Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), next in our cavalcade of the champions of human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has been a champion for human rights and in very tough struggles throughout the world and an expert on trade issues.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip, a champion of workers rights and human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution to revoke most- favored-nation status for China. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the Solomon resolution, which would deny the special waiver that the President is requesting to grant MFN, NTR, whatever you want to call it. I, too, voted for the IRS reform bill which had this little provision in it to change the name. But a rose is a rose is a rose. And in this case, it is a thorn, this thorn in terms of the enormous trade deficit, the enormous proliferation dangers that China presents, and the ongoing continued repression in China and Tibet. Our concerns in Congress over the years have centered around three issues: trade, proliferation, and human rights, and let us just from the start establish some ground rules. This debate is not about whether MFN for China will be revoked or not. We all know it will not. The President will not sign the bill. What this vote is today whether this Congress will once again associate itself with the policy that has failed in all three areas of concern. How much bigger will the trade deficit have to get for our colleagues to take notice? How many dissidents will have to be arrested, how much longer will many of them have to stay in jail for us to associate ourselves with their aspirations for democracy rather than calling Jiang Zemin, their jailor, the torturer in China and Tibet, a democratic leader who will take China into the future? And how much more proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, chemical and biological war technology does China have to proliferate for us to say enough is enough? As I have said this debate is not about MFN revocation, it is about associating ourselves with a failed policy, or trying to give the President some leverage by saying this body will no longer tolerate all these violations of the Chinese Government in terms of trade, proliferation, and human rights. But on the basis of trade alone, there is sufficient justification, more than sufficient, to revoke most- favored-nation status. When we first started this debate in the late 1980s, in 1988, the deficit for 1988 was about $3\1/2\ billion. For this year, for 1998, the trade deficit, 10 years later, will be $63 billion. And in the Clinton years alone, the trade deficit will be by the end of this year around a quarter of a trillion dollars with China alone. I repeat--in the Clinton years, the trade deficit with China will be about a quarter of a trillion dollars. How much is enough, and why do we have that deficit? Because as the President went to the Great Wall of China, he should have seen it as a symbol of the great wall around China's markets. China simply does not allow most products made in America into China. There is some trade: aerospace, some electronics, fertilizer. There are some areas. Certainly not enough from our agricultural community. We should be demanding more, and we are. And this trade deficit of $63 billion does not even include the piracy of our intellectual property, especially software, which continues; the use of transshipments to avoid our quotas; the use of slave labor for exports. And the list goes on. Yes, China must come into the World Trade Organization in order to play by the rules. But what is more dangerous to our economy is the insistence of China that if we want to sell in a Chinese market, we must manufacture in a Chinese market and we must not only transfer our production, we must transfer our technology. And so, we have the transfer of technology to China, which will have a dramatic and negative impact on our own economy. As I say, a country that large, an economy that large that does not play by the rules is a danger to our own economy. On the technology transfer and the production transfer, do not take my word for it. Take the word of the president, the CEO of Boeing, who said, when a Boeing plane flies to China after one of aerospace sales, it is like it is going home so much of it has been manufactured in China. When President Clinton was at the Terra Cotta Soldiers at Tian, how beautiful they are, if he had gone down the road a piece he would have gone to the Tian Aerospace Company, where 20,000 Chinese workers make $50 to $60 a month making the tailpiece for the Boeing 747, $50 to $60 a month. So if they want to call it normal trade relations, I do not know what their definition of ``normalcy'' is, but this is certainly not trade which is trade to the American workers. Our colleagues who support normal trade relations with China will tell us that China's exports to the United States have risen four times in the past 10 years. But do my colleagues know how many times our imports from China have risen? They have grown about 30 times. From 1985 to 1997, China's exports have increased 30 times, while our sales to China have only risen four times. So let us be fair about how we present this picture. And the news in the paper today is not good. Let me talk about what is new on trade. The trade figures that came out the other day were very damning. The trade deficit for May of this year was 25 percent higher than it was for May of last year and almost 10 percent higher than April of this year. So the trade deficit continues to grow. Then we get to the subject of proliferation. What is new in that arena? As my colleagues know, the Office of Naval Intelligence last year said that China was the biggest and most dangerous proliferator of weapons of mass destruction technology to the Middle East. That Office of Naval Intelligence is not going to put out a report this year. But the CIA report that was held up until after the President's visit, by the way, but was just released demonstrates a similar and continuing