Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Do we not have any work to do?

Ms. PELOSI. We seem to have some challenges in our country, and I would hope we would use all the time available to us to do that. I thank the gentleman for advising us of the schedule.

Ms PELOSI

Ms PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, and I do not want to use the word ``last,'' but just in terms of chronology, today is the last day that our great minority whip, Democratic whip of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) will serve in that capacity while the House is in session. We will benefit for years to come from his service, 10 years, an historic 10 years as Democratic whip of the House, 4 years as chief deputy whip before that. That incredible experience is marked not only by longevity, but by the quality of his service. Leaders for all time to come will benefit from the example that he has set as a leader. Working families into perpetuity in our country have benefited and will continue to benefit from his championing of their issues. They have no greater champion. Working families in America have no greater champion than David Bonior. He has been a model leader. He has been a tireless worker for workers. We all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in honoring the service of David Bonior, his vision, his knowledge, his effectiveness, his energy, his integrity, his experience, indeed the people of Michigan are very blessed to have him as their future Governor. I also want to acknowledge his very experienced staff who have served this Congress so well, the staff of David Bonior. I know that others will speak today about David and his staff, but I wanted to be sure to acknowledge their considerable contributions to this body as well. (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 5 minutes and to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, many of us in the U.S. House of Representatives have had our lives enriched and our spirits strengthened through the work of Rev. Doug Tanner, President of the Faith & Politics Institute. His teacher and mentor, Clarene Lincoln Robertson taught American History to Doug at Rutherfordton-Spindale Central High School in North Carolina in 1962-1963. Doug Tanner was one of the students whose life and vocation she profoundly influenced. I rise today to pay tribute to Clarene Lincoln Robertson who will be 100 years old on January 11, 2002. Clarene Lincoln and her twin brother were born in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, near the town of Tenth Legion on January 11, 1902. Clarene rode horseback to elementary school and went by sleigh in the winter. When she entered high school, she went to live during the week in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and came home on the weekends. She graduated from Elon College in North Carolina in 1925. After teaching at Huntington Girls' College in Montgomery, Alabama, she went to Duke University for a Master's Degree and met W.B. Robertson. Their summer romance has lasted 65 years. They married in 1936 and moved to Rutherfordton, North Carolina, where Clarene began her 30-year teaching career at Central High School. She initially taught both English and American History, but she moved to history only when one of her students said, ``Oh, Mrs. Robertson, you learned me all the English I ever knowed.'' Mrs. Robertson gave birth to her only natural child, daughter Mary Ella in January 1938. Arthur, her stepson from Mr. Robertson's previous marriage, died at age 65. Clarene and ``Robby'' have five grandchildren and eight great grandchildren. Only a year or so ago, they moved from Rutherfordton to Blanco, Texas, where they live with Mary Ella and her husband David. Clarene Robertson taught high school American History like a college course. Some students opted to take the required course in summer school to avoid the rigor of her class. Others--some willingly, some reluctantly--submitted to her demanding academic standards. Those students often completed the course with both a deeper knowledge of and appreciation for our Nation's history and an eagerness to follow current events and engage in civic and political life. Doug Tanner graduated from high school in 1964, having taken her history class in 1962-1963. Both he and Mrs. Robertson recall that Doug entered the class reflecting and embracing the strong racial prejudice typical of white Southerners at the time. Clarene Robertson was not about to let him continue to carry that attitude without her having challenged it as thoroughly and effectively as she possibly could. The civil rights movement was nearing its height in the spring of 1963, and current events were a regular part of the curriculum. In addition, Mrs. Robertson required Doug to read John Howard Griffin's ``Black Like Me'' and, in spite of resistance, assigned him to a select group of students to make a presentation on African-American history to the rest of the class. Although several other students readily volunteered for the project, Mrs. Robertson assigned some of them to other topics. She insisted that Doug be among those who would learn and wrestle with all the issues of race in America. Mrs. Robertson also served as advisor to the student government, and worked closely with Doug in his capacity as junior class president. The following summer, when the civil rights movement touched Doug's heart more directly through experiences in his southeastern Methodist Youth Fellowship, his mind was prepared to embrace the monumental change that racial desegregation was bringing throughout the South. It was in that notable historical context that Doug received his calling into a ministry combining faith, racial justice, and politics. Today, Clarene Robertson's influence on Doug has helped him to lead the Institute's Congressional Conversations on Race program and its Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimages to Alabama. We are indebted to Mrs. Robertson for being such an exceptional teacher and mentor. It is with great pleasure and appreciation that we wish her a very happy 100th birthday on January 11, 2002.