Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our gracious chairman. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), someone who really knows about this issue because he was the former superintendent of schools in North Carolina.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the chairman and to advise him that I believe I have two more brief speeches.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. Udall of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a leader on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished leader in education, a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that we even have to debate the importance of these issues. Members from the other side of the aisle say that education is their number one priority. Then why has it been necessary for Members from this side of the aisle to fight to preserve our investment in class size reduction and finally begin our investment in local school construction? It has been 4 years since I conducted a survey of New York City schools and found that one in every four schools held classes in hallways, gymnasiums, bathrooms and janitors' closets. Two-thirds of these schools had substandard building features, such as roofs, walls and floors. I repeat, this was 4 years ago; and despite the outpouring of support from both sides of the aisle, Congress has not provided even one cent to alleviate overcrowding, and improve the physical condition of our schools. In fact, 2 days ago, when we considered the tax bill, we had the opportunity to include the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson school modernization bond proposal, and we did not. We in our local communities have an obligation to all children. We make the decisions locally and pay the taxes locally, but we as a Nation have an important role as well: to use Federal resources to encourage excellent programs, to jump start local investment, and to support national priorities. That is why I firmly believe that Congress must join with the President to support school modernization and smaller class sizes. We know that smaller class sizes means better learning for students and less disciplinary problems for teachers. By continuing our efforts to hire more teachers in the critical early grades, we can offer 2.9 million more children the benefits of more personal instruction and will see the results in their academic performance. We need to fix the shameful state of too many American schools. School enrollment is skyrocketing. We will need at least 2,400 new public schools by the year 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments and to relieve overcrowding. Our modernization needs are no less pressing. High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a luxury; yet we still have Pokemon-generation kids in classrooms straight out of Charles Dickens with their asbestos-filled ceilings and coal stoves. It would be laughable, I say to my colleagues, if it was not so disgraceful. In fact, the National Education Association estimates that the unmet school modernization needs in American schools total over $300 billion; and that is on top of what school districts and States are already spending. This problem is just too big for local and State officials to handle alone. Simply stated, we need dedicated programs to help local schools reduce class size and modernize their buildings. These are national problems that demand a national response. The Federal Government has a responsibility, I say to my colleagues, to ensure that public education is more than a promise, and our students cannot learn when they are stacked on top of each other and the walls are literally crumbling around them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees to provide full funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Before I make a few points, I just want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and I would encourage the FTC to continue the investigation of the oil companies that are making record, record profits. Secondly, with regard to points that were made by my good friends on the other side of the aisle, I think it is important that we emphasize that SPR is just being bid this month. It is going into circulation in November, and we do expect to see decreases in oil prices. But again I encourage the FTC to continue that investigation and to complete it as expeditiously as possible. My colleagues, I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for having this motion to instruct, because we know that LIHEAP is an absolutely essential program for the poor and elderly. When energy prices go up, low-income families and people on fixed incomes are hurt the most. This winter, energy prices are expected to be higher than ever. Stocks of home heating oil are at the lowest point in years, and the natural gas supply is also expected to tighten significantly this winter. This supply shortage will put prices up to twice that of last year. For millions of families, this massive increase in energy prices will force them to choose between heat and food. We cannot stand by and watch people have to make this choice. My colleagues, if we have to be here on a Saturday to ensure that the numbers are adequate to serve these seniors, the elderly, the poor, then I am pleased to be here, because this is a critical, critical issue. In New York alone, 1.8 million families are eligible for LIHEAP assistance.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I wanted to join my colleagues in saluting the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). I have known Michael since he has been here, and I can tell my colleagues that this is a man with great courage. I can think of several issues. But I can remember several years ago, it was 1996 I believe, when I introduced the school modernization bill. And now Republicans and Democrats, everyone, is talking about school modernization. But the gentleman was one of the four people at that point that were willing to sign to be part of the effort. You were a leader on school modernization because you understand how very important that issue was for his constituency. There are a lot of people who talk about it, who talk about a whole lot of issues, but the gentleman was the kind of person that would stand up for what he believes is right. And I think that was a perfect example. And whether it is school modernization or the Long Island Sound or health care, you were always there to get support for, to speak out for, to make sure that you were doing