Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that I only have 10 minutes and I though I had 20, I will take less time, obviously. My en bloc amendment addresses three shortsighted riders to the Labor-HHS bill regarding worker protection. It deletes the ergonomics rider and can save American corporations $20 billion a year in workers' compensation costs. It eliminates one of the chief causes of a debilitating work-related disorder. My amendment reverses the effects of this misguided rider which falls under OSHA. In addition to that, I have two amendments which address the NLRB. As we know, earlier today we discussed some of the cuts in NLRB, a 30-percent cut. The rules prevent me from introducing an amendment which would restore these cuts. Instead, I am addressing some of the legislative language in the bill that addresses the NLRB, two provisions in particular, the 10(j) provision and salting. Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act gives the NLRB the power to go into Federal court against an employer or a union to get the court to issue an order for interim relief. This is a very preliminary step. Such orders, for example, can require an employer or union to stop committing additional violations and to reinstate employees fired to chill organizing or withdraw illegal bargaining demands. Mr. Chairman, what is important to note about this is when these 10(j)'s are issued, most of the time the overwhelming percentage of the time, the issue is dealt with expeditiously and in only a small minority of cases does it go to the next step. This legislation in this bill would say that in order for the NLRB to go to Federal court against an employer or union, it would require a four-fifths vote of the NLRB, 80 percent. You talk about minority rule, 20-percent rules, a veto power of one person on the NLRB, so I think that in a sense of fairness, our colleagues would recognize that this is silly legislative language. In fact, had this legislation been in effect at the time of the baseball strike, on which the NLRB voted 3 to 2, we would never have been able to proceed to the resolution of that strike. I think that the figures there speak for themselves. Mr. Chairman, I have so much more to say on these issues, but will not, in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were 20-20.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, when the leadership brings to the floor the Labor-HHS bill, or maybe it will be tomorrow, it will bring a bill to the floor which has declared war on the American worker. The cuts contained in the bill add up to nothing more than total disregard for the morale and working conditions of the American worker. Just to review some of the cuts, at a time of globalization, technology causing a reduction in the work force as well as downsizing in corporate America, at a time when the American worker is faced with that uncertainty, this bill cuts $446 million in the program for dislocated worker assistance. At the same time, it cuts $47 million in safety and health enforcement. It cuts employment standards by $25 million, collective bargaining, $58.8 million. It does serious damage to the National Labor Relations Board by cutting it by 30 percent, over $50 million. How can we be doing this to the American worker at a time when we are struggling to be competitive in the world? America works because we have always had a high regard for the backbone of America, the working class people in our country. We have respected their need for a living standard, not a minimum standard of wages but a living wage. We have respected their need for safety in the workplace. We have respected their need to bargain collectively for unfair labor practices up until now. All of our competitors who compete with us in a favorable way for them respect their workers. That is why they succeed. So what we are doing is not only bad for the individual worker, not only bad for our work force, it is bad for our country internationally as we try to compete. Please stop this war on the American worker. Vote against the Labor-HHS bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his relentless leadership on this effort. I have not always agreed with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] on this particular resolution. In the last year I voted against it. I did so because I am a strong believer in multilateralism, a strong supporter of the goals of the United Nations, and am indeed a member of the North Atlantic Assemblies, so I would prefer a multilateral solution. For that reason, I voted no last year. I visited the former Yugoslavia. I have met with UNPROFOR forces there and are impressed by what they are trying to do. But, sad to say, this approach has not succeeded. Indeed, since the summer of last year, the allies contact group has developed a take-it-or-leave-it peace map, threatening the Bosnian Serbs with lifting the arms embargo or air strikes if they refused to sign on. They refused, but no punishment has been meted out. In August, we threatened air strikes against the Bosnian Serb forces violating the Sarajevo weapons exclusion zone. Pin prick strikes were the response. The list of threats and retreats goes on and on. Mr. Chairman, we must be sure people know what we mean and say about ethnic cleansing. Never again. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the provisions in this VA- HUD appropriations bill which decrease the funding levels for the Environmental Protection Agency. These provisions not only severely limit the agency's ability to protect our lands, air, and water; they also continue the full-scale assault on the environment that began on the first day of the 104th Congress. Mr. Chairman, this bill's funding cuts directly threaten the quality of America's air and water, the safety of America's food supply, and the health of all Americans. This bill would prohibit the EPA from enforcing or implementing most Clean Water Act programs; end protection for wetlands; prohibit many EPA actions with respect with enforcement of the Clean Air Act; and prohibit the EPA from preventing the use of certain cancer causing pesticides on crops, even if residues from these crops end up in processed foods. The bill's spending cuts would also freeze all future cleanups of Superfund sites--regardless of the health and environmental risks posed by a site. While there is agreement that some reforms are necessary to make these Federal programs more responsive, the spending cuts in this bill are nothing more than a blatant attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the EPA and to permanently cripple our Nation's environmental laws. Poll after poll have indicated that the American people favor strong environmental laws. We should not be willing to sacrifice the health and safety of our constituents on the altar of regulatory reform. For the families, children, and citizens of America, I urge my colleagues to restore full funding for the EPA.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by Congressmen Durbin and Wilson. This amendment will ensure that the EPA continue to protect Americans from exposure to numerous toxins, including arsenic, benzene, and dioxin lead. These chemicals pose serious health problems to Americans of all ages. Just this week, the Washington Post reported the results of a study which indicated that carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other chemicals were found in various name brand baby foods selected at random from across the country. This study underscores the need for us to remain vigilant when it comes to protecting our environment and the health of our youngest citizens. We need to maintain the critical safety net which protects the health and safety of all our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin-Wilson amendment protecting our children and families against toxic substances.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Congressmen DeFazio, Rohrabacher, Stark, and Metcalf to reduce the funding for the Selective Service by $17 million in fiscal year 1996. This $17 million savings would then be transferred to the Veterans' Administration medical care account. Mr. Speaker, not only would this amendment save millions of dollars annually; it would also streamline Government, reduce paperwork, and reduce the regulatory burden on U.S. citizens. Indeed, if a national security threat to the United States were serious enough to require a draft, the Department of Defense would have a recruit pool of hundreds of thousands of young men and women from the Reserve component and delayed entry, as well as hundreds of thousands of patriotic volunteers. The savings that this important amendment will realize will instead by applied to the VA medical care account where the need is far greater. Our Nation's veterans have suffered greatly during the 104th Congress and this amendment addresses their most basic need: quality medical care. Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of our Republic, we have continually asked the men and women of our Armed Forces to make tremendous sacrifices on our behalf. It is critically important that we repay them for their sacrifice and uphold the promises we made to these veterans to care for them as they grow older. In the context of a $1.6 trillion Federal budget, the savings gained by this amendment may seem small. But they stand for the continued commitment we have toward caring for our veterans. My colleagues, the DeFazio-Rohrabacher-Stark amendment represents the realization that the cold war has ended and so too the need for draft registration activities. More importantly, it signals our continued budgetary commitment to the medical care account at the VA and to our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the support of the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Mollohan to H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This amendment will restore funding for several important programs under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], including the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Marine Fisheries Service thereby allowing marine research and preservation efforts on our Nation's coastlines to continue. The hazards plaguing our coastal waters have multiplied at an alarming rate as the coastal population has grown. Since 1950, the coastal population has grown over 80 percent. In addition to their environmental significance, America's coastal resources support many key industries. For example, coastal resources sustain a national travel and tourism economy that generates billions of dollars annually. Our coasts also provide habitat and spawning areas for 70 percent of the Nation's commercial and recreational fisheries. America's marine sanctuaries and coastal resources also provide much-needed sites for recreation, education, inspiration, and personal exploration. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Farr. This important amendment provides funding for the marine sanctuaries around our coastline. The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, located off the coast of San Francisco, is an excellent example of the successes achieved by the Sanctuary program. Since its designation in 1981, the Farallones Sanctuary has participated in various community partnerships ranging from the creation of a volunteer shoreline monitoring program to the development of a marine learning center in San Francisco. The Sanctuary combines a spectrum of marine habitats with a tremendous diversity of marine life. Giant kelp, dungeness crab, the endangered Blue Whale, elephant seals, and the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the continental United States are just several of the marine species found in the Sanctuary. The Farallones Sanctuary also contains highly productive commercial fisheries, shipping lanes, and private mariculture operations. Mr. Chairman, without these amendments, the successful partnerships that NOAA has forged between communities, industries, and universities to protect the Nation's pristine marine environments through research, education and management would be difficult, if not impossible, to continue. We are a coastal nation, predominantly surrounded by water. The health of our Nation depends on how we protect these waters and their living treasures.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for the Justice Department's violence against women programs. Just 1 year ago, the Violence Against Women Act was passed in the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. Yet today, the funding allocation for these programs has been reduced so drastically that it would cripple or eradicate many of the programs so recently created to address the needs of poor and abused women. Programs covered under this funding include training for law enforcement and judiciary officials on violence issues and programs to address the serious problems of stalking and campus sexual assault against women. How can we be satisfied with the efforts we have made to promote and address the problem of violence against women when the committee cannot see fit to fund adequately these necessary programs? This bill as written sends a clear message to the Nation that this Congress does not take violence against women seriously. Women in danger of violence or sexual assault need our compassion, not deaf ears. I urge my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment and to go on record with your commitment to the safety of America's women. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan to H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This amendment will provide much needed funds for community policing grants authorized by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. The programs that we authorized last summer are aimed at preventing crime in our communities and have been supported by the mayors, police chiefs, and law enforcement officials throughout our country. Mr. Chairman, it is important to acknowledge that the fight against crime requires more than simply adding prison space or new classes of punishment. It requires that we demonstrate the courage to champion the innovative programs which provide alternatives to drugs, gangs, and the random acts of violence which afflict our society. The Mollohan amendment realizes this and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. amendment offered by mr. rogers

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Mr. Durbin, our colleagues from Illinois. This amendment restores some sense of perspective to the Agriculture appropriations process, a sense of perspective that seems to be missing in the original language of the bill. Let's clarify what's at stake here: The E. coli bacteria killed 500 people last year, and sickened over 20,000 more. Most of those killed were innocent children who are not alive today because the food they ate was inspected using practices that were first implemented over 90 years ago. While our meat inspection process remains stuck in the past, this microscopic bacteria continues to evolve and grow more virulent. It kills its victims by liquefying their organs, a cruel death made all the more tragic by the fact that this viscous bacteria is incredibly easy to detect using existing technology. The capable people at the USDA have set up new standards to combat E. coli and other deadly bacteria, but this bill, as written, is designed to forbid the meat inspectors from performing these simple tests. Please, someone explain to me the logic behind this legislation. I urge my colleagues to consider their vote on this issue very carefully. We all want to trim unnecessary waste out of the Federal Government. But you know as well as I that the main goal of this legislation is not to rid American citizens of an unneeded expenditure. This bill is not in the best interest of the American citizens. The only interest being served here is the interest of a small group of people who are hiding their profit motive behind the rhetoric of deregulation. I ask you: Is the health of our children for sale? We have the means to stop these needless deaths. Join with me in supporting the Durbin amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, repealing section 13(c) in the Transportation appropriations legislation is the wrong policy. Section 13(c) ensures the collective bargaining rights of more than 200,000 transit workers across the country. What does this mean? It means that when taxpayers make a Federal transit investment, employee-employer issues will be handled through collective bargaining where employees have voluntarily organized for that purpose. It means that when Federal dollars are used, collective bargaining rights are there to protect the jobs, the pay, and the benefits of your hard-working, middle-class, neighbors who are transit employees. Repealing section 13(c) continues the extreme Republican assault on working families. Transit workers, who play by the rules, are going to have their job protections stripped away. Reform of section 13(c) is needed, is recognized by everyone that it should be done, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the San Francisco Bay area. Indeed, the Department of Labor has proposed needed reforms which are under review by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose repealing the worker protection provisions section 13(c) contains. It makes sure that when we spend taxpayer money, real, hardworking people get decent pay and job protections. Reject this extreme Republican assault on American families.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith- Chabot amendment to the Department of Transportation Appropriations bill. This amendment would transfer money allocated for needed mass transit projects back into the Highway Trust Fund. These Section 3 New Rail Starts and Extensions projects are strategic transportation investments in our cities which act as a magnet for economic development and productivity. These projects will provide our urban and suburban areas with effective and diverse transportation options. In the San Francisco Bay Area, we are committed to a $3.5 billion rail extension program capital program. Seventy percent of these projects are being financed with voter approved sales taxes and State bonds. The largest rail extension, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, would link the San Francisco International Airport to San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area. The airport is under a major expansion program. The projected increase in traffic to the San Francisco Airport would overwhelm the existing highway system. A rail link is vital for air travelers arriving in the Bay area, for airport workers, and for commuters. Federal funding for new rail starts addresses many important issues for our communities and cities. Mass transit can significantly improve air quality. Rail provides transportation services to the elderly and the disabled. Mass transit reduces the congestion on our highways which are being stretched the limit in many parts of the country. In the San Francisco Bay Area we have virtually exhausted our ability to build new highways or widen existing highways. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves no money, since the funds would revert back to the Highway Trust Fund. I urge the defeat of this attack on mass transit. These new rail starts are forward-looking, sound, transportation investments in our cities. Let us make these needed investments.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the motion to revoke would not pass. It may not become law. But I will not concede that we did not have that leverage with this body.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say to my colleagues that I hope that you will take the lead of our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to let this motion to table pass. I think it is in the interest of promoting human rights in China, of addressing our concerns about unfair trade practices and the proliferation issue. I want to commend once again the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for his leadership in working with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and with me to accommodate many of the provisions of our own Wolf-Pelosi bill into his bill. God knows over the years the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have fought the fight on MFN in China. I still think an appropriate route to go might have been to condition or to target certain products for revocation of MFN. But the options that we have before us are to send a very clear, unified message of support and concern about those issues. Not only that, and I address my colleague the gentleman from Oregon because I know of his concern on these issues, the Bereuter bill has teeth. It has a reporting requirement for the President. We have not had that before. Let us be frank with each other about this issue. Part of the time in this body we have been trying to get leverage with the Chinese, and part of the time we have been trying to get leverage with the President of the United States to use whatever means at his disposal to improve human rights, eliminate the unfair trade practices, and address the proliferation issues. This legislation gives us leverage with the President because of the reporting requirement. I urge my colleagues to allow the motion to table to pass, I hope without a vote, because I think a small vote on the motion to table will send a wrong message to the Chinese Government that that is the measure of support for concern in China instead of the Bereuter bill. I urge our colleagues to do as our leader has requested.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and his kind remarks. I am only taking 1 minute now, because I had the opportunity to speak much longer earlier on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], for his leadership and working with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and with me and with others, to bring together this compromise. The previous speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], is a gentleman whose courage and relentless advocacy for human rights is well-known to this body and I respect him enormously. I would not be supporting this legislation, though, if I thought it was just a statement. Mr. Speaker, I think that even before we merged our two bills, Mr. Bereuter had strong language in his legislation addressing United States concerns with China and teeth in saying that there is a reporting requirement that the President must report to this body on issues regarding trade, human rights and proliferation. This is all very important. It is a step forward to us. I am pleased with the legislation and it comes at a time, a very critical time in China with the succession that might be likely soon, and also at a time when Harry Wu, an American citizen, a distinguished scholar, is being held by the Chinese. Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will support this legislation and I hope that the Chinese will release Harry Wu soon.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] from the Committee on Rules for being so generous in yielding, and also the chairman of the Committee on Rules, my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for bringing this rule to the floor, and for his championing the cause of freedom throughout the world, and his relentless advocacy for human rights in China. It is with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in support of the Bereuter legislation, H.R. 2058, which is designed to move United States-China policy in the right direction by sending a strong message to the Chinese Government that the United States Congress is concerned about human rights in China and Tibet. I have been pleased to work in this endeavor with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. With all due respect to the previous speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], we should all take a back seat to the gentleman from Virginia as an advocate for human rights throughout the world, in his advocacy for human rights. Mr. Wolf is an inspiration to this Congress, and it is a privilege to work with him. I was particularly pleased that the leadership of this Congress, the office of the Speaker, and of the Democratic leader worked to help us merge our bills, forge a compromise under the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and I am grateful to him for his leadership and his receptiveness to our ideas. As many Members know, and I address the mechanics of this because we are on the rule, as many know, we had three options out there. We had the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for total revocation; we had the legislation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter]; and we had the Wolf-Pelosi legislation, which we believed was the strongest possible message on human rights for this Congress. We have, I think happily, been able to merge the Bereuter bill and the Wolf-Pelosi bill into the product we have here. Indeed, we were very pleased to have many of the provisions in the bill of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], but I commend the gentleman from California for having initiatives that were even stronger than some of ours and with which we were very pleased to associate ourselves. As with any compromise, some people may not be happy with it, but as I say on this China issue, if it is good enough for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] it should be good enough for the rest of us. Why is it that we need to come here again to discuss this issue and to present a policy for China in the Congress of the United States? Our colleagues who have spoken before me, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] taking the lead, have spoken of some of the concerns that this Congress has with China. They fall into three categories, by and large: human rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and, obviously, unfair trade practices; and MFN is related to trade. It is appropriate that we are here. The reason this debate comes up annually, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] said we were 1 year talking about this, 1 year to the day, is because the President must request a special waiver to grant MFN to China; hence, the proposed motion of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] to deny the President's request. In those three areas of human rights, trade, and proliferation, in this past year there has been no progress. Indeed, the Chinese continue to violate international standards and norms, and the missile technology control regime, in transferring technology to Pakistan, to Iran, and making the Middle East a very dangerous neighborhood, as well as the world a less safe place. If there were no other consideration, the issue of the proliferation of nuclear technology to unsafeguarded countries would be enough reason for us to deal with this MFN issue on this floor. What is dismaying about all of this is that instead of addressing this issue, the Clinton administration on June 30--this notice was in the Congressional Record on June 30: ``Notice of termination of the suspensions of licenses for the export of cryptographic items to the People's Republic of China-- Message from the President.'' It is in the June 22, 1995, Congressional Record. I have it available for our colleagues. This is all to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a double standard with this administration when it comes to China. We have defined Iran as a rogue country. We have made a strong point of saying we will not trade with them. We have chastised, and more, Russia for their trade with Iran. We have looked the other way when China has done the same, and indeed, and indeed, in the same time frame, we have lifted--the President has gotten a blanket waiver against the prohibition of sale of encryption technologies to China. This is, I think, a big mistake. The human rights violations continue, highlighted, of course, by the arrest of Harry Wu, a champion of democracy, a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a distinguished American, an internationally recognized champion of human rights, and his release must be immediate, as the bill calls for. However, I would also like to say that Harry's plight is not only that of an individual, but representative of the thousands and thousands and thousands of people who are in prison labor camps in China who Harry's advocacy was for. He had been arrested for 19 years for criticizing the Soviet invasion of Hungary. He knew of what he spoke in terms of brutality in slave labor camps. It continues. His telling the truth about that has landed him in a Chinese jail. As an American citizen he deserves our fullest support. I urge our colleagues to avail themselves of our yellow ribbons on his behalf. He is not the only one, obviously, in prison that we are concerned about. There are thousands who are; in particular, Wei Jing Cheng, Bao Pong, Chen Zeming, some of the champions of Chinese democracy. Indeed, in the last few months, many leaders and intellectuals in China have been arrested for merely signing petitions asking for an end of corruption and more democratic reforms in China. Obviously, my colleagues know I could go on all day about the violations of human rights in China. On the subject of trade, when we first started this debate in 1989, for that year, for 1989, China had a $6 billion trade surplus with the United States. That means, as Members know, within our trade relationship they profited by $6 billion. This past year, it was $30 billion. It went $6, $9, $12, $18, $24, $30. This year it will be closer to a $40 billion trade surplus, inching closer year by year to the same kind of deficit that we have with Japan, but absent the same kind of allowing of products into their markets that even Japan does. Then Members know what our complaint is with Japan. I do not want to bring up the issue of Taiwan in terms of recognition, but just in terms of this one figure. In China there are 1.2 billion people. In Taiwan there are approximately 19 million people, and Taiwan imports from the United States twice as much as mainland China imports from the United States, so the trade issue must be addressed, not only in terms of slave labor and violations of trade agreements, but in addition to the lack of market access for American products into China, which is also a trade violation. What does the administration do? The administration not only gave them MFN but this past January gave the Chinese the same trade privileges, reductions in tariffs, that World Trade Organization members have, even though China is not a member of the World Trade Organization and living up to any of the standards or requirements of the WTO. Again, our concern is with China. The disappointment is with the administration in the way they respond to human rights, trade and proliferation violations. This China Policy Act that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has authored establishes a framework for diplomatic relationships between the United States and China. It calls upon the President to undertake intensified diplomatic initiatives to persuade the Chinese Government to unconditionally and immediately release Harry Wu. The provisions of the legislation are available to our colleagues, but since it is new I will just touch on a few: Adhere to prevailing international standards regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including halting the export of ballistic missile technology and the provision of other weapons of mass destruction to Iran, Pakistan, and other countries of concern; respect internationally-recognized human rights--we know what they are--press, freedom of religion, assembly, et cetera; releasing all political prisoners and dismantling the Chinese gulag and forced labor system; ending coercive birth control practices; respecting the rights of the people of Tibet and ethnic minorities; curtailing excessive modernization and expansion of its military capabilities. It goes on to more on that. Adhere to rules of international trade regime; comply with the prohibition on all forced labor products coming into the United States; and reduce tension with Taiwan through dialog and confidence-building. The bill specifies the administration should undertake diplomatic initiatives bilaterally with China and multilaterally in the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and in our bilateral relations with other countries. In order to hold the President accountable for undertaking these initiatives, the bill requires a report to Congress within 30 days of enactment and at least every 6 months thereafter. H.R. 2058 also places Congress firmly on the record in support of the pro-democracy movement in China. For the first time we commend the men and women working in the democracy movement, particularly those people who so bravely petitioned the Chinese government for the promotion of political, economic and religious freedom. Finally, the Bereuter bill requires the administration to get Radio Free Asia up and running. This important initiative has been stalled for too long. The bill mandates that within 90 days of enactment, Radio Free Asia shall commence broadcasting to China. I urge my colleagues to give a strong vote on the Bereuter bill, on the China Policy Act, because it will allow the United States Congress to send a unified message to the Chinese government that its continuing violations of internationally recognized human rights are not acceptable. The reason that I am pleased with this bill and one of the reasons I support the bill is because it does hold the President accountable. Last year when the President did not abide by the Executive order he had issued the year before, he instead proposed some initiatives, a code of conduct for businesses, funding for Radio Free Asia. The list goes on and on. The fact is that the adherence to it was zero. It is important, I think, for us to hold the administration accountable. A vote for the China Policy Act will do that. I think it is very important for this Congress. We have been engaged in advocacy for a long time. We will always be engaged in advocacy for the causes of concern to us. But absent a coherent China policy that maybe the State Department proposes, the Commerce Department appears to dispose, I think it then behooves the Congress to set forth a framework that will have a positive impact on our relationship with China. I think the message should be very clear that a prosperous, strong and democratic China is in the best interest of the United States. We look forward to a great future with the Chinese people, but in doing so we want to do it on the basis of recognition of international norms and indeed norms that the Chinese government has signed on to but has not abided by. By supporting the Bereuter bill, we can speak with one voice on behalf of those fighting for freedom in China. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. In closing, I wish once again to commend my colleagues on that side, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and particularly in this case the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I once again thank the leadership of the House for accommodating our concerns.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I particularly want to thank him for his leadership in bringing this very intelligent approach and solution to the problem to the floor. I certainly identify with the concerns that the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has expressed. We all do. It sounds ridiculous. It is hard to imagine how the Bush administration could have mandated those activities in the FAA that were referenced in Mr. Packard's remarks. I say that because some of the examples that he used have nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS education program. That is, indeed, part of the Clinton administration initiative on prevention in order to make people more aware of how AIDS is transmitted, and to end discrimination in the workplace to people affected by HIV-AIDS. The Hobson amendment, which was originally authored by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] but is being carried today by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], differs from the Packard language in a very substantial way. It is a substitute on how AIDS education is addressed. The Packard amendment would not allow information that is appropriate to be presented on how HIV is transmitted and how it is not transmitted. [[Page H 7209]] It is really a gag rule. In fact, in answer to one question that we had about what would be the answer to an employee who wanted more information about how AIDS is transmitted, the answer is, ``We are going to give him or her an 800 number to call.'' Under the Hobson substitute, all employees must be notified of the content and methods to be used in any training, including AIDS training. If the individual employee articulates a moral or religious objection, then the agency is required to offer an alternative to the training program which is acceptable to the employee. The Hobson approach is far more reasonable than a total ban on HIV information. It addresses the problem without ending a program which has contributed to the prevention of AIDS. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] in particular, have addressed our taxpayers' money being spent. The best taxpayers' dollars that can be spent should be spent on AIDS prevention.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am so pleased that the House earlier defeated the Stearns amendment because I put both of these amendments in the same category. They ignore the central fact that the arts and humanities are important to our very existence as a country. The poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for moral good is imagination. So when we talk about the arts and humanities, we are not only talking about those disciplines, we are talking about what they do to and for people, the confidence they build in our young students. Mr. Chairman, when I go into their neighborhoods, some of the poor neighborhoods in my district, the parents there will say, I know they are concerned about jobs and crime, et cetera, in their neighborhoods, but they will say, Please do not cut funding from the arts and humanities. This gives our children hope. They build confidence in themselves by engaging in the higher ideals of life that they learn through the arts and the humanities. So I hope that our colleagues will defeat this amendment, with all due respect that I have for the author of the amendment. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the constitutional amendment which would ban desecration of the flag. House Joint Resolution 79 would--for the first time in our Nation's history--modify the Bill of Rights to limit our freedom of expression, a preeminent human right and one which is central to fostering all other forms of freedom. I firmly believe that one of the unique and special characteristics of our democracy is that we uphold the freedom of expression even when we do not believe in or approve of the statement being made. As former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in 1984, ``punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.'' It would be a hollow form of patriotism to coerce reverence for national symbols at the expense of real constitutional rights. Prohibiting dissent and lawful freedom of expression is the hallmark of totalitarian states like China and North Korea, not of great democracies like our own. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Voting against House Joint Resolution 79 is a vote for the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Now that the chairman has resolved the issue of the Smith amendment, I thought I would take a moment to once again commend him for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, working with our ranking member, the [[Page H 6767]] gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. It was, indeed, very encouraging to hear in the course of the debate on this bill, which was a long debate, an overnight debate on the strong commitment to human rights expressed in this House of Representatives. I also want to point out to our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, as we move to vote on the bill in another couple of motions, that the United States, with all this talk about our foreign aid, the United States gives .2 percent of our GDP to overseas development assistance. We rank 21st of the donor countries, behind countries including Portugal and New Zealand. Mr. Chairman, I think in some ways our country must examine our priorities. I think in certain ways we are abdicating our responsibilities to promoting freedom and raising the living standard of people throughout the world. However, I do say that while commending our chairman for doing the good job that he did with this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on June 20, the House adopted House Resolution 168, creating a Corrections Day calendar. I was mistakenly recorded as having voted ``Yes'' on this resolution. My vote should have been recorded as ``No'' on the adoption of House Resolution 168.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding and his cooperation this evening. Just in closing I wanted to make it clear what we are asking for is for the Chinese Government to make us aware of Harry Wu's whereabouts, to allow him to have a visit as is appropriate in our relationship with China and the consular agreements, a visit from representatives of the American Embassy and consulate there, and also to free Harry Wu. We will pursue this issue until he is free, and this evening's unanimous consent action is an important step for us in the direction. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for his cooperation.