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for our excellent words about our colleague. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of our colleagues for coming. This was intended to be 5 minutes. Our phone is ringing off the hook in the office saying, why did you not tell us that this was going to happen, so we will need many more days, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the words that people want to say about the greatness of David Bonior. I thank him for the vision with which he has led us, with his knowledge, with his experience, with his integrity. Every one of us who serves in this body has a great privilege to do so. One of our greatest privileges, though, is to have called David Bonior colleague.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 30 seconds to respond to the references made here. Mr. Speaker, I do not blame my Republican colleagues for debating this bill in the dark of night. It is a shame. I know why they do not want the American people to hear about this and what the facts are, but I want to address the point of the gentleman from California. He rose and said that there are $482.6 million in Federal funds for the Republican block grant that California will gain under this bill. What he failed to mention is that under the Democratic plan, California would get $722 million, a more than $240 million increase. As far as that point is concerned, the 53 percent of the deficit is attributed to the tax cut, not to September 11.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time in his capacity as ranking member and for his leadership in fighting this ill-advised bill. Mr. Speaker, Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat; pleased to put a penny in the old man's hat. That is what this bill reminds me of tonight. Corporate America, because of this bill, which puts tax breaks for corporations over assistance to unemployed workers, says to America's families, Bah, humbug. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has predicted that we will face deficits through the rest of the Bush presidency. During the previous administration, years of fiscal responsibility had built a strong economy and a significant surplus. Now the surplus is gone. More than half of the lost surplus is directly linked to the Bush tax cut. Despite this result, Republicans insist that further tax breaks make up the bulk of any stimulus package, refusing to provide additional unemployment and health benefits to displaced workers unless Democrats agree to give huge tax cuts to corporations. The goose is getting fatter; pleased to put a penny in the old man's hat. Throughout the economic stimulus negotiations, the Democratic position has been simple: Put unemployed workers first. But the Republicans have refused. They have refused to increase unemployment insurance benefits; they have refused to expand health insurance for unemployed workers who had been employed part-time or on a temporary basis; they have refused to provide sufficient resources for displaced workers to purchase health insurance in the private market. Mr. Speaker, this is really a tragedy, because in the course of the budget negotiations earlier this year, the House Committee on the Budget and Senate Budget Committee on a bipartisan basis agreed that in order to be effective, the stimulus package must be short-term, provide a quick boost to the economy and not sacrifice our long-term fiscal stability. This stimulus package fails on all three fronts, it fails America's unemployed workers and it fails America's families. I urge a no vote on this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the excellent ranking member of the committee for their strong bipartisan leadership which was so necessary to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor today. It represent a great deal of work on their part and it was not without its difficult moments. I do intend to support the bill, although I am not thrilled with the way that some of the compromises were worked out, one would be the bill does contain the global gag rule, but I will talk about that in a moment. The bill provides important foreign aid investments that will boost the economy of developing nations and take a giant step toward the alleviation of poverty. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I want to say what I say every year when this bill comes up and when I was ranking member I did, and that is that all of us in our country are familiar with the great words of President Kennedy in his inaugural address which I, as a student, witnessed firsthand in the freezing cold in Washington, D.C. in 1960. In that address he said, and we all know these words to the people of America, ``To the citizens of America, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' We all know that. Everyone knows those words. But does everyone know that the very next sentence in the speech, the inaugural address, the very next sentence says, ``To the citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that President Kennedy's words are the clarion call for the bill that is before us today. Now, more than ever, we need to cooperate internationally and to follow the lead of President Kennedy. Since September 11 it is now, more than ever, important to address the root causes of instability in the world by working to alleviate poverty. Alleviation of poverty would not have probably prevented what happened on September 11. But the alleviation of poverty will go a long way to alleviate also the fury of despair that springs from peoples who have no economic options. They have no recourse. They have no place to go. And so many of them are susceptible to demagogs. I think poverty produces violence throughout the world. We do know that now more than ever it is a good investment for America to invest in stability in the world and in peace. Pope Paul, VI said, ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' Part of that justice is, of course, economic justice. And this bill, with its investments across the world, helps to build the economies of a country, giving more economic opportunities to people, alleviating poverty, raising the standard of living, and again, hopefully defusing the fury of despair that is out there. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there are many excellent parts of the bill. The bill contains $475 million for HIV/AIDS funding, which is a significant increase over the amount requested by the administration. It is still not enough, mind you. We have a tremendous opportunity as far as AIDS is concerned and the leadership that the United States provides. If you combined AIDS and poverty, you have a terrible combination. But that is the combination that many people are faced with throughout the world. The bill also contains $50 million for the Global Health Trust Fund with an option for the President to invest $50 million more. I certainly had hoped for more funding for the Global Health Trust Fund. The funding provided is increased and combined with the Labor HHS bill that we passed earlier today in the supplemental appropriations bill, will advance the fight against AIDS and encourage other nations to join in contributing funding, what we can do together with other countries. I want to especially commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on the committee for her work on increasing funding for basic education. She has been a champion on this throughout the years, and her leadership and the amount of money in the bill, $165 million, is due to her efforts over the years, and certainly this year. I mentioned about family planning. The bill contains a compromise on the family planning issue which enables international family planning to be funded at an increase in funding $446.5 million, and UNFPA at $34 million. This was a hard-fought compromise. But the price to pay for that is the global guide rule is not in the conference report. As my colleagues will recall, one of the first acts, well, the first official act that President Bush took when he became President of the United States was to revoke the language that had been in our foreign ops bill from last year, which eliminated the global gag rule from our public policy. Unfortunately that was in the bill. The current restrictions of the gag rule erect barriers to the promotion of civil societies abroad and the enhancement of women's participation in the political process and the credibility of the United States in the international arena. Having expressed that dismay, I still, of course, intend to support the bill. I had also hoped for more funding for disaster assistance for El Salvador in response to the devastating earthquakes. The chairman was successful in providing $100 million in the bill. Only a portion of this is new funding. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) next year to provide needed construction funds to restore the infrastructure there. There are many good things in the bill. I commend the leadership of the committee for increasing what we called when I was ranking member and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) was chairman, the Callahan account to $1.43 billion for the child survival account, which is a significant increase over the President's budget. Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for a really a good piece of work. It is not without its difficulties. It is, in some respects, a compromise, and in other areas, it really made good strides in helping reach our international goals to help reflect the leadership role of our country in the world. Now, more than ever, in light of September 11, we see what a small investment this bill is in protecting our people at home by promoting stability and alleviation of poverty and eradication of disease, not only AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, et cetera. So this is the Lord's work, in addition to which there is business in here, a trade promotion which is very important to our own economy. It is a good bill. I urge its support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, our distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time. And I congratulate the ranking member, as well as the chairman of our subcommittee, for a job well done on this very important Labor-HHS and Education bill. In a bipartisan manner our subcommittee has produced a well-balanced bill that strengthens our schools, invests in our workforce, and provides much-needed resources for biomedical research and our public health system. Although the administration proposed the smallest increase in education in 5 years, the bill, instead, provides the largest funding increase in the history of the Department of Education. For the fourth year in a row, dramatic increases are also included for the National Institutes of Health. This keeps us on track to double the NIH funding over 5 years, an investment that is yielding phenomenal progress in our understanding of the human body and the search for better treatments. Additional resources have also been provided for many other vital programs, including HIV/AIDS prevention and care, breast and cervical cancer screening, child care, drug treatment, bilingual education, and environmental health. The bill makes important progress, but I am disappointed in one opportunity that was lost at last night's conference. We did not agree to the other body's inclusion of an amendment to require that group health plans' offering mental health benefits do not impose restrictions on mental health care that differ from limits on other physical health care. That was a disappointment. On the other hand, we must remember that access to treatment for mental health has never been more important for our country. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that nearly half of our American adults report at least one symptom of substantial stress after September 11. We see articles in the paper every day how this situation has been exacerbated. In any event, we know effective treatments are available for mental health. We hope that promises made will be kept as we go into the next session of Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to again commend the chairman. This is a very important bill. We call it lamb-eat-lamb, because everything in it is so good, and when we try to transfer money from one account to another, it is a very difficult decision to make. Mr. Natcher always called it in ``the people's bill.'' We have a great tradition of bipartisanship on the committee. We were delighted to welcome our new member of the committee, who was our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), congratulate him on his first conference report, and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his extraordinary leadership in making the bill what it is today. It was a tough fight to get this to this point, but I commend both the chairman and the ranking member on the success that Members will be voting on today. Again, higher numbers for education than the Bush administration requested; more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3487, the Nurse Reinvestment Act, and commend my colleague Representative Capps for her leadership in addressing the current nursing shortage. Today, health care institutions across the nation are experiencing a crisis in nurse staffing. In my district, hospital emergency departments divert patients to other hospitals over 75 percent of the time because of inadequate nurses to staff the critical care units where most emergency admissions are transferred for care. In a recent meeting with San Francisco's emergency response leaders, the Director of Emergency Health Services cited inadequate nurse staffing for emergency departments, critical care units, and surgical units as a major problem. The shortage of educated, licensed Registered Nurses poses a significant threat to our nation's health care system, and we must act. The Nurse Reinvestment Act responds to this shortage by advertising and promoting the nursing profession to young people making career choices, broadening critical loan repayment programs and increasing the number of scholarships available for nursing students. Employers in hospitals, long-term care facilities are having difficulty finding experienced nurses, especially in emergency room and long term care. The safety and quality of care provided in the nation's health care facilities is directly related to the number and mix of direct care nursing staff. Studies show that when there are more nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and fewer complications. The Institute of Medicine has documented that increased mortality and morbidity in long term facilities, where our most frail spend their final months, is directly related to inadequate nurse staffing. This shortage is compounded by the lack of young people entering the nursing profession, the rapid aging of the nursing workforce, and the impending health care needs of the baby boom generation. As new opportunities have opened up for young women and new stresses have been added to the profession of nursing, fewer people have opted to choose nursing as a career. For the past six years, new admissions into nursing schools have consistently dropped. Without sufficient numbers of young people entering nursing, the average age of nurses has increased steadily. As a result, the average working RN is over 43 years old and large numbers of nurses are expected to retire over the next decade. At the same time, the need for complex nursing services will only increase due to the aging of the population. Now is the time to begin to address this impending public health crisis. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our chairman has very well explained how we got to the point we are at today. I want to commend him for the leadership he has provided to the committee, not only at the conference meeting but throughout what has turned out to be a very challenging year. I thank the chairman. The House version of the intelligence authorization bill came to the floor a little over 3 weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Active and retired intelligence community personnel were killed in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. In the weeks since, the United States has begun to strike back at those who were involved in the September attacks, and at those who support them. On Monday, the first combat fatality of the struggle against terrorism in Afghanistan was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Mike Spann was a CIA officer. We eulogized him yesterday on this floor with the suspension vote in the presence of his family: his wife, Shannon; his parents, and his children. Timely and reliable intelligence, as we know, is crucial to the successful conclusion of this campaign, and it is already clear that intelligence officers will be deeply involved, at home and in the field, in the difficult and dangerous job of ensuring that our policymakers and military commanders have the information on which they will increasingly depend. The emergency supplemental appropriations bill passed in the wake of the September attacks provided a large amount of additional resources for intelligence programs and activities. This conference report provides more; substantially more, than was provided last year, and significantly more than was requested by the President. Our chairman has gone over some of the priorities in the bill, and I want to associate myself with those. That would be human intelligence capabilities that he talked about and TPED, the tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination of intelligence. It is very important for us to put more resources there. Another priority for us in the bill was the investment in advanced research and development projects necessary to keep pace with changes in technology, and, of course, the technology necessary to improve the process of collecting and processing intelligence. Some of these funds that are in this bill will