Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this motion to emphasize that it is imperative that the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations bill provide both the highest possible funding level for debt restructuring, and for the authorization for a United States contribution to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund, HIPC, without unnecessary legislative restrictions. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, this House had a passionate debate about debt relief and a historic vote in favor of funding this much- needed relief. As a result, the House bill now contains full funding for the amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for a U.S. contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund. However, the bill is still short of the full pending request for debt restructuring by some $238 million. The Senate bill contains even less than the House bill. In addition, both the House and Senate appropriations bills contain unnecessary legislative restrictions on U.S. participation in the HIPC Trust Fund, such as a moratorium on new lending and other eligibility restrictions. Just yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Helms, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Senator Gramm, sent a letter to Secretary Summers outlining 17 specific conditions for debt relief that must be met prior to U.S. participation in the Trust Fund. The conditions outlined in their letter would require the IMF to completely revamp their lending procedures, and would also eliminate 36 of the 41 of the countries currently eligible for debt relief. The House sent a strong signal of support for debt relief earlier this year. If we are serious about providing real debt relief, it is essential that the conference agreement on the bill fully fund debt relief and authorize a U.S. contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund without unnecessary restrictions. My motion instructs conferees to insist on these items. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I just want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership. It was her amendment which increased the funding in the original bill when it was on the floor. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee for accepting this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in just a few short weeks, we will be electing a new President of the United States on Tuesday, November 7. This is the centerpiece of our democracy, the election of a President. The President has his own powers according to the Constitution, but also the power of appointment of the third branch of government, the Supreme Court. So a great deal is at stake in this election: the presidency and the President's appointments to the court. If the next President appoints just one or two more justices to the court, and they do not support some of our basic fundamental rights, fundamental rights could be abolished or curtailed. The Supreme Court's decisions affect all aspect of our lives including basic civil rights and day-to-day pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. It is significant to note, I think, that no Supreme Court justice has retired in 6 years, the longest interval without a new appointment in 177 years. In the last 50 years, every President except one has appointed at least one justice, and 8 of the last 10 Presidents have appointed 2 justices. Court watchers expect several justices to retire soon, and, thus, the next President is likely to appoint several justices to fill these vacancies. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because many have asked, well, how do these elections affect young people in our country? Well, the election of the President affects them very directly in the decisions that that President will make but also very directly in terms of his power of appointment of the court, the Supreme Court, and indeed many, many scores of Federal Court justices. As I have said, the Supreme Court makes many decisions that fundamentally affect and change our lives, and so young people should be very interested in these judges, this President, and the decisions that this court will make because it will have an impact for generations to come. Soon the court will be deciding cases governing civil rights, workers' rights, reproductive freedom, voting rights, and campaign finance reform. The court will decide Congress' authority to apply Federal laws protecting individuals and our environment to the States, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court will address electoral redistricting and minority voting rights, free speech, criminal cases involving unreasonable search and seizure, and the scope of Federal regulations, really protections and safeguards, for all Americans. How do the courts' decisions on these issues affect our lives? For women, the court has an impact on reproductive freedom. For workers, the court affects the ability to sue employers who violate employees' civil rights. Again, for women, the court affects access to family planning clinics and access to safe and appropriate medical care. For gay and lesbian Americans, the court affects civil rights protections and equal opportunity. For people with disabilities, the court affects protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act. I asked one volunteer in a political campaign why she was volunteering, and she said I have looked around, studied the issues, and I realize that people in politics make decisions about the air I breathe and the water I drink. The same applies to the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker. The court affects the air we breathe and the water we drink by determining the legality of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. This volunteer went on to say, so I guess I should be interested in politics, at least for as long as I drink water and I breathe air. Young people should be, and we should all be interested in the court and the person who will name justices to that court for at least as long as we breathe air and drink water. The two issues that I would like to just focus on, in the interest of time, because I know the hour is late, are a woman's right to choose and the issue of the protection of our environment and how those issues will be affected by the court. The next President will likely appoint two, perhaps three Supreme Court justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow States to enact severe and sweeping restrictions on women's reproductive rights. If the anti-choice majority maintains its control over the Senate, the Supreme Court nominations of an anti-choice President are likely to be quickly confirmed. Governor George Bush is an anti-choice governor with a record to prove it. In 1999 alone, Governor Bush, along with Michigan's Governor Engler signed more anti-choice provisions into law than any other governor in the U.S. Governor Bush has said he believes Roe v. Wade went too far and has characterized the 1973 ruling as a reach. Governor Bush has also said that Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most ardent opponent of abortion on the Supreme Court, would be his model justice. Governor Bush wants to end legal reproductive freedom in the U.S. Al Gore would protect a woman's right to choose. The choice is clear: Pro- choice Americans must understand that Governor Bush will use the power of the Presidency to end legal reproductive choice and take away a woman's right to choose. In terms of the environment, moving on to that because I know that is an issue that young people are interested in as well, I mentioned that Governor Bush has said that his model justice was Justice Scalia. Sadly, Justice Scalia's environmental philosophy is just as dismal as some of the other issues that I mentioned here. Legal scholars who have studied the Supreme Court have found that Justice Scalia sided against the environment more than any other person in the history of the court. How bad is his record? Eighty-seven percent of the time an environmental case came before the Supreme Court Justice Scalia decided against the environment. In Justice Scalia's world, citizens would not be allowed to stop pollution just because a company is poisoning their backyards. In a case decided earlier this year, a factory had dumped toxic mercury into a nearby river 489 times. How would you like that, Mr. Speaker, in your backyard? But even though the factory poisoned the river nearly 500 times, the Justice felt that the court was making it far too easy to halt an environmental crime. So when we come to issues that young people are interested in, such as protecting the environment, this environment that we have only on loan because it belongs to them, it is their future, we must protect it in every way that we can. We can do that by our own personal behavior; through conservation; by the people we elect to office to make decisions about the environment; by the President of the United States, who leads the country in protecting our environment and the justices that he will appoint to the court who will make decisions about the air we breathe and the water we drink. For as long as we breathe air and drink water, Mr. Speaker, we should be very interested in those decisions. Again, on the issue of a woman's right to choose, which I think is a matter that is at risk, we are at a crossroads and one that will be very much affected by the outcome of the election on November 7. In the interest of time, I will not go into all the other issues, Mr. Speaker, except to say that November 7 is an important day, a day when we will be choosing not only a President but that President's appointees. There is a great deal at stake for young people. I hope they will pay attention to the election and its ramifications.