Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill. Like many of my colleagues, I feel as if I am in a time warp. Last year when the latest NAS scientific review was funded, there was an agreement that this study should not and would not block or delay a proposed rule on ergonomics. Yet here we are again. The bill is not about the need for more research. Both NAS and NIOSH have conducted exhaustive reviews of the scientific literature and concluded that this is a compelling workplace safety and health issue. This is about delaying the implementation of sensible regulations that OSHA has crafted after consulting with and taking advice from employers around the country on the actions those employers have taken to prevent workplace injuries. There is simply no need to further delay OSHA from issuing a standard or guideline. In fact, there is an urgent need to let them move ahead to prevent these workplace problems. Each year more than three-quarters of a million serious and chronic disorders related to repetitive motion, heavy lifting, or awkward postures occur in our workplaces. These ergonomic injuries cost billions annually. Let me remind colleagues this is a women's health issue. Women are five times more likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome than men, one of the most painful ergonomic problems. Women are disproportionately represented in the jobs and workplaces where ergonomic hazards are the most common. We know that many ergonomic problems are preventable. OSHA's draft proposal provides clear guidance to employers and employees on how to prevent ergonomic injuries, relieve the suffering, and save billions in healthcare and productivity costs. Let us stop delaying. Let us give OSHA the authority they need to work with employers to prevent these serious health problems. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in strong support of the Greenwood-Lowey compromise amendment. The proponents of the Mexico City policy claim it simply cuts abortion funding. What they do not tell us is that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973, as our chairman has said. This amendment would cut abortion funding from its current level of zero to zero. What this amendment will really do is destroy our international family planning programs. One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent. The aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. The Smith amendment would defund family planning organizations that perform legal abortions with their own money, and it would also impose a gag rule on non-governmental organizations and multilateral organizations that provide U.S.-supported family planning aid overseas. The Greenwood substitute specifically and carefully addresses my colleagues' concerns, so please vote for the Greenwood substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleague. Because the Greenwood substitute specifically and carefully addresses the concerns of my colleague about abortion without destroying our international family planning programs. It says explicitly, no U.S. funds may be used to lobby on abortion, for or against, that no U.S. funds may be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning; and it prohibits any recipients of U.S. international family planning assistance from using U.S. or private funds to violate abortion and advocacy laws in the countries in which they operate. In other words, if abortion is illegal in a country, an organization cannot use its own money to perform abortions. And if a country prohibits advocacy on abortion, an organization cannot use its own money to advocate on the issue. If an organization violates either of these requirements, it loses its U.S. assistance, period. This substitute is very clear that the U.S. respects the laws of the nations in which we have family planning programs and respects the ability of those nations to enforce their laws. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2606. I want to commend both our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for the hard work they have put into crafting this bill. I believe they have done the best they could with a very bad situation. Very simply, the allocation handed down to our subcommittee by the leadership was just too low. In fact, when we started this process, our allocation was only $10.3 billion, about $3.4 billion lower than last year's enacted level. The members of our committee, Republican and Democrat alike, made very clear that a foreign aid bill with that low an allocation was just not sufficient. And today we are working with a number that is a full 20 percent higher than the original allocation. In fact, it is $100 million higher than the foreign aid bill that passed the House last year. But by no means does that make this a great bill. It is still woefully underfunded. I just want to highlight a few of the bill's biggest problems that I hope we can address in conference. During full committee markup of this bill, the leadership pushed through a $200 million cut in IDA, the arm of the World Bank that provides loans to the poorest of the poor around the world. IDA, which is now funded at $226 million below the administration's requested level, provides the World Bank's lending on primary health care, basic education, and microcredit, and a number of other critical development programs. The International Organizations and Programs account, which includes funding for the United Nations Development Program, is $25 million below the administration's request. At this level, UNDP could not hope to be funded at anywhere near the $100 million it received last year. Underfunding UNDP threatens U.S. leadership in this critical organization and hurts UNDP's efforts to address some of the world's development issues around the world. This bill does not include the Wye River Agreement aid package. This aid package is a critical component of advancing the Middle East peace process and preventing violence in the region. We all have such high hopes for Prime Minister Barak's ability to jump-start the peace process that it would be foolish of us to turn our backs on the commitments we made at Wye. I think it is very clear that the bill does need some serious work. But it is important, my colleagues, to pass it today, send it to conference; and there we can fix what we believe is wrong. I fully expect that we shall increase the level of funding for the full range of our important foreign assistance programs, and I will fight hard with my colleagues for the Wye aid package and ensure that there are no killer restrictions on our international family planning programs. If these problems are not fixed before the final version of the bill is sent to the White House, the President will veto it; and we are very concerned that all the good things in this bill will not become a reality. So, my colleagues, for now the right thing to do is to vote for this bill, move the process along, and let us hope that we can correct these inequities which I have mentioned in the conference and pass a really good bill. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this point to my colleagues that our child survival program has for nearly 15 years worked hand in hand with our family planning program, for one very good reason, they both share the goal of advancing the health and well being of children and families. When Congress created the child survival legislation, it recognized the relationship between educating women on safe motherhood and child survival. So educating women about the importance of good nutrition, getting immunized, spacing their pregnancies has been part of USAID child survival work. Safe motherhood education makes up approximately 5 percent of child survival counseling funds. These funds are not used for contraceptives. Planning pregnancies is one of the most powerful and effective child survival tools in existence. Postponing early, high-risk pregnancies, giving women's body a chance to recover from a previous pregnancy, and helping women to avoid unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortion can prevent at least one in four maternal deaths. We hear again and again that women die from having children too young, having children too closely spaced together, and by having more children than their bodies can bear. Getting that message across to women is an integral part of child survival because healthier mothers will be better able to care for their children. And children born to mothers who wait 2 years before births have a much stronger chance of survival than those born to moms whose births fall less than 2 years apart. Giving women this information can save children's lives, can save women's lives. We know from our own experience that this is true. Just last month I joined with the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and a group of diverse Members, pro-choice, pro-life, Republican, Democrat, urban and rural, on a safe motherhood initiative in our own country. We confront the same challenges in keeping women healthy that women face around the world, although not to the same degree. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment. We should be doing all we can to encourage and reinforce the messages of safe motherhood and child survival. The Pitts Amendment would split these efforts and undermine our struggles to help both mother and child. I urge you to oppose this misguided amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to first respond to my good friend, the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), who indeed expressed so eloquently the hard work of this committee to change the formula and to do it fairly so that we could move forward in reducing economic aid to Israel and increasing the military aid. And I would say that most of my colleagues would agree that the investment in military aid in that region of the world is in our interest. So I would like to congratulate the chairman again in forging that agreement with the former prime minister of Israel. And in discussing this agreement with the current prime minister of Israel, there has been total support. I would just like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), that I share his concerns; and I would join the gentleman in working to enlighten our colleagues and work with this administration in increasing aid to the other parts of the world that need it so desperately. In fact, I have said over and over again that it is an embarrassment that we do not pay our U.N. arrears, even though that does not come out of this particular budget. It is an embarrassment that with all the problems in every part of the world that we are behind about a billion dollars in our U.N. dues. So I would join the gentleman. But I would say to the gentleman, at this time we are on the verge, on the brink, of seeing a real peace. The new prime minister, Prime Minister Barak, has been making every effort to move forward, to meeting with the other parties of the region to try to forge a real peace so that in our lifetime all of our investments and our commitment to that region of the world as a result of Camp David can become a reality. So it seems to me, and I agree with our distinguished chairman, this is not an opportune time to change the formula that has been very carefully crafted; that we should work together so we can see a real peace in the Middle East. And, again, I would say to the gentleman from California that I would join the gentleman in increasing aid to other parts of the world. We know of the real problem, the people who are in distress. And as the leader of the free world, at a time when our leadership is acknowledged, when there are problems with disease and problems of inadequate education and health care, we could make an additional difference. So I hope we can work together and increase our assistance to other parts of the world, but not change this formula while we are at a moment of a breakthrough in the peace agreement.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen a horrifying increase in terrorist attacks around the world. Extremists in every corner of the globe have carried out violent, deadly attacks on innocent civilians in the Middle East, Latin America, the United States, and elsewhere. One of the worst terrorist attacks in the 1990s was the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. July 18, 1999 marks the fifth anniversary of this cowardly attack on the Jewish community of Argentina, which tragically took the lives of 86 people, and injured over 200 more. I rise today to honor the memory of the victims of the AMIA bombing; to pay tribute to the families of those victims, who have carried on with tremendous strength and courage; and to join them in their call for justice. Mr. Speaker, although it has been five years since the AMIA bombing-- and seven years since the bombing of the Israel Embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people--the perpetrators of these terrorist attacks have not yet been brought to justice. Last year, I had the privilege of visiting Buenos Aires and meeting with representatives of the Jewish community there. I stood with members of Memoria Activa, AMIA, DAIA, and others affected by these bombings, and I joined them in their demand that the Argentine government do more to arrest and prosecute those responsible for these terrible attacks. But our calls have gone unanswered. The absence of swift and sure justice for the terrorists who carried out these attacks is a tragic mockery of the memory of those who lost their lives. A terrorist attack anywhere in the world is a threat to all of us. And a terrorist attack that goes unpunished, is an invitation for these cowards to strike again. Mr. Speaker, today we honor the memory of the victims of the AMIA bombing. The greatest gift we can give to their friends and family is to bring their killers to justice. I can upon our own government and the Argentine government to do everyting in their power to close this horrible chapter in our fight against terror.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell- Maloney-Gilman amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment. The debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high risk areas, then vote for the Campbell amendment. If you support cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith amendment. It is just that simple. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-Maloney-Gilman Amendment and in opposition to the Smith Amendment. This debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high risk areas, then vote for the Campbell Amendment. If you support cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith Amendment. It's that simple. The fact is: UNFPA does not support coercive abortion policies in China or anywhere else. UNFPA only operates in counties in China that have eliminated the use of any coercive family planning measures, and encourages voluntary family planning and the elimination of coercive policies throughout China. No one can deny that the need for family planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. My colleagues, in forty years our planet's population will more than double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more to deter the environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive growth. And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women around the world. Complications from pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age throughout the developing world. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive health problems. Mr. Chairman, this vote comes down to one question: Do you support family planning? If you support voluntary family planning to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions around the world, you must vote yes on the Campbell Amendment and no on the Smith Amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the part C of my good friend, which talks about implementing the section, ``Any plan that enters or renews a contract under this section may not subject any individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives because such activities would be contrary to the individual's religious beliefs and moral convictions.'' If an individual, be it another provider or a nurse, chooses not to provide this service, as long as the plan will continue to provide this service, we think this would be a perfecting provision. My objection, Mr. Chairman, is to to the first part, that a plan should develop a moral conscience. We were very careful last year in crafting this to respect every plan's religious conviction. We included five religious plans: Providence Health Plan, Personal Care's HMO, Personal Choices, OSF Health Plans, Yellowstone Community Health Plan, and any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious belief. However, Mr. Chairman, in the year that this has been implemented there were no objections. There were no additional plans that appealed to be included in this opt out provision. I have real concerns, Mr. Chairman, that we should suddenly give Blue Cross-Blue Shield or any other plans a conscience. I would expect that a plan that wanted to opt out because of their deeply held convictions would have done so in the last year. This year, the religious exemption that is in effect today and is contained in the bill continues to specifically exempt the five plans, and again, beneficiaries who want contraceptive services but whose provider choose not to offer them can be referred to other providers by their health plan. I want to also remind my colleagues, because this is a very important point, that providing coverage of contraception does not compel provision of services contrary to moral or religious convictions by any individual or health care provider. It merely requires the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan to provide the coverage, write the check, in other words, for the contraceptives. Again, OPM has reported that no other Federal employee health plan has requested a religious-based exemption, and no other plan has complained that the exemption is inadequate. No provider, no beneficiary, has complained. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, many of us on both sides of the aisle worked very hard to be sure that the religious exemption was well thought out. It was extensively negotiated between the House leadership, the White House, and myself, and most importantly, it is working. It strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate religious concerns of individuals and plans participating in FEHBP with an equally compelling public policy goal facilitating access to the broad range of contraceptive methods in order to reduce unintended pregnancies. Again, I respect the personal views of my colleagues, on whichever side of the issue they fall. We should have respect for each other. But let us not impose our beliefs on any other individual. This provision is working. Let it continue to work. Please reject the motion and please accept this second degree, which we believe is a perfecting motion.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this language. The contraceptive provision in this bill that has been very successfully implemented for the past year has not received any, any, any challenges from one plan. I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) agreed with that. We have given the individual the right to opt out before of a moral conscience. But, Mr. Chairman, a plan in my judgment does not have a moral conscience, and we do not want to give these plans the right to opt out from writing a check to cover basic health care for women.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes 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. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding to me. We have been discussing this issue for many years. Mr. Chairman, a plan is a corporate entity, and it is organized often for profit. Its role is to write a check. I do not think that we want a plan to begin to claim a moral conviction, moral objection to writing a check. Now this is not about examining a patient, talking about patients, because we have already included in the language that any individual provider, a nurse or other provider, may opt out based on religious or moral conviction. But we are saying if a plan suddenly has 50 people outside protesting, they could develop a moral conscience and say, ``I do not want to write a check.'' Now, I want to make it clear again that the provision which the gentleman and I negotiated very carefully last year listed all the religiously based plans that wanted to opt out. We gave other plans the option of opting out, but no one took that option.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the shock of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would like to make it very, very clear that what our provision does is allow an individual, a person, a group of people, a provider, to have a religious or moral conviction. I respect that. I want to make that very clear, that be it a doctor or a nurse or a provider, that person, in our provision, certainly may have a religious or a moral conviction. But I would like to remind my colleague what my provision does not do is allow a plan to have a moral conviction. A Blue Cross-Blue Shield, or another plan, in our judgment, in my judgment, it cannot have a moral conviction. If it has a religious objection, if it is religiously-affiliated, there were five plans that were included. Again, I would like to repeat, any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs, that plan can opt out. No one, not one plan in the past year, requested to opt out. So Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain again, we are willing to accept their provision which perfects the one from last year, which gives any provider the right on religious or moral convictions to opt out. That is just fine. But a plan does not have a conscience, and there is no plan that requested to be included in this opt out provision.

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

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as I was walking in, I heard the amendment, part of the amendment, but I would like to address the first portion of the amendment as I believe I heard it. I believe the gentleman is attributing to a plan a conscience. We debated this point quite fully in the last session of the Congress. And, in fact, we were quite concerned that a plan could suddenly develop a conscience and not allow this service to be provided, and, therefore, working in a bipartisan way with Members on both sides of the aisle, there was an agreement that any individual provider could opt out as long as that plan would provide the service. So I would like to ask the gentleman how a plan could suddenly develop a conscience, number one. Now I would like to continue. Number two, I would like to make another point. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 1.2 million Federal employees currently have this service covered. There has not been any concern; there has not been any criticism. Under the conscience clause included in this provision, which the chairman has included in his mark which has been brought to this floor, it is my understanding that there are no other plans that have requested to even be part of the conscience clause. There were religious plans included in the conscience clause that was developed, and it is my understanding from talking to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan that no other plans have asked to be included in the conscience clause in the exemption. So, Mr. Chairman, every once in a while we tend to pass legislation that really works, that is really providing a service, that is basic health care for women, and based upon all the information that I have there has been no objection. So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask us to allow a program that is really working, that is providing basic health care for women, to move along as it is. And I would like to work with the gentleman, as I mentioned many times, in preventing unintended pregnancy, and it seems to me that one of the best ways to do this is to provide for contraceptive services. That is the way we reduce the number of abortions and prevent unintended pregnancies.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague's motion, because I believe that the approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on FEHBP for their medical care should have the option of choosing a health plan which includes coverage for abortion. My colleagues are not surprised to hear me say this, because it is well-known that I am pro-choice. In fact, some of them may be tired of seeing me stand to speak about the right to choose and in fact I must tell them, I share that weariness. Many of us are tired of constantly battling over these issues. But I do so because I do believe that it is America's families, husbands and wives, moms and dads, who should be making decisions about abortion, not those of us who serve in the Congress. I have fought my entire tenure in Congress to allow women their right to choose, without fear, without shame. I also believe that our approach should be not to make abortion less accessible or more difficult but less necessary. If we agree, pro- choice, pro-life, that our goal should be less abortion, then our focus must be on what we can do to further that goal. We should increase access to contraception as we have done in this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his important work in including that provision in this bill. If we want to make abortion less necessary, we have to send a clear signal. Americans want us to work together toward a solution, not beat each other to death about abortion. So I believe that making abortion inaccessible is not the answer. Contraceptive methods may fail, pregnancies may go unexpectedly and tragically wrong. No matter how good the contraceptive technology and how much education we do, some women will just need abortions. And abortion must remain safe and legal. I oppose my colleagues excluding abortion, among the most common surgeries for women, from health care coverage. And I support allowing Federal employees to have the option of abortion coverage in their health plans. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in supporting the DeLauro motion to strike.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean for his generosity at midnight. I do think, Mr. Speaker, that it is extremely unfortunate that we are here tonight at midnight debating this procedural motion, but I have to say that it is just typical of the way the leadership has managed the gun safety issue. Instead of appointing conferees and enacting meaningful gun safety measures, they are once again throwing an obstacle in the way of legislation to protect our children from gun violence. The truth is that there have been delaying tactics at every turn. The long, sad saga of this bill is a disgrace to this House. First we were told not to offer gun safety amendments to an appropriations bill because we would consider the juvenile justice bill in regular order. Then, after the Committee on the Judiciary was totally bypassed and a sham juvenile justice bill was put up on the floor and defeated, we were told that conferees would be appointed before July 4. Then we were told again just 2 days ago not to offer or vote for amendments to appropriation bills on gun safety because the conference would be meeting soon on juvenile justice. Well, here we are months after the tragedy of Columbine High School, we still do not have conferees appointed. What is it going to take for the leadership to wake up and listen to the cries of American families? When are our colleagues going to understand that the issue is not going away? How long will we have to wait before Congress does something to protect our schools from gun violence? Each time we are faced with a delay, our calls will only get louder. We will not back down, we will not go away, we will continue to insist that Congress do its part to make our communities safer. It is clear that the American people are demanding action now, and it is time for us to say loud and clear that we cannot allow the NRA to write our Nation's gun laws any more. Mr. Speaker, after talking to these young people that came to Washington today, I do not know how any of us can look in their eyes and not make a very clear commitment that we are going to do our best to pass common sense gun legislation now.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Farr amendment. This narrowly crafted, common-sense amendment would improve a bill that I believe is good. As the sponsor of H.R. 1581, a bill that would outlaw the overall use of steel-jawed leghold traps in the United States, I have been trying to rid this country of these barbaric traps. Steel-jawed leghold traps slam with bone-crushing force upon their victims. Even worse, these devices are completely indiscriminate. Like land mines, they make a victim of any animal that happens upon them, threatening pets, endangered species, other non-target animals and even small children. Steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares have been condemned as inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association. Because of these dangers--and the existence of less cruel trapping alternatives, as witnessed by the non-lethal trapping of the Cherry Blossom beavers here in Washington--eighty-eight countries have already outlawed steel-jawed leghold traps. The National Wildlife Refuge system, launched in 1903, was created to combat the effects of the commercial killing of wildlife. It seems reasonable that, on the one federal land system created with the primary purpose of protecting and conserving wildlife, we prohibit the use of these inhumane traps. The Farr amendment does not bar the expenditure of funds to conduct trapping programs to protect endangered species, to manage other wildlife populations, or to protect facilities. This amendment simply bars two inhumane and indiscriminate traps when they are used for commercial profit or recreation on the one federal wildlife refuge designed to protect and conserve wildlife. The time has come for the United States to follow the lead of other industrialized nations. Three out of four Americans believe these traps should be prohibited. The appropriation committee has crafted a good bill. Let us pass this amendment and make it even better. I hope you will join us and support this commonsense, humane amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.