Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. It is 6.8 percent that is in the bill. If we did the President's request, it would be .8 percent. Less than 1 percent still.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful list. I was taught by some of those organizations that my colleague has named, and we all have benefitted from their grassroots activism on it. Many of those same organizations support, for example, microlending, which benefits alleviation of poverty among women and lifts up families and increases literacy rates, etcetera. So we are talking about new approaches, and that is what we need as we go into the new millennium. My colleague listed those names, and I just wanted to reference two other points before we close here. And that is, I am going to quote my colleague as she joined the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and our own ranking member the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) who has been a leader on this issue, too; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) my colleague referenced, the chair of the subcommittee; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) in introducing the debt relief for poverty reduction act: ``Relieving the unsustainable debt burdens of the world's poorest countries is one of the foremost humanitarian and moral challenges of our time. Debt relief can also benefit the U.S. economy.'' So, again, it is helping us as we help others. I want to also quote, this is a Jubilee Call for Debt Forgiveness. This pamphlet is put out by a statement by the Administrative Board of the U.S. Catholic Conference. This is the Catholic Conference of Bishops in the United States, the voice of the church in the United States, and it is the Catholic Campaign on Debt. In here, among other things, the bishops say, ``The coming of the great Jubilee in 2000 offers us a time to make new beginnings and to right old wrongs. Pope John Paul, II, has called repeatedly for forgiving international debt as a sign of true solidarity. In this statement, we join our voice to his to inform the public about the moral urgency of the debt question and to offer some considerations about responding to it.'' So, as I said before, it is the vision, the knowledge, the plan of action, and the enthusiasm and excitement that is being engendered by this. Again, this is in the context of these countries taking actions to help themselves. We must lend a helping hand. We cannot ignore the efforts that they are making, if not for political reasons or economic reasons that benefit the United States, but for the children. Those of us who profess to value our religion know that the gospel of Matthew is one that we carry heavily on our shoulders, to feed the hungry and to minister to the needs of the least of God's brethren. OXFAM is another organization that is in their pamphlet, Education Now: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty, talks about debt and education and it is much easier to have the education without the debt.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that. I am glad that she mentioned the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) because he is a champion on this. There are many champions on the House on both sides of the aisle on this issue, and we are going to have to have another special order so that they can speak to the issue and, if not, that we can speak to their efforts. We are grateful to all of them for what they have done. I thank the gentlewoman for joining me here this evening. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of ecumenism, of bipartisanship, and in helping the poor people of the world, as we help ourselves, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in saluting the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach). I do not know where he is on total debt forgiveness, but I know that he is a champion of debt relief. I do not want to speak for him to associate him here with the Jubilee 2000. But he certainly has taken us a long way down the road. Those of us who are concerned about this issue, as my colleagues knows, are very blessed to have him in this position that he is in because he understands financial institutions, international financial institutions, but he is also an expert on foreign policy and what is in the national interest of our country. So his two main committee assignments converge on this issue and his understanding of that will serve the poor people of the world well. And the ranking member on the committee the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) has a very clear understanding of the foreign policy implications. He understands the financial institutions. But he also understands the domestic situation in the United States. That is why I was so pleased that he joined the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and others of us to meet with representatives of the IMF, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Treasury Department to impress upon them how important the alleviation of poverty is to Congress in a bipartisan fashion. I was very pleased with the comments that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) made that day, which the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) the ranking member made that day and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) to the representatives of the banks so that they knew that this thrust that we had about alleviating poverty and providing for the humanitarian needs should be the thrust of the actions of the international financial institutions in addition to the debt forgiveness. This effort is bipartisan. It is bicameral. We have champions in the Senate, as well. And it now has the added benefit of the President of the United States weighing in very heavily on this issue, again speaking to the international financial institutions last week when they were in Washington. It is also an international effort. It is ecumenical. All of the religions are joining in and working together. I cannot think of another issue that had such consensus across the board among so many divergent groups. So where there is a will there is, hopefully, a way for us to do this; and in doing so, we will make a very serious difference. Let us hear it. Bravo for Jubilee 2000 to use this landmark, this milestone, this date of the year 2000 for us to say, okay, we have talked about it a long time. We have nipped at the edges about it for a number of years. Now let us just put it behind us so that we and these countries can go into the next year, the next century, the next millennium with a chance of doing the right thing by the people and especially the children.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today was a very historic day in this body, and Congress has finished its business at a reasonable time. I wish that many more of my colleagues were in town to hear our special order, because it addresses an issue that came up in our foreign operations bill the other day; and that is the issue of debt forgiveness in the developing world. In the course of a debate on the legislative bill, an appropriations bill like the foreign operations bill, all we had was an hour on the rule and an hour on the bill, which is the regular order. But because so many Members want to express their support or their opposition to the legislation, the most any of us gets to speak is a few minutes if we are lucky if we are ranking member, or one or two if we are not. The bill covers a wide range of issues. The foreign operations bill is the bill which funds our diplomatic efforts abroad. The pillars of our foreign policy are promoted in that bill: stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, promoting democratic values, growing our economy through exports, looking out for our national security, and the assistance that we provide for other countries is in the national interest of the United States. So this is not about charity. It is about acting in our own self interest. It also, though, taps the well of generosity and concern that the American people have to alleviate poverty in the world and to make the world a safer place, promoting our democratic values, which are universal, so that the world is a safer place in which we can raise our children and our grandchildren. That brings us to the point of, making the world a safer place means making the world a better place for all of the children of the world. I know my colleagues have heard me say the three most important issues facing this Congress are our children, our children, our children. By that, I mean, not only our children in America, but the fate of children throughout the world. They are affected by the economic well- being of the countries in which they live. Many of the countries in the Third World, particularly in Africa, some in Latin America, mostly all in the southern hemisphere, have been burdened by debt that has been incurred by previous regimes. For instance, in South Africa, there is a heavy debt load that has been carried over from the apartheid government. Now this new government of the last few years has that burden to carry. How can they succeed with this drag on their economies? That is repeated over and over. I think we have a responsibility in this area because, during the Cold War, the Soviets and the United States excerpted their influence on the continent of Africa. When the Cold War was over, we up and left, leaving the continent awash in weapons and, in many cases, burdened down by debt. There is a movement afoot. This is not just a U.S. effort to alleviate this debt, this is an international issue. There is a movement afoot in the religious community. Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Prize winner from South Africa, was well-known to everyone in the world, I believe, a champion of reconciliation in South Africa, is part of something called the Jubilee, Jubilee 2000. That is an effort to have debt forgiveness in the developing world so that these new emerging democracies can proceed to meet the needs of their people in terms of education and health and the well-being of their people, unburdened by debts, especially those incurred by previous regimes in their countries and not the democratically elected governments that prevail now. In our foreign operations bill, there had been a request made by President Clinton for several hundred million dollars over a 3-year period to forgive debt in that region. During the debate, it was contended that, oh, forgiving debt in the Third World was just sending checks to these, what did they call them, turbans and tyrants, or something, so that they could then put this money into Swiss banks and abscond with that money. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what President Clinton was advocating. So it was an unfortunate characterization of the purpose of debt forgiveness and the very important initiative that President Clinton was taking. He was doing it on behalf of our own country, but in conjunction with multilateral efforts that have been made by the G-7 and G-8 in order to alleviate debt in the Third World so that these economies could have a chance to prevail and these new democracies would be able to enjoy some of the benefits of democratic reform and market reform in their countries. So when we ask for this debt forgiveness and this funding for the debt forgiveness, it is part of a multilateral effort which we are one part, and it is in conjunction with efforts that the people in these countries are taking to help themselves. This is not about charity. It is about cooperation. This is not about something that is only for the benefit of the recipient. This is about initiatives that will redound to the benefit of the American people, both in providing markets for our goods, if we need a pragmatic reason, but also in addressing the concerns that we have about poverty throughout the world, starvation, famines that we would have come in at a later time and spend much more money, never be able to make for up for the human loss of the people that have died and the malnutrition of those who suffer from starvation. Of course it would also prevent conflict. Any time that we can prevent conflict, I believe that that is our mission, mission of this great country. I said in the course of the debate that, being from San Francisco and having the privilege to represent that magnificent area in this Congress, I wanted also, any chance I get, to share with my colleagues the message of Saint Francis, who is the patron saint of San Francisco. The song of Saint Francis is our anthem. Everyone is familiar with it, but I do not know if they know it is the song of Saint Francis. It begins: ``Make we a channel of thy peace. Where there is a darkness may we bring light. Despair, may we bring love. Hatred, may we bring love.'' Well, that is a big order, and we may not be able to do that, but we certainly can be a channel of God's peace to these countries. Helping these countries alleviate poverty and get on with the future and their economic well-being I think is a force for peace and promoting democratic values in those areas. Therefore, this Jubilee effort, one that is undertaken by the people affected by it, as a way to help them unburden themselves of the debt and alleviate poverty, is very important one. The President's initiative is a very wise one. The President says that these funds would be used to help alleviate the debt, forgive the debt if the government itself will spend the money on education and health care for the children, the people of their countries. That is a very important initiative. In fact, nothing is more important than that. I do not think that most people in America need to be told how important it is for them to have disease controlled where it exists abroad so it does not come into our country. The environmental measures that this money could be used on to improve the health and the air that the people breathe in those areas prevents that pollution from coming into our country. So, again, it taps the well of good intentions in our country, and it has a practical benefit to us. So, again, the Jubilee 2000 is a very noble effort, alleviating the Third World debt, forgiving it, because there is a good deal of talk about reducing and forgiving some, but we want to eliminate the Third World debt, which will be is a very important initiative that I believe a country as great as ours can cooperate with very readily. It is money very well spent. Many of our colleagues are interested in this issue, but this being the end of the day, the end of the session for this week and the beginning of the Columbus Day weekend, we start today, and we will have other special orders on this subject, because there simply was not enough time to present the full enthusiasm that we have for this debt relief, debt forgiveness, elimination. But I am pleased that a very distinguished leader in the Congress and the House of Representatives is here tonight. She has worked her whole life on the alleviation of poverty in our country and throughout the world. She has worked her whole life for economic justice issues. Fortunately for us, she is the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Police of the Committee on Banking, which is the committee of jurisdiction on the Third World debt. Our committee is the appropriating committee. The committee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is the committee of authorization where this issue is being debated right now and an authorization bill is being prepared. So I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), an international leader on this issue and a person well positioned to help very much promote the policy and the funding that President Clinton recommended.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Houghton-Graham substitute and in support, strong support, of the Dingell-Norwood legislation. I commend both of those gentlemen for their courageous leadership. Nothing, I think, speaks more eloquently to the need for their proposal than the case of my constituent, Stephen Parrino, from San Francisco. Stephen was diagnosed with a brain tumor. His HMO referred him to Loma Linda Medical Center, which successfully removed the tumor. Stephen's treating physician then ordered him to undergo proton beam therapy no later than 2 or 3 weeks following the operation, but Stephen's HMO refused to pay for the therapy, saying that it was experimental, unapproved, and not medically necessary. For those reasons, it did not fall within the managed care guidelines. After repeated calls to the claims reviewer, Stephen was told that the HMO would ask for a second opinion. Seven weeks after surgery was completed, the second opinion came back. It was medically necessary. But it was now too late. Two weeks later, Stephen was informed his brain tumor had spread; it had reoccurred to the same place, and spread to the rest of his body, including his lungs. He subsequently brought suit against the HMO in State court, but claiming ERISA preemption, the HMO had the action removed to the U.S. District Court, which dismissed his case. With no remedy against the HMO, Stephen Parrino ultimately died as a result of the tumor. Mr. Chairman, this story has been told over and over again in our country, of desperately sick people who thought they had access to the best health care in the world, and who find themselves at the mercy of the managed care bureaucrats in a judicial system that provides them with less assistance than they need and no compensation after the damage has been done. We have a responsibility to stop this. Health care consumers must be able to hold their health care plans accountable and get lifesaving care. That is why the American Psychological Association writes that the Norwood-Dingell bill is the only legislation that holds HMOs accountable for negligent acts. Mr. Parrino's HMO did not provide him with the remedy to save his life. His family has no remedy against that HMO.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, there are few things more important to family security than access to quality health care. People's health must come before the corporate bottom line. We must preserve and protect the doctor-patient relationship, and put health care providers ahead of insurance company accountants. At least 13 million Californians and 122 million Americans are now without enforceable patient protections on their health care plans. To protect them, Congress must act to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights. Take, for example, the person who has a painful health condition. Her doctor would like to prescribe a medication with the fewest side effects, but that drug is not on the managed care company's formulary. Or consider a person with a chronic disease who needs frequent access to a specialist, but is required to get a referral from his primary care doctor for each specialty visit. H.R. 2723, the Norwood-Dingell Patients' Rights Bill, would provide needed protections for these and other health care consumers. The bill would: ensure access to emergency care without prior authorization; allow people to choose their own primary care and specialty providers; and give patients the right to hold HMO's accountable. The other bills we will consider today fall far short of guaranteeing many important protections. H.R. 2824, introduced by Representatives Coburn and Shadegg, and H.R. 2926, introduced by Representative Boehner, differ from the Consensus bill in important ways. In particular, they would not provide patients with the ability to hold health plans accountable in state courts, which typically handle injury and wrongful death suits, and are less expensive and more accessible than federal courts. Mr. Chairman, last week we learned that the number of the uninsured in this country has increased to over 44 million. For years, many of my colleagues and I have insisted that we must expand access to health care. But H.R. 2290, the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act, would institute untested or failed health programs and cost at least $48 billion over ten years. For example, ``Association Health Plans'' authorized in the bill would repeal state-based health care reform initiatives that address the needs of local consumers, and eliminate several consumer protections designed to prevent fraud and abuse. H.R. 2290 would undermine our ability to pass comprehensive and bipartisan patient protection this year. It should be rejected by the House. The Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act provides a broad range of important protections for health care consumers. The American Medical Association has stated that the bill is ``the only real patients' bill of rights,'' and the Children's Defense Fund feels that the legislation is ``tailored to meet the health care needs of children and their families.'' I urge my colleagues to support real patient protection by voting for H.R. 2723.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to a special occasion. In San Francisco we are celebrating the 88th Anniversary of the National Day of the Republic of China, known as the ``Double Tenth'' celebration of freedom day. The people of the United States have a strong bond with and commitment to the people of the Republic of China [Taiwan] who have demonstrated to the world their pledge to democracy. The Republic of China continues to be a prosperous, colorful nation of peoples and interests characterized by strong economic growth and respect for basic human rights and democratic freedoms. The Republic of China is an important partner of the United States-- economically, culturally, strategically, and politically. It is my privilege to congratulate the celebrants of the ``Double Tenth'' festival of freedom. I am proud to voice the support and best wishes of the Republic of China's many friends in Congress and look forward to celebrating this historic event in the years ahead.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has been most gracious. It is just that there is not enough money in the bill to meet our international responsibilities. But I did want to point out because the gentleman said that the President asked for $900 million. That, as the gentleman knows, is not just for this year but over a period of time. I also want to make sure I am inferring correctly from the remarks of the gentleman that since we are not going to spend any more money that there will be no money for the Wye Agreement. That is the conclusion that I draw from the statements that have been made by the gentleman and the other speakers from his side.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. As I have said earlier in the day, I do so with great regret, because I had hoped that, in the course of the legislative process, we would be able to come up with a bill that would meet the needs that we have as a leader in the world as well as one that addressed our concerns about export finance and helping to promote U.S. products abroad. I do this, though, with great admiration and commendation to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies. He did the best that he could with what he had, and that was not much. It was not enough. But he did have a balanced set of priorities in the bill that he did right. I take issue, though, with what has been said here in this discussion so far and earlier when we debated the rule. It has been said that there is not going to be any more money for foreign aid because the Democrats want to take money from the Social Security fund to spend it on foreign aid. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and his colleagues know that that is a disingenuous proposal. The fact is that this bill would not be supported by the organization that the gentleman cited as supporting this bill unless they knew that the funding for the Wye agreement would be put before this Congress and put before this Congress soon. So do not on the one hand tell us we do not want to spend any more money on foreign aid and then on the other hand tell the outside groups, do not worry, the money for the Wye River agreement will be in the bill, just later, so we can make a presentation that says we do not want to spend money on foreign aid. They do, and they want to take it out of one's Social Security, when they know very well that that money is going to be in this bill but at a time that will not be in time for the Wye River agreement. That is why I have a serious concern. The commitments for the assistance to the parties made at Wye River have become even more important now given the new timetable outlined in the Sharm-El-Sheikh agreement. This agreement calls for the completion of the framework status negotiations by February of next year. The Wye funds are targeted to fund critical activities for both Israel and the Palestinians. It would make these negotiations more viable. There are conflicting messages, as I said, coming from the other side about whether the Wye agreement, Wye funding would occur this fall. I for one say it is very, very important for us to have the money in this bill. Let us be honest with the American people about what funding is necessary for us to honor our commitments. There are also other cuts in the allocation that are serious in addition: Two hundred twelve million dollars or 31 percent is cut from the President's request for democratization and economic recovery programs in Africa, Latin America, and Asia that are meant to give the administration tools to respond to new threats and crises. Five hundred million dollars is cut from international banking lending programs to the poorest countries in the world, including from IDA, the Asia America Development Bank, InterAmerican Bank, and from the environmental mitigation programs of the global environmental facility. Eighty-seven million dollars is cut from debt relief programs. The additional resources the administration requested to fund the new historic G-7 plan for debt relief has not even been considered. Two hundred ninety-seven million dollars was cut for the New Independent States programs, severely cutting back on the funding for combined threat reduction initiative. Also cutting funds for pro-reform governments, nongovernmental democratic reforms, and nuclear threat reductions. And $80 million is cut from the request for the Ex-Im bank which helps American companies sell their products abroad. I enumerate some of these cuts for the following reasons: Three of the pillars of our foreign policy which ensure our national security are stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This bill cuts the funding for that. Promoting democratic values throughout the world so that we are dealing with democratic governments, not authoritarian regimes which attack their neighbors and oppress their people. That funding is cut from this bill. The funding for the Ex-Im Bank. One of the pillars of our foreign policy is growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad. That funding is cut $80 million in the Ex-Im Bank alone. When we are cooperating with other countries to help them grow their economies and promote their democracies, we are doing what is the right thing. But we are also developing markets for U.S. products abroad. All of what we talk about in this bill is in the national interest of the United States. We are a great country. We are probably the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the earth. Yet, we act like pikers. We do not understand what our responsibilities are in the world when it comes time to living up to our responsibilities. Certainly we intend to save Social Security. We intend to save it first. The Democrats will be second to none in saving Social Security. But do not hand this Congress and this country a bill of goods to say that my colleagues are not going to spend the money on the Wye River agreements when we know that they are. If they were not going to, there would be no way an organization like AIPAC would be supporting this bill, as the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) indicated that they were. They know they have a guarantee that that money will be there. Well, we want it there now when it is in time for the February framework talks. We want our colleagues to be honest with this Congress about how much money will be spent. When they do the Wye River money, are they contending that that money will be coming out of the Social Security account? If they are contending it when we are proposing it, then they have to contend it then. I do not think it is in either case. So I encourage our colleagues to let us be honest about what we are talking about here today. Let us live up to our responsibilities. I said earlier today, the city I am proud to represent, San Francisco, was named for Saint Francis. The prayer to Saint Francis is our anthem. The first line is familiar to my colleagues while they may not recognize its title. That is, ``Oh, Lord, make us a channel of thy peace.'' Our country can be a channel of peace in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, and other places throughout the world, but we cannot do it unless we have the resources to commit to promoting pro-democratic reform and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And we cannot do it unless we have the appropriate tools for the administration to carry out that great mandate that our country has. Why should we, this great country, be about the last per capita in terms of the assistance and the cooperation we provide to other countries in the world? So let us heed the words of John F. Kennedy who at his inauguration, my colleagues may be tired of hearing me say this, but it is my clarion call. Following his very famous statement, ``My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.'' The very next sentence said, ``Citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you; but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' For the freedom of mankind, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill until we can come back to the floor with a product that we can all be proud of, and we can all support. I urge my colleagues to vote no. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out just how small a part of the Federal budget this foreign cooperation and assistance is. It is this little blue line in this big yellow pie. So we are not talking about an opportunity cost for anyone in America taking money from anything else. What we are talking about is investing in a way that it rebounds to the benefit of every person in our country in terms of peace and freedom and exports abroad for America. So I urge my colleagues to see what a small percentage, less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent, 0.68 percent of the national budget is spent on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking Democratic member on the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a leader in international relations for our country, a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the Democratic ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the gentleman would yield himself some more time so he could yield to me. He is so generous.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on Commerce and an expert on environmental protection in the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Obey for 11 years, I believe, was the Chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and is well aware of the challenge that we have.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, in doing so I want to point out a couple of issues that have come up in the course of the debate. First, let me say that I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill because it is beneath the greatness of our country. We have an opportunity for peace in the Middle East, and yet this bill does not include funding to the Wye River agreement, this historic opportunity. When Prime Minister Barak was here we all commended him, wished him well, and now we have no money to help meet our commitment to the Wye River agreement. Contrary to what has been said here, the President did make a request for the Wye River funding in his February budget submission, so this committee has in a timely fashion had that request. Not only do we not include the Wye River funding, we removed the $100 million for Jordan, a commitment that we made to King Hussein with his strong commitment to peace. He gave his life for peace, and we are removing the funding from the bill, while saying all along that it is an emergency that we help Jordan through this transition time. This opportunity in Wye River can be missed if we do not have the money now. As I say, our colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot wink at that constituency that is concerned about Middle East peace with the idea it will be there later, and then say if we put it in today it is coming out of the Social Security fund. That simply is not a straightforward approach to this problem. Mr. Speaker, I want to save money too. This budget has been declining since the middle 1980s. We have a very low budget figure we are requesting. It is the least we can do for freedom and democracy and peace in the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a very distinguished member of the subcommittee and a champion for democracy and peace throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership internationally and domestically on behalf of people in need, especially our children. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), very clearly has pointed out some of the good things that are in this bill, and as I rise to talk about the rule, I am really rising in opposition to the bill. My colleague, our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), deserves credit for how he balanced the allocation that he had in the bill, and, again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) pointed out some of the positive initiatives that are in the bill. But the bill does not measure up even in the slightest way to our leadership role in the world. I think it really is a disservice to the debate on the foreign aid bill to say that if we honor our commitments throughout the world, that that money will be taken out of Social Security. The fact is when these allocations were made, the foreign aid allocation was given very little priority. This bill is not only about cooperation between the United States and other countries. This bill is about our assistance for our own trade. We have financed in this bill the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, as well as the Trade Development Administration, which assists in promoting U.S. exports abroad. So the allocation, as small as it is, is not even all about assistance overseas; it is about promoting U.S. products. In order for those products to be sold, we have to develop markets for them. So it is in our interest to cooperate with countries to help develop their economies. It is necessary for us in our foreign policy, which is an essential part of what we do here in the Congress, to honor the pillars of our foreign policy, to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to promote democratic freedoms so that the world is a more peaceful place as we deal with democracies rather than authoritarian regimes who might invade their neighbors or oppress their people, and, again, to promote our economy by promoting U.S. exports abroad. All of those goals are served very well, in addition to the broader issue of our national security, by our investments in this bill. These are investments that will pay off for us. We would not have to be so involved in sending our young people off and putting them in harm's way abroad if we were more successful in promoting the pillars of our foreign policy through funding this bill. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I hope that our colleagues will not say that the Social Security trust fund is at risk because we want to honor our commitments abroad. Let me just show you this chart, Mr. Speaker. In it you see this big yellow pie. That is the national budget. This sliver here, this little blue, less than 1 percent of the national budget, less than 1 percent, 0.68 percent of the national budget, is spent on international cooperation. We are a great country. I come from a city where our patron saint is St. Francis. The song of St. Francis is the anthem of our community, and that is praying to the Lord to make us a channel of God's peace. Where there is darkness, may we bring light; where there is hatred, may we bring love; where there is despair, may we bring hope. We cannot solve all of the problems of the world, but we can bring hope to people, and that is what we try to do in this bill. This is a small price for us to pay to prevent putting our young men in harm's way and to honor the commitment of our country. Mr. Speaker, I have been fond of quoting President Kennedy on this bill, because everybody in the world who was alive at the time and those who study history know of his clarion call to the American people, the citizens of America, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' But the very next line in that inaugural address, which I heard myself as a student here so many years ago, the very next line says, ``To the citizens of the world, I say ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' That is what this bill strives to do. We cannot have that freedom, promote democratic values, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and build our economy by promoting our exports on the cheap. So I would hope that our colleagues would oppose the bill when it comes up. I have no objection to the rule. I urge our colleagues to vote no. Let us come back with a good bill we can have consensus on, that is worthy of a country as great as ours.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on September 16th, a wonderful event is taking place as we celebrate the groundbreaking on the John W. King Senior Community. Another wonderful event is taking place at the same time with the celebration of the 80th birthday of this important project's founder, inspiration, and guiding light--John W. King. It is appropriate for us to celebrate both of these events at the same time, because this groundbreaking is the culmination of Mr. King's vision and determination. Without him, this project would simply not exist. John King's contributions to the quality of life in San Francisco are too numerous to list. Mr. King has worked tirelessly as an advocate for San Francisco's seniors, to ensure that they have access to affordable housing and services. The John W. King Senior Community is the latest addition to John's lifelong work. This innovative project will provide 91 one-bedroom apartments to serve low-income seniors in the City's Visitacion Valley. It will provide easy access to on-site support services, a transportation center and a nutrition center. The project also includes a child-care center, which helps to meet community needs and will provide opportunities for the senior residents to develop relationships with the youngest generation. We can all be proud of the role of the federal government, particularly the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the role of the City of San Francisco, and Catholic Healthcare West, in helping to finance the John W. King Senior Community, which is a joint project of the John W. King Senior Center, Mercy Charities Housing California, and Housing Conservation & Development Corporation. We can be particularly proud of John King, whose vision, strength, determination and hard work are examples for us all. Happy Birthday, Mr. King. May you continue your good works for the next eighty years.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.