continue improvements as the chairman emphasized, in our human intelligence capabilities, to ensure that case officers receive the kind of training they need, particularly in foreign languages, to enable them to do their jobs effectively. Some of these funds will make investments in the kinds of systems required if agencies like the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office are to keep pace with rapid technological change. The modernization of NSA remains a top priority of the committee and measurable progress is expected in the coming year. As steadfast as the committee has been in advocating more spending on intelligence, it must now be equally engaged in conducting the kind of oversight necessary to make certain that these additional funds are spent efficiently on programs that will really make a difference, not only in the current effort against terrorism, but on the demands of an uncertain future as well. Although I am satisfied with the disposition made by the conferees on most of the items which separated the two bodies, I was disappointed with the resolution of the provision in the House bill which would have established an independent commission to review the Nation's security posture immediately preceding September 11. Our colleagues in the other body insisted that the two intelligence committees could undertake an inquiry into the readiness of the intelligence community, and other committees of jurisdiction could examine the other elements of the executive branch. The issue was never whether the committees had the resources to do this job, it was whether it made sense for them to do it. I am concerned that an independent review would have had credibility with the American people that a congressional review, no matter how professionally done, will not. The House version of the bill, when it left our committee stated, Mr. Speaker, ``The committee believes that the Commission will only be successful if it is seen to be truly independent of any preconceived notions about the effectiveness of the activities of the departments and agencies it will review. Appointing members with a reputation for challenging conventional wisdom, wide perspective, bold and innovative thought, and broad experience in dealing with complex problems will contribute directly to instilling the Commission with an independence of spirit which will enhance the credibility of its work.'' It goes on further. I want to put these words on the record. This body chose to modify the Commission and change its nature, but when we got to the conference, the Commission was eliminated all together. I want to put on the record the spirit of independence that I hoped the review would have. This is not about fingerpointing or assigning blame; it really is more about understanding whatever government shortcomings may have contributed to the events of September 11. An independent inquiry will one day be commissioned, I am certain, although perhaps without the congressional input that we tried to do in our committee. We need to know if there were gaps and where they were, again, not to assess blame, but to be sure that they are addressed. Our constituents must have confidence that an assessment of future needs is based on solid judgments about past performance. This will be especially important if we are to consider changing the structure of the intelligence community, and that is the challenge our chairman and our committee will have in the next year. Some of these reforms may be called for by President Bush, as is his right. On another important issue the conference report more faithfully reflects the position of the House, and that was a compromise that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) took the lead in shaping and I was pleased to support. It was necessary because in 1995, in response to concerns that there was insufficient CIA headquarters involvement in decisions to recruit as assets individuals with poor records of respecting human rights or the law, guidelines were issued to ensure that senior officials were aware of and approved, certain recruitments. The intent of these guidelines was to protect relatively junior officers in the field from later charges that they acted unilaterally, and unwisely, in entering into relationships with certain individuals. Despite repeated assurances to the committee from high-level intelligence officials of two administrations that the guidelines had not prevented the recruitment of a single, identifiable, worthwhile asset, concerns were raised that the bureaucratic process through which the guidelines were administered was so time consuming that it provided a disincentive to case officers. This controversy has obscured the fact that encouraging a potential asset on a hard target, like a terrorist cell, to betray his or her country or cause is tremendously time consuming, difficult and dangerous. That we have had uneven success against these targets is more a reflection of those facts than it is the fault, in my view, of any guidelines. Nevertheless, to make clear that Congress wants the recruitment process to be as aggressive as possible given the totality of the circumstances involved, the House approved a provision in the committee's bill which would have required a rescission of the existing guidelines and their replacement with new guidelines which achieve balance that ``recognized concerns about egregious human rights behavior, but provides the much needed flexibility to seize upon opportunities as they present themselves.'' The House made clear that in striking this balance, ``clearly there is a certain class of individuals who, because of their unreliability, instability, or nature of past misconduct, should be avoided.'' Again, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) led the way on this compromise that was in the House bill. Although the DCI chose to rescind and reissue the guidelines before the legislative process was complete, the heart of the language which I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Nebraska