Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Not the gentleman's budget, the gentleman is right.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for calling this Special Order, and I would like to associate myself with his remarks that we should have an exchange. I think the American people would benefit from that. I have no fear that in the discussion our point of view that Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China are not appropriate at this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to this group, and I commend my colleagues for the depth of their knowledge and commitment on this issue, but I come as one who supported NAFTA, who has supported almost every trade agreement that I have had to vote on. Having said that, I say that some of the Members of Congress who did support NAFTA, who now do not support this, do so for a very good reason. This is not right, it is not ready, it is not fully negotiated. What is the rush? Let me just say this. As my colleagues know, over time, there have been three areas of concern in this Congress about U.S.-China relations; and over the past decade, the situation has not improved. Those areas include proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; indeed, three pillars of our foreign policy are to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to promote democratic values, and to grow our economy by promoting exports. In all three of those areas, this proposal falls very, very short. In terms of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, despite administration statements to the contrary, China still continues to proliferate weapons, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons technology and their delivery systems, the missiles to deliver them, to rogue states like Pakistan, Iran, and now Libya. Libya, I might add, and this is recent, it is current, it is this spring, it is as we speak, the Chinese are improving the technology for Libya's missile capability. In a February speech, Secretary of Defense William Cohen explained the danger that Libya poses. Libya has chemical capabilities and is trying to buy long-range missiles. Rogue states like Libya, Iraq and Iran are not trying to build the missiles for regional conflict, they want long-range missiles to coerce and threaten us. So while China is engaged in this dangerous proliferation to Libya, who has been established as a threat publicly by Secretary Cohen, we are not overlooking that proliferation; we, this administration, is certifying that it is not happening. This country is in such denial about China's proliferation activities that it is appalling, and it is not in our national security interest for us to proceed in this fashion. Then we come to the issue of human rights. The administration has told us over time that if we engage with China in the manner they propose, and by the way, I certainly believe that we should engage with China in a sustainable way, but if we kowtow to the whim of the regime at every turn, that human rights will improve. Well, right now, today, there are more people in prison for their religious and political beliefs than at any time since the cultural revolution. The State Department's own Country Report documents that and the Congressional Commission on Religious Freedom also says that China should not get PNTR until there is improvement there. But that is about human rights and that is about proliferation, and others say to us, well, for those reasons you want to sacrifice U.S. jobs, the opportunity for U.S. jobs; and that, I say to my colleagues, is the grand hoax. The very idea that proponents of PNTR would say that for promoting human rights and stopping proliferation, we would sacrifice U.S. jobs is ridiculous. In fact, as my colleague pointed out, in the past 10 years, the trade deficit with China has gone from $7 billion to $70 billion, and it will be over $80 billion for the year 2000. Our colleagues who promote this say that for every $1 billion of exports produces 20,000 jobs in the U.S. Well, by their standard, the $70 billion, just taking this year's figure, would cost us 1,400,000 jobs to China with a $70 billion trade deficit. Now, they say, oh it does not work in reverse, it just works this way. Well, tell that to people who are losing their jobs. Now, again, I come to this floor as a free and fair trader, and I come from a city built on trade and many people there are not in support of my position. But I will tell my colleagues this: they can advocate all they want. We have the facts here, and we have a responsibility to the public interest, and we must talk about the jobs issue. People talk, and my colleague from New Jersey has mentioned the textile issue. We have already said, textiles are low tech, they will go offshore; but that is not all that is going offshore. Many of these circuit boards, there is so much that is being done offshore in the high-tech industry. Let us take an example: aerospace. Boeing, Boeing, Boeing sets our China policy, we know that. But in aerospace, do my colleagues know that there is a province in China called Tian Province. You probably know it from the clay soldiers that are there, but there are also there 20,000 workers who make $60 a month making parts of the Boeing airplanes, 20,000 workers. There is a book called Job on the Wing, and it describes this transfer of technology and production of jobs in the aerospace industry, which is one of the leading advocates for the PNTR. No wonder. Philip Condit, the head of Boeing, said when a plane flies to China, it is as if it is going home, so much of it has been made there. So do not talk to us about this being about U.S. jobs. It is largely about U.S. investment in China; it is on platforms for cheap labor to export back to the U.S. But let us say, let us say it is about what they say it is about, that we really are going to have this good deal and it is going to create jobs, if the Chinese government complies with the terms of the agreement, which as our distinguished whip earlier spelled out, their reinterpretation already at the 1999 China-U.S. trade agreement, not to mention the fact that they have never honored any trade agreement all along the way. Workers' rights and what workers make. Today, there was a press conference our colleagues had and a worker had just come from China. He worked in a group that made $40 a day. Divide that up among 24 workers for this particular product. I know the product, but it is up to him to say, that worker to divulge that. Mr. Speaker, $40 a day divided up among 24 workers for a full day's work. So workers' rights, well, they are a competitiveness issue, and although it is a human right as well, it is about jobs. The environment is a competitiveness issue as well. I was pleased to join our colleagues in sending a letter all around talking about the disappointment we had that this bilateral agreement, the U.S.-China bilateral agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration did not prioritize transfer and export of clean energy technology to China. It could have, but it did not. Also, it did not obtain a commitment from China that it would not use the World Trade Organization to challenge invasive species controls under the CITES, and that any trade investment agreement with China should place basic environmental obligations on U.S. corporations so that they do not escape the regulations that are in the U.S. That is a competitiveness issue. So here we have a situation where we are helping to despoil the environment of China, where we are helping to abuse the workers' rights and, by the way, the workers in China whom I have met with have said, you are throwing us into the sea when you go down this path. Do not salve your own conscience by having some code of conduct or some other camouflage, because only we can speak for ourselves; and until we, the workers of China, can speak for ourselves and can organize, only then can you talk about trade with China lifting up workers in China. So here we have this situation where we do not even know if the Chinese will agree to it; it is not completely negotiated. The trade representative has said the mechanism for compliance has not been negotiated yet, and for this we are squandering our values and our national security and 1,400,000 U.S. jobs.