the best you could to fight for your constituents. Long Island Sound is an issue that I know you care passionately about, and you can be proud of the fact that you took a very important role in working hard to make the progress that has taken place in Long Island Sound. Now we have a lot more work to do certainly in dealing with the lobsters and the lobster men. You were right there on the front line. It has been such a pleasure for me to know you, to work with you. And I know that you will continue to make your mark no matter where you choose to make it and you and your wife Barbara and your family will continue to thrive and to grow and to make a difference. Frankly, that is why we are here in this Congress. That is why we are here in this great country of ours. We all try in some small way to make life better, to make our community better and our Nation better. And I know, just as the gentleman is willing to stand up for what he believes, to take the positions that you did in this Congress, you will continue to stand up for your beliefs, your concerns, your passion and make a difference in this life. You are a person with character. You are a person who really, truly is committed to making this a better world. I am delighted to salute you and to thank you for all you have done, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and keeping in touch with you.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on disagreeing with provisions in the Senate amendment which denies the President's request for dedicated resources to reduce class sizes in the early grades and for local school construction and, instead, broadly expands the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use of funds.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2614, which includes the so-called Medicare givebacks legislation. There are some good things in this bill. It includes an increase in the minimum wage over two years. It contains several incentives for Americans to save for their retirement. And it expands economic development assistance to underserved communities. But for as much as I support these provisions, I cannot support this bill. As so many of us know, the reductions in Medicare payments mandated by the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 hit our hospitals very hard. and frankly, the BBA relief measure that Congress passed last year was just not enough. Our hospitals nationwide are hemorrhaging from the impact of Medicare cuts. They need help to recover from these losses and cope with our rapidly changing health care system. Even with significant cuts in personnel, many hospitals are experiencing major deficits. And the plight of teaching and high-need hospitals is especially grim. That's why I introduced H.R. 3580, the Hospital Preservation and Equity Act, which would provide hospitals an adequate adjustment for the cost of caring and would restore the inflationary update for hospitals for the last two years of the BBA. I am not the only one who thinks this is critical--321 of my colleagues have cosponsored this legislation. These co-sponsors, our colleagues, come from every corner of this country, urban, rural, and suburban. They are Republicans and Democrats, but they agree--our hospitals need these inflationary payments in full, In fact, MedPac--the Congress's advisor on Medicare payment policy--has called for inflationary payment above the full level authorized now. But despite the overwhelming support for H.R. 3580, the Medicare givebacks language in this bill does not provide the needed two years of relief. And this bill shortchanges our hospitals in other ways as well. Instead of keeping the Indirect Medical Education adjustment at 6.5 percent for at least two years, this bill enacts further cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Our hospitals are our lifeblood, and they need our help. Sadly, this bill fails to provide adequate relief to these ailing facilities. We can and we must do more. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and provide meaningful relief to our hospitals.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and I want to thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who have worked so hard to craft this fair, bipartisan foreign operations bill. Of course, also our staff on both sides, who have done superb work on this bill. It goes a long way toward adequately funding United States foreign policy priorities, and it really has been a pleasure to work with the chairman and our ranking member. I thank them for their efforts and their superb work. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I would like to highlight just a few. First and foremost, this conference report removes the anti-democratic global gag rule restrictions that have threatened our international family planning programs throughout the past year. The language jeopardizes the lives of women around the world and undermines a key objective of United States foreign policy, the promotion of democracy around the world. I am also pleased that this bill fully funds our yearly aid package for Israel. As recent events have shown, helping Israel, our ally in the Middle East, maintain its qualitative military edge in the region, remains an urgent United States national security objective. The measure also provides $435 million for international debt relief, a hard-fought victory for our efforts to help the poorest of the poor throughout the world. One of the guiding principles of United States foreign policy is that, whenever possible, we should use our assistance to enable developing countries to stand on their own two feet. Because of this historic funding, many of the countries benefiting from these funds will, for the first time, be able to spend the necessary resources on health care and education for their citizens, rather than spending large percentages of their budget servicing debt. I am proud that the United States will be a partner in this international initiative. The conference report also demonstrates a strong commitment to combatting HIV-AIDS, and it also supports a high United States contribution to the global alliance for vaccines and immunizations and supports the international AIDS vaccine initiative, two multilateral efforts to combat the infectious diseases that cause widespread human devastation and cripple developing economies. Mr. Speaker, I stood up here many times before to share with my colleagues why I think our investment in foreign aid is so important. In my judgment, the single most important argument for this investment is that in times of great prosperity and burgeoning budget surpluses, we have a responsibility to help those who have been left behind. As a fortunate Nation, we have the moral obligation to alleviate some of the terrible, heartbreaking suffering in the world. But there is also another reason why our foreign assistance is so important. And that is because in the long run, we in the United States will reap the benefits from the stability shown by our aid. Countries that are now top candidates for foreign assistance can use our aid to strengthen their democracies, stabilize their economies, and improve the health and well-being of their citizens. I strongly support the bill and again thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition reluctantly to this conference report because I am shocked, frankly, and outraged about the way in which this bill was brought to the floor of the House. After months of negotiations on this bill, we have been given a day's notice to consider a measure that does not represent a true compromise and is still in the process of being worked out. I support efforts to ensure that those who are able to pay their debts are required to do so and to ensure that creditors extend and manage credit in a responsible manner; and I would like to see balanced, fair legislation that protects Americans from predatory lending practices and protects the assets of creditors from those who would abuse bankruptcy to avoid their debts; but this bill is lacking in a number of areas, and I would like to focus on one in particular. The Senate version of the bankruptcy bill included a provision requiring accountability from those who terrorize reproductive health clinics, their employees and the women who need their services. This provision, which received 80 votes, eight zero votes, in the Senate, would prevent those who are convicted of a crime from hiding behind the bankruptcy system in order to shield themselves from paying the consequences of their actions. Now, despite the fact that the President has said, again, that the clinic violence language must be included in final bankruptcy legislation for it to win his support, the provision was dropped. The proponents of the bill claim it will stop people from abusing the bankruptcy system; but by excluding the Schumer amendment individuals and organizations found to violate FACE, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, will have carte blanche to abuse the system. This is wrong. It does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, let us agree on a simple principle: violence and harassment have no place in our democratic system and using the bankruptcy code to evade the law, any law, is wrong and should not be tolerated. FACE passed with a broad bipartisan consensus. It has dramatically reduced violent incidents at health clinics, but we need the tools to fully enforce it, and any bankruptcy bill that does not hold these criminals accountable for their actions is a disgrace. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Dr. Jay Glat upon the occasion of his retirement. A superb dentist and an outstanding member of our community, Dr. Glat served his patients with kindness and respect for almost 40 years, meeting the highest standards of professional conduct and personal responsibility. Dr. Glat served his profession outside of the office as well, donating his time and expertise to numerous committees and boards on a local, state, and national level. He served as President of both the New York and Bronx County Dental Societies, as Delegate to the American Dental Association, and as General Chairman of the Greater New York Dental Meeting. During his many years of practice, Dr. Glat also received numerous honorary fellowships and distinguished service awards in recognition of his many achievements. Just as he faithfully provided care to his local community, Dr. Glat also served his country as a Lieutenant in the United States Dental Corp, exhibiting a tremendous degree of pride, commitment, and integrity in his work. The principles of service and sacrifice that have guided Dr. Glat's career have made him a tremendous credit not only to his family and our local community, but to the dental profession. While I am sorry to see Dr. Glat retire, I know that many have benefited from his care and dedication. I thank him and wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement years.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Transportation bill, and I wanted to congratulate both the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his courageous leadership on the .08 issue. We have been fighting for this a very long time. Without his hard work, we would not be at this point today. When I first introduced this legislation 3 years ago, I knew that it was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew that this was the right thing for the American people. Quite simply, this is about saving lives. Five hundred to 600 lives will be saved in the United States each year when every State adopts the .08 standard. Tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These two statistics are too compelling to ignore. What we are talking about is not putting our values on someone else. All we are saying is, if one is going to drink, just do not drive. This is the right standard. It is the right time. We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is 11 times greater at BACs between .08 and .09. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) again for his courageous work on this important issue. I rise today in strong support of the Transportation Appropriations bill. I am also pleased to announce that today, Congress is standing up in defense of safer roads. Congress is poised with this vote to make .08 the law of the land. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his courageous leadership on this issue. Without his hard work, we wouldn't be at this point today. When I first introduced legislation on this issue three years ago, I knew that it was going to be an uphill road to victory. I also knew that this was the right thing for the American people. Quite simply, this is about saving lives. 