Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to instruct. The Helms amendment, which my colleague urges the Labor- HHS conferees to accept, was, in fact, voted on and rejected during the conference meetings in late July. Our colleagues who opposed it understood that supporting this motion would interfere in locally made decisions. There are roughly 1,200 school-based health clinics serving young people across the country, a partnership between local schools and community health providers. Three of four middle- and high school-based clinics do not offer contraceptive services at all. Of the 25 percent that provide these services, the decision to do so has been made collectively by the schools, the parents, community organizations and the young people themselves. The community works together to decide what is best for their young people and Congress should respect these local decisions. For those communities that choose to offer contraceptive services, access to contraception, including emergency contraception, just a double dose of a regular oral contraceptive, is crucial to helping teens avoid unintended pregnancies. I am the co-chair of the Congressional Advisory Panel to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). We have worked very hard in a bipartisan way to find community-based solutions to the epidemic of teen pregnancies that we have experienced in the 1990s. The good news is that the teen pregnancy rate has fallen for 7 straight years. The bad news is that American teenagers still experience 1 million pregnancies each year. In fact, teen pregnancy rates in this country are higher than in all other industrialized countries, twice as high as in England or Canada, nine times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan. Sadly, the risk of unintended pregnancy is only part of the problem facing our young people. There is also an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease among young Americans, but they do not even know it. Kids think it cannot happen to them, but it can and it is. Kids are getting STDs like chlamydia, which years later can rob them of their fertility; HPV, which can lead to cervical and penile cancers; and HIV for which tragically there is still no cure. Young people may visit a school-based clinic for information about pregnancy prevention, but leave with facts about STDs that can save their lives. I believe that if we continue to deliver strong and consistent messages about the importance of abstaining from sex, the risk of STDs, accurate information about contraception, we can continue to make continued progress in the fight against teen pregnancy and STDs; but since we know from recent data that three-quarters of the decline in the United States teen pregnancy rate is attributable to improved contraceptive use among teenagers, denying teens access to contraception will only jeopardize this progress. It does not make sense. That is why we should leave decisions about providing contraception and other important health services to local communities and schools. School-based clinics have an enormous job to do, and they are doing a world of good. Let us continue to support our communities, as they work to protect the health and safety of their kids. I urge my colleagues to defeat this terribly misguided motion.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a great public servant and a dear friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is hard to believe, but we know you are going to stay fighting with us all this time. Senator Moynihan has served our country honorably through more than 4 decades of public life and four distinguished terms as Senator from New York. I want to especially salute Liz, our friend, your soulmate, your champion, your partner, your friend and fighter for all the causes that are good in New York and this country. We know you are going to continue to fight with us, Liz. As a New Yorker, it has been an honor to be represented by Senator Moynihan; and, as a Member of Congress, it has truly been a privilege for me to work with him. A leading advocate for New York's renowned medical schools and teaching hospitals, Senator Moynihan has fought tirelessly to make sure that New York receives the Federal health care dollars that it deserves. As a member of the Irish caucus, I have seen firsthand Senator Moynihan's passionate commitment to establishing peace with justice for the people of Northern Ireland. Senator Moynihan has also worked relentlessly to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship and to bring peace to that troubled region. Yet Senator Moynihan's storied legislative career, numerous political appointments and 62 honorary degrees are only part of what makes him so remarkable. Anyone who has had the pleasure of his company or the opportunity to work and fight by his side knows that his eloquence, intellect and dignity have made him a model leader for all Americans and a venerable advocate for the people of New York. Indeed, Senator Moynihan has been a guiding light on so many issues critical to the American landscape, perhaps nowhere more evident than his lifelong commitment to ending poverty in this country. With his incisive intellect, his boundless passion, Senator Moynihan has worked tirelessly to speak for those who have no voice and to mend the social fabric of our Nation. I know I speak for all New York and the Nation when I say that this institution will lose a brilliant mind when Senator Moynihan retires next year, but we will continue to have your brilliant mind in fighting with us on all these critical issues that mean so much to New York and this country. I will always treasure the time I have served with and have been represented by my good friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We wish you well. Godspeed to you, Liz, as well.