pattern. In this morning's paper it was announced that while President Clinton was in China pronouncing that nonproliferation was a major part of his agenda, the Chinese were testing a ballistic missile right at that very time, right in the face of the President's visit. How insulting! While the President was there, the Chinese, on the subject of human rights, were rounding up dissidents and since the President's departure have continued to round up dissidents. Today the Washington Post writes about a continuing pattern of repression since President Clinton left China. So what was accomplished by all that? We would think, with the hand of friendship that President Clinton had extended to the Chinese, that they would have offered him some level of cooperation. But they handed him the three noes. No, we are not going to sign the Missile Technology Control Regime to stop the proliferation. We will study it. They have been studying it for years. We will sign at some later date the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Kick that can down the road again. And, no, we are not going to lower our barriers to allow us to become qualified to join the World Trade Organization. They handed the President the three noes, and the Administration declared that that was a success. When is this House going to face the facts? Why is the House in a state of denial? But I have confidence, my friends, because I truly believe that we all believe in promoting human rights in this country and throughout the world; and I do believe that we associate ourselves with the pillars of our foreign policy, which is to promote our economy through promoting our exports, which is to promote democratic values, and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So a vote today is not about MFN alone, although that would be a justified vote. It is about a policy that is not in keeping with the pillars of our own foreign policy. Vote no on MFN. Vote yes on the resolution to make the trade fairer, to make the world safer, and to make the people freer. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I request how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that if we have a call of the House that we would each have 4 minutes or less, depending on how much time we have for the closing presentations?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, the debate on the floor today is not whether China will get Most Favored Nation status or that same status by any other name. The debate on the floor today is whether Members of Congress want to associate themselves with a failed policy, a policy which in the last 10 years has seen our trade deficit with China increase from $3 billion to $63 billion projected for 1998. It is interesting to hear people talk about normal trade relations, as it will now be called. As I said before, a rose is a rose is a rose. In this case, a thorn is a thorn is a thorn. Because the fact is that the Chinese regime has already decided that we are not going to have normal trade relations with them. They have done that by having the Great Wall of China around their markets resulting in that big trade deficit, by using slave labor for export, by using transshipments to avoid our quotas, and by pirating our intellectual property in the case of software at a rate of 95 percent. So they must be having a great big chuckle over there in Beijing to see that we are debating to give them what they have already decided will not be a normal trade relationship. Let us hear it for a normal trade relationship. I hope we can achieve one. But clearly, we have not gotten from here to there with this failed policy of granting Most Favored Nation status to China. I just want to talk about a couple things I have heard said here. I heard people say they are making progress in human rights because they freed a few political prisoners. They forcefully exiled those people. That is punishment. That is not progress. That is why Wei Jingsheng has been speaking out since he came to the United States to say, unless there is a threat of withholding this preferential trade treatment from China, the hands of the reformers in the government are not as effective in trying to persuade the hard- liners to change. To change, to open the doors to the prisons of those who are still in prison from the Tiananmen Square massacre and many from the Democracy Wall era, which is 20 years ago. We cannot put the Tiananmen Square massacre behind us until those people are free, until the exiles are able to return home and speak freely within China. I have heard others say that China is moving on human rights because they are going to work on the rule of law. How the Beijing rulers must enjoy that one. In Chinese, it is the rule by law. And that can be very, very oppressive. I have heard people say here that the President made great progress on the proliferation issue because of the targeting. They present that notion and then they belittle it because they know that that is not a summit accomplishment. And what was really happening while the President was there? While they may have been not targeting us, China was conducting a test. And an official of our own Government said, ``President Clinton said proliferation would be high on his agenda during the summit. And by testing this key component of a long-range missile when they did, the Chinese have made it clear their lack of respect both for the President and his message,'' they said. Trade, proliferation, human rights. Let us have a normal trade relationship. Yes, let us use the leverage that we have to make the world safer, the trade fairer, and the people freer. I ask my colleagues, is $1 billion a week deficit normal? Vote ``yes'' on the resolution and ``no'' on MFN for China.