Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my deep disappointment that this bill does not include the President's request for $150 million to fund 1,000 State and local prosecutors in high gun violence areas. And I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for their important work on this issue. If there was one thing it seemed most Members of this Congress agreed on, it was the important role that enforcement of gun laws plays in making our communities safer. My amendment would provide funding for this purpose. Of course, I believe, as does the majority of the American people, that tough enforcement, with common sense gun safety measures, go hand in hand. We need to punish those who break existing laws, but we also need to put in place new preventive measures, like closing the gun show loophole and keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals. But not only have we failed to pass such common sense measures, we are now neglecting to fund critical law enforcement of existing gun laws. I am delighted to see that this bill funds the hiring of additional Federal prosecutors for gun crimes, and I commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for that. But without community-based initiatives, without State and local prosecutors able to attack this problem on a smaller more focused scale, we are not doing nearly enough. It is absolutely critical that we focus more funding on the prosecution of gun crimes if we are going to wage a strong fight against gun violence in this country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lowey, McCarthy, DeLauro, Stabenow amendment to boost our investment in the safety of our communities and our children.

Mrs. LOWEY. I certainly accept the apology of my colleague, the gentleman from New York; and I am delighted that he is a member of our delegation.

Mrs. LOWEY. Which page is the gentleman's amendment on?

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Hinchey amendment and against the rider prohibiting the EPA from cleaning up contaminated sediments in our waters. This language is simply a delay tactic to protect those who have polluted our waterways and do not want to incur the expense of cleaning them up. Many of our rivers and lakes are still polluted from years and years of toxic chemicals being released into them. The people of New York have been waiting for decades. We are not plowing ahead, we have been waiting for decades for the EPA to begin the process of cleaning up the PCB-polluted Hudson River. Now, as the EPA is on the cusp of beginning the clean-up, this provision was included in this bill to stall the EPA yet again. While I agree that we should make all efforts to ensure that any environmental remediation activities are as safe as possible, I do not believe that this is the case here. Quite frankly, this language is meant to delay action on cleaning up the Hudson River by making it more difficult for the EPA to take actions in defense of the environment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and in favor of finally moving to clean up our waterways. (Mrs. NORTHUP asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey Amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans' Affairs misguided Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) plan. The VERA plan takes scarce resources away from the veterans in my district and other areas of the Northeast based on flawed data about veteran populations around the country. The veterans who use the VA health care system in New York deserve better than the VERA plan gives them. Each year, about 150,000 veterans use the eight VA facilities in the New York Metropolitan region. These veterans have come to rely on the excellent services provided by these facilities, and the cuts in these services under VERA have been disastrous. Since the implementation of VERA began, I have received reports from many veterans in my district of diminished quality of care at VA medical centers. In fact, the VA's own Office of the Medical Inspector investigated the Hudson Valley VA hospitals and found more than 150 violations of health and safety rules at those hospitals alone. It is not a coincidence that these violations came at a time when these hospitals were trying to cut costs to comply with VERA. And the situation is getting worse. The service network that serves New York and New Jersey will receive a cut of over $40 million. This means the quality of care will suffer and more services will be cut as hospitals and clinics face even more reductions in force. All of our veterans, regardless of where they live, deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to provide services to growing veterans populations in other regions of the country, but that must not be done at the expense of New York's veterans. An assessment of the VERA plan by Price Waterhouse highlighted a major flaw in the fundamental assumptions of the plan. The report stated that ``basing resource allocation on patient volume is only an interim solution because patient volume indicates which veterans the VHA (Veterans Health Administration) is serving, not which veterans have the highest care needs.'' This is especially relevant to the New York region, which has the highest proportion of specialty care veterans in the country. We cannot turn our backs on our proud veterans, but that is exactly what will happen if we allow VERA to continue. I urge my colleagues to treat our veterans with the dignity and the respect they deserve. Support the Hinchey Amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because this amendment runs counter to what the American people have repeatedly asked Congress to do, make our children and our communities safer. This amendment just does not make any sense. The Smith & Wesson agreement includes common sense measures, like internal safety locks, development of smart gun technology to ensure that only a gun