500-600 lives will be saved in the U.S. each year when every state adopts the .08 standard. And tens of thousands of injuries will be avoided. These statistics are too compelling to ignore. There are just too many accidents involving .08 drivers for us to stand by. This is the right standard and this is the right time. We know that the relative risk of a fatality on the road is eleven times greater at BACs between .05 and .09 than with no alcohol in your blood. And the Administration and the Department of Transportation released two reports last month showing that .08 works for states that have already adopted it. In fact, Illinois alone, which adopted .08 in 1997, has seen a 13.7% decline in the number of drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes. We have fought so hard for this standard over the cries of the restaurant and liquor lobbies. They say that ordinary people who have a glass of wine with dinner will be pulled over and charged with drunk driving. That's simply not true. It takes four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach to get a 170 pound man to .08. No dinner, just drinks. It takes four of them. That's a far cry from a glass of wine with dinner. We knew this then and we know it now. Drinking and driving do not mix. Again, I just want to express my great pleasure to announce this important victory today. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, last March I was honored to be in Southeast Asia. We heard the terrifying stories of trafficking victims and spoke with dedicated individuals who have devoted their lives to helping those women. Today, we have the opportunity to assure these women and children that they are not alone; that the international community recognizes their struggle and is committed to putting an end to this barbaric practice. This legislation devotes critical funds to helping foreign governments fight trafficking and assist their victims, and pledges the full force of U.S. law to stopping this practice here at home. This is an important step, and I support it wholeheartedly. I am especially delighted that this conference report contains the reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. For those of us who have been fighting for VAWA, today is a cause for celebration. But more importantly, this bill represents a major victory for the millions of American women who cannot advocate for themselves, women who suffer abuse in silence and in shame, women whose lives and liberty are jeopardized due to gender-based violence. It used to be that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault were ostracized by their communities, ignored by law enforcement, and even shunned by their own families. But VAWA has played a major role in changing that. It significantly bolstered criminal penalties for sex offenses, stalking, and domestic violence. And in just six years, VAWA has provided over $1.6 billion to support prosecutors, law enforcement, courts, shelters, support services, and prevention programs to combat violence against women. But we have so much work left to do. Experts estimate that 1.5 million women are victims of gender-based violence every year. An estimated one in three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by an intimate partner during her lifetime. And women throughout America will continue to suffer because they lack access to legal representation in obtaining orders of protection, filing divorce or custody cases, and disputing discrimination in the workplace. I'm so proud that we are at long last sending the Violence Against Women Act to the President. I'm also delighted that legislation I authored to expand victims' access to legal services has been included in this bill. Increasing funding for legal services to $40 million annually, improving the training of attorneys, and requiring cooperation between legal service providers and victims' organizations will all help empower thousands of women to break the cycle of abuse. Every woman--whether in our country or abroad--deserves to feel and be safe in her home, her workplace, and in her community. For our nation's women and women around the world, I urge my colleagues to pass this critical bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Violence Against Women Act. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially my good friend the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her hard work to reenact this landmark law. In just 6 years, VAWA has provided over $1.5 billion to support prosecutors, law enforcement, courts, shelters, support services, and prevention programs to combat violence against women. And it has worked. The Department of Justice reported earlier this year that intimate partner violence fell by over 20 percent from 1993 through 1998. In my district, the Queens County District Attorney has more than doubled the rate of conviction for domestic violence-related crimes since his office started to receive VAWA funding. But there is so much more to do. I am so pleased that my legislation that I introduced has been included in this bill, the Access to Safety and Advocacy Act, which will significantly expand civil legal assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The bill will increase Federal funding and do so many other good things. And every woman deserves to feel and be safe in her home, her workplace, and her community. I thank my colleagues again for moving this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill say it is about protecting newborns. We can all agree that newborns deserve appropriate medical support and the fullest protection of the law no matter the circumstances of delivery. In fact, newborn infants already receive full legal protection in State and Federal law. Any attempt to harm a newborn can and should be subject to criminal prosecution. Everyone agrees on this. Yet, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), my friend, has also said that this bill would not change existing law and would have no impact on medical standards of care. Then what is the rationale for this bill? Dr. Sessions Cole, who trained at Harvard Medical School, who is board certified in pediatrics and has cared for more than 10,000 newborns directly, believes it would change the standard of care. In testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. Cole stated that the bill would ``impose on doctors and parents a universal definition of `life' or `alive' which is,'' he said, ``in my experience as a neonatologist, inconsistent with the harsh reality presented by a number of circumstances.'' Dr. Cole went on to discuss the obligation of parents and doctors to minimize the suffering an infant might endure once the decision is made that life support or other measures would be futile for that infant. I share his concern about the impact this law may have on parents who desperately hope to bring home the healthy newborn and, instead, are confronted with a tragic situation. It is enough for these parents to listen carefully to the physician, seek second or third opinions, hear counsel from their rabbi, priest, or minister and discuss it with their families. Congress has no business adding to their anguish or extending their grief by forcing neonatologists to follow what Dr. Cole called an ``unnecessary and unrealistic definition of life.'' The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and other antichoice lawmakers could genuinely demonstrate concern about maternal and child health by promoting legislation that improves access to prenatal care, fosters research that reduces premature birth rates, and broadens the availability and affordability of health insurance. Instead, we have a bill on the floor, Mr. Speaker which has had one subcommittee hearing and a quick markup. I think Dr. Sessions Cole and others have raised important concerns about changing the definition of ``life'' or ``alive'' or ``person.'' In the end, it is families and newborns that will suffer. Because I strongly believe that we should not be playing politics with appropriate and compassionate care for all newborns, I will oppose the bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5272, the Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership on this issue and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I am a proud cosponsor of his bill, the Middle East Peace Process Support Act, which provided the foundation for the legislation we are considering today. I share the frustration and impatience of those who have waited decades for a peace that will safeguard Israel's security and regional stability. After 7 long years of negotiations, an agreement is within reach, and we recognize how important it is that both parties remain dedicated to the completion of this difficult process. We also recognize the damage that could be inflicted by unilateral acts of irresponsible brinksmanship. Compromise, not nonnegotiable demands and political posturing, must guide the peace process. H.R. 5272 demonstrates unflinching Congressional support for a fair, negotiated peace agreement. This bill simply states that the United States will not recognize nor will it reward the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. The rejection of negotiation as the path toward peace is unacceptable, and we have the opportunity to make this clear today. In the coming weeks, the most difficult issues in the peace process will be on the table, and now, more than ever before, Israel and the Palestinians must show their dedication to realizing the dreams of the Oslo Accords. Let this legislation be a warning: If Chairman Arafat rejects the fundamental precept of Oslo, if he chooses to squander this historic opportunity for peace, the United States' response will be swift and unequivocal. I have strongly supported generous assistance for governments in the Middle East who have recognized the value of negotiation and cooperation in the pursuit of peace. But make no mistake, our foreign assistance is too dear to waste on regimes bent on self-destructive actions and guerilla tactics. We must send this message to Chairman Arafat today. Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill is irrelevant. I hope its provisions are never tested and that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians bear real fruit. But if the future brings a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence and a rejection of these negotiations, we must remain steadfast in our support for the peace process and strong in our condemnation of those who would derail this historic opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to recognize Cristina Teuscher, a resident of the City of New Rochelle, NY and winner of a bronze medal at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. No athletic contest provides a showcase for the world's talent like the Olympics, and no personal accomplishment is greater than medaling in an individual event. in 1996, still only a recent high school graduate, Cristina won gold in the 800 meter freestyle relay. This year, she added a bronze medal in the 200 meter individual medley to her list of Olympic achievements. Cristina's brave performance throughout the race and remarkable sprint in the final fifty meters were inspirational. Undisturbed when she fell behind early, Cristina perserved and reached the wall with her personal-best time. Cristina's accomplishments, however, have extended beyond the reaches of a pool. Once an outstanding student at New Rochelle High School, Cristina recently graduated from Columbia University, assuring that her success in life will extend well into the future. It is my pleasure to congratulate Cristina and her family on this momentous occasion. Cristina is a credit not only to the City of New Rochelle, but to the entire United States, and to all great swimmers throughout the world.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I express my great admiration for Judge Samuel G. Fredman, a man of high principle, piercing intelligence, and boundless commitment to service. Admitted to the Bar more than fifty years ago, Judge Fredman has always expressed a burning passion for the law and for the enduring principles upon which it is based. First in private practice, and then as a New York State Supreme Court Justice, Judge Fredman has been universally recognized for his integrity, decency, and legal acumen. Judge Fredman's contributions to our community, however, extend far beyond his professional obligations. He has been among the great political leaders in Westchester's history, chairing the Westchester County Democratic Committee, helping to lead the New York State Democratic Committee, and inspiring countless men and women to seek public office. At the same time, Judge Fredman has devoted considerable time and energy to a wide variety of community organizations. Whether raising funds for the White Plains Hospital, helping to shape the charters of White Plains and Westchester, building support for local libraries, or leading the Westchester Jewish Conference, Judge Fredman commands the trust and respect of all with whom he works. It is entirely fitting that Judge Fredman should be recognized for a lifetime of remarkable service and for the high ideals he so clearly embodies. I am pleased to join the chorus of tribute for a good friend and outstanding human being.