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Federal support is necessary to ensure that broad access to the arts is possible for citizens of all economic backgrounds and all regions of the country. Today, arts agencies in all 50 states and 6 territories receive federal funding through the NEA to support the arts. Prior to the creation of the NEA, few state arts councils awarded grants. Arts funding in this country rests on the combined support of federal, state, and local public dollars, as well as private donations. Federal dollars are essential in leveraging other support. For example, in FY 1997, $99.5 million in federal dollars was matched with $280 million in state support and $675 million in local funding. Last week, the House Committee on Appropriations voted 31-27 to provide funding for the NEA. Now, the Republican majority is seeking to undermine the work of the Committee, and set back arts in this country by passing a rule that will allow NEA funding to be zeroed out. Opponents of the NEA suggest there is little accountability at the agency. However, over the last several years, the NEA has made substantial changes to address Congressional concerns and also make it more responsive to the public. Recently, six Members of Congress were added to the NEA advisory body, a new NEA Chairman was unanimously approved by the Senate, and a new grant award program was established to provide for a more equal distribution of arts funds to underserved states. In addition, the NEA also implemented changes in its grant award program to improve accountability by prohibiting the shifting of funds from one project to another. The NEA has been responsive to concerns raised by Congress and the public. New attempts to cut funding to this agency are without merit. Given that last month the Supreme Court upheld the use by the NEA of ``general standards of decency'' in awarding grants, the current attacks on the NEA for funding controversial projects are unwarranted. Over the last three decades, the NEA has substantially increased arts activity in every state in this country. Federal support is needed to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to discover and enrich their lives by experiencing the arts. I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the NEA.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill is yet another attack in the ongoing attempt by conservative Members of this House to deny reproductive choice to women. When faced with a difficult choice, teenage girls should be encouraged to seek the advice and counsel from their elders and not be concerned with criminal consequences. If passed in its current form, this bill would criminalize the conduct of a grandmother who helps her granddaughter in a time of need. This bill will not lead to better family communication where it does not already exist. This bill is invasive and intrusive and denies a young woman the right to face a difficult choice with safety and dignity. Furthermore, H.R. 3682 raises important federalism issues. Laws from one State do not follow people to another. Mr. Speaker, more than 75 percent of young women already involve one or both parents in their decision. When a young woman cannot involve a parent, she should be encouraged to involve a trusted adult without the fear that the adult who accompanies her could face incarceration. One study found that half of all young women who did not involve a parent did involve an adult, including 15 percent who involved a step parent or adult relative. If this bill passes, these individuals could be jailed for helping to obtain a legal medical procedure. H.R. 3682, if enacted, would put a young woman's life at risk should she be unable to involve a parent or guardian. It will increase the chance that she will seek an illegal or self-induced abortion or delay the procedure, making it more dangerous. Instead of increasing the risks involved in abortion, let us support measures to make abortion less necessary by reducing teen pregnancy, promoting adolescent reproductive health education, and expanding access to confidential health services (including family planning). Let us not turn our backs on young people and criminalize the assistance of a parent or trusted adult. Young women must not be isolated from a supportive parent or trusted adult and must be encouraged to make open, honest and safe choices. We must protect young women from coercion by strangers, but not from the support of a caring adult. Mr. Speaker, this bill will put the reproductive health of young people at risk and infringe upon an individual's constitutional right to privacy and reproductive choice. This bill is in need of clarification to differentiate between the act of a caring adult and the act of an individual deserving criminal persecution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Federal support is necessary to ensure that broad access to the arts is possible for citizens of all economic backgrounds and all regions of the country. Today, arts agencies in all 50 states and 6 territories receive federal funding through the NEA to support the arts. Prior to the creation of the NEA, few state arts councils awarded grants. Arts funding in this country rests on the combined support of federal, state, and local public dollars, as well as private donations. Federal dollars are essential in leveraging other support. For example, in FY 1997, $99.5 million in federal dollars was matched with $280 million in state support and $675 million in local funding. Last week, the House Committee on Appropriations voted 31-27 to provide funding for the NEA. Now, the Republican majority is seeking to undermine the work of the Committee, and set back arts in this country by passing a rule that will allow NEA funding to be zeroed out. Opponents of the NEA suggest there is little accountability at the agency. However, over the last several years, the NEA has made substantial changes to address Congressional concerns and also make it more responsive to the public. Recently, six Members of Congress were added to the NEA advisory body, a new NEA Chairman was unanimously approved by the Senate, and a new grant award program was established to provide for a more equal distribution of arts funds to underserved states. In addition, the NEA also implemented changes in its grant award program to improve accountability by prohibiting the shifting of funds from one project to another. The NEA has been responsive to concerns raised by Congress and the public. New attempts to cut funding to this agency are without merit. Given that last month the Supreme Court uphold the use by the NEA of ``general standards of decency'' in awarding grants, the current attacks on the NEA for funding controversial projects are unwarranted. Over the last three decades, the NEA has substantially increased arts activity in every state in this country. Federal support is needed to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to discover and enrich their lives by experiencing the arts. I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the NEA.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as the House is coming to order, as one who has had a long interest in this U.S.-China trade debate, I want to commend you for your distinguished presiding over the House today during this very important issue to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of recognizing our distinguished Democratic leader of the House, a champion for promoting democratic values throughout the world, promoting our own economy through promoting exports, and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 316]

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand that there is an agreement on all sides about the division of debate time on this resolution, and I would like to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, his understanding of that agreement. The unanimous consent request provides, I understand, 4 hours of debate, equally divided between supporters and opponents of the Solomon resolution. It is my understanding the 2 hours of the debate in support of the resolution will be controlled by a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), with the understanding that he will yield half of that time to a majority member of the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen); and the 2 hours of debate in opposition to the resolution will be controlled by a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), with the understanding he will yield half of his time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). I would ask the gentleman, is that the intent of this unanimous consent request?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding this time to me. I rise, unfortunately, I rise in opposition to the rule on a bill that I had hoped to come to the floor to support today, and I do say I regretfully oppose this rule for the following reason: There has been a good deal of debate about trade with China in this Congress. But I really did not think we would be having any today as the President starts his trip. I have myself refrained from speaking on this floor about that issue, as I say, while our President is in China. But then I found out that the Committee on Ways and Means had sneaked this provision into this bill. When I had spoken to members of the committee, they said, ``No, it's not in there; I've read the entire bill, it's not in there.'' But upon further investigation it was learned that changing the name of ``most favored nation'' status to ``normal trade'' status was put into this bill. I can understand why my colleagues would not want to face up to this, because it is not right, and they must be ashamed of what they are doing or else they would let this decision be faced by this Congress standing on its own in the full light of day. But, my colleagues, you can call it whatever we want. It is not a rose, so I will not say a rose by any other name is still a rose because it is more like a thorn, a thorn in the side of the American worker. I have here the chart about the trade deficits with the People's Republic of China, and if I continued this chart to 1998, my colleagues would see that in the years of the Clinton administration alone, by the end of 1998, the trade deficit with China will be about a quarter of a trillion dollars. That is not million with an M, billion with a B, it is TR, trillion dollars, and that trade deficit continues to grow. Our colleagues boast that China buys nearly $13 billion from us, and that that number has increased. At the same time, the Chinese exports to the United States have grown to $62 billion for 1997, will be close to $80 billion for 1998, resulting in a trade deficit projected for 1998 of about over $63 billion. In addition to the high tariffs which block access to most products made in America to the Chinese market, China has engaged in other nontariff barriers to our products. Let us talk about the tariffs for a moment. And do not take my word for it. This is the Foreign Trade Barriers Report of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. It is the 1998 National Trade Estimate Report, and in it the trade rep says China restricts imports through a variety of means including high tariffs and taxes, nontariff measures and limitations on which enterprises can import, and other barriers. For example, China has used prohibitively high tariffs which in late 1997 still reached as high as 100 percent on some motor vehicles. In the interests of time I will not read all of that, but just to conclude on that point, I say that these nominal high tariff rates to which China adds applicable value-added taxes on some goods, consumption taxes contribute to inefficiencies in China's economy pose a major threat to U.S. commercial opportunities. I would not be opposed to most favored-nation-status for China if China extended it to the United States. In addition, in terms of service barriers, while China has promised to liberalize access, restrictive investment laws, lack of transparency and arbitrary application of regulations and laws limit U.S. service imports, exports and investments in China. My colleagues can read for themselves more and more about that in here. Since Tiananmen Square in 1998, the trade deficit has soared from $3 billion at that time to a projected $63 billion for 1998. It is important for our colleagues to note that because of these high tariffs most products made in America do not have access to the Chinese market. Indeed, less than 2 percent of our exports are allowed into the Chinese market, while we import nearly over 35 percent of Chinese exports into our market. The list goes on and on about lack of market access, violation of intellectual property which continues (ask the software industry), technology transfer, production transfer, transshipment of textile goods, and the use of forced labor for export. The trade violations alone would be enough to say that this is not, call it what we want, a normal trade relationship, and then when we consider the leverage that we would have with this huge trade deficit to improve the human rights situation in China and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, my colleagues can see that we are wasting an opportunity. Speaking of the President's trip, one of the commentators said, ``Well, when the President goes there, we will see that there's more in China than repression.'' Well, as long as repression is there, we should use every tool at our disposal to make sure that it does not exist. If we are true to who we are as Americans, the central core value of promoting democratic values should be central. It should be not only on the table, it should be the table on which other concerns rest. And so I say with regret, ``Shame, shame, shame that the Committee on Ways and Means with the Committee on Rules is sneaking this in so that Members are forced to vote for something in the dark in the interests of passing a bigger law.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. Women in America have a right to choose. I believe it is the goal of all of us in this body to reduce the number of abortions and to make abortions safe, legal, and rare. It is on the subject of safe that I would like to address my remarks. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would prohibit the expenditure by the Food and Drug Administration of funds for testing, development or approval, including approval of production, manufacturing or distribution, of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. The RU-486, the chemical, the product in question, is a nonsurgical abortion, and it is one that is also medically safe. Such a ban, as the gentleman from Oklahoma is proposing, would unconstitutionally restrict the right to choose. For some women for whom surgical abortion poses risks or is otherwise inappropriate, the Coburn amendment would unconstitutionally again restrict the right to choose. For others who live far from clinics, it would preclude the possibility of receiving RU-486 in their physician's office, thus burdening again the right to choose. This option is an effective and nonsurgical method of early abortion that has been in use since 1981. The drug was approved for use in France, Great Britain and Sweden following extensive clinical trials that determined its effectiveness and its safety. In September 1996, the FDA issued an approval letter for early abortion, but the agency is waiting for more information about its manufacturing and labeling before giving Mifepristone final approval and allow it to be prescribed to American women outside of clinical trials. I know this is a very difficult issue for our colleagues to deal with. We have deep commitments in our point of view as to whether a woman has a right to choose, and I certainly respect my colleagues' views on the question of abortion. But the fact is that women do have a right to choose that option, in consultation with their family, their doctors, their God, and we should not make that decision a more dangerous one for them. Again, in the interest of making abortions in our country rare, legal but safe when necessary, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment. It always interests me to see over and over again in this body how many times we vote against scientific research. By going forward with this, we can learn a lot about making these processes even safer for women. As Members of Congress who represent the people of our country, we have a responsibility to do that. For that reason, I urge my colleagues once again to vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's point. As a Catholic and a mother of five children myself and one who comes from a family that is not always sympathetic to my point of view on this subject, I understand and respect the gentleman's beliefs. But I will say as a Catholic that I have done some of my own research on this and the gentleman's statement implies that he knows when life begins. I think that is really a mystery to all of us. St. Augustine himself when he was asked would a fetus before 3 months, would that entity go to the judgment day and be resurrected into heaven as a person, he said, ``No, because before 3 months, it isn't a person.'' They made him a saint. He is a saint of the church. He has a different view from some of my colleagues on when life begins. We do not know. It is a mystery. So I do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can determine that this is taking a life. I do not view it that way, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, since the House adjourned early today, I thought I would take the opportunity to come to the floor to speak, as others have done in other forums this week, about a most unfortunate episode that happened earlier this week. In an interview on television, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke out about homosexuality in a way that I think maybe was unintentional by him, but, nonetheless, was very hurtful and harmful to people in the gay and lesbian community. I know that we are not supposed to be urging the Senate to take action on issues, but, without violating that rules of the House, I just want to put in context my own remarks, and that is that there is a confirmation of a nomination of an ambassador, James Hormel, which is hopefully going to come up before the Senate soon. This nomination was sent from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate, but Senator Lott has not taken up the issue. It was in