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my heartfelt support for House Resolution 631, honoring the crew of the U.S.S. Cole. Today on a gray and sad day in Norfolk, Virginia and around the country, our nation mourns the loss of life and celebrates the service of sailors on the U.S.S. Cole. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the seventeen sailors killed, and the thirty six injured in the terrorist bombing attack off the coast of Yemen. Our nation owes a profound debt of gratitude to these proud sailors who lost their lives or suffered injury defending the American people and the values of freedom and democracy on which our nation stands. I extend my deep admiration to the entire crew of the U.S.S. Cole for the bravery and professionalism they displayed in caring for their wounded and stabilizing their ship. This tragedy underscores the commitment and sacrifice of our nation's fighting men and women who put their lives in danger on a daily basis for the security of our country. This attack was an unconscionable act of cowardice and those responsible will be sought out and swiftly brought to justice. The United States will stay the course, acting as the leading force of stability and freedom in the fight against terrorism. We will not be bowed or intimidated by this attack, as will carry the memory of the U.S.S. Cole in our hearts to strengthen our resolve and continue the struggle for world peace. Just as these seventeen sailors protected us in life, we shall honor and protect the memory of their sacrifice by standing firm against this type of senseless violence.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, prescription medicines have become a vital part of our health care system, and it is our responsibility to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefits through Medicare so that seniors will have access to the treatments that their doctors prescribe. Unfortunately, the drug reimportation language that the Republican leadership included in this bill falls far short of this important goal. Prices for the 50 most prescribed drugs for senior citizens have been going up, on average, at twice the rate of inflation over the past six years. As the price of prescription medicines has soared, our nation's elderly and disabled populations have found it harder and harder to afford the treatments that their doctors prescribe. Although it cannot replace a real prescription drug benefit through Medicare, drug reimportation holds great promise for reducing prescription drug costs. However, the Republican reimportation provision is filled with loopholes that will prevent seniors from seeing any real savings. The Republican proposal contains several provisions that unnecessarily restrict the supply of reimported prescription drugs and increase their cost. First, they limit the medicines eligible for reimportation and the number of countries from which they can be imported. Second, drug companies have the option of refusing to allow reimporters to use FDA-approved labeling for their products. This allows these companies to increase the price of reimported drugs by charging outrageously high prices for the use of the label. Third, this language does nothing to prevent pharmaceutical companies from discriminating against US consumers by forcing restrictive contract terms on foreign distributors. Finally, the Republican proposal is not permanent. By allowing this legislation to sunset after five years, the Republicans are giving pharmaceutical companies yet another opportunity to kill prescription drug legislation that they do not like. The Democratic proposal provides seniors with access to lower price drugs, subject to strict safety testing, without any of these harmful loopholes. Seniors deserve real prescription drug savings, not another empty promise from Republicans.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, I had the privilege of standing on this floor to wish my dear friend, Henry Berman, a happy birthday. It is with great pleasure that I rise today, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, to pay tribute again to this wonderful San Franciscan. Henry Berman continues to be a leader in San Francisco. He serves with distinction on the San Francisco Airport Commission and is the former chair of the San Francisco Fire Commission. He serves on the Executive Committee of the Anti-Defamation League and on the Board of Directors of the Northern California American Israel Political Affairs Committee. Henry continues his work with Glide Methodist Church on the annual fundraising event he helped to create, and he sits on the Board of Directors of the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning. Henry Berman, however, is more than the sum of his affiliations. He is an extraordinary man whose energy and enthusiasm for life are contagious. His commitment to the poor, the marginalized, and those in great need is an inspiration to us all, and I am honored to count him among my firiends. I join his wife, Sally, his sons, Ronald and Robert, and all of his family and friends in wishing Henry a happy 90th birthday. Congratulations, Henry.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for organizing this important Special Order and commend Congressman Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the other Members of the Caucus for their leadership and hard work to focus attention on these important civil rights issues. The treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee remains a cause for concern. Asian- Americans, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, civil libertarians, and other Americans have correctly questioned his treatment and continue to question the underlying racial stereotyping and racial profiling that plagued this case. Why did this happen? What were the objective and neutral criteria used to bring these charges? Why was he held in solitary confinement, unable to exercise, prohibited from speaking Chinese to his family, and subjected to extraordinary conditions of confinement? The implications of this case go well beyond the Chinese and Asian- American community. It concerns other minority communities, racial profiling in law enforcement, and stereotyping all across the country. America's law enforcement agencies and the FBI should not be targeting individuals based solely on their race or ethnicity. Several years ago, after the bombing at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too many people were quick to blame foreigners and Arab terrorists. That tragedy reminded us of the important lesson of not jumping to conclusions. Evidently, that lesson has been forgotten. Rep. Robert Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has written to President Clinton to urge the establishment of an independent, bi-partisan commission to investigate the handling of the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. This important step would help reveal the truth and help depoliticize the issue. A formal Commission of national stature to review these issues would be an important step forward. This independent Commission should have subpoena power. I would like to see the release of documents that the defense would have used during discovery in order to determine whether there were appropriate criteria used to target Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The Organization of Chinese Americans [OCA] has also called for an independent inquiry into how this case was investigated and prosecuted by Federal agencies. It is important to remind government officials, law enforcement agencies, and the media that our nation's underlying guarantee of equal and fair treatment before the law applies to all Americans, including Chinese and Asian Pacific Americans. Many think Dr. Lee's case was influenced by biased media coverage, political partisanship, attempts to scapegoat someone for the Department of Energy's lax security procedures. Bail hearing testimony by government investigators admitting erroneous statements about Dr. Lee's actions are particularly troubling. As a nation, we can and must do better. I look forward to the establishment of an independent Commission and the results of the Commission's fact finding mission. Regardless of these findings, we must keep in mind the lessons of the Oklahoma bombing and recognize that racial profiling and stereotyping are unfair and may violate our civil rights. We must work to ensure that the principles of innocent until proven guilty and due process are more than mere rhetoric. We must ensure they remain core American values protecting all Americans. In closing, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for organizing this Special Order and highlighting these important issues.