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration Act. This important piece of legislation provides a strong framework and strategy for protecting, maintaining and strengthening the nation's estuaries. Estuaries are essential and fragile ecosystems that deserve a comprehensive plan to ensure their long-term viability. They are home to thousands of species of aquatic plant and animal life. They are also some of the most productive commercial fisheries in the world. And, millions of Americans flock to estuarine areas for vacations and recreation. The legislation we are considering today gives us another tool to use for estuary preservation and restoration. This bill streamlines financing for estuary projects and integrates existing federal and non- federal programs. The bill also gives priority to those estuaries currently part of a management plan or pollution mitigation plan. This is so important that my colleague, Rosa DeLauro, and I introduced H.R. 1096, to provide special funding to States for implementation of national estuary conservation and management plans. I hope that with the passage of this legislation we can continue to provide the funding necessary to truly safeguard these essential natural resources. Unfortunately, I can also tell you, from recent experience, about the tenuous nature of estuaries. Many of my constituents live near and fish from Long Island Sound. The Sound, until recently, was the third largest lobster fishery in the United States, behind Maine and Massachusetts. But the last two seasons have been a disaster for the Long Island Sound fishery. All of the lobsters in Long Island Sound have died. Lobster harvesters are finding their traps empty and their lives thrown into turmoil. The cause of this die-off is being studied and investigated, and it reinforces the need for greater protection of the nation's estuary habitats. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the American Kennel Club's celebration of ``Dogs in Service to Mankind.'' The American Kennel Club, established in 1884, is the world's largest purebred dog registry and the nation's leading not-for-profit organization devoted to the support of purebred dogs, responsible pet ownership and canine health. As well as providing invaluable and beneficial companionship to millions of Americans, purebred dogs have provided service to mankind for generations and in a myriad of ways. Only a few examples are the dogs who accompanied our servicemen in every war; who rescue Americans every year from fire, entrapment and drowning; and whose powers of scent enable them to locate lost children, dangerous chemicals and illegal materials. Dogs give vital assistance to the handicapped, ill and elderly, and these amazing creatures can even warn a person that a heart attack or epileptic seizure is about to occur. Many Americans have benefitted from the companionship and unconditional love that service dogs provide. So today, I join the American Kennel Club in its recognition of dogs' extraordinary capabilities. I am delighted to Join in honoring these wonderful animals whose service to humankind deserves our utmost appreciation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4415. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum stands in our nation's capital in solemn testimony to the terrible power of senseless hatred and the ultimate triumph of faith and the human spirit. It guards the memory of the six million Jews and millions more who fell victim to Nazi Germany's genocidal persecution during World War Il. And it stands as a symbol for those who survived this tragedy, assuring them that we are committed to keeping their stories alive. An investment in the Holocaust Memorial Museum is an investment that strengthens the very fabric of our society. The nearly 15 million people who have visited the museum since its establishment have seen the pictures of murdered families, loyal and productive members of society, who were sent to their deaths for the crime of being Jewish. They have seen the gaunt bodies of survivors, liberated by allied troops from the death camps, facing the reality of families destroyed and lives shattered. They have seen the examples of the righteous, like Raoul Wallenberg, who risked their lives to defy Nazi hatred and save their Jewish brethren. Because of this museum, 15 million people know the price society pays when contempt triumphs over compassion, when people blinded by hatred are allowed to reign free. In light of the events of the past decade, of the strife we have seen in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and other places, it it more important than ever that we offer our full and unwavering support to the educational and cultural mission of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is a powerful rebuke to those who would divide us, both at home and abroad. It is a clear statement, a tangible symbol, of our active, ceaseless resistance to the darker impulses of humanity. It is a manifestation of our commitment to end hatred and bigotry in all their forms, to liberate those who face misfortunate and oppression, and to cherish the differences among the world's inhabitants. The museum is at once a monument to the past and a challenge for the future. As a first step toward meeting this challenge, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I express my great admiration for Kitty Carlisle Hart, an extraordinary actress, singer, advocate, and community leader who this year celebrates her ninetieth birthday. Kitty Carlisle Hart's contributions to the arts have been remarkable. She first appeared on Broadway in ``Champagne Sec,'' made her debut with the Metropolitan Opera as Prince Orlofsky in ``Die Fledermaus,'' ``'and starred in the American premiere of Benjamin Britten's ``Rape of Lucretia.'' Her career on film has been equally impressive, including roles in ``A Night at the Opera,'' ``She Loves Me Not,'' ``Here Is My Heart,'' ``Radio Days, '' and ``Six Degrees of Separation. '' Millions of Americans know and love Kitty Carlisle Hart from her fifteen year run as a witty and endearing, panelist on ``To Tell The Truth. '' Her sparkling personality helped make that program a national phenomenon. In New York, Kitty Carlisle Hart has distinguished herself as one of our most valuable citizens. She chaired the New York State Council on the Arts, which supports countless cultural activities, and worked with Nelson Rockefeller to expand opportunities for women. Kitty Carlisle Hart has also devoted her time and energy to a variety of educational institutions and museums, always infusing her work with a passion for the creative spirit. For these efforts and many others, Kitty Carlisle Hart was awarded the National Medal of Arts by President George Bush in 1991. Throughout her splendid life, Kitty Carlisle Hart has delighted audiences and inspired all Americans to value the arts. As she celebrates her ninetieth birthday in the company of friends, I am delighted to offer my heartfelt thanks and sincere admiration.