the context of an interview about that, I believe, that Senator Lott made his unfortunate remarks about homosexuality, saying, ``It is a sin; it is just like alcohol or sex addiction or kleptomaniacs.'' Then our own Majority Leader, Mr. Armey, said that homosexuality ``. . . is a sin. I know it is. It is in the Bible,'' or words to that effect. One of the issues that is being raised about Jim Hormel's nomination is that he was seen laughing at a parade where there were people dressed as nuns. Without going into that, I just want to say that between my husband and me and our five children, we have over 100 years, 100 years, of Catholic school education. This is a source of great pride to us and great strength to us. So we certainly have a great deal of respect for the clergy and the nuns who taught us and our children and would not want in any way for them to be demeaned, and I do not think that Jim Hormel has a demeaning bone in his body. Jim Hormel is a very distinguished leader in our community in the San Francisco Bay area. He is a philanthropist. He has been the Dean of the Law School at the University of Chicago before he came to San Francisco. As I said, he is a great philanthropist, a supporter of the arts and education, is very respected in the business community, is an astute businessman and is a very effective leader. He would make a great ambassador, and his nomination, I think, is a tribute to President Clinton, that he had the courage to name Jim Hormel as ambassador to Luxemburg. Jim Hormel, because he is gay, his nomination is being held up, and, as I say, unfortunately, the Leaders in the Senate and in the House have characterized his sexual orientation in a way that I think, as I say, is hopefully unintentionally, is most harmful to people in that community. When we were little people we used to say ``sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.'' But that really was not true then, and it is not true now. We have to be very careful about the power of words and the resonance that those words have as people repeat them and hear them. It is ironic that this all should happen at a time which is Gay Pride Week throughout the country. Speaking for my own area that I have the privilege of representing, we are blessed in our community with a large gay and lesbian population, and we will have a large parade on Sunday where people who take pride in their own situation as well as their friends will take pride with them, and I will be very honored to join that parade. I have never felt any bias from our own Majority Leader here, Mr. Armey, or Mr. Lott, our former colleague in the House and now the distinguished Majority Leader in the Senate, because of my support for gay and lesbian rights. I have never thought that Mr. Hormel had ever demeaned my religion or said something or did something objectionable to my religion, Catholicism, because he may have been amused, if that is even so, by people dressed as nuns. Nuns do not even dress as nuns. It is not the same as it used to be. But I think that it is time for us to have some reconciliation on this. We have to, and this will sound very San Francisco, I know, heighten the sensitivity of our colleagues to the hurt that it does to so many people in our country when they are demeaned by leaders of our country. Mr. Speaker, I do think this maybe will provide us with an opportunity to say, you know, let us turn down the flame on this issue. The Bible, if we are quoting the Bible, has told my children, my husband and me for our lifetimes, as did our parents, that we are all God's children. They did not say you are all God's children, depending on your sexual orientation. They said we are all God's children, and, as such, worthy of respect, and in every person there is a spark of divinity that is to be respected. It is that attitude toward people that I think drives many of us into the political arena to do God's work. I do not like to bring politics and religion together, but it is to respect what our religion teaches us for people, that we want everyone to have the same opportunities, whatever their color, their creed or their sexual orientation. Discrimination has no place in our country. Neither does characterization of people because they might be different from us have a place. So I come to the floor tonight not to criticize, but to reach out to the two majority leaders, in the hope that we can put a stop to these characterizations which, as I say again, and I will say for a third time, may be unintentional, but are, nonetheless, very painful to the people that are described by them. Jim Hormel is a great American. He is a patriotic American. He is somebody who would bring great honor to our country to represent us abroad. He has already accomplished a great deal just by his courage and by allowing his name to be put forth, and hopefully his nomination will culminate in his being the ambassador to Luxemburg. In any event, it will hopefully also achieve a reconciliation in our country about how we treat people, all people, all God's children. That is what the Bible told us. As a Catholic, again, I particularly take issue with the fact that some have said that Jim Hormel's nomination is offensive to Catholics by saying, as Jim Hormel's friend, one of the great joys of my life is to be his friend. I would only hope that his nomination accomplishes the ending of discrimination in our country against people, regardless of their sexual orientation. So in this Gay Pride Week, let us all take pride in each and every one of us, and particularly not make judgments about people for how they are not like us, but to respect them for what they are.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. I am sorry, I do not have the time. The gentleman knows I would if I could. It strikes a balance. That is why we have to keep it intact. We have come to the moment of truth. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Shays-Meehan, ``no'' against the Thomas amendment. Let us face this moment of truth. The American people are watching. Let us drain the swamp.