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip, for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this important issue. I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and commend her for her leadership as well. This next week this House of Representatives will have a vote and decide how we will honor the pillars of our own foreign policy, promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and growing our own economy by promoting our exports abroad. A vote for permanent NTR does not advance any of those goals, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in that regard. I wanted to emphasize a point made by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) earlier. This weekend in Taiwan, the second democratically-elected President will be inaugurated. It is cause for celebration in the heart of every person in the world who cares about freedom and democracy. At a time when we should all in this body be celebrating that great triumph of democracy, we are instead rejecting a very simple amendment, and that is the Berman amendment that the majority has refused to put in the bill, and that the administration has refused to accept. That simple amendment would say that PNTR would be lifted for China if China invades Taiwan. What could be simpler than associating one's self with the idea that if a country invades another place then they would not get special privileges in the United States? Not only have we ignored China's activity to proliferate weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological and nuclear technology to rogue states, not only have we ignored that, we have certified that they are not doing it when we know full well that they are. If the President wants to make this a national security issue, let us do that. In terms of national security, instead of appeasing the Chinese Government every step of the way on their misbehavior internationally we are missing an opportunity to say to them do not even think about invading Taiwan. If they do not think China is going to invade, there is no problem here. Right? Clearly, they do not trust the Chinese, or else they would let this amendment pass. Again, instead of saluting the democracy in Taiwan, we are rewarding the unsafe behavior of the Chinese. So I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to a letter to the Committee on Rules to make this amendment in order that if China invades Taiwan, we lift PNTR. Our relationship with every country should make the world safer, the trade fairer and people freer. Permanent NTR at this time does not do that. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership on this important amendment. He has been a leader in trying to educate the Congress on what has been happening in Latin America over the past decade, indeed, generation. We are all deeply in his debt for making certain events there known to us so we could change and improve our policy. The issue before us today is one that we have visited over and over again. The chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), which I am ranking member, has spoken in opposition to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and I want to speak in favor of him, because on our bill, the subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs bill, an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) passed this House overwhelmingly by 230 to 197 to cut the funding for the School of the Americas. This amendment is an improvement on that because what it says is there should be a bipartisan Congressional task force which will address military training of Latin American soldiers by the U.S. Department of Defense. This task force will critically assess course curriculum and procedures for training in order to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Mr. Chairman, there is a tremendous need by this Congress to oversee the military training being done by the Department of Defense. With the highest regard for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, I have to rise and say that I strenuously object to the cavalier approach taken by the military to continue training violators of human rights not only in Latin America, but throughout the world. We trained the Kopassus, the most vicious human rights violators; part of the Indonesian military. Indonesia is going to bring some of those people to justice, and we trained them. We trained them, and it is current and recent. This is not about a long time ago. That is not about the School of the Americas, it is about the U.S. military training people overseas with the idea that we were going to teach them to have a military in a civilian population. We all share the goal of sharing the expertise and the idealism of the U.S. military in training foreign militaries on how to exist in a civilian society without military dictatorships, and some of them have to get used to that. We all share the view that there should be human rights training at these schools. Let us really deal with this School of the Americas once and for all instead of every single year by addressing it completely; by having a study, a congressional task force to study it, to say what kind of school and what kind of curriculum should be there and to rid ourselves of the past, of the dreaded history of the School of the Americas and some of the people that it has trained. So while we have a difference of opinion of approach here, I am sure all my colleagues would want to be very proud of whatever training we have done of foreign militaries, be they in Latin America or Indonesia. Unfortunately, the message of 230 to 197 on the appropriations bill was not a clear enough message to the military. We must send a clearer one. We can do it today under the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from California, (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my final respects to one of San Francisco's finest leaders, Leonard ``Lefty'' Gordon. Mr. Gordon dedicated his life to helping young African-Americans get a better chance in life and became a respected community figure in the process. A talented athlete with an agile mind, Lefty Gordon could have achieved personal fame or amassed great wealth, but he chose instead to live his life in service to his community. Born in Mississippi, Lefty moved with his family to San Francisco when he was three years old. Growing up in the Western Addition neighborhood, Lefty excelled at any sport he tried, but he became particularly known for running track. Upon graduation from high school, however, he decided to pursue his education rather than athletics. Mr. Gordon first earned a bachelor's degree from San Francisco State University and then earned a Master of Sociology degree from the University of California at Berkeley. While pursuing his education, Lefty always made time to work with young people. Upon his graduation, this part-time work became his vocation. As a counselor at the Booker T. Washington Community Center, Mr. Gordon dedicated himself to mentoring young African-American men. He encouraged them to get an education and tied to provide them with opportunities, but, more than anything else, he respected them. In 1983, Lefty became the Executive Director of the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center. Under his leadership, the Center became a dynamic place where students received tutoring, where children and senior citizens learned to use computers, where the unemployed received job training, and where the neighborhood's young people found guidance and caring. Lefty was a mentor to the young, but he was also a leader among his peers. The Ella Hill Hutch Community Center became a meeting place for the city's African-American elected officials and city department heads. Working together, these leaders sought to improve the lives of their fellow San Francisco residents, and it was Lefty who brought them together. The unexpected passing of Lefty Gordon leaves a void in the city of San Francisco. Lefty was a true friend to his community, and he was loved for it. His talents are not easily replaced, and his caring heart will never be. We will miss him greatly. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Scarlett, his son, Gregory, and all of his family and friends.