Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would add $300 to the maximum Pell grant for a total maximum award of $3,800. As we are all aware, the cost of a college education has been increasing faster than the rate of inflation, putting college out of reach for many Americans. The Federal Government has had a role in helping students gain access to college since the GI bill in 1944. Financial aid has evolved over time into a safety net of programs that have made college possible for generations of Americans, including many of the staffers who work in this House, and perhaps some of the Members, too. The Pell grant program is the cornerstone of that safety net, providing grant aid to nearly 4 million needy students. It is one of the few sources of grant aid still available to help cut down on the crushing college debt burden assumed by so many students and their families today. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the Pell grant maximum award was $2,300, the same as it was in 1989. The maximum Pell grant in this current fiscal year is $3,300, an increase of 43 percent since 1993. The bill before us today proposes an increase in the maximum to $3,500 as the President requested. This is good news but it is still not enough. A $200 increase in Pell equals less than the cost of one semester's required books for a full-time student. The Pell funding in this bill is simply inadequate to meet the costs of higher education today. The authorized ceiling for these grants is now $4,800, a full $1,500 above this year's appropriated level. The real dollar value of a maximum Pell award has declined 18 percent since 1975. To get to the level we were in 1975, the Pell Grant award would have to be merely $4,300. My amendment will get us closer to that, setting the maximum award at $3,800; but leaving us room for improvement. Over the next 10 years, my colleagues, more than 16 million students will be enrolled in our Nation's colleges and universities, preparing for the challenges of a high-tech economy and a highly educated and productive workforce. We must do better to demonstrate our commitment to Federal student aid, and we can do that by increasing the maximum grant to $3,800. We can also do better by improving the allocation for this subcommittee. Once again, our subcommittee was not provided adequate resources to meet the significant human needs addressed by programs under our jurisdiction. In this time of surplus, in this time of prosperity, the failure to provide sufficient resources puts this committee at risk of failing a course in logic, because we know that education is a lifelong investment in our people and our future; yet this bill does not live up to our responsibility to make that investment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our committee.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing, to support this amendment. I have heard my good friends say live within our means, do the right thing. I heard other good friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is just an exercise. This is just politics. I just wish my good friends were with me at Westchester Community College just a few weeks ago talking to the students who are benefiting from student aid. One of them was in tears. She desperately wanted to be a teacher. Now, maybe it is hard for people on the other side of the aisle to understand that this young woman could not put together the $2,500 she needed to pay her tuition. She just could not do it, and we were there just trying to figure out how we could respond to these problems. It seems to me that we have to get beyond the politics, get beyond the partisan politics and focus on what are the real needs. You cannot say that a tax cut is irrelevant. You are saying there is a limited pot of money. Well, in my judgment, at this time of such prosperity in this country, at a time when people are in need and they are struggling to pay their tuition, not only should we be funding GEAR UP to motivate young people, to help them understand that getting an education, working hard, will provide them with the opportunities of a good life in the United States, not only must we support IDEA, which helped those disadvantaged kids, to give them the opportunity to reap the rewards of this society; but it seems to me that we have a responsibility to do what we can to get as close as we can to the authorized level. That is why I offer this amendment. These youngsters work two and three jobs. They are not just depending on public assistance. Let us support this amendment. Let us support our youngsters. Let us invest in education. Let us get real.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) said before that Democrats are operating without limits, and that is why the deficits got out of control. I was really puzzled by those comments. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to clarify for the record that statement.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but briefly, as the gentleman well knows, after World War II, the United States did respond to the tremendous demand for schools and we built schools. We understood at that time that education was a priority. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a tremendous problem in this country. Two hundred years ago we did not have computers in every classroom. Pencils and pens were adequate. We need to wire our schools. We need to provide computers. We need to ensure that every youngster has the best education they can. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 90 seconds to my good colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to include a package of $1.3 billion in grants and loans for urgently needed repair and modernization at our Nation's crumbling schools. The desperate need to repair America's school schools is not a new issue for any of us. Four years ago, I conducted a survey of New York City schools and discovered that one in every four schools holds classes in areas such as hallways, gyms, bathrooms, janitors' closets. Two-thirds of these schools had substandard critical building features such as roofs, walls, floors. This is an outrage. This is a disgrace. In response to that shocking study, I worked with the administration to author the very first school modernization bill in 1996. It is now 4 years later. School enrollment is skyrocketing. High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a luxury. We have kids in the United States of America attending classes in rooms with asbestos-filled ceilings and in rooms heated with coal stoves. It would be laughable if it was not so disgraceful and potentially tragic. Some of my colleagues will say this is not a Federal responsibility but the fact is that the States are doing the best they can. They need a partnership. They need Federal dollars to fill in the holes. In fact, the National Education Association estimates that the unmet school modernization need in America's schools totals over $300 billion, and that is on top of what school districts and States are already spending. The problem is simply too big for local and State officials to handle alone. Simply stated, the need for school modernization is a national problem that demands a national response. The Federal government, in my judgment, has a responsibility to ensure that public education is more than a promise, and our students cannot learn when the walls are literally crumbling around them. That is why we just should not end this session, Mr. Chairman, without providing at least this proposal for emergency school repair. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue where we will either pay now or we are going to pay later. If we do not provide the resources even for this targeted emergency assistance, we will continue to undermine our students and teachers as they struggle to meet standards and achieve academically. We can spend the money now, targeted at the most urgent repairs first, and its reach will be broad. Through loans and grants, $1.3 billion would be leveraged with local dollars to provide $7 billion for approximately 8,300 school projects. The funding will go to high-need school districts for critical repairs such as ceilings, leaky roofs, and removing asbestos. Pay now, or pay later in lower student achievement, even more burdened teachers, and potentially, even accident or injury in crumbling schoolrooms. America's children need us to make the right choice now, to use this opportunity we have in this time of unprecedented prosperity to rebuild their schools and lift up the quality of their education. If we fail as a Congress once again to take action to meet our school modernization needs, it is wrong and we are going to pay. I urge my colleagues to join me, acknowledge the shameful physical condition of our schools, give some relief to our States and localities. We cannot give our students a 21st century education in 19th century schools. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 15 as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in conclusion, we as representatives of our community cannot solve all the problems, we cannot solve all the problems in the workplace, but we have a responsibility to do what we can, based on the science, to pass legislation that can make life a little better for workers who are working in many situations at a disadvantage to their health.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My colleagues, I would like to respond briefly to the gentleman from Montana. We deal with many complex issues in this body, and I would daresay if complexity is the excuse for nonaction, then we really would not be debating anything around here. And I would also like to respond to a second comment when the gentleman was talking about government cannot make our workplaces safer. Having served on this committee, and I am privileged to serve on the committee, government cannot make it better, most employees, most employers make the workplace better, but the government can encourage those employers, who may not make the workplace as safe as they can, to make it safer. I can remember very well the fire in the chicken factory when the employers locked the doors and 29 people died. So some employers, not most, may need an encouragement. I just want to comment on this particular amendment, because I do feel, my colleagues, enough is enough. The science exists, we have heard of it over and over again, the evidence has been gathered, the public comment has been heard and, frankly, our experience in our own offices confirm it. Each year more than 650,000 Americans suffer disorders caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting or awkward postures that occur in the workplace. These disorders account for more than a third of all workplace injuries. We have to try our best to prevent these injuries using simple collaborative steps where we can work together. These are serious health problems and OSHA should be able to go forward within its authority to work with employers and employees to prevent and relieve them. Let us prevent and relieve these injuries and save billions of dollars in health care and productivity costs. Let us live up to our obligation doing what we can to protect American workers.

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

