Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, who is very knowledgeable about the world debt issue and a great leader on that issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Jackson), a member of the subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention at this time to yield to my colleagues, but I cannot resist. I must respond to the remarks of the gentleman. With all the respect that I have for him and knowing how important this issue is to so many Members of this Congress and to so many people in the religious community out there, I have to say, very regretfully, that his comments do a disservice to this debate. This is not a scheme. This is a plan. This is a plan that was very harshly scrutinized and developed by the G-7 in their debt proposal. That proposal is in jeopardy now. Why is it in jeopardy? Because the U.S. has not paid its share of the tab 1 year after the promise. Who is involved in this plan at the grassroots level? Well, let us start with the Vatican, His Holiness the Pope. Let us reach out then to an ecumenical movement, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has spoken and traveled throughout the world promoting this plan. Desmond Tutu of South Africa stated: ``The new moral crusade follows the Biblical principle of Jubilee. In the Bible it says, all belong to God. All debts are forgiven in the Jubilee year. Debtors make a new beginning.'' What this is about, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt on the part of people who minister to the needs of poor people throughout the world to alleviate poverty, promote democratic freedoms, and build markets for our products. In the interest of meeting the needs and lifting people up, there has to be some way to pull away the crushing mantle of this debt. As our distinguished ranking Member said earlier, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it is nothing less than we did for countries in Europe, including Poland, following the Soviet collapse, nothing less than that. When we talk about this, we have to speak about it in a spirit of a strict plan. The IMF is not known for its programs that are soft on countries that want to receive loans. There is a very tough set of standards that these countries must live up to before they can have their debts forgiven, and much of it includes instituting budget austerity and programs that meet the needs of their people. Our distinguished chairman makes a good point when he asks why should we forgive loans on the one hand and make loans on the other. Well, simply because many of these loans were incurred by previous regimes. The world is changing. We all know that. And these early stages of democracy in these countries require that they be lifted not only from the oppression of the dictatorships but the oppression of the loans that were taken out by those dictators. So now we want to forgive the loans. The gentleman is simply not correct when he says these people are not paying any of their debts. The bilateral debts in many cases have a moratorium on repayment by some of these countries. But the debts to the multilateral banks still must be paid. So that is the rub. Many of these countries are paying more for their debt service than they are for education and health in their own countries. So while we may all agree that loan forgiveness has to be done responsibly, we have no quarrel with that. Of course it must be done responsibly. And those of us who fight for this funding insist on that responsibility. We are not here to talk about irresponsibility. While we may all agree on that and we would hope that the countries that receive this debt relief all act responsibly as well. An egregious example that the chairman may wish to point out, should not eliminate debt relief for all the other countries. Many of those countries have put the reforms in place. They are ready for the debt relief. They are ready to go forward with their economic growth that this debt forgiveness will engender for them. But the U.S. are holding it up. So while I respect the difference of opinion as to whether the amount of money is enough or not, I point out that $82 million is 20 percent of the President's request. It does not even begin to meet the needs for FY 2000 and 2001. So if we want to talk about priorities and you say that that money is enough and we say it is not, that is one thing; but to denigrate this proposal which has been negotiated at the highest level, mobilized for, advocated for at the grassroots level throughout the world, and which is urgently needed, is in my view, painfully and sadly a disservice to the debate. There is a need out there. It is urgent. It is great. We can speak to the specifics of it, and that will happen in this debate. But I would hope that the tenor of our remarks would not be condescending to the leadership of these countries who are trying their best to get on their feet and help their people and that it would not be dismissive of the efforts of the religious communities, starting with His Holiness the Pope and across the board. I might just name some of the organizations that were with us this morning at a press conference: The Council of Churches, the Catholic Relief Services, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and then many environmental groups, as well, and then Oxfam, Bread for the World, Jubilee 2000, which is the organizing group for this mobilization. So I hope that the debate will be respectful because it is with respect for every person on this Earth that we are going forward with this, with the need for people to have their needs met and to have children have some prospect of a future, and that can begin by lifting the burden of this debt. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and an expert on international debt relief.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will further yield, the chairman knows I have the highest regard for him, and it is with a heavy heart, as Lyndon Johnson used to say, that I say to the gentleman that he is absolutely wrong. I want to just get back to the Pope for a moment. The gentleman's powers of persuasion are considerable, but I doubt that he could persuade the Pope, the head of the church, whose mission is to alleviate poverty and respect the dignity and worth of every person on the face of this Earth, that we should not have international debt relief because of some egregious example that the gentleman might think up. The GAO, if one reads the report, admits, we have never said that if you forgive the debt, that there will not be future lending. The debt is from a previous regime, or mistakes made before; and now we are talking about a fresh start. But to get back to the Pope for a moment, because I want to make this point, I have never mocked, never, ever mocked, in fact I have respected the views of people who have a different view, some of them are in my own family, about a woman's right to choose and the rest. So really it offends me, and I say that regretfully, that the gentleman would say well, if you do not listen to the Pope about choice, why do you listen to the Pope about this? Well, I respect the Pope's view on all of these things. But when the gentleman was characterizing this as a scheme, and now the gentleman is defining a scheme differently than he emphasized it earlier, it was with disdain; and that is the part that I find regrettable, because this is a very important debate. This is a debate about whether our country will live up to its responsibilities that our President committed to at the G-7 one year ago. He is going to leave for Japan, for Okinawa, in another week, following the Camp David meetings; and he is going to have to go there and say I cannot fulfill the responsibility, the obligations that we incurred last year, because, maybe because somebody bought an airplane someplace, I do not know; but any excuse will do if you do not want to do something. So to say that $69 million is a start, and we all want to get to the same place, is like saying let us all go to the Moon; here are your roller skates. That means I cannot get there. So let us help these people get there. If we all do share the goal of alleviating poverty, if we all do share the goal of eradicating AIDS, as the gentleman referenced in his remarks, we have to put the resources where our compassion is. Compassion is great, but it is no substitute for a positive plan to go forward and the resources to match that proposal. So we have an important decision to make here, respectful of each other's positions, and it is: Is it that a statement of the values of this country is that we will help these countries get on their feet? Standards have been set by the IMF. If it is a given that once the oppressive old debt is removed that countries not be able to incur further debt, I cannot even understand how you could put a moratorium on basic human needs, loans from the IDA window, the poorest of the poor window of the World Bank, and say that that is okay, we will teach them some discipline and they will not be able to incur any debts. Economic development is essential to the success of these countries, and they need the hard window loans as well. So we are not talking about carelessness or irresponsibility; we are talking about sensible planning.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), former chair of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and an expert on international debt forgiveness.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this legislation before us today. I first want to commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), on the manner in which the bill was put together. Unfortunately, because it is seriously deficient in the funding level, and I believe that has resulted in some skewered priorities in the bill, I cannot support it and cannot urge a vote of yes on it. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the purpose of starting this debate on this bill, which everyone knows is a statement of the importance we place on our leadership role in the world, this bill of $13.3 billion is well below the President's request of $15.1 billion. The President's request was less than 1 percent of the entire budget. The entire budget is $1.8 trillion. If we had a pie chart here, this amount in this bill would be just a line, a sliver, a hair, a thread, whatever is smaller, of our national budget. It is just less than 1 percent. Yet the Republican majority could not see fit to meet the President's request, so I must oppose the bill. I will say why. The bill, I think to make judgment about it we should consider what is the vision of the bill, what is the knowledge it is based on, what is the plan it proposes, how does it respond to the spirit of the American people. I think it fails in every respect. I am led by President Kennedy's words. Anyone who knows American history knows that in his inaugural address President Kennedy said to the citizens of America, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Everyone knows that. But everyone does not know that the very next line in that speech, which I heard as a student here in Washington, D.C., in the very next line President Kennedy said to the citizens of the world, ``Ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' That, I think, should be the vision and the spirit of this legislation, that what we put forward should give some of the benefits of democratization, some economic benefits to these emerging democracies. But this bill does not enable that to happen. As far as knowledge is concerned, we are blessed in this House of Representatives by the diversity of our membership. Members of our Congressional Black Caucus and of our Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Caucus know and understand the cultures and politics of many of the countries that we would hope to cooperate with in this bill. They have been a tremendous intellectual resource to us, and yet we have not listened to them or heeded their call for increased funding, for example, for international debt relief, or increased funding for global AIDS, or other initiatives that we can take to help these countries. It is about cooperation. It is not necessarily about just assistance. So we have ignored the vision, we have ignored the knowledge, and what is the plan? We have a plan. We have a definite plan. As far as debt relief, for example, is concerned, Jubilee 2000 is an international ecumenical religious and lay community initiative to relieve international debt. Others will talk about the fact that many countries are paying more on their debt payments than they are on education and health services in their countries. This is a travesty. We should be doing something about it, at the same time as we are not alleviating poverty and we are exacerbating the AIDS crisis. In addition to the vision, the knowledge, the plan that we are ignoring, we are also ignoring the spirit of the American people, a compassionate people who want to alleviate poverty, stop the starvation of children throughout the world, recognize our interdependence in terms of health issues, infectious diseases and environmental degradation internationally. So we are ignoring the heart, the head, and the knowledge of this great congress with its diversity, and I think that this is the last time we will ever see a bill that looks like this, because we must assert the influence of our diversity on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. On this amendment?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not even really hear what the gentleman from Alabama said.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his great leadership when it comes to the continent of Africa. He is a tremendous resource to this Congress on this subject. He knows of what he speaks. And he is correct, we do not do enough in the African Development Fund. We must do more, and I am pleased to support his amendment. We need more money in the bill, though, in order to do this so that we do not damage other initiatives that we want for Africa as well. So in that spirit I am pleased to support the amendment and commend the gentleman for his leadership.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Vermont, no, I will just get time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to exercise the same privilege as the distinguished chairman did as is spelled out in the unanimous consent request.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the chair of the Black Caucus, for their leadership in putting all this together. I want to say to my distinguished chairman, at last we have found something to agree on this evening. So I support his unanimous consent request. I just want to make note that I am not certain in paragraph 3 whether the Congressional Record amendment is 27 or 28. Do we know what that is?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his very impressive leadership on issues of concern to people in need throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to consider a bill that is very, very important because it will define how Congress sees our leadership role in the world. Unfortunately, we will not have the fullest of debates on the bill because of this rule that we have before us. So I, with great reluctance and great respect for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), who is presenting the rule, rise in opposition to it. I do so for the following reasons: The bill that we will consider later today, if this rule passes, is seriously deficient in the resources to match the responsibilities of our great Nation. In the past, I have tried to be cooperative, and if it was a close call, come down on the side of moving the process along. But this bill is a hollow shell. The only remedy we would have had is if the Committee on Rules would have allowed some amendments to be in order which would have helped correct some of the deficiencies in the bill. The Committee on Rules did not allow any of the amendments to be in order. These amendments would have addressed the serious concern that many Members in this House have about international debt relief. Several of us had amendments to redress the lack in the bill. One that I had proposed would have called for an increased funding of $390 million to bring the total in the bill up to the President's request for the supplemental and for the next fiscal year of approximately $470 million. My request was for the Committee on Rules to allow us to have this amendment come to the floor under emergency designation. There is already precedent in the bill that will be considered later. The distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of our committee, placed in the bill funding for storm relief in Mozambique and Southern Africa; and that money, we are very grateful that that money is in there. It was really put in under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). That money survived the process. We are grateful for that. It did also establish a precedent which is emergency designation within this particular appropriations bill. Indeed, the debt relief is an emergency. We have a situation where several of the highly impoverished countries are suffering under oppressive burdens of debt. Some of them pay more on their debt each year than they do for education or for health care for their people. Many of these debts have been incurred by previous regimes and now these countries have to bear that burden and are unable to lift themselves up and enjoy for their people some of the benefits of the more democratic systems that they have entered into. So the bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million in pending requests for debt relief, and we have no opportunity to address that under emergency designation. The bill contains only $2 million of $244 million that we wanted for AIDS, global AIDS issues. At the same time as the whole world of those interested in HIV/AIDS is converging, on Durban, South Africa, in conference on how to deal with this pandemic that is afflicting the world and especially Africa and Asia at the same time we are deprived of having an amendment to acknowledge that emergency with a $40 million emergency designation. The rule does not allow that. I must oppose that rule. And then there is the oppressive language on international family planning. The President had requested $541 million. The bill puts in $285 million with the stipulation that if the oppressive language is in there and the waivers are used, that is reduced by over $12 million, down to $372 as opposed to $541 that the President has requested. So the number is too low, the language is a gag rule, and we were not allowed to have an amendment. The Greenwood-Lowey amendment was not made in order so that this House could work its will. It was not a question of changing policy, it was a question of having this opportunity within this House of Representatives to have a clean vote on that. In the past, our chairman has provided that the bill would come to the floor clean of any language relating to Mexico City and the House would then work its will. This year is different. It contains the oppressive language with no remedy allowed in the rule. And so I must oppose this rule, urge my colleagues to do so, and also to oppose the bill that may follow.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I would encourage that. I think that, again, since we have been here so late tonight, it would be great if Members could not have to be here at 9. They have other appointments, et cetera, in the morning, some funerals and things like that. So while we debate, if they could have that time, it would be great. I thank the chairman.