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for yielding me this time, and for his leadership on this very, very important issue. I am very pleased to join him and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and thank them for bringing this to the floor. I want to join them and others in commending my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for her tremendous and relentless leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we all know the statistics, and they are staggering. George Bernard Shaw once said, ``The sign of a truly intelligent person is that he or she is swayed by statistics.'' And these statistics, as I say, are not only swaying, they are staggering. I think it would be interesting for our colleagues to know why this bill is so important and the wisdom of it. And I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his work on the World Bank Trust Fund aspect of this. So our colleagues know, $100 million a year over 5 years, largely focused on prevention, counseling, testing, treatment and care. They all must be increased dramatically. But the need for education, counseling, and testing is severe. Because of all the numbers we have heard about AIDS in Africa, my understanding is that 95 percent of those who are HIV infected, without the full-blown cases of AIDS, 95 percent of those people do not know that they are HIV infected. So prevention, prevention, prevention is what we must do. We must prevent people from getting this and prevent them, therefore, from spreading it when they do not even know in 95 percent of the cases that they have it. The funding provided by the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund will help the nations of sub-Saharan Africa move forward on all of these fronts while strengthening their capacity to provide HIV/AIDS treatments and other health care services that are vital for survival of the millions of Africans who are living with HIV/AIDS. I support this legislation and commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the three L's, for their hard work on this effort. It is a matter of life and death. Their leadership is to be respected by all of us and their legislation to be supported.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, listening to my distinguished colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) speaking earlier about the potential permanent normal trade relations vote that we will have on China soon reminded me that any opportunity I get I should come to the floor. And since there is an opportunity now, I thought I should take this 5 minutes. As my colleagues know, President Clinton has sent a request for Congress asking this Congress to yield permanent normal trade relations with China. He bases that request on a U.S.-China bilateral agreement signed in 1999. He bases that request also on a history of absolutely noncompliance on the part of China of any trade agreements they have ever signed with the U.S., be they trade agreements for market access of U.S. products into China's market, be they trade agreements on intellectual property violations by the Chinese, be they trade agreements on use of prison labor for export, China year in and year out continues to violate these agreements, and now the President has said, the Chinese will honor this one. Well, they are already backing off this one. In fact, in two areas of agriculture, of particular note I think to this body, the Chinese have a different interpretation. They are famous for reinterpreting treaties and agreements. For example, on the subject of wheat, the U.S. Trade Rep's factsheet says that wheat and grain, therefore, will be allowed into China. The Chinese Trade Rep says, any idea that the grain will enter the country of China is a misunderstanding. Beijing merely conceded a theoretical opportunity. On the subject of meat, the Trade Rep's factsheet talks about meat and poultry, all forms, being allowed into China. The Chinese Trade Rep says, not so, not quite. He says diplomacy is a way of finding different forms of expression, and to that extent we found new expressions, we were diplomatic, but where there were no material concessions made. So on the basis of a flimsy 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement, in which, by the way, there was little attention paid, practically none, to enforcement, compliance or implementation, the President is asking this body to surrender to the dictates of the regime in Beijing permanently any leverage that we have on trade and, indeed, human rights and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well. Even if we could put aside for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the brutal occupation of Tibet, the ongoing repression of human rights in China, the continuing proliferation of weapons, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction to rogue states, to Pakistan, the ongoing relationship between the Chinese and the Pakistanis in terms of missile technology transfer, same thing with Iran, more recently with Libya, since this 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement they have proliferated to Libya, the administration does not want that known, but it is in the public domain, so in any event, we have many areas of concern. But even if we were to make a determination strictly on the basis of trade alone, there is no reason for us to permanently surrender our leverage. It is as if the U.S. wants to trade with China in the worst possible way, and that is exactly what the President is leading us to do in the worst possible way. There is a better way. All the President needs to do is send a request to Congress for a special waiver for China to have normal trade relations for one more year, as he does every end of May. There does not even have to be a vote on that. We do not have to have the debate. We do not have to have a vote. No one has to go on record. In the course of the next year, if the Chinese begin for a change, a drastic change, to start honoring the commitments, they do not have to do everything. In the agreement that would not be possible, but at least to take the initial steps to honor the agreement. Then next year around this time there should be no problem with saying, all right, they honored the commitment on trade, and the WTO is a trade regiment, so on the basis of trade alone, this might work for us. I do not know why everybody is so afraid to do it in the normal course of events. Because if we believe that China is going to honor the agreement, they should have no problem with that. The other reason that is important is because China has not even made its agreement with the European Union. And we are not supposed to see this arrangement, we are not supposed to even be voting on this until the Chinese reach an agreement with the other members of the WTO. So, effectively, the President is asking us to vote on something that we do not know what the terms are because they have not negotiated them with the EU yet. What the President is asking us to do is give privileges to China permanently before they ever have to honor any commitments to the WTO. Indeed, they have not even reached the agreement to join the WTO. What the President is asking us to do is for each of us to put our good names next to his failed China policy and try to redeem it with this rush to surrender permanently to the dictators in Beijing, thereby squandering our leverage on trade, squandering our leverage on our values, and surrendering our leverage on national security. So I would hope that our colleagues would pay attention and ask the question, where is the implementation, where is the compliance, where is the enforcement on this, and where are our national values on this?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we have before us today a landmark bill-- one that defines bipartisanship in the most extreme form. If you can imagine George Miller and Don Young reaching agreement on a measure to spend billions in federal funding to protect the environment. Now, that is a landmark. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Miller and Mr. Young, for their ingenuity, tenacity and civility in bringing this legislation to the floor. H.R. 701 represents a major first step in bringing funding in line with our federal priorities to protect natural resources and open spaces across the country. This bill is supported by 75 percent of the House membership. The investment H.R. 701 makes in our natural resources will have a lasting effect. From acquiring lands for areas of national significance to developing programs for inner-city youth, its impact will resonate throughout future generations who will enjoy new sources of recreation. H.R. 701 brings certainty to the protection of our natural resources by putting in place permanent funding for land acquisition for conservation purposes by setting aside OCS oil royalties in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) Fund. Adequate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is long overdue. After years of patiently waiting for OCS revenues to be used for their intended purpose--land acquisition--Mr. Miller and Mr. Young have resorted to this unique alliance to deliver what has long been promised. Under the CARA Fund, $2.8 billion each year would be allotted for programs receiving mandatory funding to include the following: $1 billion for coastal conservation; $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; $350 million for wildlife conservation; $125 million for urban parks and recreation; $100 million for historic preservation; $200 million for federal and Indian land restoration; $100 million for farmland protection and $50 million for endangered species recovery. Again, I commend Mr. Miller and Mr. Young for their work on this bill and for their efforts to protect our nation's natural resources. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 701.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, some people think I can talk all day on China and are afraid that I will, so I will try to be succinct and get to just a few basic points, because so many of my colleagues have touched on the very serious human rights violations and the very substantial trade violations. Mr. Speaker, China has violated agreements between our two countries and, of course, there is the issue of proliferation. I think I will focus in the short time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that today a number of our former Presidents joined President Clinton in calling for Congress to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. These Presidents, who have been a part and parcel of this policy which is a total failure, are asking Members of Congress to put their good names next to a policy that has failed in every respect. Permanent Normal Trade Relations is the cornerstone of the Clinton- Bush China policy. There are three areas of concern that we have in our country about that policy. First of all, and in no particular order of priority, we have the issue, since this is a trade issue, of the substantial violations of our trade relationship which continue. When we started this debate, we were talking about 1, 2, $3 billion that was the trade deficit we suffered with China. That was over a decade ago. Now the trade deficit for this year is projected to be over $80 billion. So this idea that if we kowtowed to the regime, and we gave them MFN, Most Favored Nation status, now called Permanent Normal Trade Relations, the name has been changed to protect the guilty, if we do that then the China market will be opened to U.S. products, it simply has not happened. In the area of trade, China has violated every trade agreement, be it the market access agreement, the agreement on intellectual property, the agreement on use of prison labor for export, the agreement on transshipments, any trade agreement we can name. So, President Clinton is sending us this request for Permanent Normal Trade Relations based on the 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement. What reason do we have to think that China will honor that? The President's request is based on broken promises, not proven performance. Already, China is engaged in its traditional reinterpretation of the agreement. For example, let me give some comparisons. The Trade Rep's fact sheet, our Trade Rep's fact sheet says China will import all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all ports in China. China's Trade Rep says it is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country. Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain. On meat, China, according to our fact sheet, the U.S. Trade Rep's fact sheet, China will lift the ban on U.S. exports of all meat and poultry. China's negotiator said diplomatic negotiations involve finding new expressions. If we find a new expression, this means we have achieved a diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have not actually made any material concessions. The ink is not even dry on this agreement. This is a 1999 agreement that is already being reinterpreted by the regime. The list goes on: Petroleum, telecommunications, insurance, et cetera. I talked about the history of it and I do not have enough time to go into the history of their trade violations. Some would lead us to believe that we who are opposing this request of the President are willing to risk U.S. jobs in support of promoting human rights in China. But the facts point to a situation where this is a very bad deal on the basis of trade alone. On the basis of trade alone. If we could forget the brutal occupation of Tibet. If we could forget the serious repression of religious and political freedom in China. If we could forget that for a moment. If we could forget China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be chemical, biological and nuclear technology to Iran, to Pakistan, to the Sudan, to Libya. To Libya, it is very recent. This is a major embarrassment in the Clinton administration policy. But fortunately for them, this information came out during the Easter break and it has not really sunk in. But this is a very serious violation. And it proves again that kowtowing to the regime does not get us any better benefits in terms of stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, making the world a safer place, any fairer treatment, making a fairer deal. Mr. Speaker, they want us to give China a blank check, while China gives us a rubber check by not even honoring the deal that they are putting forth. And then in terms of human rights, we are a country of values. When people say, well, other countries do not do this. We are not other countries. We are the United States of America. We are the freest country in the world and we have a commitment to promote the aspirations of people who aspire to freedom. That does not mean we go to war for them or anything like that, but it does mean that we should at least, at least recognize the repression they are suffering for freedom. Wei Jingsheng, a hero. He has spent many, many years of his life, probably half of his adult life in prison. Harry Wu has spent years in prison. They know that the United States must not act from fear of what the Chinese regime might do. We have to act from strength and confidence in our own sense of values. So when the President says, ``Oh, you either want to isolate China or engage China,'' he does a grave disservice to this very serious debate. Certainly we need to engage China, but we need to do it in a sustainable way that sustains our values and sustains our economy and sustains a world peace in making the world a safer place. The administration is willing to ignore Tibet and China and all of that. They are willing, more seriously, to ignore China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They are willing to say that the human rights situation is improving in China, when we have the National Catholic Conference of Bishops supporting us; when we have, as was mentioned by others, the new Commission on Religious Freedom supporting us in this, and the list goes on. In terms of the environment, the Sierra Club, in terms of agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the working people of America to oppose this and say to the President there is a way to do it. A decent way. And it is a way that says let us see some proven performance before we surrender to the dictates of the Beijing regime the only leverage we have, which is our annual review. So it is not about ``engage or isolate.'' Certainly we engage. It is not about whether we trade or not. Certainly we trade. It is a question of how we do it. And it does not have to be according to the terms and the timing of the Beijing regime, but more in keeping with what is right and what is appropriate for our great country. We are leaders in the world; we should continue to be so. And I would hope that the President and the former Presidents would respect the intelligence of the Members of Congress to know that they should not ask us to place our good name next to their failed policy just so that we can help redeem the lack of success they have, instead of allowing us to go forward in a very positive way. We all have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility to come to an agreement on trade with China that is responsible. Give us a chance to do that. I urge my colleagues not to support this, but to allow us to do it right and not according to the terms and timing of the regime in Beijing. With that, I will yield back.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and for his very substantial leadership on this issue to the American people. Mr. Speaker, how much time is the gentleman yielding to me?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his leadership in bringing this to the floor, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and Mr. Rangel, both of whom spoke earlier. I thank my colleagues for giving us the opportunity to mourn publicly and in this Chamber the death of John Cardinal O'Connor. I was raised in Baltimore, Maryland. We have the oldest archdiocese in the country, but everyone in the country thinks of New York in terms of the greatest, because of size and because of St. Patrick's Cathedral. I want to address both the national and international aspects of this great Cardinal. Both Baltimore and New York have wonderful basilicas and cathedrals and wonderful, wonderful religious leadership, and that leadership was not only there to guide us in our inner spiritual lives about religion, but also about the dignity and worth of every person. When we talk about human rights throughout the world, a guiding message among Catholics is the message of Pope Paul VI who said if you want peace, work for justice. John Cardinal O'Connor was the living embodiment of that statement. He became an internationally recognized leader in the field of human rights working for peace and justice. He recognized the dignity and worth of every person, no matter how humble, no matter living in how remote an area of the world. He was not only a leader, but an inspiration, and, again, a disciple of the words of Pope Paul VI, and he brought that home. He brought that home. He not only promoted justice, economic and social justice, throughout the world, but he did so at home. He had always spoken out and acted to aid the elderly, the homeless, working people, the mentally disabled and the poor. He was, again, the living embodiment of the corporeal works of mercy, the Sermon on the Mount, the gospel, the Gospel of Matthew. When I was hungry, you gave me to eat; when I was naked, you clothed me; when I was homeless, you sheltered me; when I was in prison, you visited me. Not just for those who were poor, but those who were disadvantaged in other respects as well. His illness was a tragedy for our whole country, and we viewed it, many of us, as his purgatory, so we know he went directly to heaven. He would have anyway, probably, but God chose to give him this suffering to atone not for his sins, but for others. So we know he is in heaven. So as we pray for the people of New York and on behalf of my own constituents extend condolences to the people of New York, and recognize his role as a national leader, and a special claim that all people in America have on St. Patrick's Cathedral and its Cardinal, and, in this case, John Cardinal O'Connor, we have all been diminished by his death. So in extending sympathy to the people of New York and to our country and to the family of John Cardinal O'Connor, I do so in prayer, prayer for his family, prayer for his constituents, but knowing that he is in heaven, beseech him to pray for us. He knows how badly we need his prayers. Again, I thank our colleagues for giving us this opportunity to recognize the life and works of John Cardinal O'Connor and to extend sympathy to the people he served in his state, in this country, and throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Stan Smith who is retiring after twenty-five years of distinguished service as Secretary- Treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. Stan was elected president of Glaziers Union Local #718 in 1958 after only five years in the glazing trade. He was then elected Field Representative of Local #718 in 1965. In 1975, his peers elected him to his current post as Secretary-Treasurer. In this position, he has overseen all of the construction unions in San Francisco for the past quarter century and has done so with a skill that belies the complexity of the task. In addition, Stan has been an active member of the community and has served on countless boards and committees whose collective theme has been to give less fortunate members of the community new opportunities in life through the construction trades. Stan Smith is a fighter for America's working families. Throughout his tenure with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council he has made a significant contribution to organized labor and to the greater San Francisco community. I commend him for his outstanding leadership and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa has finally begun to receive the international attention that a crisis of this magnitude deserves. Over 23 million Africans are infected wtih HIV, and it is projected that a quarter of southern Africa's population will die of AIDS. These staggering numbers, and the political and economic instability that they are creating, have prompted the National Security Council to designate HIV/AIDS in Africa as a security threat to the United States. Although I am supporting the African Growth and Caribbean Initiative Act, my enthusiasm is mixed with disappointment that we have missed this important opportunity to take substantive steps to address this disease. Two HIV/AIDS provisions were excluded from the conference report by the majority. The inclusion of these two provisions in this legislation would have improved access to affordable AIDS drugs and strengthened the international effort to develop an AIDS vaccine. Efforts to treat and eventually eradicate HIV/AIDS are vital to Africa's economic future. It is no exaggeration to say that HIV/AIDS is decimating the African work force, and the African economic progress that this legislation is designed to support is being placed in jeopardy. Economic ties between the U.S. and Africa have been growing steadily this decade. African economic development creates new markets for U.S. products and provides resources that this country needs. However, the African economic development that we benefit from in this country is directly threatened by the AIDS eidemic. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Harvard Institute for International Development, has stated that ``a frontal attack on AIDS in Africa may now be the single most important strategy for economic development.'' It is estimated that over the next 20 years AIDS will reduce by a fourth the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS undermines economic development in several ways. HIV strikes individuals during their most productive years. The disease erodes productivity by increasing absenteeism, and it raises the cost of business through increased need for health benefits and increased costs of recruiting and training new employees as current employees die or become disabled. A 1999 South African study found that the total costs of benefits in that country will increase from 7 percent of salaries in 1995 to 19 percent by 2005 due to AIDS. Some companies are already hiring two employees for every one skilled job because of the likelihood that one will die from AIDS. I had hoped that two HIV/AIDS provisions would be included in the conference report. First, Senator Kerry and I have proposed a tax credit for qualified research and development costs associated with research on vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, or HIV. The tax credit equals 30 percent of total annual qualified R&D investments. In addition, smaller companies could choose to waive the credit and pass it on to their equity investors who finance R&D on one of the priority vaccines. A vaccine is our best hope to bring this epidemic under control and we must accelerate research efforts in order to have any realistic chance of successfully developing a faccines in the near future. Second, Senators Feinstein and Feingold proposed a provision designed to improve the access of African nations to generic equivalents of expensive HIV/AIDS drugs. Many years of work and significant federal research dollars have gone into the development of the combination drug therapies that are extending the lives and improving the quality of life for so many people living with HIV/AIDS in this country. We have a moral responsibility to ensure the widest possible access to these treatments and new therapies as they are developed. The benefits that come from our federal investments in scientific and medical research are not meant to be restricted to the wealthy. The inclusion of these HIV/AIDS provisions would have contributed significently to vital efforts to treat and evenually halt HIV/AIDS, thereby ensuring a healthier and more prosperous future for the African continent. I hope that the Congress will move swiftly to address this crisis by doing everything we can to treat, educate, prevent, and eventually eradicate HIV/AIDS in both the development and the developing world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of its Inaugural Convention, The National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development should be commended for its important work. The National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development [National CAPACD] was formed to address a significant issue. It is dedicated to meeting the housing and community development needs of the Asian Pacific American population. For more than two decades, the founding member organizations of National CAPACD have been providing effective services to Asian Pacific Americans, immigrants, refugees, minority and impoverished populations. The formation of National CAPACD will help coordinate the diverse work of the non-profit organizations that serve the rapidly expanding Asian Pacific American (APA) population. National CAPACD's mission is to enhance the capacity and ability of community based organizations to conduct community development activities for the Asian and Pacific Islander communities. National CAPACD seeks to accomplish this mission by: Creating an information sharing network to provide mutual support for established and emerging community development organizations, and to define advocacy issues; Establishing a presence and voice to raise awareness and impact community development policies on a local and national level; Increasing public and private resources to build community development capacity. Pursuing activities that promote unity, trust, support, mutual assistance, empowerment, and inclusion. Through this important work, National CAPACD seeks to strengthen affordable housing development; economic development activities, such as workforce and business development; community empowerment and cultural preservation; and neighborhood revitalization. National CAPACD will increase representation, participation, and resources in Asian Pacific American communities.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. But more importantly, I thank her for her tremendous leadership and encouragement on calling to the attention of Congress and the country the global HIV/AIDS issue and working with our former colleague, Congressman Ron Dellums, on this. Mr. Speaker, it is really exasperating. For years we have known about the spread of global HIV and AIDS. For years Members of Congress have appealed to both Democratic and Republican administrations to put this issue on the agenda of the G-7. What do they have to talk about that is more important than the health, or lack thereof, of millions of people in Africa and throughout the world? What has more of an impact on the economies of the developing world than the health of its people? Now it is being considered a national security issue at long last. I commend the Clinton administration for making this very bold statement. Frankly, it is long overdue. The extent of the global AIDS epidemic is staggering. Over 23 million people are infected with HIV in Africa, and nearly 14 million Africans have already died from AIDS. The social, economic, and human cost of the crisis is devastating entire nations. And this is just the beginning. In Asia and India, India already has more infected people than any other nation. When I talk about Africa, I am talking about the continent. In terms of India, one nation, 3\1/2\ million infected people. Experts are predicting that, without significant efforts to treat those with HIV and prevent new infections, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in India could surpass the combined number of all cases in all African countries within two decades. We clearly have a long way to go. These numbers are staggering, but any single one of them is a tragedy and we should be motivated by it. Think of all the orphans that this tragedy has produced. Some of those orphans are HIV infected as well; but even among those who are not, they have tremendous needs and, sadly, this was predictable. We clearly have a long way to go. I am pleased that as a Nation we are finally beginning to focus more of our attention and resources on the global AIDS epidemic and that the National Security Council has declared HIV/AIDS to be a national security threat. I just want to inject a word here about our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who has traveled the world on this issue since he came to Congress, which is nearly I think it is over a decade. So, again, this is no surprise and has been no secret. Even though there has been a great deal of denial about it, the problem has existed for a long time. Many of us in Congress again have been working for years to draw attention to this crisis. We know sadly from our own experience, in my district in San Francisco when I came to Congress 13 years ago, 13,000 people had already died of AIDS in my district. Think of that, Mr. Speaker, if that had happened in your district, how intolerable it would be. That is the only thing we should not tolerate in our society is the HIV rate that is among us. Funding for prevention, education, treatment, and care must be increased dramatically and our commitment to the development of an AIDS vaccine must be strengthened. In terms of our funding, we also have to think internationally. We have begged for the money that we have, about $147 million, and then another $16 million or so for orphans each year; but we need 10 times that to do our share globally in terms of HIV/AIDS. I have introduced the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act in order to create incentives for private sector biotech and pharmaceutical companies to accelerate their research and development efforts for vaccines against HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. Vaccines are the best hope to bring this epidemic under control. It is about prevention. We must do all we can to facilitate cooperation between the public and private sectors in order to bring together the resources and expertise necessary to move quickly towards effective vaccines. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to again call to the attention of our colleague the incredible leadership, well, it is believable so I will just say the great leadership of our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), on this subject. She has made it a priority. She has developed legislation to meet this terrible challenge. She has not been shy about the amount of money that this is going to require, and she has been very, very bold as she has gone forth with this. She has provided great leadership for us because she has a vision about what she wants to accomplish. She has tremendous knowledge about the subject we are dealing with. She has a plan. She has a plan, a good plan, to attack the challenge; and she and her leadership is able to attract a great deal of support for this cause. So on behalf of the many people in my district who have died of HIV and live with HIV and AIDS now, I want to commend her and thank her. One final note is that this weekend I had the privilege of participating in the march on Washington that some of our colleagues were involved in, that we spoke to, the huge crowd, over 800,000 people; and one of the major issues on the agenda of the day was increased funding for HIV and AIDS. What is important for us to do is with all of our research for a cure, which is very important, it must be relentless. Even though we have some proteas inhibitors that prolong and improve the quality of life, that those drugs must be available to everyone. We cannot say that we are not engaged in research but the cure only goes to the wealthy. The cure must be available across the board and across the world. So I hope that we will be thinking in ways that are new and different about this. AIDS has been a model, really the mobilization, for support for research, care, and prevention. That mobilization in our country has been a model to other illnesses. Now the mobilization is on the international and national scene, and we must not any longer ignore it. Now that it has been declared a national security threat, at least there is the attention focused at the right level on it. I would have hoped that compassion for the millions of people who are HIV infected would have been enough motivation, but we will take the help wherever we can get it. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her leadership, for the rallying cry she has given; and we are all very, very pleased to follow her lead on this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in-memory of the victims of one of history's most terrible tragedies, the Armenian Genocide that took place in Turkey between 1915 and 1923. This antecedent for all subsequent 20th-century genocides began on April 24, 1915, when the rulers of the Ottoman Empire began the systematic and ruthless extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey. By the end of the Terror, more than a million Armenian men, women, and children had been massacred and more than half a million others had been expelled from the homeland that their forebearers had inhabited for three millennia. April 24, 1915 is remembered and commemorated each year by the Armenian community and people of conscience throughout the world. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact. The Republic of Turkey has adamantly refused to acknowledge that the Genocide happened on its soil but the evidence is irrefutable. As we enter the Third Millennium of the Christian Era, it behooves us to remember. If we ignore the lessons of the Armenian Genocide, then we are destined to continue our stumbles through the long, dark tunnel of endless ethnic-cleansings, genocides, and holocausts. Let us, then, remember to remember.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I support Representative Doggett's proposal to require political organizations operating under Section 527 of the Tax Code to file publicly-disclosed reports with the IRS that include the names of contributors and expenditures. These Section 527 political operations have gained too much political influence and can swing elections without any public monitoring or oversight. I am disappointed the House Republican leadership did not allow this amendment to be offered today on the House floor. Recently, the Republican led House Ways and Means Committee voted 21 to 15 on party lines to defeat Representative Lloyd Doggett's initiative to close this existing loophole in U.S. campaign finance disclosure laws that is enabling an expanding number of organizations to channel tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns. While Doggett's initiative would not impose any limits on use of funds, it would require greater disclosure to illuminate the motivation and sponsor of political attacks and help the implied targets of such attacks identify their attackers. At present, political organizations operating under Section 527 can operate without disclosing who they are and collect unlimited contributions without paying tax on the funds. As long as their activities are focused on ``issues,'' as opposed to specific candidates, they are exempt from the reporting requirements of federal election laws. Representative Dogget's proposal mirrors the filing and disclosure rules that Federal political parties and campaign committees must follow under the Federal election laws administered by the Federal Election Commission [FEC], and mirrors the existing Internal Revenue Code penalties on tax-exempt organization that fail to file and fail to publically disemminate reports. We must reform our tax laws and political campaign laws to ensure that money does not destroy our democracy. I support Representative Doggett's proposal and am disappointed the House Republican leadership prevented us from debating this issue of critical importance to our democracy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Shays/Nadler/ Crowley/Morella amendment to increase authorized HOPWA funding to $292 million for FY2001. This increase will allow the HOPWA program to meet current needs and bring additional newly eligible communities into this effective program. The need for housing assistance among those living with HIV/AIDS is greater now than ever. As new treatments allow infected individuals to live longer, new HIV infections are continuing at a steady rate. This means that the overall number of people living with HIV/AIDS has grown to its highest level ever. The new treatments that are extending so many lives involve a complicated regimen of medications, requiring certain medications to be taken at certain times, certain medications to be taken after eating, and still others on an empty stomach. This makes adherence very difficult, and nearly impossible with stable housing. More than 200,000 people with HIV/AIDS are currently in need of housing assistance, and 60% of those living with this disease will need housing assistance at some point during their illness. HIV prevalence within the homeless population is estimated to be ten times greater than infection rates in the general population. In addition, homeless individuals are much less likely to have regular access to health care than the general population and are therefore less likely to be tested for HIV than are people with stable housing. One San Francisco study showed that up to 33% of homeless individuals who were living with HIV were unaware of being HIV positive. Under current HOPWA authority 101 jurisdictions qualified for FY2000 funding and HUD estimates that in FY2001, this will increase to between 105 and 111 qualified jurisdictions. HIV/AIDS community policy experts have estimate that unless HOPWA funding is substantially increased, jurisdictions will face decreased service levels and could suffer decreased funding. To avoid these reductions, we must pass the Shays/ Nadler/Crowley/Morella amendment and provide HOPWA with the funding necessary to ensure that people living with HIV and AIDS have access to the stable housing that is necessary for their medical care.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise today to oppose Representative Souder's amendment. This amendment will violate the constitutional separation of church and state; weaken important anti-discrimination civil rights protections; and entangle religious institutions in the reach of government. Representative Souder's amendment is damaging because his charitable choice provision is unconstitutional. It attacks existing constitutional protections separating church and state. It diverts taxpayer and government funding to sectarian religious groups who could then use these funds to facilitate overtly religious activities and practices. The Constitution does not allow the government to fund overtly religious or ``pervasively sectarian'' religious organizations. This is an inappropriate use of government funds. Representative Souder's amendment is unneeded because the Constitution does permit the government to fund religious organizations that are ``nonsectarian'' to pursue non-religious activities and currently the government funds many of these groups. These groups are often called religious affiliates. For example, local Catholic Charities and Jewish Social Services groups that receive federal funding are non-sectarian groups. The differences between non-sectarian religious organizations and pervasively sectarian religious organizations are very important and we must continue to respect these differences. Sectarian groups may proselytize, discriminate by religion, and advance religious beliefs. For these reasons, the government can not provide funds directly to a sectarian church or synagogue. We would not want employers which receive government funds to refuse to hire Jewish or Catholic employees on the basis of their religion. This would be wrong. We would not want organizations that receive government funds to proselytize the Mormon faith to non-Mormons who seek social services. We do not want government funded organizations to discriminate in their social service delivery against gays and lesbians; unmarried couples living together; or to practice other discriminatory practices. Both non-sectarian and sectarian religious groups do good work, and this work deserves our support. Nonetheless, taxpayer and government funds should not subsidize sectarian religious activities nor violate the separation of church and state. Let us remember, that under current law, pervasively sectarian religious groups are permitted to form an affiliate organization and this affiliate is eligible to apply for federal funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Constitution and oppose the Souder amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this room knows that if this Congress succeeds in this misguided attempt to play doctor, not one abortion will be prevented. This is a very sad debate today. Abortion is a failure in every respect. We want to keep them safe, and we want to keep them legal. But when they are medically necessary to save the life of the mother or to protect her future fertility, would not one want one's daughter to have that option or one's wife? It is so sad also, because this body has been prevented from debating the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute or amendment which would declare what we all believe, that no one wants late-term abortions, and that we would only agree to this procedure in the case of life of the mother or future fertility of the mother. So to bring charges against a doctor for saving a mother's life or her future fertility and the family that she would like to have is cruel and unusual punishment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 6, 2000, Abby Snay will be honored at a luncheon in San Francisco for her 25 years of service to the Jewish Vocational and Career Counseling Service (JVS). Abby Snay first joined JVS in 1975 as a part-time counselor for high school students. In 1981, she became Assistant Director of JVS and in 1984 assumed her current position as the Executive Director. It is truly remarkable that for more than two decades she has remained with JVS benefitting that organization and the larger San Francisco community with her insight, wisdom, and hard work. For twenty-five years, Abby has worked closely with leaders of business and government to provide employment-related services for people with diverse backgrounds and from diverse