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees. The American people have waited far too long for the passage of comprehensive hate crimes legislation, and we have an important opportunity today to show our support for this initiative. Each day we hear stories of hate groups actively recruiting members in our communities, often masking their hatred with religion. These groups incite the enmity and violence which tear at the very fabric of our society. The good news is that some States, like New York, have finally responded decisively to the destructive forces of hate-based violence. The bad news is that Congress has consistently squandered the opportunities we have had to address this phenomenon, dragging our feet while senseless hatred destroys communities throughout the country. It is past time to hear the cries and appeals of the victims of hate crimes and their families. We need to pass a Federal hate crimes law and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to fight these crimes. We need to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation, to keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of people who will perpetrate hate-based violence. We need to invest in the education of our children to teach them by example to embrace the diversity of our society. We need to find a way within constitutional bounds to diminish the damaging effects of hate speech in our communities; and we need to do it now, before one more person among us has to mourn the loss of a loved one to a senseless hate crime. Inaction in the face of this tragic, dangerous trend is indefensible.

Mrs. LOWEY

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. I want to stress that women should have the option. In 1995, Federal employees had many options. Of the then 345 FEHBP plans, just about half, 178, covered abortion. If women wanted to participate in a plan that covered abortions, they could. If they found abortion objectionable, then they could opt for a plan that did not cover abortion. The choice was theirs, not mine, not yours, not this institution's. That is why, although many of us are tired of constantly battling about this issue, I continue to speak about this because I believe that our approach should be to make terminating a pregnancy 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. I am very pleased that this bill contains provisions that guarantee contraceptive equity for Federal employee families. We can do more to increase access to contraception and work harder to educate people about responsibility. That will help us make the difficult choice of abortion less necessary. Making abortion inaccessible in my judgment 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 need abortions and that should be their decision, not ours. Abortion must remain safe and legal. I oppose excluding abortion, among the most commonly surgeries for women, from health care coverage. I support allowing Federal employees to have the option of abortion coverage with their own money, their earned income, in these plans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeLauro motion to strike and let us work for a day when abortion is truly rare.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will send a strong message to the government of Iran and the world that the United States Congress will not tolerate Iran's blatant disregard for basic human rights. We have heard about the so-called ``moderation'' of Iran, about the power struggle between the hard-line clerics and the reformists led by President Khatemi. I invite my colleagues to examine carefully the face of this moderation. Ten Iranian Jews were recently sentenced on charges of spying for the United States and Israel. These 10 have been denied due process, were coerced into confessing on Iranian TV, and were prosecuted, judged, and sentenced by the same Revolutionary Court judge. Since late May, over 20 newspapers and magazines associated with the reformists have been shut down by the Iranian government, silencing the voices of the independent press in that country. And just recently, two prominent human rights lawyers in Iran were sent to prison, without trial, on charges of insulting public officials. No reasonable person could call this ``moderation.'' My colleagues, Iran is not ready to join the community of nations. Each day, Iran produces more and more evidence that the terms of membership in this community--including respect for basic human rights, due process, and freedom, are not terms it can accept. Each day, Iran sends unmistakable messages to the world that it is not willing to embrace the mores of reasonable society. Each day, Iran continues to threaten its neighbors and pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. We have heard these messages loud and clear. And we should react accordingly. This is not the time to make concessions to Iran. This is not time to open up our markets to Iran, to allow the government to fill its coffers with dollars from the sale of Iranian goods to the United States. This is not the time to give Iran one iota of legitimacy in the international community. Legitimacy must be earned, and Iran has earned nothing. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch amendment, which would deny funding for the importation of Iranian products. We owe at least this much to the Iran 10, the independent journalists, the human rights lawyers, and all the people of Iran who are still not free.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend an individual from the great state of New York, who was born and raised in the town of Canandaigua, in the state's beautiful Finger Lakes region. This individual is John Henry (Ike) Ingraham. Ike left the bucolic vistas of upstate New York to attend the New York State Maritime College, now part of the State University of New York. The Maritime College, founded in 1874, is an institution of higher learning which prepares young men and women for careers in the maritime industry, which helped make our State the center for trade and commerce in the new world. Ike spent the majority of his working career in the marine insurance industry while simultaneously maintaining membership and participating in the Active United States Navy Reserve, achieving the high rank of captain. During the Navy portion of his career he commanded various Military Sealift Command Reserve Units and received a commendation from the Commander, Military Sealift Command for initiating weekend watchstanding at the various MSC command unit locations. It was also interesting to me to learn of one of Ike's last assignments in the Navy here at the Navy Annex in Arlington, Virginia, where he had an office next to another outstanding New Yorker, the late John Cardinal O'Connor, who was the Chief of Navy Chaplains at the time. Ike is a member of the Class of 1952 of the Maritime College, and will be honored by his classmates at their year 2000 Class Reunion, here in Washington, D.C. this September for being the ``glue'' that has held the class together for the past 48 years. He accomplished this by spearheading the organization and execution of many of the class reunions, faithfully maintaining an ever changing mailing address and e-mail address list, and publishing a class newsletter two or three times a year. I would like at this time, along with all the members of his Class, to commend Ike for his diligence and unselfish commitment to his fellow classmates during the ensuing years and wish Ike ``fair winds and following seas'' and continued success in the future. By his exceptional professional ability, personal initiative, and total dedication to duty, Ike reflected great credit upon himself, and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Navy Reserve and the Maritime Service.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), one of my colleagues who was also on that trip to India and saw the abject conditions that these men, women, and families are living in.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who understands that respecting our constitution here and abroad is an important obligation of Americans. (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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a fighter for women's rights around the world. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This is the time that we should be working together on environmental, education, and health issues.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment which would eliminate all of our international family planning and population programs. The House rightly rejected this amendment last year by a vote of 145-272. I respectfully submit that we do so again with an even larger margin. Our family planning and population programs work hand in hand towards one very worthy goal, advancing the health and well-being of children and families. Simply put, if you seek healthy children, you must have healthy mothers. There is a strong relationship between educating women on safe motherhood, voluntary family planning and child survival. Planning pregnancies is one of the most powerful and effective child survival tools in existence. Postponing early high-risk pregnancies, giving women's bodies 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 out across to women is an integral part of our population and family planning work because healthier mothers will be better able to care for their children. Children born to mothers who wait 2 years between 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 have to do all we can to encourage and reinforce the messages of voluntary family planning, safe motherhood, child survival. This amendment would absolutely destroy our efforts to help both mother and child. It would destroy the efforts of the barber in this small village in India to be taught while he is cutting the hair of these men how to work with the men and women in teaching them, educating them. That is what family planning is about in the poorest parts of our world. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, striking this language would be a victory for women and children and democracy around the world. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a fighter for democracy.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished leader on women's health.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader on international family planning.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would strike the global gag rule from this bill. This anti-democratic policy forces NGOs in the developing world to sacrifice their right to free speech in order to participate in our family planning programs. While restricting foreign NGOs in this way may only offend our democratic sensibilities, if we tried to do this at home, it would be absolutely unconstitutional. Section 587 of this bill severely damages our international family planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than our limited funds can meet, and section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on family planning which is $156 million below the President's request. Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. 600,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventible. More than 150 million married women in the developing world want contraceptives, but have no access it them. Increasing access to family planning will save the lives of women and children and it will reduce the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this section will reduce the number of abortions performed each day. If you support this objective, you should support this amendment. We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our foreign assistance? The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that we do not need to care about their rights, that freedom of speech, the very foundation of the American democracy, matters here, but it does not matter abroad, that our commitment to free speech and freedom of association, fixtures of our Constitution, end at our own borders. Is this the kind of message that we want to send? Make no mistake, the United States is being watched. Each day Members on both sides of the aisle condemn violations of human rights abroad. Each day we debate whether the United States should associate at all with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace Democratic ideals. Our neighbors around the world look to us as the definitive authority on democracy. The words of the director of a family planning organization that receives our funding sums up the severe damage that we do to our own credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag rule into our foreign assistance program: We believe this requirement is profoundly anti-democratic and does a disservice to the legacy of the United States of America's fight for democracy. Democracy is nourished and strengthened by open debate and freedom of expression. Shackling the discussion of ideas impoverishes such public debate, and, in doing so, weakens democracy. We are now in the difficult position of having to choose between needed funding for an historic project on the one hand and essential democratic participation on the other. Either way, there is a cost to women's reproductive health and to democracy. Mr. Chairman, if the oppression of ideas with which some do not agree and the use of economic power to crush dissent are ideals one thinks the United States should export, then vote against this amendment. But if believes, as I do, that the strength of our country lies in our unwavering commitment to democracy at home and abroad, then join us in voting yes to strike the global gag rule. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished ranking member of this committee and a fighter for human rights and freedom around the world.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would strike the global gag rule from this bill. This anti-democratic policy forces NGOs in the developing world to sacrifice their right to free speech in order to participate in our family planning programs. And while restricting foreign NGOs in this way may only offend our democratic sensibilities, if we tried to do this at home it would be absolutely unconstitutional. Section 587 of the bill, severally damages our international family planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than our limited funds can meet, and Section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on family planning, which is $156 million below the President's request. Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. Six hundred thousand women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventable. More than 150 million married women in the developing world want contraceptives, but have no access to them. Increasing access to family planning will save the lives of women and children, and it will reduce the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this section will reduce the number of abortions performed each day--if you support this objective, you should support this amendment. We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our foreign assistance? The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that we don't care about their rights. That freedom of speech, the very foundation of American democracy, matters here, but it doesn't matter abroad. That our commitment to free speech and freedom of association, fixtures of our Constitution, end at our own borders. Is this the kind of message we want to send? Make no mistake: the United States is being watched. Each day, members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle condemn violations of human rights abroad. Each day we debate whether the United States should associate at all with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace democratic ideals. Our neighbors around the world look to us as the definitive authority on democracy. I think the words of the director of a family planning organization that receives our funding sums up the severe damage we do to our own credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag rule into our foreign assistance program. ``We believe this requirement is profoundly anti-democratic and does a disservice to the legacy of the United States' fight for democracy,'' the director wrote. ``Democracy is nourished and strengthened by open debate and freedom of expression; shackling the discussion of ideas impoverishes such public debate and, in doing so, weakens democracy . . . We are now in the difficult position of having to choose between needed funding for a historic project on the one hand, and essential democratic participation on the other. Either way, there is a cost to women's reproductive health and to democracy.'' If the suppression of ideas with which some don't agree, and the use of economic power to crush dissent--are ideals you think the United States should export, then vote against this amendment. But if you believe, as I do, that the strength of our country lies in our unwavering commitment to democracy at home and abroad, then join me in voting ``yes'' to strike the global gag rule.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I have become very familiar with programs like Star Network, which is organized and run by a group called World Learning that is training women throughout the Balkans to become leaders in their communities, in their societies, and they enter the political arena as a result of this training. All the points the gentleman has mentioned really illustrate how very critical these programs are. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments.