doctors and clinics from Pensacola to Brookline. For others, it is a cold war of intimidation, fought with ugly scare tactics, innuendo, and political pressure. A new front in the assault on women's health has opened up on the floor of Congress, and its first casualty is the reputation of an outstanding physician ready to serve the public, Dr. Henry Foster. Dr. Foster is among the most respected citizens of Tennessee. He has had an extraordinary career as an obstetrician and educator, treating literally thousands of patients, counseling teenagers, confronting every kind of social and medical dilemma, and dealing with the human consequences of our public health decisions. Dr. Foster's commitment to the prevention of teen pregnancy, perhaps the most urgent social challenge facing us today, establishes him as a national authority on the subject. His passion for the children of America, and his real experience with teenagers in troubled relationships make him ideally suited to be Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Foster is the right person, at the right time, for the right job. And that is why it is so tragic to see his record and character recklessly attacked by individuals who have done nothing to promote our Nation's health, and entirely too much to threaten it. The antichoice strategy is clear. Because they cannot achieve their real objective of criminalizing abortion, antichoice forces are instead of pursuing a strategy of de facto abolition--making abortion unavailable by stigmatizing doctors, and by discouraging the study of abortion procedures in medical schools. Sadly, those tactics have been all too successful. Today, less than 20 percent of the counties in America have an abortion provider--less than 20. For the women who live in the other 80 percent, the right to choose is a paper promise, growing thinner everyday, and threatening to disappear entirely. It's really quite simple. If you can't make aborition a crime, then just treat abortion providers as though they were criminals. And that is what's happening now. Make no mistake, this is no numbers game--whether it's 1 or 12 or 40 is irrelevant. And there is no question about Dr. Foster's character and ability--he has proven both, over and over. It is the right to choose itself that is under siege, because if a man like Dr. Foster can be denied confirmation on this basis--for engaging in a legal, appropriate, responsible medical practice--then doctors everywhere will shrink from the challenge of reproductive health. And women will return to the back alley and the emergency room. Opponents of this nomination may not have the guts to spell it out, but they know full well that this is a veiled attack on the right to choose. I am the mother of three children. And though I have never had to face the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, I know what it means to raise a family, to care for child, and to assume responsibility for the next generation. There is no more personal or emotional decision than the one to bring a new life into the world. Dr. Foster has done a tremendous amount to help young people come to grips with the weight of that decision, and to discourage the irresponsibility and the ignorance which can lead to teen pregnancy and abortion. Like most Americans, he believes that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Unlike so many of his critics, he has actually done something to make that goal a reality. It would be a disgrace for this Congress to deny to the American people the benefit of Dr. Foster's service simply because he performed his duty as a medical doctor, and obeyed the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, our children deserve better. We will fight to preserve their health, their rights, and their future.

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues well know, the legislation before us permits rescissions which will go into effect if we do not pass legislation to reinstate them, but, under H.R. 2, when the rescissions are sent to us, we have one choice and one choice only, take it or leave it. For a number of reasons I think that is ill advised, and this amendment is designed to enable us to look at each proposed rescission item individually and act on its merits. First, the stated purpose of this legislation is to rid spending bills of unnecessary and wasteful items. That is a goal we all share. But under H.R. 2, with its all-or-nothing approach, it is conceivable that the Congress would find ourselves in the position of voting to reject a rescission package because it includes one or a few items that was strongly felt are important to maintain. In doing so we would have no choice but to protect projects that a majority of us might agree with the President should be cut. The end result: more spending, not less spending. Let me give my colleagues an example: The President might decide that we have appropriated funds that he thinks unnecessary for the State revolving loan fund which helps finance sewer treatment plants' upgrades, but a majority might disagree with his judgment. That would be in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. That same bill might include another item that the President feels is pork, and a majority of this House might agree on that. Under the committee bill, without this amendment to save those sewerage treatment funds, we would have to also save that project which we otherwise would be willing to kill. That does not help reduce the deficit. Second, all of us know that this legislation does directly impact the balance of powers between the three branches of our Government that was carefully developed by the Founding Fathers. In doing so I think we have a responsibility to consider how far we want to go in shifting the balance, and in this instance I firmly believe that this legislation, as currently drafted, goes too far. In effect the bill, in giving the President the power to pick and choose among individual items in appropriations and revenue measures, has denied the Congress the final authority to do the same thing. Third, advocates of the line-item veto have said time and time again that they are only attempting to give the President of the United States the same line-item veto authority which Governors of various States enjoy. If indeed our goal is to narrow the authority of the various governors, then we should duplicate at the Federal level the authority that most of them in their legislature have. In my home State of New York, for example, and dozens of others where Governors have line-item veto authority, the legislatures have retained the power to selectively approve or reject from among the line items. Let me share with my colleagues a list of States where the line-item veto protects the role of legislators to examine these items: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In only four, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, and Pennsylvania, do legislatures face the all-or-nothing situation that this legislation would impose on us, and in the case of Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, the State constitution would allow item by item consideration, but the legislature has decided in its own rules to respond to line items en bloc. With regard to the balance of the States, our review of constitutional provisions shows that at least in their constitutions their legislators are not restricted to the all-or-nothing option. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from Florida in an effort to improve on this legislation, not to destroy it. When it comes to altering the balance of power under which our Government has functioned for over 200 years, caution should be our guiding principle. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. Ideally I would have preferred that this amendment not include the 50 Member threshold before an item can be voted on separately, but I am pleased to join the gentlewoman from Florida in this compromise. It is an important and valuable step in the right direction, and I urge support of this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment. I would have been willing to live with the responsibility to take a vote on each of the amendments, but since it is very obvious it would not have been accepted, I am very happy to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man whose contributions to his community speak volumes for the ability of one human being to have a positive impact on the lives of others. In a time when individuals seem to be focusing increasingly on their own welfare, Marc Haken, who already has made significant contributions to the Queens community as a teacher and community activist, has discovered yet another way to have a profound impact on his fellow New Yorkers. For the last 3 years, Marc has made at least 1 monthly donation to the Queens Library Foundation's Buy-a-Book program to help expand the library's collection. You see, Marc learned at a young age that the ability and desire to read opens the door to a world of ideas and opportunities. The 37 books that Marc has donated to this point, each dedicated to a deserving individual, will enrich the lives of Queens residents for years to come, leaving behind a legacy of commitment to community in which we can all share. I hope it serves as an example to others. Mr. Speaker, I'm inserting into the Record a January 8, 1995, article published in the Queens Library newsletter which elaborates on the meaningful contributions made by this fine citizen: Community Leader Champions Buy-A-Book Campaign Contributing to the Queens Library Foundation's Buy-a-Book program has become something of an obsession for Marc Haken. Since first learning about the opportunity to put new books into the Library's collection through Buy-a-Book, Mr. Haken, a teacher, community activist and lifelong Queens resident, has been the program's most enthusiastic supporter. Each month for the past two years, he has faithfully contributed at least one $25 donation to purchase a book. In all, his donations have enabled the Library to acquire 37 new books-- books that Queens Library would otherwise have been unable to offer. While some might consider his generosity unusual or excessive, Mr. Haken knows well the great value of books and libraries, and believes that contributing to Buy-a-Book is the last he can do to repay the Library which helped make him a success. As a junior high school teacher, vice chair of Community Board 8, president of a housing association, political lobbyist and member of countless community organizations, Mr. Haken leads a full and contented life. However, he realizes that if Queens Library's limitless resources had not been available to him as a child, his life may have taken a much different course. ``It's frightening to think back on it today, but I almost slipped through elementary school without learning to read,'' Mr. Haken said. ``Thankfully, my sixth grade teacher recognized the problem and insisted that I begin learning to read and taking my education seriously.'' That was just the push Mr. Haken needed. Each day following school, he walked directly to Queens Library's Central Library, then located on Parsons Boulevard, and spent all afternoon devouring books, determine to compensate for lost time. ``I wasn't even concerned with subject matter at the time, I only wanted to improve my reading skills,'' Mr. Haken related. ``I'd simply pick a shelf in the library and return every day until I'd read every book on that shelf. Somewhere in the process, I began appreciating all the wonders of reading. I realized my mind was opening and new worlds were presenting themselves.'' Mr. Haken believes that the voracious appetite he developed for reading led directly to his desire to teach, and his commitment to community service. He considers himself fortunate to have built a rich and satisfying life, and feels that he can best express his gratitude by providing opportunities for others, particularly young people. The Buy-a-Book program, he said, offers a simple but ideal way for him to have a meaningful impact in the community. ``I'm not a wealthy guy financially. I don't have the means to donate thousands of dollars. The beauty of this program is that for $25, I can give a gift that will last for years and enrich the minds of dozens, maybe hundreds of people. Surely I can find $25 for that.'' Mr. Haken also enjoys the fact that Buy-a-Book contributors are invited to dedicate each donated book, with an inscription inside the bookcover, to a person of their choice. ``I've found that people are absolutely thrilled to be recognized in this way. They consider it a wonderful gesture,'' he said. ``One young man to whom I dedicated a book continually visits the Library just to see the book and ensure that it's in good condition.'' For the first 20 or so books, deciding who to honor was simple: his sister Clair, colleagues, neighbors, and the memory of his parents and other relatives who have passed away. Having donated 37 books at this point, he has been forced to become more inventive in conceiving dedications. ``For my last book,'' he laughed, ``I simply drew a blank, so I figured why not pay tribute to myself.'' That, certainly, was an indulgence he richly deserved. To become a Buy-a-Book donor, send a check payable to Queens Library Foundation to: Queens Library Foundation, 89- 11 Merrick Boulevard, Jamaica, NY, 11432. Donors may indicate the name of the person to whom they wish to dedicate the book and the branch library or Central Library division where they would like the book to be shelved. For more information, call the Queens Library Foundation at (718) 990-0849.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last night the American people heard President Clinton present a positive agenda for America's long forgotten middle class. He held out an olive branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and said the Democrats and Republicans must come together for the public good. But the President also made it very clear that we will not allow the new Republican majority to undermine the progress we have made in fighting crime, protecting the environment, and improving education. When the Republicans propose radical ideas like eliminating the FDA, federalizing divorce laws, criminalizing abortions, and slashing Medicare and Social Security, we will oppose them every step of the way. We want to move this country ahead to the 21st century, not go back to the 19th. We are going to continue to fight for our hard-working families. We will work to pass a middle class tax cut to help families pay the mortgage and send their children to school. We will continue to reinvent government and cut bureaucracy, and we will not slash Social Security and Medicare. Can our Republicans say the same?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, unfunded mandates have gotten out of control. State and local governments have every reason to be frustrated. They do need relief. But we were elected and have a responsibility to do this right. Too much is at stake to just pass a bill without adequate hearings, without really listening to the people and say it is the answer and just ignore the consequences. Not every mandate is the same, but this bill paints them all with the same brush. Under this bill, a mandate to prevent communities from dumping toxic chemicals into rivers that then destroy bodies of water like Long Island Sound and an absurd requirement that New York City has to wash its jail cells three times a day are treated alike. Likewise, the authors of this bill make no distinction between mandates to protect our children from abuse and requirements on the format of government reports. Not all mandates are created equal, and this bill should not treat them the same. Over the next few days, we are going to discuss this issue.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Towns amendment. The flaw in this legislation which he is attempting to correct is at the heart of our Federal system of government. There are responsibilities that clearly must be directed by the Federal Government and which, to be effective, must be complied with by State and local governments as well as the private sector. We should not forget that our Constitution, including the interstate commerce clause, was written in the context of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Turning to the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: Not to confer in each case a degree of power, commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, an improvidently to trust the great interests of the Nation to hands, which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success. the same disability to effectively address compelling interstate problems that the framers of the Constitution intentionally worked to avoid. In discussing this point, Madison referred to the case of one State disrupting the shipment of goods destined for another State and rightly pointed to the need for the Federal Government to have authority over such matters. Today, the same need exists in many instances where the actions of one State or locality impact on residents of another State. We can all think of instances in our own communities where it only makes sense that Federal policy must be implemented to protect the citizens of our own State against the harmful acts outside our own State's borders. I have talked before during this debate about the problems confronting the Long Island Sound. The deterioration of that body of water has had a clear harmful effect on the people of New York. The degradation has hurt our economy, costing jobs. It has destroyed a valuable recreational resource. It has undermined property values. And that deterioration has been caused not only by New York, but by activities in Connecticut, Massachusetts and beyond. If this Congress does not have the authority to require State and local governments in all of those States to bear shared responsibility to address this problem, we will have no choice but to abdicate our constitutional responsibility to achieve a remedy. This is certainly not the answer those I represent would want. Some of my colleagues might say that this legislation will not stop us from addressing such problems, but will simply require the Federal Government to cover the costs of our mandated policies. But I ask my colleagues, does that indeed make sense? A simplistic answer might be yes, but on reflection we can all see that clean water requirements not only have interstate benefits but also have important and valuable local benefits. In light of that, while Federal help is totally appropriate, a local contribution is justified as well. As this amendment is considered, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the words of our Founding Fathers about the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation and to think about problems facing their own constituents. As we work to address legitimate concerns about intergovernmental relationships, the experiences of our Nation's early experience with the Articles of Confederation should not be ignored. As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, reforms are needed to bring about an end to the senseless unfunded mandates which we all know exist and which can be cleared away. But we should not destroy our Government's ability to effectively fulfill its responsibilities to protect the citizens of one State from harm caused by unwise policies in another State. As the Articles of Confederation prove, these interstate issues can only be sensible, effectively and fairly resolved at the Federal level. I urge my colleagues to support the Towns amendment.