communities in San Francisco. She is well known for her ability to develop innovative partnerships with local educational institutions, private companies and other community-based organizations to train adults and youth and place them into jobs. Abby has possessed the ability to anticipate trends before they happen and to reinvent JVS as the community's needs change. Her many accomplishments include: rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities, including two current programs for individuals living with HIV/AIDS; occupational training programs in computer assisted drafting and design, nursing and related medical skills, computer literacy, and vocational English as a second language (VESL); school to work programs for students with disabilities; and job search and placement programs for welfare recipients and homeless men and women. Under Abby's leadership, JVS has grown from a small organization with four employees and a $300,000 budget to an influential community-based organization with more than 70 full time employees and a budget of over $4 million. Abby was named the Jewish Community Federation's Professional of the Year in 1993, and since she became Executive Director in 1984, JVS has received numerous awards for its innovative programs. Mr. Speaker, I join with Abby's many friends in San Francisco in celebrating her career. She is a remarkable person and San Francisco has benefitted greatly from her contributions.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. The ranking member has asked me to yield to him on this, and I will be happy to address it, also.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman will yield, I am pleased on my birthday to present the gentleman with the Rand Report which documents the assumptions that I presented.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could have the time to have a full debate on the military assistance package to Colombia. I commend the gentleman for his attempt with his amendment to have a reasonable, as I said, full debate on that subject. But that will not be allowed under these rules. I want to focus my attention on two areas in the bill. First let us stipulate that there are many fine projects in this bill. We all agree to that. That is why many people will be voting for it, because of issues that are of concern to their regions, and I respect that. I just want to say why, and even in light of the fact that I would normally support some of the provisions in the bill, that I find it impossible to do so because of the manner in which this bill has been brought to the floor. Are the American people not entitled to something better than a debate on military assistance to Colombia than having it as one provision in a multifaceted emergency supplemental bill? Why can we not have a debate on a very important foreign policy issue, and a vote that stands on its own? Is the Republican majority afraid of a debate in the House of Representatives? Are they afraid that their arguments are too weak, that they could not stand the scrutiny of the American people in a full debate on this issue? Let us stipulate that the President of Colombia is a brave and courageous man. President Pastrana has a very, very difficult task ahead of him. He deserves our support. What form that support should take is a matter that this House should debate, hear comment on, hold hearings on, in other words, the regular order. But the regular order is being cast aside for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each side, to debate whether we are going to commit all of this military assistance and all that goes with it, including putting our young people in harm's way, which we have already done, without a vote of this Congress. I am also very concerned that this military approach does not really get to the heart of the matter. This bill, this assistance to Colombia, is called an emergency because we have an emergency drug problem in our country and indeed we do. As we heard on this floor earlier today, 5\1/ 2\ million Americans need substance abuse treatment. Two million of them are getting it. We have a 3.5-million-person treatment gap in our country. If we want to reduce substance abuse in the United States, we must do that by reducing demand in the United States. Cutting off supply in Colombia is more costly and less certain. Let me tell my colleagues how much more costly. According to the Rand Corporation report, for every dollar spent to reduce demand in the U.S., you would have to spend $23 in the country of origin in coca leaf eradication. That means if you spend $34 million in the U.S. to reduce dependence on drugs by 1 percent, that same effect of reduction of 1 percent costs $723 million by taking the approach of the eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin, in this case Colombia. But say that has to be part of a comprehensive drug problem. How can we bring an emergency supplemental bill to the floor of the House of Representatives whose emergency status in this area in terms of reducing substance abuse in the United States is dependent on reducing demand in the United States without one dollar in the bill, without one dollar in the bill being used for reduction in demand in the U.S., a formula that is 23 times more effective, according to the Rand Report which was done in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the Office of Drug Control Policy? So do not take my word for it. Twenty- three times more effective. On the subject of again Plan Colombia, of which this is a part, we were told that Plan Colombia was an over $7 billion proposal. Colombia would put up $4 billion, we would put up $1.7 billion, the EU would put up $900 million, and then IMF and the Multilateral Development Bank would put up money. This is the only money on the table, the military money. So when we are told this is the military part but there is a big humanitarian part, we have not seen that yet. That is why I am voting no on this bill and respectful of my colleagues' decision for their own part.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great leadership on human rights throughout this hemisphere and throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to listen to the chairman of the Committee on Rules claim that this is an open rule. Perhaps the word ``open'' to him means open only to Republicans; Democrats need not apply with amendments. This bill has been called an emergency because we have an emergency in the drug abuse situation in our country. Indeed, we do. Mr. Speaker, 5.5 million people in America are in need of substance abuse treatment, but this rule is closed to any consideration of those people. It allows 10 minutes for an amendment to consider military assistance to Colombia in order to eradicate the coca leaf which flies in the face of all of the research on how we reduce demand in the U.S. But do not take my word for it. As the distinguished ranking member referred to earlier, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Rand report, which was put together, the research was sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, by the U.S. Army, and the Rand's Drug Policy Research Center, this report says that for every dollar spent on treatment on demand is 23 times more effective than coca leaf eradication in the source country. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that if one wants to reduce substance abuse in this country 1 percent, one would spend $34 million, $34 million on treatment on demand; and that 1 percent reduction in the source country would be $723 million for the same result. Yes, we have an emergency in our country. Mr. Speaker, 5.5 million, as I said, Americans are in need of substance abuse treatment. Two million of them are receiving it, and 3.5 million people are in need. My amendment for $600 million would have addressed the need of 5 percent of those people, 5 percent; and yet this rule closed us down to have these Members on both sides of the aisle recognize the need in our own country for treatment on demand and for prevention. It is a dollar better spent. Everyone agrees to that. It has a result that is documented, and yet we could not even have an amendment. How can we have a drug bill on this floor that talks about the emergency of substance abuse in our country that does not allow $1 to be spent on prevention and treatment on demand? It simply does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill also because of not allowing a fuller debate on the subject of our military assistance to Colombia. Perhaps we should go that route. We do not know, my Republican colleagues do not know, because we have not discussed it. I urge my colleagues, with no reluctance at all, to vote resoundingly against this closed rule.