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to know there are many of us on this side of the aisle who, for years, shared his concern. But the issue, in my judgment, is how did we legislate excellence. The gentleman and I know it is very difficult. The challenge is, of course, to fund the programs that do work. I would like to say, as I will speak later on my own time, that I join with the gentleman in wanting to support these good programs that do work; and I would be delighted to work with him and his successors in figuring out, as I ask every time in every hearing, how do we legislate excellence. But the answer is not to cut back when there is so many people who need the education, they need the retraining, because not everyone is benefiting from this great economy. So I am sure my colleagues on this side of the aisle would be delighted to work with the gentleman's successors to make sure that these programs are delivering. That is the challenge to all of us. We do not want to fund everything.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, but I do so with great sadness because I have such great respect for my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), our chairman, who has been such an extraordinary leader in this House from his commitment and his passion to the NIH budget, to his initiative to produce better health outcomes for our kids, to increasing resources for the world-class CDC. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) represents the very best of this institution. His integrity, his commitment, his passion to do the right thing is an example for this institution and for this great Nation of ours. Without him, we will be a lesser House. But I have such great confidence that the gentleman will continue to make a major contribution in the field of his choice and to this great Nation. We are really going to miss him. He is a friend. He is a great colleague. I have the greatest respect for him. I also wish, quite frankly, that our colleagues had seen their way to giving him a more fitting allocation in his final year. I serve on this subcommittee with such pride. It was the committee I chose. I wanted it so badly because of all the good things that this committee does. I believe so strongly that the Federal Government must be a partner in meeting the need to educate, keep healthy, protect the safety of our children, our workers, and our families. The chairman has made it very clear that he is not satisfied with the allocation our subcommittee has received, and I am ready to work with him and my colleagues to improve this bill so that at the end of the process we can pass a bill that we can be very, very proud of. But I also stand with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who has passionately and consistently made the case for a true appropriations process and for a real Labor-HHS bill. Americans deserve that and so does this House. This is the first time that I can recall that we have had a debate on a Labor-HHS bill since 1997. Unfortunately, we have not made much progress by bringing the bill to the floor. Members on both sides of the aisle have already conceded that the House bill is going nowhere. It is almost $3 billion below the President's request for the Department of Education, $1.7 billion below the President's request for the Department of Labor, $1.1 billion below the President's request for the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill did not even make it out of subcommittee without the White House issuing a veto threat. The bill contains major reductions in the President's budget for education, health care, and worker safety and training. It sidesteps once again our national crisis in school modernization. In the end, the bill before us is about $6 billion below the President's request and close to $8 billion below the Senate's level. Our Nation is growing. We have pressing needs in education, health, and training. Yet there are no funds provided to continue the class size reduction that the President has requested that will place 100,000 new teachers in our schools. There are, as I said, no funds to renovate the schools so they can perform urgently needed safety and health repairs. $1 billion is cut from teacher quality improvement and recruiting efforts. There are no funds to increase our effort to keep women safe during pregnancy, despite the terrible rate of maternal mortality and morbidity in this country. It level funds our critical domestic violence shelters program and the Hotline service. Compared to the President's request, the bill is a 40% cut in after-school programs, one of my top priorities, and a $600 million cut in Head Start. Despite the troubling trends of violence and alienation among our young people, no funds are provided for elementary school counselors. We have the resources now to address the changing needs of our workers, in the Internet economy, and of our students--many of whom are adults trying to build up their skills. We have the resources now to prepare a secure and healthier retirement for our seniors, and fund the world-class health prevention research that the United States is known for--but this bill does not take advantage of the extraordinary opportunity this tremendous economy has provided us. That's why I oppose this bill, and why I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment and with great respect for our distinguished Chair, because I am sure that he would be willing to work with us to sit down and figure out a plan so we can help strengthen our workers and make sure that all of our citizens have the opportunity to succeed. This amendment invests in the adult, youth, and dislocated worker training that Americans need to compete and succeed in the new economy. Investing in training is not only good sense, it is good business. An essential ingredient to sustaining a strong economy is to ensure that we are training the skilled workers that this economy needs. Since January 1993, the unemployment rate has fallen, we have heard, from 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent, its lowest level in 30 years. And that is great. Over 21 million new jobs have been created. Employment population rates are at a record high. That is great news. But, unfortunately, many Americans have not shared in these benefits. They may live in areas of extremely high unemployment, areas where the industries are changing, workers are underutilized, where the risk of becoming a dislocated worker remains high. Americans are worried. In fact, last year 33 percent of workers surveyed said they were frequently concerned about being laid off. This figure exceeds, much to my surprise, comparable figures of 17 percent and 21 percent in 1979 and 1989 at similar points in the business cycle and even exceeds the rate during the 1981-1982 recession. We cannot completely protect American industry and workers from the vast changes in our economy, but we can do something to address their concerns and their needs for retraining. To keep the good economy going, we need to intensify, not reduce, our efforts to increase access to broad-based skills training. Now is the time. The unprecedented strength of this economy gives us the rare opportunity to bring skills and jobs to individuals and communities that have for too long been left behind. There are approximately 13 million Americans, men and women, moving from welfare to work, young people who have dropped out of school, displaced workers, individuals with disabilities and veterans who need the training and the opportunity to get and keep good family-supporting jobs. I do not see my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Istook), on the floor, but I did want to address some of his comments. I agree with my colleagues who understand that we have to invest in the programs that do work and discontinue the programs that do not work. But there is a difference. Maybe there is a distinction between our sides of the aisle. I believe that we need better evaluation of programs that are not working. We have to make sure they are really training our young people for the jobs that exist, not cut them out. Now, there are some who would say, and I think the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) was saying that before, that if a program is not working, get rid of it. I see too many young people who need the training to get the new jobs. And as we were talking before, no matter which side they are on the recent trade debate, we are here asking for more visas to bring people in from India and China, more skilled workers in. There are too many people in our country who need that training to be part of the new economy. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). We have a responsibility at this time of prosperity to make sure that we are reaching out and giving every young person that opportunity to get the training so that they can succeed, and I think that is what this is all about. So I want to applaud the gentleman and support him. I know that our chairman will be happy to work with us later on in the process, and I hope we can continue to invest in these programs so we can train our workers that are being displaced.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments. I appreciate his efforts to provide for evaluation dollars to make sure these programs are effective. I would just say that where there may be some disagreement, and I am hoping that we can work together as we move towards the final product, that as we reevaluate the needs, the needs for the H-1B visas, that we can take this dollar amount into consideration; and there may be more need, as we are saying there is, for more investment in particular areas. That does not mean that what we are doing is not trying to establish the best programs and evaluate them and make sure they are succeeding. But I think we disagree, and we believe that there has to be even more investment because it is so critical at this time of displacement as a result of trade and other areas.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this resolution. And, first, I want to thank my good colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for that very gracious introduction. I remember that trip to Israel, and I remember very well when the gentleman and I and the black caucus visited all the sites, and every one came back committed, understanding the strong relationship between Israel and the United States and the importance of that relationship, and that our support for Israel is in the interest of the United States. I appreciate the gentleman's generosity as a very, very strong supporter, which the gentleman is. I want to commend Israel, Mr. Speaker, on the completion of its historic withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the latest in one of many risks the government and the people of Israel have taken for peace. This unilateral action is a significant step in the effort to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The people of Israel have had enough. They have seen enough of their sons, their fathers, their husbands die during the last 2 decades. With the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, redeployment from southern Lebanon, Israel has taken a very brave step towards achieving peace with their neighbors, a peace that will benefit Israel's children, Lebanon's children, and the whole region for years to come. This decision has not come without risks. Hezbollah terrorists have consistently staged attacks against cities and towns on Israel's northern border. The withdrawal of Israeli forces have left a vacuum in southern Lebanon, and Syria still harbors 30,000 troops on Lebanese soil. As we stand here, thousands of Israeli citizens have fled their homes in northern Israel to escape violent attacks. As a champion of Middle East peace, the United States must stand firmly, strongly, and unequivocally with the people of Israel during this difficult time. We must insist on the immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. We must encourage the United Nations to recognize Israel's brave choice and to help stabilize southern Lebanon and reintegrate it with the rest of the country. Most of all, we must never, ever forget Israel's paramount right to make its own decisions about the security of its people and its border. I urge all of my colleagues to recognize the courage of the people of Israel, the courage they have shown this week and throughout the Middle East peace process, and to reaffirm our commitment to the present and future security of one of our very best allies. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), was not made in order by the rule. The amendment would have stripped section 810 from this bill, an egregious provision barring the Department of Defense from giving preference in procurement to companies that enter into agreements with the Federal Government. It is clear that this language is an attack on Smith and Wesson, which recently signed a code of conduct with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Defense, responsible for our Nation's security, should be free to purchase the best quality, most cost effective and safest products available today. It is preposterous to penalize a manufacturer solely because it has pledged to produce safe, quality merchandise and to go to great lengths to cooperate with Federal, state and local law enforcement. We should encourage such courageous initiatives, not punish them. Codes of conduct by firearms manufacturers will make our communities and streets safer. They will protect our children from accidental shootings, and they will strengthen law enforcement's efforts to enforce our Nation's firearms laws by ensuring that background checks are performed and improving ballistic technology. The American people support efforts to make firearms safer and to keep them out of the hands of children and criminals. Congress should have had the chance to demonstrate its support for these goals by considering the McCarthy amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez- Morella-Lowey amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country, and yet these women, for the past 4 years, have been denied the very constitutional rights they fight to protect. Mr. Chairman, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on United States soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Chairman, especially as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide, we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions, because no Federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to, because they are protected by a conscience clause. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. In the past, I have expressed my exhaustion with the anti-choice majority's continued attempts to strip women of their right to choose. Well, yes, I am tired of revisiting these now familiar battles, and so, too, are the American people. Their message is clear: Do not make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Instead, they have asked this body to find ways to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion by encouraging responsibility and making contraception affordable and accessible to all women. That is why in the 105th Congress I worked tirelessly to secure passage of my provision. Mr. Chairman, not one of these restrictions does anything to make abortion less necessary. I urge Members to support the Sanchez amendment and join me in my effort to make abortion less necessary.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the tragedy of lung cancer, which afflicts hundreds of thousands of Americans. I especially want to pay tribute to my constituent, Vivian Feigl of Rego Park, New York, who struggles with this debilitating disease and whose longstanding commitment to helping those with lung cancer is an inspiration to us all. Rarely do I encounter people with as much passion and energy for an issue as Vivian has for finding a cure for lung cancer. Mr. Speaker, most of us know how devastating lung cancer can be. But few Americans understand how pervasive this disease is. According to the American Cancer Society, lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of American women. More people die of lung cancer annually than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. In this year alone, over 164,000 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed, and nearly 157,000 people will die of lung cancer. Moreover, whereas early detection can prevent an overwhelming majority of deaths for some cancers, such as cervical and prostate cancer, few cases of lung cancer are caught at an early stage. Overall, the five-year survival rate for all stages of lung cancer is 14 percent. Clearly, we can and must do more to fight this terrible illness. I have long supported increasing our investment in medical research because it can both save lives and reduce our nation's health care costs in the long run. And as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education, I have worked hard to ensure that researchers have the resources necessary to continue to make advances in the prevention and treatment of cancer. Yet while funding for long cancer research has increased to about $160 million in 1999, our battle is far from over. With so many Americans like Vivian fighting bravely against this disease, we must continue to increase funding for lung cancer research. The Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill that passed subcommittee last week would provide an additional $1.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health--a badly needed increase. As this bill moves forward, I hope that we'll ultimately provide a $2.7 billion increase so that we can meet our goal of doubling the NIH budget over five years. So today, I again commend Vivian Feigl, who has devoted so much of her time and energy to the fight against lung cancer. And I promise to continue my fight to double funding for the NIH so we can find cures for lung cancer and the many of the other diseases and disorders plaguing our nation. Our friends and families depend on our unbending commitment to this critical research, and they deserve no less.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 23d, DOROT, a New York-based organization dedicated to improving the lives of the elderly and strengthening intergenerational relationships, will honor an extraordinary extended family. Descended from Pearl and Jack Resnick, themselves remarkably generous philanthropists and community leaders, the Resnick and Katz families have made exceptional contributions to DOROT, while also exemplifying the giving spirit of volunteerism. Pearl and Jack's children, Marilyn and Ira, together with their spouses, Stanley and Paula, as well as Marilyn and Stanley's children, Neil and Bruce, and their wives, Amy and Bonnie, have devoted time, energy, wisdom, and financial support to DOROT's programming. Their efforts have made a striking difference in the lives of countless senior citizens. Together, the Resnicks and Katzes have assumed responsibility for new services and special events at DOROT, helping to attract greater support from our community and bolstering DOROT's efforts to reach out to persons in need. Whether coordinating the delivery of Passover packages, organizing black tie galas, expanding internship opportunities, arranging Thanksgiving banquests, or developing strategic plans, their contributions to DOROT have been both broad and deep. What's more, in addition to offering leadership and guidance, every member of this special family engages in hands-on volunteer work--interacting with clients and staff on a living, warm basis. The timeless Jewish traditions of tzedaka and mitzvot have found inspiring expression in the Katzes and the Resnicks. I am delighted to join in honoring them today, and I am confident that their example will continue to guide new generations of volunteers and community leaders for many years to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to pay tribute to Taiwanese-American across the country as we celebrate Taiwanese-American Heritage Week. The Taiwanese-American community is the keystone of a strong and mutually beneficial United States-Taiwanese relationship. For decades, Taiwanese-Americans have advocated on behalf of United States-Taiwan friendship, and have contributed immeasurably to American society while maintaining their Taiwanese heritage. My Congressional District in New York is particularly fortunate to have a vibrant and strong Taiwanese-American community. And New York as a whole has benefitted from the tremendous contributions of this community to the economic and cultural character of the state. The more than half-million Taiwanese-Americans across the United States have made priceless contributions to our country, and organizations like the Formosan Association for Public Affairs have helped further these outstanding accomplishments. Taiwan and the United States share a common commitment to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which formed the official basis for friendship and cooperation between the United States and Taiwan, continues to provide a strong foundation for the bond between the people of both countries. And that bond is made stronger each day by the Taiwanese-American Community. I am privileged to represent a strong Taiwanese-American community, nad I am proud to pay tribute to their strength and activism during Taiwanese-American Heritage Week.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member and the chairman for their support of this important bill, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act. As the co-chair of the Long Island Sound Congressional Caucus, I am especially proud to stand here today in support of a bill that reaffirms our commitment to Long Island Sound. Protecting our fragile waterways and coastal environments is essential, and the bill we are considering today will strengthen our efforts to preserve Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound is a national treasure, but this extraordinary environmental economic and recreational asset has been damaged by years of pollution and neglect. It is absolutely crucial to expand the Federal Government's role in controlling pollution and in stewarding our coastal resources throughout the Sound. One of my proudest achievements since coming to Congress was working to establish the Environmental Protection Agency's Long Island Sound office in 1991, which coordinates the implementation of the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The Plan is working to bring the Sound back to life again. But we need to do much more. EPA estimates that simply meeting the appalling backlog of water quality infrastructure upgrades nationwide will cost $140 billion over the next 20 years. And the amount needed to address the health and environmental concerns around Long Island Sound alone over the next two decades is $1 billion. This critical legislation supports these efforts by significantly increasing authorization levels for the Long Island Sound office and targets these important resources towards implementation of the Sound's cleanup plan. The Long Island Sound Restoration Act is another important tool in our arsenal to expand the Federal Government's role in restoring Long Island Sound, and I urge my colleagues to support this fragile resource by voting for H.R. 3313.