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the committee whose 8-year term is coming to an end there. At this time I would like to commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for his leadership, his fairness, and his willingness to listen to another point of view on the committee over these years. I thank him. And to our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), we are also very proud of his service. As a Californian, I am particularly proud of his service as ranking member on the committee, and I hope to see him serve as chair in a very short time on this very important committee. I would also like to commend the staff, I would say on both sides, but I really view it as a unified staff of the committee, who have served the Members so well and, in doing so, the community that we have oversight over. Mr. Speaker, I have been impressed with the dedication and hard work of the men and women who work in the Nation's intelligence agencies and the amazing feats they can accomplish. They often provide our policymakers a decisive advantage in accomplishing our Nation's policy goals and national defense goals. While I have been a member of the committee, I have been especially concerned about the issue of proliferation and how well the United States tracks and then prevents weapons proliferation, particularly weapons of mass destruction. I have often been dismayed how clear our evidence on proliferation can be and how slow our diplomatic response has been. We need to maintain a robust intelligence effort on proliferation, and the issue needs continued attention and oversight in the future. I have also been deeply concerned over how counterintelligence investigations have been handled. I reject the notion that one American citizen is more likely to engage in espionage than another because of his or her particular ethnic background. We are a proud Nation strengthened by our immigration, and the rights of all our citizens must be respected. Mr. Speaker, secrecy is, of course, one necessary element in the conduct of intelligence. Information that is necessary for us to counter proliferation, terrorism, and espionage often must be obtained secretly; and thus our sensitive sources and methods must be protected. Let us stipulate to that. We all want to protect our sources and methods. Yet I am concerned that the public interest is too often thwarted by too much classification of information and by maintaining classification for too long. Last year, there were over 8 million classification actions; 10 percent more than the year before. Clearly, the system is not perfect; but even so, we were all troubled by leaks and by the damage they can cause. Nevertheless, I am strongly opposed to the section of this legislation that would for the first time in our history enact an official secrets law. We have to remember that those who violate the rules on handling classified information should be and are punished administratively. It is already a felony to disclose national defense information to foreign nations or their agents in order to injure the United States. Other felony laws protect specifically defined, especially sensitive categories of information. The Intelligence Authorization Act, on the other hand, the bill before us today, would make it a felony for officers or employees of the government to knowingly disclose classified information broadly defined without the government even having to prove any damage to national security. In our briefing, I was convinced by the presentation that this ``officers or employees of the government'' includes Members of Congress. By the actions taken in this bill, Members of Congress will be subject to criminal charges if this category of properly classified information is revealed by them. Make no mistake, this provision marks the first time that Congress has placed the full force of criminal law behind the executive branch's classification system. The current Executive Order on classification of information at least has the virtue of specifically prohibiting classification of information in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency or administrative error, or to prevent embarrassment to the government. But the next President of the United States could change this prohibition and this leaks law would still be on the books. The Congress is foolish in my view, and that is a word I have never used here on the floor, to give a blank check to the executive branch for prosecutions in this important area. I understand that the authors of the provision intend for it not to be used to target the President, but I see nothing to prevent reporters from being hauled in before grand juries and being forced to reveal their sources. Furthermore, we do not each know how this leaks law would interact with criminal laws on conspiracy aiding and abetting solicitation and the like. The Committee on the Judiciary should examine issues such as these and the impact on the first amendment issues before the Congress adopts such important legislation. We should remember how difficult it has been in our Nation's history to challenge official versions of the facts when it comes to national security matters, even for Members of Congress. We all know that those outside powers are running a greater risk of prosecution under this statute than those on the inside. I do not think that this provision in the bill is in our national interest, and that is why I was not able to sign the conference report on this important legislation. Again, I commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the distinguished ranking member, and the marvelous staff for their service to the committee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act. I first want to commend my colleague Representative Anna Eshoo for her hard work on this important bill. She has been a great leader in this effort for many years. In addition, I also commend Representative Slaughter and my colleagues in the women's caucus for their work to ensure that we have the opportunity to vote on a clean bill that will make it to the President's desk. We all agree that Americans should be educated and informed about HPV, and all other sexually transmitted diseases. However, passage of this important legislation to help uninsured women beat back the ravages of breast and cervical cancer is vital, and it would have been a tragedy to jeopardize its success by including language unacceptable to the Senate. Every year, Cervical cancer kills 4,400 women and breast cancer, the leading cause of death among women between 40 and 45, kills over 46,000 women. This bill builds on the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program which covers screening services, but does not cover treatment for women who are detected with cancer. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Protection and Treatment Act takes the vital next step to offer lifesaving treatment to cancer victims. Early detection of breast and cervical cancer saves lives. According to the CDC, approximately 15 to 30 percent of all deaths from breast cancer among women over the age of 40 and virtually all deaths from cervical cancer could have been prevented with early screening and treatment. Unfortunately, many of the women diagnosed through the CDC screening program do not receive the care they need because they lack adequate health insurance. Uninsured women with breast and cervical cancer face significant barriers to receiving lifesaving treatment. Women who are uninsured are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than those with insurance. Not only are these women likely to be screened, but the scope of treatment they receive is often limited by their ability to pay. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act would provide states with the option to provide the full Medicaid benefit package without delay to uninsured women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the CDC screening program. As a result, thousands of low-income women would have access to consistent, reliable treatment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I support the Defense Authorization bill because it includes many important provisions including measures to improve health care for our nation's military retirees. However, I rise today to criticize the Republican leadership for their removal of hate crimes provisions from the conference report. Majorities in both the House and the Senate voted to include this language which would have added needed protections against hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to federal law. Tragic murders that grab the nation's attention such as the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas and the brutal beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming are, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. According to statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, 29 Americans were murdered in 1999 because they were gay or lesbian and there were more than 1,960 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents in the United States, including 704 assaults. And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1996 there were over 8,700 reported incidents of hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Crimes based on hate are an assault on all of us, and we must enact stronger measures to prevent and punish these offenses. Opponents of this measure have argued that this is an issue that should be left to the states. However, Congress has passed over 3,000 criminal statutes addressing harmful behaviors that affect the nation's interests, including organized crime, terrorism, and civil rights violations. Thirty-five of these laws have been passed since the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. Others have argued that there is no need for federal Hate Crimes legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the brutality of these crimes speaks to the reality that when a person is targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation, race, or other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all members of that community. That message is you are not welcome. This effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community. The hate crimes provisions that were stripped from this conference report by the Republican leadership would have countered this message of intimidation with a strong statement that our society does not condone and will not tolerate hate-based violence. In addition to a bipartisan group of 192 House cosponsors, these provisions are supported by 175 civil rights, religious, civil and law enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriff's Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, the National Center for Women and Policing, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Passage of this bill would not have ended all violence against those communities who are targets of hate violence. But it would have allowed the federal government to respond and take action by investigating and punishing the perpetrators of crimes motivated by hate. The Republican leadership has missed an important opportunity. I urge them to reconsider their opposition to these protections and pass the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 before the end of the session.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the National Day of the Republic of China, known as the ``Double Tenth'' celebration of freedom. This day is being commemorated in San Francisco with a grand celebration befitting the importance of this National Day. The people of the United States have a strong bond with and commitment to the people of the Republic of China. With the historic election they held this year, the people of Taiwan have demonstrated to the world their dedication to democracy. The Republic of China continues to be a prosperous nation characterized by strong economic growth and respect for basic human rights and democratic freedoms. The Republic of China is an important economic, cultural and strategic partner of the United States, and their celebration is our celebration. I am blessed in my district with so many Asian-Americans, including many from Taiwan, who make wonderful contributions to our City and its civic life. It is my privilege to congratulate the people of Taiwan as they commemorate the ``Double Tenth'' festival of freedom. I am proud to voice the support and best wishes of the Republic of China's many friends in Congress.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act, H.R. 3244. These provisions are vital to ensure women can exercise their rights and to protect women from violence, abuse, sexual assault, and sexual predators. Women should feel safe in their homes, safe walking in the street, and safe at night. The reauthorization of VAWA brings us closer to these goals and will improve the health and quality of life of hundreds of thousands of women and children and families. The underlying bill will reduce illegal and inhumane trafficking in women and children around the world and serve to protect and uphold their human rights. While I applaud the progress we have made, I am disappointed that the Congressional leadership did not bring these related, but separate provisions, up independently and I am concerned that leadership took so long to debate, vote, and approve these important protections. VAWA was introduced at the beginning of this Congress--more than 18 months ago. This reauthorizing bill should not have been delayed this late and VAWA's authorization should not have expired. In the future, I hope other issues of significance of women are treated in a more timely and measured manner. This bill reauthorizes the programs under the original Violence Against Women Act continuing provisions to fund battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers and a hotline for domestic violence. It builds on that bill and strengthens law enforcement to reduce violence; education and training to combat violence; and services to the victims of violence. It also helps limit the traumatic effects violence has on children who too frequently suffer as silent victims. We must work to support America's young women, our future leaders, and this bill reaches out to them through efforts to prevent campus sex crimes and efforts to prevent teen suicide. In light of the recent attention to many immigration issues, I am pleased this bill addresses the needs of battered immigrant women and takes protective steps to address their plight. The Sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act will help end trafficking--a terrible modern version of slavery--that rapes, starves, physically brutalizes its victims, ultimately victimizing all women. Since many victims residing in the U.S. lack U.S. citizenship or appropriate documentation, existing U.S. laws are inadequate to protect these victims. This bill seeks to end trafficking and ensure traffickers are held accountable for their crimes. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, we are here today because needlestick related health problems are costly and preventable. H.R. 5178, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, will protect our Nation's health care providers from unnecessary health risks. Each year, between 600,000 and 800,000 health care workers are accidentally stuck by needles. As a result, over 1,000 of these injured workers go on to contract HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C, and over 100 eventually die from their illness. Even those who are fortunate enough not to be infected by one of these diseases must suffer through 6 months of waiting before they and their families know that they are healthy. This suffering can be avoided. Studies have shown that over 80 percent of needlestick injuries are avoidable. Passage of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act will require a strong national standard to prevent needlestick injuries, and will empower OSHA to increase the usage of safer needles. These changes will reduce not only the suffering of injured providers and their families, but also the costs that hospitals must absorb each time a needlestick occurs. The post-exposure treatments that every injured worker have cost up to $3,000. My home State of California was the first State to pass this legislation, and estimates are that we will save over $100 million each year as a result. Unfortunately, this legislation will be too late for many health care providers. Peggy Ferro, a health care worker in my district in San Francisco, was the first health care provider to pass away from AIDS as a result of a needlestick. She died at the young age of 49, while still fighting for passage of the legislation that we are debating today. Although this legislation has not been passed soon enough to help Peggy, we can honor her memory by ensuring that safer needle technology is used in health facilities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5178.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment him on his great leadership on this legislation; he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for their leadership, and I associate myself with the comments that the gentleman from Florida made in recognition of those who worked so hard to make it a success; and, if it is allowed, to especially recognize the work of Senator Kennedy for bringing about the compromises that exist in this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been a champion in Congress since the onset of the AIDS epidemic, and his leadership is very much in evidence in this bill; and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), helped us through some difficult times here, but I think the product is one that this whole body can wholeheartedly support. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. Passage of this vital legislation is the most important action this Congress can take on the issue of AIDS this year. And I would like to thank again the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and also point out the distinguished work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) lives in the same metropolitan area that I do. We are in the same area for care and treatment and prevention for people with HIV/AIDS. This is about care today, but her leadership on the committee has been indispensable to the success that we see here today with this legislation. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, my district in San Francisco has been one of the most severely impacted in the country. When I came to the Congress 13 years ago, we had already lost over 13,000 of our friends and loved ones to the AIDS epidemic. That is 13,000, 13 years ago. We have suffered greatly, but we have learned a lot we would like the rest of the country to benefit from as we have responded to this challenge. The Ryan White CARE Act was modeled on a system of community-based care that we developed to face the crisis in the 1980s. As a result of this work early in the epidemic, San Francisco produced data that showed the country that comprehensive HIV/AIDS care and services not only saved lives but also saved money and valuable health care resources. Today, the CARE Act programs provide foundation for care and treatment for low-income individuals with HIV and AIDS. The recent declines we have seen in AIDS deaths are a direct result of the therapies and services that have been made more widely available through the CARE Act to large numbers of uninsured and underinsured people with HIV and AIDS. Each year, the CARE Act ensures that approximately half a million people, 500,000 people, living with HIV and AIDS have access to the medical services, including pharmaceuticals that are needed to sustain and prolong life. This represents approximately two-thirds of the individuals living with HIV/AIDS in this country. Although great strides have been made, there is much more to be done. The combination therapies that have brought us so much hope are still not reaching all those in need. The changing nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, along with the continuing impact of it in traditionally affected communities, has created new challenges for the CARE Act. People of color now represent the majority of new AIDS cases, and the proportion of new AIDS cases among women has grown from 11 percent in 1990 to 23 percent in most recent statistics. In addition, new HIV infections have remained constant at 40,000 cases per year. These new infections, combined with the decline in AIDS deaths, means more individuals than ever before are living with HIV and in need of treatment regimens that are costly, complicated and lifelong. As a result, the demand on HIV care providers has grown. The Ryan White CARE Act's remarkable ability to adapt to the changing nature of the AIDS epidemic was confirmed earlier this year when a GAO report concluded that the CARE Act is helping our public health infrastructure adjust to these new challenges by directing services to African Americans, Hispanics, and women in higher proportions than their representation in the AIDS population. Again, I thank our colleagues, including the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Committee on Commerce for their great work. This program is an important example of the way that effective leadership at the Federal, State, and local levels can translate into improved health outcomes for the people of this country. I think it also is a wonderful example of bipartisanship, where we can all come together and give what I hope will be unanimous support for this act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and one of the priorities we have there is research, prevention, and care for people with HIV/AIDS. We want to focus heavily on prevention. We must continue our research for a cure. We are trying to find a vaccine and, hopefully, that will happen before not too long. But we must never forget the people out there who are diagnosed with HIV and AIDS now. I am pleased that the bill eventually will recognize and count those infected with HIV but not full-blown cases of AIDS in the numbers and in the formula. I wish that would have been sooner. But, nonetheless, there is the recognition. I commend the legislators on the committee, members of the committee, for making that distinction and having it be a part of our formula down the road. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) who I see now on the floor. As I said earlier, he has been a champion since day one on this issue. We have all been very well-served by his leadership, that of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and others. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of one of San Francisco's greatest mayors, Mayor George Christopher, who recently passed away at the age of 92. Every San Franciscan owes Mayor Christopher a debt of gratitude for his service as mayor and his commitment to San Francisco. Mayor Christopher envisioned San Francisco as the world-class city it is today and worked tirelessly to make his dream a reality. Having emigrated from Greece at the age of 2, George Christopher rose from humble beginnings to become the dominant figure of his time in San Francisco politics. He brought San Francisco the Giants, cleaned up the police force, championed civil rights, and altered the city's landscape. He changed the city in ways today's residents may not even realize. As the following editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle testifies, George Christopher was a ``Giant of San Francisco'': If the Giants win the National League pennant this year for San Francisco, the person most responsible for the feat won't be Barry Bonds or Dusty Baker or the legion of others who take the field, run the bases or manage team affairs. No, the real credit should go to George Christopher, the illustrious, can-do guy who as mayor lured the franchise here from New York more than 40 years ago. In a magical move that left New Yorkers seething, Christopher somehow persuaded then-team owner Horace Stoneham to uproot the Giants from the New York Polo Grounds and ship them--Willie Mays and all--more than 2,700 miles west. It was a glorious day in San Francisco history, and Christopher, who died yesterday at age 92, will always be known for it--in part, because hardly anyone knows how he did it. But Christopher was an early-riser, a go- getter who spent long hours cooking up ways to elevate the vitality and prosperity of his city. ``Every era has to take care of its own needs,'' Christopher once said in a casual statement that summarizes his spirit and tenure at City Hall. After corralling the Giants, Christopher became the driving force behind building a stadium for them to play in at wind-swept Candlestick Point. There were some howls about the Arctic- like atmosphere that surrounds where it sat and some questions of cost and patronage. But there is no question that it was a pragmatic decision. With similar energy and insight, Christopher pushed for a light rail system that evolved into BART. And he argued for a hotel tax because ``extra promotional funds are needed to bolster a number of worthwhile cultural activities, such as the Opera.'' The fees, he reasoned, would also help attract tourists. The business community shuttered, but Christopher was right. Tourism has flourished ever since. And the hotel duty has provided millions of dollars for the arts, low-cost hearing and numerous other social services alike. No wonder he swept into office by a 2-to-1 ratio, winning endorsements from all the daily newspapers, buoyed by support from many Democrats even though he was a Republican. The ever-gentlemanly Christopher will be long remembered for baseball and for his distinctive brand of business-like and effective leadership. My thoughts and prayers are with his three sisters, Beatrice Tentes, Helen Christopher, and Ethel Davies and all of his family and friends. We will miss him greatly.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and thank the gentleman also for his great leadership on behalf of the District of Columbia making decisions for itself. I also want to commend the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her tireless leadership on behalf of the people of the District and on behalf of the people of our country, because the principle of local control over some of these decisions is one that serves us all well in this country. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). The House bill that this body voted on earlier unfortunately included several riders that would interfere with the District of Columbia's ability to serve its citizens. Among these riders is the Tiahrt amendment, a bill that would kill the District's needle exchange programs, which have been proven effective in reducing the number of new HIV infections in the District and in this country, especially among children. Think about the children. Approximately half of all new HIV infections are linked to injection drug use, and three quarters of new HIV infections in children are the result of injection drug use by a parent. Why would we pass up the opportunity to save a child's life by shutting down programs that work? Although AIDS deaths have declined in recent years as a result of new treatments and improved access to care, HIV/AIDS remains the leading cause of death among African American males age 25 to 44 in the District. In spite of these statistics, this amendment that is contained in the House bill attempts to shut down programs that the local community has established to reduce new HIV infections. This Congress should be supporting the decisions that the local communities make about their health care and the health care of their people, not limiting local control. Numerous health organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, have concluded that needle exchange programs are effective. Madam Speaker, in addition, at my request, the Surgeon General's office has prepared a review of all peer reviewed scientific studies of needle exchange programs over the past 2 years, and they also conclusively found that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission and do not increase drug use. Madam Speaker, the President will veto this bill in the present form. If we support the motion to instruct, we will be able to send this bill to the President and have it signed into law. Here we are past the date of the end of the fiscal year, and we still have 11 appropriation bills out there. I just want to take another moment to go back, to the needle exchange program. Since the inception of the needle exchange program in the District of Columbia in the latter half of 1996 through 1999, the number of new IDU cases has fallen more than 65 percent from some 396 in 1996 to 139 in 1997, which represents the most significant decline in new AIDS cases across all transmission categories over this 4-year period. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I especially want to thank him for his great leadership on protecting the environment. It is an issue about conservation and it is an issue about health. His championship of the livable communities initiative is one that will serve our children well, and their children and their children. It is about the future. That is what elections are about, especially presidential elections. So I was very disappointed to hear last night that Governor Bush was offering old suggestions, last century proposals, to challenges that we have into this new millennium. Livable communities, those are two words that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has championed. Community, that is what America is about: where we live, how we educate our children, where we go to work, how we get there, the air we breath, the water we drink, how we take care of our families in a community. Described by the word ``livable,'' what could be more basic and more commonsensical than that? That is what this discussion is about. Vice President Gore, along with House and Senate Democrats, favor long-term solutions about our livable communities. They propose solutions which reduce our reliance on imported oil and ensure a cleaner environment by supporting investments in renewable energy and energy efficiencies. We House Democrats support that as well. We support tax credits for producing electricity for renewable sources, expanded exploration of cleaner burning natural gas, consumer incentives to purchase energy efficient cars, trucks and homes by offering tax breaks. In addition to investments in renewable energy, we need to expand America's transportation choices by investing in alternatives such as light rail, high-speed rail, and cleaner, safer buses and other forms of mass transit. These are real solutions that benefit the consumer and the environment and not the cycle of corporate welfare. I think it is important to note that the Republican-led House appropriation of $650 million for energy conservation is $201 million less than the President's request and $95 million below the current year funding. We are going backward in our funding. In fact, since 1995, Republicans have slashed funding for solar renewable and conservation programs by a total of $1.3 billion below the Clinton administration request. I had much more to say about the Bush proposal, but he spoke for himself last night, as I say, in an old way about how we should go into the future, and I know there are other speakers here. I just want to say that this issue about how we take up this initiative of livable communities under the leadership of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), this issue about energy and the environment are not just conservation environmental issues. Where I live, the environment is not an issue in California. It is an ethic, it is a value. It is about our children's health. In other special orders, we can talk about environmental health and how we are impacted by the air we breathe, the water we drink, and what that means to our children's health and the rate of asthma among young children in African-American communities and breast cancer among so many women across the board in our community. I want to on behalf of my constituents thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his outstanding leadership on this issue and thank him for giving this opportunity to point out the difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush as far as the future is concerned.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman so very much. I thank her for her great leadership and that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). We have been blessed in this institution with great legal minds and great minds that care about equality. I support the Civil Participation Rehabilitation Act of 1999, which would grant persons, as the gentlewoman has spelled out, who have been released from incarceration, the right to vote in Federal elections. The points have been very well made by the Members who have spoken already. I just want to give a little perspective from the standpoint of the Committee on Appropriations, on which I serve. I spent some time on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, where judges would come before us for their appropriation, and we would have the opportunity to ask them about issues like mandatory minimum sentences or making a Federal offense on certain crimes that really should not have been raised to that level. This rampage that the Congress seemed to have been on, and not only the Congress but the State of California too, where we have the ``Three Strikes You're Out,'' and mandatory minimum sentences, etcetera, where we have had these sentences which go beyond a year and a day and, therefore, are considered a felony, we have so many people now who run the risk of being disenfranchised. This denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the twin values of democracy and rehabilitation. Felony voting restrictions only serve to alienate and isolate individuals from civil society. Americans believe in rehabilitation, that if a debt to society is paid, there is no longer a debt. Why then should we not have a universal Second Chance Voting Rights Act so that people all have a stake in America's future? Our colleague from Virginia has mentioned the number of African American men, that there are estimates that 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the total population of black adult men, have been disenfranchised either currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of State felony voting laws. This is outrageous. This is outrageous. We have a chance here to do something about it. And while I am at it, I have talked about people paying their dues to society and the mandatory minimum sentences which elevate some of these offenses to felonies; but, in conclusion, I want to make one other point. We do not have equal representation for all the people in our society when they are accused of a crime. It simply does not happen. It comes into play when we talk about the death penalty, which is a different issue; but when we have everyone having the same caliber of legal representation, then we can talk about everyone having the same risk in terms of where penalties are concerned. So where we have a situation where Congress is interested in making some offenses felonies, by either making the sentence a year and a day, or we have the situation where young people simply do not know about the ``Three Strikes You're Out,'' the mandatory minimums, the risks they take in making mistakes when they are very young, they cannot afford to pay for the kind of representation that somebody else, who might get off because they had a much better lawyer, gets. Also, there is an interest on the part of prosecutors sometimes for a plea, and people with information have a plea. Lots of times these kids have no information. Lots of times they just got caught with a small amount of a drug. They do not have information, so they go to jail. Somebody higher up, who has information, can plea, can afford better representation; and these kids, again, are the ones who go to jail, lose their right to vote. Even after they pay their debt to society, they may not be able to vote. So I thank the gentlewoman for doing this. It is so fundamental to our democracy that everyone have a stake in it; that everyone be able to fully participate. We cannot say to young people who have made a mistake that they are going to pay for it forever in terms of their full enfranchisement as a citizen in our country. Certainly as long as we are a country where representation is unequal as far as representation in the courts, we cannot have these, shall we say, capital punishments, as far as voting is concerned. So I thank the gentlewoman for what she is doing from the perspective of my district and from the perspective as a proprietor who has heard over and over and over from the judges, please, stop, Congress, from making all these mandatory minimum sentences. Give us some discretion. Stop federalizing these offenses. That takes us down a path which is exacerbated by the disenfranchisement that you are trying to correct here. So I commend the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary; and I am pleased to join all my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), as well as our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who I know will be speaking as well, and so many Members who have spoken on this issue today. I thank all my colleagues for their leadership. We are all in your debt.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations. Our subcommittee's jurisdiction concerns the welfare of America's children in many ways: their health, their education and well-being, and the economic security of their families, which is certainly related to their well-being. What we see in that subcommittee, from the scientists who come in and tell us what the possibilities are now in science and what they know about the development of children, is how essential it is for children to have quality health care even before they are born. The research has shown time and time again that investments in their good health are very good investments for our country indeed. The opportunities are great. The knowledge that we have gained through our investments in biomedical research increases the opportunities to help our children not only reach their own personal fulfillment and strengthen the families from which they come, but also enrich our country in terms of our family values and our economic strength. So we all have a responsibility to all children. Every parent, of course, has a responsibility to his or her child, but on the Subcommittee we must think of every child in America as our child, all the children as our children, because indeed they are our responsibility. So in Congress, we have a responsibility to do all that we can to prevent and treat childhood disease. The Children's Health Act comprehensively addresses this responsibility by increasing our commitment to children's health research, health promotion, and disease prevention activities. Although I strongly support the Children's Health Act, I would like to join my colleagues who have expressed their concerns about the Charitable Choice provisions included in the bill. These provisions would weaken important anti-discrimination civil rights protections; violate the constitutional separation of church and state; and entangle religious institutions in the purview of government. These provisions explicitly enable faith-based organizations to proselytize to those receiving public services and discriminate in employment decisions with public funds. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership did not allow an amendment to strengthen prohibitions against proselytizing and prevent discrimination against beneficiaries. These needed protections are very important to ensure that the religious rights and the civil rights of Americans can be exercised, and where they overlap, there is an appropriate balance. They also would serve to protect the separation of church and state. Despite these concerns, I do support the underlying language in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Children's Health Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. I rise to comment on the CR that is before us until October 6. We have many visitors to the Capitol, Mr. Speaker; and many of them, when they come to our office, they talk about a book we all read in grammar and high school, How to Make a Law. Well, we might as well tear those books up and throw them away, although I usually am averse to such a notion, because it simply does not apply anymore. Any observer of the activities of this Congress will know that the regular order where the public can view the making of our legislation in an orderly way, in a way in which they can participate in a predictable manner, is a thing of the past. Only two bills will have been signed by the President by the time we reach the end of this fiscal year and in time for the start of the new fiscal year. Why? Well, because of the politics of the Republican caucus. As an appropriator, in fact as a ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, I think most of us who are in that capacity know that we can work in a very amicable way with our corresponding chairman on the Republican side. But as much compromise and reasonableness as we can bring to the process, as many cities that we can reach on the basis of hearings that we have had in the course of the year and information that we are very familiar with, with our research and our judgments that we bring to the table, all of that is for naught, because whatever our conclusion is, it is subjected again to this conservative scrutiny on the part of our Republican colleagues. For example, in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education on which I serve, it is really hard to imagine why the Republicans cannot support our class size initiative for smaller classes. Every person in America, certainly every parent, understands the need for that and every teacher. School construction, school modernization initiatives of the President are what are standing, among other things, between us and the agreement on that bill. In the Foreign Operations bill in which I am the ranking member, we cannot reach agreement because of the international family planning issue. Poor women throughout the world are held hostage once again to the politics of the Republican Caucus. The list goes on and on where members of the committees can come to agreement but the caucus then weighs in. That is not in the public interest. Certainly a CR has its place when circumstances are such that we cannot reach agreement; but we are on a path that we have started from beginning to middle to end, on a path to doing the people's work. But when we are proceeding in such a haphazard manner that is unworthy of the public trust and we come to the end of the fiscal year with only two bills signed by the President, with one CR and predictably another CR being necessary, then I think it is time for us to say, what is going on here? Who is in charge here? Why is the public's business not being done according to the regular order, a way in which the public can participate and be proud of us as we are a model democracy for the world to watch?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the very troubling motion to instruct of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which would direct, as my colleagues know, the Labor-HHS conferees to revive the already-rejected ban on emergency contraception in school-based health clinics. In July, the House-Senate conference rejected this harmful proposal because it endangers teenagers' health and undermines the national effort to reduce unintended teen pregnancies. This ban confuses emergency contraception with abortion. And its attempt to ban abortion pills would instead ban emergency contraception. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand the difference. ECPs, emergency contraception pills, which are FDA approved ordinary birth control pills, do not cause abortion. They inhibit ovulation, fertilization, or implantation before pregnancy occurs. School-based health centers provide a private, safe place for teens to access health care services, including contraception and related services. Certainly we would hope that children would engage in abstinence, but they do not always, and that is why I join the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in opposing the Coburn motion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment, because it would interfere with the District's ability to save lives, put very simply, by operating needle exchange programs which have been proven to reduce new HIV infections in this country, especially among children. Three quarters of new HIV infection in children are a result of injection drug use by a parent. Why would we pass up an opportunity to save a child's life by shutting down programs that work? HIV/AIDS remains the leading cause of death among African Americans ages 25 to 44 in the District. In spite of these statistics, this amendment attempts to shut down the very program that the local community has established to reduce new HIV infections. This Congress should be supporting decisions that local communities make about their healthcare, not limiting their control. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to mention a number of organizations, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association have concluded that needle exchange programs are effective. The Surgeon General's Report has said that it found conclusively that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission and do not increase drug use. Support local control and oppose the Tiahrt amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday marked the 150th anniversary of the entry of the State of California into the United States. I rise today to recognize this important date and to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important contribution of the Presidio of San Francisco to the history of the Eighth Congressional District and to the State of California as a whole. The Presidio has overlooked San Francisco Bay since the United States came into existence. Built in 1776 by the Spanish Empire in North America, the military outpost of the Presidio was created after the great inland harbor of San Francisco was discovered during colonizing expeditions. The Presidio was briefly under the control of the newly independent Republic of Mexico starting in 1821, but was finally transferred to American control by treaty in 1848. In many ways, the history of the Presidio has mirrored the events that shaped our nation. During the 1870's and 1880's, the Presidio served as a frontier outpost, from which soldiers saw action in the Indian Wars. San Franciscans are proud of the service at the Presidio during this time of the Buffalo Soldiers, all Black-regiments established to help rebuild the country after the Civil War and to patrol the western frontier. By the turn of the century, the Presidio shifted from an outpost to a major military installation and a base for American expansion into the Pacific. In 1898, tens of thousands of American soldiers camped at the Presidio in preparation for the invasion of the Philippines during the Spanish American War. In 1915, General John Pershing, later to become the commander of U.S. expeditionary forces in World War I, led the pursuit into Mexico of Pancho Villa from the Presidio. The Presidio became headquarters for the Western Defense Command during action in the Pacific in World War II, and soldiers began digging foxholes in local beaches in anticipation of a possible invasion. Playing a significant role in the preservation of nature, the Presidio's role in the San Francisco Bay Area transcends its military roots. As far back as the 1880's, the first large-scale tree planting and post beautification projects were undertaken at the Presidio. The building of the Golden Gate Bridge from 1933 to 1937 increased the public use of the Presidio. The Presidio was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1962. From that time to its eventual closure as a military base in 1989, and its transfer in 1994, thanks to the visionary actions of Philip Burton, to the National Park Service, the significance of the Presidio has shifted from a strategically important military base to a gem in the National Park system and an integral part of California's landscape and history. Today, the Presidio continues to reflect the changing priorities of our nation. In a change reflecting a swords-to-plowshares approach, the former military installation at the Presidio has become a national park like no other. Surrounded by dense neighborhood in San Francisco, the Presidio is now an urban oasis of open space that preserves a critical habitat for some rare and endangered species. The Presidio contains an incredible assortment of recreational, cultural, and natural resources that makes it a top destination for visitors to San Francisco and a well-loved and visited site for the City's residents. Fittingly, the Presidio has also become home to a Swords-to-Plowshares program which helps veterans re-assimilate into civilian society through job training, housing assistance, and counseling. Mr. Speaker, the Presidio of San Francisco, with its proximity to the Golden Gate Bridge and the California Coastline, its beautiful forests and unique ecology, and especially its role in the development of California, deserves recognition for its place in the history of the Golden State. I am proud to recognize this contribution and to honor the Great State of California on its sesquicentennial anniversary.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me the time and thank him for offering this motion to instruct conferees. By doing so, under his leadership, he gives this body today a great opportunity, an opportunity to say that hate crimes have no place in our country. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) argued that there is no need for a Federal hate crimes legislation, because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the brutality of these hate crimes speaks to the reality that whether a person is targeted for violence, because of his or her sexual orientation, race or other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all members of that community. The message is, you are not welcome. The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. All Americans, all Americans have a right to feel safe in their communities. This bill counters this message of intimidation. This motion to instruct sends a strong statement that our society does not condone and will not tolerate hate-based crimes. Passage of this motion to instruct would not end hate-based violence, we know that, but it would allow the Federal Government to respond and take action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct. It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because these tragic murders and the sufferings that were, for example, experienced by the Byrd family and the family of Matthew Shephard have experienced are not isolated incidences. According to the FBI, 87 incidences of hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation took place in 1996 alone. There is a need for this. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have mourned the deaths of Matthew Sheppard, a gay college student in Wyoming, and James Byrd, an African- American man in Texas. These brutal killings are reminders of the violence and harassment that millions of Americans are subjected to simply because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, or other group membership. I had the privilege of introducing members of each of their families at the Democratic National Convention last month. There they spoke movingly of their slain loved ones and the impact that crimes motivated by hate have on families and communities. These tragic murders and the suffering that these two families have experienced are, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. According to statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, 29 Americans were murdered in 1999 because they were gay or lesbian and there were more than 1,960 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents in the United States, including 704 assaults. And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1966 there were over 8700 reported incidents of hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Crimes based on hate are an assault on all of us, and we must take stronger measures to prevent and punish these offenses. Opponents of this measure have argued that this is an issue that should be left to the states. However, Congress has passed over 3000 criminal statutes addressing harmful behaviors that affect the Nation's interests, including organized crime, terrorism, and civil rights, violations. Thirty-Five of these laws have been passed since the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. Others have argued that there is no need for federal Hate Crimes legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, the brutality of these crimes speaks to the reality that when a person is targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation, race, or other group membership, the assailant intends to send a message to all members of that community. That message is you are not welcome. The effort to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is a different type of crime, and it demands a different kind of response. All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000 counters this message of intimidation with a strong statement that our society does not condone and will not tolerate hate-based violence. In addition, passage of this legislation will increase public education and awareness, increase the number of victims who come forward to report hate crimes, and increase reporting by local law enforcement to the FBI under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. In addition to a bipartisan group of 192 House sponsors, this bill is supported by 175 civil rights, religious, civic and law enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriff's Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, the National Center for Women and Policing, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of victims. As a Member of Congress who has the privilege of representing a district with a large number of gay and lesbian people, I find it interesting when I hear people talk about tolerance for gay and lesbian people because in our community the issue of tolerance was resolved long ago. We not only tolerate our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors, we take great pride in them and in the contribution that they make to our community in San Francisco, indeed to our great country. Murders and assaults that target African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, or any other group are the manifestation of enduring bigotry that is still all too prevalent in our society. Passage of this bill would not end all violence against these communities. But it would allow the Federal Government to respond and take action by investigating and punishing the perpetrators of crimes motivated by hate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct.