Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, we have experienced this week some of the darkest moments in our Nation's history, and yet in the midst of this horrible and unspeakable loss that our Nation suffered, thousands of brave men and women stepped forward risking, and indeed sacrificing, their own lives to rescue and save their fellow Americans. The stories we have heard from our colleagues today are only the beginning. Thousands and thousands of families are suffering, not knowing. This is just the beginning. So today, colleagues, we have the opportunity to offer one small gesture of thanks, to let the families of the firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers who gave their lives know that the American people and the United States Congress are profoundly grateful for their sacrifice. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is on his way to the Capitol, had this horror occur in his district in New York City. He has introduced this legislation to provide for the expedited payments of benefits for public safety officers who were killed or suffered catastrophic injuries in the line of duty while responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11. It is simply unconscionable that the families of men and women who gave so much at such a difficult and horrific time should now have to struggle to receive government benefits that are so obviously due. Even as we mourn and grieve today, we must appreciate that Americans did not hide, nor did they cower in the face of adversity and brutal assault. Rather, we banded together and worked feverishly to save every life that could be saved. While thousands of Americans donated blood and food and shelter to the victims of these attacks, no Americans gave more than the public safety officers who this legislation would benefit. In the face of the unthinkable, there is only so much that we can do to thank these noble citizens. This legislation is only a start and cannot compare to the loss of life for their families, but it is an important one. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation honoring our Nation's bravest heroes.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today full of anger and outrage, heartbreak and hope. We are not Democrats or Republicans. We are Americans, united in our resolve and determination. Yesterday's terrorism was not just directed against national landmarks and individual Americans. These terrorist attacks were directed at the very idea of America itself. Our response to this attack tests the strength of our international alliances, the integrity of our friendships, and the endurance of all nations in the struggle to build a world in which peace and freedom are the highest ideals. We have a tremendous opportunity and an awesome responsibility to redouble our efforts to purge the evil of terrorism from our global community. Our allies are mourning with us and offering their prayers. But we must have their unqualified support and cooperation in this battle. Let me make the ground rules absolutely clear: no country that harbors terrorists or sponsors terrorism will benefit from our defense, our commerce, and our aid. No one who teaches children hatred instead of games will find comfort from us. No more glorifying violence. No more praise for martyrdom. Those who rejoice in our tragedy must be exiled from the community of nations. And we must demand the help of our friends in the world community in this crucial effort. My colleagues, like so many yesterday, I watched the TV in horror. My children called to share their shock and to tell of a friend whose husband, trapped on a high floor in one of the Towers, called only to say good-bye to the wife he knew he would never see again. All around him, his colleagues were on the phone to their loved ones for the last time. We hear these stories over and over again. To all those who have lost so much, we want you to know that our hearts and prayers are with you, that all of America stands with you. For the man who called to tell his wife just one last time that he loved her, for the hundreds of brave officers, firefighters, and rescue workers who sacrificed their lives so that others might live, for all, we will find those responsible; and we will bring them to justice. There will be no safe harbor for those who would visit such enormous devastation on our citizens. Our Mayor, our Governor and our neighbors faced catastrophe with calm and humanity. We are very proud of them. Americans should stand with our President. We will face this tragedy together. We will comfort and support each other, and we will prevail. Friends, our people and our landmarks have been attacked, but the essence of America is indestructible. Our core principles, justice, liberty, and democracy, will remain forever unscathed. Let us say a prayer for our country and our people. Mr. Speaker, my good colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), is in New York. It is in his district where this catastrophe occurred. He asked me to read his statement. ``Today, I am at home with my fellow New Yorkers in this terrible, dark hour, but did not want this tragedy to pass without expressing my words on this floor of the longest and greatest democracy in the world. ``Like all Americans, I watched with a heavy heart the details of this attack and its aftermath emerge on the news. And like so many people, I still wait to hear word of friends and colleagues that were in the lower Manhattan area yesterday and pray for a miracle. The feelings I have of great sorrow, disbelief, and anger towards those responsible are feelings that I hope and pray I will never have cause to feel again in my life. ``My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families who suffered needlessly at the hands of cowardly terrorists, to those police and firefighters who died, and who are risking their lives as this very House meets. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the many heroes who emerged yesterday, as well. ``Unfortunately, we all too often forget the great sacrifice that the men and women of New York's finest and bravest make every day, until tragedy hits. After yesterday, with 300 or more firefighters and police feared dead, I do not believe we will ever forget how they lay their lives on the line every single day so that they may save ours. Just as they stand up for us, we must now stand up for them. Therefore, and this is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) speaking now, ``I will introduce legislation today which will allow for an expedited benefit payment process to the families of those police officers and firefighters who died in the line of duty yesterday in New York and at the Pentagon. ``I have spoken with the White House; which has assured me that whatever Federal assistance New York needs, it will get. I have been in constant contact with FEMA, which wanted me to stress just how important the need for blood is during this crisis. I urge all those who are able to donate blood, to call the Red Cross hotlines, at 1-800- HELP NOW. If anyone has any information on either of yesterday's attacks, contact the FBI at 1-866-483-5137. ``Mr. Speaker, all New Yorkers understand and feel empathy for those who lost loved ones on hijacked flights. New Yorkers, and indeed all Americans, will remember those victims at the Pentagon, for putting their lives at risk and paying the ultimate price, so that we can live our lives in freedom. ``In the end, that is what this comes down to--our freedom. To the majority of the world, our Nation stands as a beacon of hope. To those who want to crush freedom, to have people live in fear, our Nation stands as a rebuke as well as a threat. ``However, what those enemies of freedom fail to understand is that no amount of physical damaged can kill the ideals for which this Nation stands. Just as Pearl Harbor roused the sleeping giant to crush those who attacked it, this Nation must crush those who have declared war on us now. ``Let there be no mistake: We are at war, and have been for some time. We must make it clear, we will find those terrorists responsible for yesterdays attacks and punish them. That we will find, and punish, all those who seek to murder innocent people through terrorism. To those nations harboring and protecting terrorists, all the while pretending to be America's friend, you are no friend of ours. If you encourage hatred of the United States, and proclaim these attacks some sort of heroic act, you are no friend of ours. If you pay tribute to terrorists, you are no friend of ours. If you do not fully cooperate with our efforts to find terrorists and bring them to justice, you are not friend of ours. ``Today, we stand united, to mourn our losses, but determined to show the resolve upon which our Nation has always prided itself, as we rebuild. We will show the strength that can only be found in a free people. In the words of Lincoln, today, `we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.'

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Italian American community in this nation remains deeply interested in tracing and maintaining their family connections in Italy. Each year, family members of all ages visit the small towns and villages where their loved ones lived before emigrating to the United States. I recently became aware of one such trip by the grandson of one of the more prominent and successful Italian American families in our country: the Pope family. Paul David Pope, a successful businessman and philanthropist who lives in Florida, traveled to Italy in June to honor the memory of his grandfather, Generoso Pope Sr. While doing so, he rekindled the spirit of benevolence which his grandfather had bestowed on the villages of Pasquarielli, Terranova and Arpaise in the southern province of Benevento. In 1906, at the age of 15, Generoso Pope left his poor farming village and arrived in New York City with little money and a dream of success. He labored in the sand pits of Long Island for five years while going to night school. Following that, he went to work for the newly formed Colonial Sand and Stone Company and by 1926 he was the company President. In 1928, Pope purchased II Progresso Italo-Americano, the nation's largest Italian language daily newspaper. He later bought 3 other large Italian language newspapers in New York and Philadelphia. Generoso Pope became an advocate and a champion for the new Italian immigrants who came to the United States. A patriot who helped to raise funds for the Allies War effort, Pope urged his readers to learn English, become citizens and vote. Pope later became the sponsor of the now world famous Columbus Day celebration in New York. In 1929, Pope returned to Arpaise, Italy, with his wife and sons. He paid for a municipal power plant to bring electricity to the poor and isolated community, and in subsequent years, helped other local villages construct buildings like churches, schools and municipal structures. He also financed scholarships for worthy students. More than 70 years later, Paul Pope followed his grandfather's path home to Arpaise, to learn more about his grandfather's impact on the small towns where he lived. Paul also emulated his grandfather by making a significant contribution to fund several urgently needed civic improvements in the town. The emotional highlight of the trip occurred when town leaders and citizens honored Paul Pope with a magnificent Festa. It came 65 years after a similar Festa was held for his grandfather. Mayor Armando Cimmino bestowed Honorary Citizenship on Paul Pope for his work and philanthropy on behalf of Arpaise. Paul Pope also received the prestigious Magna Grecia Award by the International Association of Magna Grecia and an award from the International Association of Marguttiani. Paul Pope concluded his historic visit with a private mass with His Holiness Pope John Paul II. While in Italy, Pope announced the establishment of the Pope Medal to be presented annually to an individual who makes significant contributions in promoting their cultural initiatives, as well as his intention to sponsor an annual conference on the Italian-American experience, dedicated to the memory of his grandfather. The annual conference will be held under the auspices of the Calandra Institute of Queens College, City University of New York. The first conference will be held in 2002 and will focus on the Italian language press in America from its origins in the 19th century through today. Mr. Paul also hopes to hold additional forums at selected American colleges and universities with leading Italians in business, government, education and the arts. Paul Pope's experience proves once again that the ties between the United States and Italy are strong and enduring. I salute Paul Pope and the distinguished Italian Americans from New York who accompanied him on the trip including New York State Supreme Court Justice Dominic R. Massaro; Monsignor George J. Cascelli, Director Italian Apostolate of the Archdiocese of New York; Dr. Joseph Scelsa, Vice President for Institutional Development at Queens College; Maria Fosco, President of the Italian Welfare League; and Joan Migliori, Assistant Director of the City University of New York Italy Exchange Program. Paul Pope has made an important contribution to furthering cultural interactions between the United States and Italy, and I commend him for his leadership, commitment and vision.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Chairman Istook and Ranking Member Hoyer for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank members of the Appropriations Committee for supporting the reinstatement of my provision to provide contraceptive coverage to America's federal employees. This is a very important provision, and I am grateful that the vote to sustain this coverage was both bipartisan and strong. I am very proud to say that this provision, which gives 1.2 million federal employees of reproductive age access to contraception in their health plans, has been very, very successful. Since the provision's enactment, there have been no problems with implementation and no complaints received by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Let me repeat that--no plan, no provider, no beneficiary has contacted OPM with a concern or complaint about the contraceptive coverage provision. Before my provision was enacted, 81% of all FEHB plans did not cover the most commonly used types of prescription contraception. A full 10% covered no prescription contraception at all. Today, federal employees can choose the type of contraception best medically suited for them. My colleagues, let's remember why this is so very important. Contraception is a family issue, and it is basic health care for women. Although abortion rates are falling, today--still--nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended and half of those will end in abortion. Increasing access to the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices is the most effective approach to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. Americans share our goal. According to a recent national survey, 87 percent support women's access to birth control, and 77 percent support laws requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception. Their message is clear: If we want fewer abortions and unintended pregnancies, we must make family planning more accessible. And, my colleagues, this important benefit has not added any cost to FEHB premiums. This is important because when first introduced, the two main arguments against my provision were that covering contraceptives would add prohibitive cost to FEHB plans, and discriminate against religious providers. Neither of those charges have proven to be true. This benefit has not added any cost to FEHB premiums. Since the provision's inception, the OPM has not received any complaints about the provision from either beneficiaries, health professionals, or participating health plans. And this year's bill continues to respect the rights of religious organizations and individual providers. These protections are identical to those that passed by the House in 1999. Let me summarize what the religious exemption in the bill right now provides. Two plans identified by OPM as religious providers are explicitly excluded from the requirement to cover contraceptives, and any other plan that is religious is given the opportunity to opt out. Furthermore, individual providers are exempted from having to provide contraceptive services if it is contrary to their own religious beliefs or moral convictions. I believe that Americans want us to look for ways--as we did with contraceptive coverage--to work together, to find common ground. Increasing access to family planning is one way we can do that. This is a good provision and I thank my colleagues for continuing to support it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Export-Import Bank is a vital tool for helping United States businesses export United States goods. It should not be eliminated. In an ideal world, governments around the world would not subsidize their exports, and the United States would not, as well. However, we all know that other countries sometimes engage in ruthless trading practices, and we must give the United States exporters the tools to compete. As long as exporters in Europe and elsewhere are getting assistance, the Export-Import Bank will be a vital tool for American exporters. Recent trends show that export financing is becoming more, rather than less common, and major trading nations increased their government- provided export credit by 30 percent between 1993 and 1998. Total credit reached $488 billion in 1988 from other nations, while Export- Import Bank credits totaled just $14 billion. Given the huge and growing trade deficits we face, it is imperative, in my judgment, that we give our exporters assistance to remain competitive in world markets. I have questioned and will continue to question some of the Bank's practices and procedures, and the committee will continue to recommend appropriate funding levels for the Bank based upon our oversight and review of these practices. However, eliminating them entirely, as this amendment proposes to do, would inflict serious harm on United States exporters, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond very briefly to my good colleagues with appreciation for their important work in this area. It has been a privilege for me and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for us to feel we have had some part in making sure that young girls around the world will get educated so they can play an important role in their community and raise their families and raise their communities and hopefully lead to a more peaceful world. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their important work.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment, reducing the amount of military assistance for Colombia and increasing funding for child survival maternal health, tuberculosis and malaria. Regardless of whether you support the huge U.S. investment in arming and training the Colombian military and police, the facts are clear. The acceleration of military activity in southern Colombia as a result of Plan Colombia funding has led to less government control, more violence, and no reduction in drug cultivation processing or transshipment. As a result of these and other developments, President Pastrana is now considering signing a law which would provide the Colombian military with extraordinary power and exemptions from judicial review. During debate on Plan Colombia last year, Members were assured that alternative economic development was as much a priority as military and police aid. We were also told that our European allies would compensate on the economic assistance side for the imbalance in our own program. What actually happened? A massive fumigation campaign commenced last December in southern Colombia before any alternative economic development programs were in place. By last March, no alternative crop assistance had been delivered to communities which had agreed to voluntary eradication. Today, as we speak, assistance is being delivered in only two of the 29 communities that have signed pacts. In fact, only 1,800 of the 29,000 people in the affected area are actually receiving assistance today. Military assistance programs have proceeded rapidly, while economic assistance from Europe never materialized, and United States assistance has been slow in arriving. We are adept at wielding the stick of Plan Colombia, but the carrot is nowhere to be found. The McGovern amendment would reduce military assistance to give alternative development programs more time to be implemented. We owe the poorest of Colombia's poor who have been terrorized by the ongoing conflict the opportunity to eradicate their illegal crops voluntarily. And when they agree, we must have the capacity to deliver on our promises immediately. That is not the case today. Congress provided over $1 billion for Plan Colombia, of which only about half has been spent. The majority of the military equipment funded in that package has not even been delivered to Colombia. Spending this $100 million on infectious diseases is good policy and will not slow our progress in the war on drugs in Colombia. In fact, it will actually help, by demonstrating that our policy is balanced. It will also increase the likelihood that the alternative development pacts will be sustainable over time. The examples of successful voluntary eradication programs in Bolivia and Peru show that manual/voluntary eradication is the most effective and sustainable method of achieving long-term change. In order to bring that about, poor farmers must receive some actual benefits and gain confidence in their government. This has not yet happened in southern Colombia. The McGovern amendment will help solidify these alternative programs by slowing the pace of military assistance. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Lee amendment. It is not a matter of debate that the HIV/AIDS crisis is devastating Africa. More than 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are living with HIV/AIDS. Nearly 4 million were infected during 2000 alone. AIDS has deprived children of their parents, robbed schools of their best teachers, and stripped businesses of their most able employees. It is devastating the military forces of many African countries, posing a serious threat to United States national security interests in the region, and AIDS will cut life expectancy in some African countries in half in the next decade. That is just Africa. HIV infections are growing exponentially in the Russian Federation, 3.7 million are already infected in India, and there is an emerging crisis in China. HIV/AIDS is both a national security issue and a moral one. Our response must reflect the massive humanitarian and national security implications of the crisis. I am very pleased that this bill provides a total of $474 million to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. I am also pleased that our subcommittee has established a pattern in recent years of providing increasingly higher funding levels for this purpose. But I do believe we can do more. Our efforts to address this pandemic must be bilateral and multilateral and must encompass everything from care and treatment to prevention and education. The United States through USAID has taken a leadership role in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We should play a similar role in multilateral efforts as well. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to accept the gentleman's substitute. I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) expressing my views on the importance of the ability to respond to emergencies such as happened in India and Gujarat, and I am very pleased to work with the chairman to direct AID to direct the funds of $10 million towards this account. We both acknowledge the very important work of FEMA and the ability to respond to emergencies such as occurred in Gujarat, and working with countries to build that capacity.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of this amendment, which would help mitigate the effects of future disasters in South Asia. We witnessed with horror the devastation caused by the recent earthquake in Gujarat, India; but this was not the first nor will it be the last such occurrence in Southeast Asia. As reconstruction from the earthquake continues, we must look to improve the capacity of countries in the region to deal with similar events. The central purpose of our foreign assistance program is to help other countries build the capacity to help themselves. We help build vibrant NGO networks in the developing world, we help ministries of education train teachers and develop curricula to educate their children, and we help create health care infrastructures to allow poor countries to deliver medication and care efficiently and effectively. We should also be helping other countries build their capacity to handle unavoidable natural disasters. FEMA does a wonderful job dealing with crises in the United States. Our friends in India, Bangladesh, and elsewhere in the region require similar agencies to help them manage the devastation wrought by earthquakes, cyclones, avalanches and other disasters. Better disaster management will save lives. It will allow countries that have experienced tragedies to recover and reconstruct expeditiously. In the long run, it will lessen the massive need for United States foreign disaster assistance. I urge my conclusion to support this amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in strong support of this amendment which would increase our capacity to address one of the most egregious violations of human rights around the world. The State Department's recent report on trafficking has confirmed the bleakness of the situation. Each year at least 700,000 people are trafficked across international borders. The vast majority of these are women and children, and most victims are forced into what can reasonably be labeled as modern day slavery. They work in sweatshops and brothels. They live in squalid quarters, and they are stripped of their most basic human rights. Trafficking is not someone else's problem, and it is not a problem affecting only the developing world or only countries with political and social instability. Between 45,000 and 50,000 people are trafficked to our own country each year, and some of our closest friends in the international community have the most severe problems with trafficking in the world. We can attack this problem in many ways. One is through direct investment in ending the practice of trafficking, apprehending those responsible, providing support for trafficking victims and assisting our allies with tackling the problem within their own borders. Any effective strategy, however, will recognize that the problem runs deeper than this. Trafficking is a symptom of poverty and instability, it is a symptom of the devaluation of girls and women in society, and it is the symptom of hopelessness. We must treat the symptom, but we must not neglect the disease. I urge my colleagues to support not only increased funding to fight trafficking, but also increased funding for all of our development priorities.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We have already stood and debated the record of implementation of Plan Colombia. One thing which is crystal clear is that programs designed to provide benefits of alternative development simply have not materialized. Assistance is currently being delivered in only two of the 29 communities that have signed pacts to voluntarily eradicate coca. There are wide-ranging views about the effectiveness of aerial spraying, but no one disputes the fact that you cannot expect farmers to stop growing coca if there is no capacity to help them grow something else. We have heard a lot of promises for improvement from the administration, but the fact is that we have been promising acceleration of the program since March, and we have seen very little progress in terms of additional communities actually receiving assistance. Another basic concern is that there are no plans to set up alternative development programs in other regions of Colombia where they are spraying crops. In western portions of Colombia, for example, where many Afro-Colombians reside, spraying has occurred, and there are no alternative development programs and no plans to set them up. This amendment simply says, let us take a time out to rethink our policy. Getting poor farmers to voluntarily and manually eradicate coca is the ultimate goal of the program. Should not we have programs in place that demonstrate the rewards of such courageous actions before we spray on such a wide scale? In the rush to provide military assets and push into southern Colombia, we left out a critical part of the plan. The only thing we succeeded in was generating overwhelming public opposition and distrust in the regions being sprayed. Is that the path to a long-term solution? Will that muster the support of the local populations and governments? This amendment would halt spraying in Colombia and would give planned alternative development programs time to mature and demonstrate success. If this were allowed to occur, it would speed eradication of coca and bring us closer to the ultimate goals of Plan Colombia which we all share. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As the gentleman knows, we worked together to craft appropriate language regarding aid to Yugoslavia and its cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. The bill carries similar language to the fiscal year 2001 bill. It allows assistance to Serbia until March 30, 2002, at which time the Secretary of State must certify that Serbia is cooperating with the Tribunal, taking steps consistent with the Dayton Accords to limit financial cooperation with the Republic of Srpska, and is respecting minority rights. The bill also carries separate language requiring that all countries cooperate with the international criminal tribunal or face penalties. We arrived at this language through negotiations with the chairman, and it enjoys the support of most members of the committee. I understand and agree with the concerns addressed in the gentleman's amendment, and I am happy that the language included reflects many of those concerns. I am pleased to note that soon after our subcommittee marked up this bill former President Milosevic was turned over to the Tribunal. Despite this historic event, I strongly support retaining this language. It recognizes the simple fact that many war criminals remain at large and that our assistance should continue to be conditioned to a great degree on continued cooperation with the Tribunal. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wanted to extend my congratulations to the gentlewoman for her strong support of the people of Ukraine. I know of her work as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture in providing technology and assistance to the good people, understanding that by giving them the tools and giving them the skills they can help themselves to a strong democracy. I just want to assure the gentlewoman that I support maintaining a robust assistance program in Ukraine. Our aid helps build democracy, strengthens local government, encourages a free press and builds a stable and prosperous society. The current situation in Ukraine dictates that we maintain support for those in Ukrainian society who seek democracy, freedom and stability. Again, I want to thank her for her important work. I know that we will continue to work together.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for some additional comments on the Pelosi amendment. The recent earthquakes in El Salvador devastated the country, destroying 175,000 homes, leaving over 1 million people homeless, leveling schools, community buildings, and demolishing key components of the country's infrastructure. Although we did include $100 million, as our chairman has stated, in this bill, the low level of assistance, especially to a country where we invested billions of dollars to end conflict and achieve stability, is simply tragic. I am proud that the United States was able to react to the devastation quickly. Our relief supplies reached those who needed them most in a timely manner and earthquake victims appreciate our help. It is time, my colleagues, to make a larger commitment to helping the people of El Salvador recover from this natural disaster. We should not be satisfied with shifting funds around to piece together an assistance package. We must, in my judgment, make a serious investment in building infrastructure, constructing permanent housing, reconstructing schools and clinics and creating jobs. The United States needs to show leadership in helping El Salvador. The international community will follow our lead. Our lack of generosity in this instance has affected and will continue to affect the willingness of the international community to devote funds to relief and construction efforts. The United States has had a strong national security interest in achieving stability in El Salvador and has demonstrated this interest in past years with serious investment. It would be unconscionable, in my judgment, to turn our backs on El Salvador at this critical point when the future of the country is hanging by a thread. If we invest in the short- and long-term health of El Salvador now, we will avoid costly problems later on. If we continue to withhold a serious commitment of resources, there is no telling what the price will be in terms of instability and unrest later on. And that is why I strongly support the Pelosi amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership. I look forward to working with him on this very important issue, and I look forward to working with the chairman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my colleague for again speaking out so forcefully for microenterprise. We have been working on this issue a very long time, and I do applaud the gentleman's efforts in this area. We know that microenterprise is not charity; it is an outstanding investment. It helps the poorest of the poor break the cycle of poverty and achieve self-sufficiency. With barely more money than any of us would spend on a new suit or a weekend away, a woman receiving a microenterprise loan can literally change the course of her life. The loan may enable her to open a small restaurant, start a small business, buy some chickens, sell their eggs, make bread to sell to her neighbors. The small amount of income and the small amount of savings that this loan makes possible will pay for a small uniform for her daughter, who may not have otherwise gone to school. It will pay for doctor visits for her family, for nourishing food to keep everyone healthy and active. This small amount of money, which is paid back in full and on time more than 95 percent of the time, often less than $300 and many times less than $100, will give an entire family new hope for the future. Mr. Chairman, microenterprise works. We should increase our investment in these important programs. I want to applaud my colleague again for his focus on microenterprise, and I want to assure the gentleman that I intend to work with our Chair, who is a very, very active supporter of microenterprise as well, that we will do all we can to get additional funds in this program. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who has worked with us on this very critical issue.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Texas for bringing these issues to our attention once again, and I know of the commitment of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to these issues, and I can assure the gentlewoman as the bill moves through the process, we will continue to work together to provide as much resources as we can direct to this very important issue. Again, I thank my colleague from Texas for her important discussion of these priorities.

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

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of yielding to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for a colloquy.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment, and I thank my colleague for her strong leadership on this issue. A woman's right to make a private decision to terminate a pregnancy is the law of the land. The prohibition on prisoners' access to abortion services in federal prison facilities contained in this bill does not make it impossible for women in prison to obtain an abortion-- but it deliberately makes it more expensive, more difficult and less private. In my view, the only reason the ban does not go further--ban abortion outright--is because Americans support a woman's right to choose. I know that many of my colleagues do not, and I respect their views on this issue. I know that these colleagues would vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision immediately, if they thought they could get away with it. But they don't go that far, because Americans wouldn't let them get away with it. Instead, those who oppose a women's right to choose take every opportunity to make the decision ever more difficult, dangerous, and expensive. I support the DeGette amendment because I believe that's the wrong approach. If we agree that there should be less abortion, we can and should work together to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy less necessary. The policy we are debating in this amendment--which allows women in federal prison to pay for an abortion outside but not obtain one inside the prison system--only makes the decision to terminate harder. What could we do to make the need for terminating a pregnancy less necessary? We could do more to promote contraceptive access and use. We could work harder to educate people about taking responsibility for protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy. We could do more to prevent sexual assault, rape and incest. We could work together--as our constituents clearly would like us to do--to ensure that most women never need to make the personal decision about terminating their pregnancy. Less necessary--not more harassing and less private. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeGette motion to strike.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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