owner can discharge the firearm, child safety trigger locks, and other provisions aimed at reducing the number of accidental shootings and deaths due to gun violence. Smith & Wesson has also pledged to cooperate with Federal, State and local law enforcement to ensure that its products are used safely and legally. Agreements such as these should be encouraged, not penalized. This irresponsible amendment, in my judgment, sends the wrong message to manufacturers trying to demonstrate their own accountability for the safety of those who use their products. Codes of conduct by firearm manufacturers will make our communities and streets safer. They will strengthen law enforcement's efforts to enforce our Nation's firearms laws by ensuring that background checks are performed and improving ballistics technology; and they will protect our children from the tragic accidental shootings that end far too many innocent lives. Congress should heed the call of the American people, who have told us loud and clear that they support common sense initiatives to make firearms safer and to keep them out of the hands of children. I urge my colleagues, listen to your neighbors, listen to our friends. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment, which would repeal the provision that restricts the Department of Veterans Affairs from transferring funds to the Justice Department to support tobacco litigation. Each year, the Federal Government spends an estimated $25 billion on tobacco-related health costs, $25 billion. Specifically, the VA contributes more than $4 billion to this outrageous tab. This is wrong. That is why in the 105th Congress, the House called on the Attorney General and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to take all the necessary steps to recover from the tobacco industry the costs incurred by the VA for the treatment of veterans with tobacco-related illnesses. In return, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are now attempting to derail the DOJ's efforts. This is evident by the three antilitigation riders attached to this bill, as well as the Commerce, Justice, State and Defense appropriations measures. Under section 109 of the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, the DOJ is allowed to seek reimbursement from other Federal agencies likely to benefit from litigation undertaken by the Department. Opponents of this amendment will say that section 109 was intended to help the DOJ fund only defense of litigation. That simply is not true. Look at the record. For example, the DOJ has used this authority to pursue litigation against oil companies and in Customs fraud cases. So why is this body awarding the tobacco industry special protection at the expense of the public's health? Why are my colleagues fighting to protect an industry that has come before this body and untruthfully denied for decades that nicotine is addictive and dangerous? Why are some working to protect an industry that lures in an estimated 3,000 American teenagers every day? It does not make any sense. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. Cigarette companies have targeted our youth. About 5 million children smoke in the United States. Of these, one out of three will eventually die from tobacco- related causes. The Department of Justice's suit not only seeks to recover funds, it is also aimed at stopping companies from marketing to our children. Well, I can tell my colleagues as a mother and as a grandmother, I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman amendment and help to protect the health and well-being of our Nation's children and veterans.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. As a proud member of the National Council of the Arts, and I saw my good friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) here, I cannot help but be impressed with the thoughtfulness, the seriousness and the commitment of the Members who are making these judgments. I have seen with the gentleman from North Carolina firsthand the NEA's grant selection process. I just want to applaud them once again for successfully increasing America's access to the arts despite level funding for the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the bill before us sorely underfunds the NEA and would inhibit the NEA from funding worthy and creative programs such as Chairman Ivey's ``Challenge America'' which would further arts education and outreach, particularly in underserved areas. It is so exciting to see and to talk with Chairman Ivey about what he wants to do, to go to areas where young people do not have access to the arts, to go into schools where many of our young people really cannot express themselves as well as others can without access to music, to art, to other cultural attractions. This is so very vital for their education. In a Nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a sad commentary on our priorities that year after year we must continue to fight for an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year and in return benefits students, teachers, artists, musicians, orchestras, theaters, dance companies and their audiences around the country. Mr. Chairman, let us make a change this year. Now is the time to increase funding for the arts. Let us do the right thing. Let us support our young people. Let us support these programs. And let us make sure the United States of America can stand tall and be proud of our commitment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we have read many accounts of the current economic revolution in India that is being driven by the technology- savvy labor force. While this movement has led to positive developments in India, there is still a serious gender-based educational divide, resulting in low literacy and education rates among women. Narrowing the divide can have a powerful impact, as noted in a recent World Bank report, Engendering Development. The study concluded that one of the best ways to fight world hunger and encourage global economic growth is to educate girls and women. Today, Thursday, June 15, CARE, one of the world's largest relief and development organizations, holds its annual Capitol Hill event, ``CARE Packages from Congress.'' At that event, CARE will announce that a donation from MasterCard International, which is headquartered in my Congressional district, will support the completion of a six-year project for girls' education in India. The funding will provide primary education to thousands of young women in India this year. It will support 120 formal equivalent education centers serving 300 villages in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, states with the highest illiteracy rates in India. The gift is part of MasterCard's ongoing philanthropic efforts to serve youth and to improve access to education in the United States and internationally. The project will enable 3,000 girls from the poorest areas in rural India to have access to primary education, and an estimated 25 percent of them will move on to mainstream education. Targeting girls between the ages of 6 and 14, the project plans school schedules, recruits and trains teachers, designs curricula and materials and involves the community to overcome the traditional obstacles to girls' education. With a female literacy rate of only 40 percent (compared to 64 percent for males), India has 196 million females who cannot read or write. In some rural areas, the rate for women drops to 12 percent. Currently, the school drop out rates for girls is 57 percent at the primary stage, 57 percent at the middle stage, and 74 percent at the high school stage, according to CARE statistics. MasterCard's gift will enable CARE to provide valuable information about this alternative education program for girls to the Indian government so that it can be replicated. I congratulate CARE and MasterCard for their commitment to this very important cause.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. I regret that we were not able to offer this amendment so we can provide this to our youngsters all throughout the United States.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of the committee

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a fighter on school modernization, who understands how important it is.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend and leader.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good colleague, and a leader on school construction. I have seen his district and the need is clear. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Owens), my colleague who knows firsthand what a tremendous problem we have in our city schools. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member of the committee, who has been a leader on education.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to forget the old stereotypes. We need a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments. This is an emergency. I visited a school in New York just a couple of weeks ago where the kids had to move from one side of the gymnasium to the other side of the gymnasium when it was raining. This in the United States of America; this at the time of our greatest prosperity. Franklin Roosevelt responded to the emergency. If we can build roads, if we can build highways, if we can build bridges, if we can build prisons, Mr. Chairman, let us work and be a partner to the State and local government; and we can reduce the taxes at the same time. We just do not have to have as large a tax cut as we are proposing. We can respond and make sure that we are really educating every youngster. This is the least we can do. Shame on us if we do not. Shame on us if we do not pass this amendment. This is $1.3 billion, and we have a responsibility to all the youngsters in this great country of ours. I ask for my colleagues' support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, just this Monday, I met with the Superintendent of Schools in Lynbrook and the Chair of their school board, and they expressed to me the urgency of mainstreaming youngsters in their community. They have been so successful. But it costs money. They had a quadriplegic who cost them $100,000 a year. And because they have been so successful, they are attracting other youngsters. It is because of the leadership of this administration that we are in a time of great prosperity. This is the time to respond to the urgent need in education. I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). And that is why I am so puzzled. Frankly, I do not get it. On May 3, the House passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 421-3 a bill calling for a $2 billion increase in 2001 and full funding by 2010. Even with the additional $1.5 billion provided by the DeLauro amendment, we will still be providing only 17 percent of the national average per pupil. Please, we should be supporting the DeLauro amendment on both sides of the aisle to move forward on our commitment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my colleagues, we had an opportunity to put $1.7 billion in IDEA and that is what we should have done. We should not be choosing between a program such as IDEA and a program that reaches out to those kids who do not understand what it is to prepare for college. Our kids, probably your kids, had the opportunity from the time they went to the first grade to plan, to be taught, to be tutored. What this program does and the reason GEAR UP is so successful, it helps kids understand that they can have their dream, they can be what they want to be. It provides tutors and assistance to help them seek the American dream. I am opposed to this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a leader in education. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member and leader of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)