on was retained in conference. The conferees want the current, more streamlined guidelines reviewed again to make certain that they provide appropriate encouragement to case officers to do their jobs well. As the statement of managers makes clear, however, whatever the results of that review, any guidelines issued ``must balance concerns about human rights behavior and law-breaking'' with the efforts to provide flexibility to take advantage of opportunities to gather information. That balance is the proper interpretation of the phrase ``more appropriately weigh and incentivize risk'' which appears in clause (2) of section 403 of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, our President, when he came to the House on September 14, three days after the tragedy, said that we will bring the perpetrators of that tragedy to justice, or we will bring justice to them, but justice will be done. We want to be sure that our intelligence capabilities help the President reach that goal, a goal that we all share. Hopefully, this bill will take us closer to that. I believe the conference agreement will contribute significantly to meeting the intelligence needs of the Nation, and I urge its adoption. I again associate myself with many of the remarks made by my chairman, particularly those about sharing of information by the FBI. Once again, I want to extend the sympathies of my constituents and I know all of our colleagues, to the family of Mike Spann and the Special Forces soldiers, the Green Berets who lost their lives. If I may, I would like to put their names in the Record also: Master Sergeant Jefferson Davis; Staff Sergeant Brian Cody Prosser; and Sergeant First Class Daniel Petithory. God bless them. God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that we have completed our roster of Members who wish to speak on the Democratic side, and I would like to just say in a few closing remarks how appreciative we are to our distinguished chairman for the bipartisan nature of our proceedings, to extend to my Republican colleagues, again, thanks for their cooperation. I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the Democratic members of the committee for their attention to the important work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is like signing up when you join the committee. It is very demanding and Members on both sides have made a strong commitment of time, enthusiasm, and dedication to these important issues so that we can have the force protection that is one of the main goals of intelligence and that we can have mission success on whatever we set out to do. We talked about human intelligence at the beginning. The chairman mentioned it as a priority in his remarks and I did in mine. We want to commend all of the people who work in the intelligence community, in the human intelligence side, and otherwise, for their courage and their dedication. I also want to note the commitment that our committee has to bringing diversity to our human intelligence. There are people in our country who understand the language, the cultures, the opportunities in other countries and in other cultures that would serve us well in achieving our mission success and we must draw upon them. Our HUMINT has to look different as we go into the future. So we recognize and express gratitude to all of them, particularly Mike Spann and the others who lost their lives. We also recognize those who risk their lives every day for freedom in America and to root out terrorism wherever it exists. I want to commend especially, though, the staff of Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Tim Sample on the Republican side. We do not really call it the Republican side. We really have a bipartisan approach to this. But he is the chief of staff for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I want to acknowledge the Democratic side staff: Mike Sheehy, Wyndee Parker, Beth Larson, Carolyn Bartholomew, Chris Healey for her good work on our issues, Kirk McConnell, Bob Emmett, and Ilene Romack, who work so hard for us. I want to commend our chairman for his leadership. It was interesting to work with the Senate on this bill. So I commend the chairman, the new Democratic chairman, Senator Graham, and Senator Shelby for their cooperation as well. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a distinguished member of our committee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security. (Mr. Condit asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a cosponsor of this resolution memorializing the heroic crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93. On September 11, as the fourth hijacked airplane, United Flight 93, flew west and then southeast, the passengers called friends and family on the ground. They learned the terrible news: hijackers had crashed three other airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. They knew their plane would also be turned into a fearsome weapon. The hijackers underestimated the indomitability of the American spirit. We may never know the whole story of the events on Flight 93 after the hijackers seized control. However, the phone calls and the cockpit voice recorder have given us the heart of it: the passengers and crew knew they had to act, and they did. They talked, and they prayed, and then they rushed the cockpit to try to stop the hijackers. A few minutes later, the plane crashed to the ground in rural Pennsylvania. The nation salutes the crew and passengers of Flight 93 for their bravery in the face of overwhelming danger and almost certain death. If the flight had continued on its path toward the Nation's Capital, many more lives would have been lost. We might also have lost either the U.S. Capitol or the White House, the most powerful symbols of our nation, and known the world over as symbols of the world's greatest democracy. I especially wish to acknowledge the heroism of Mark Bingham from San Francisco. Six feet five inches tall, Mark had played rugby in college. At thirty-one years old, he was CEO of his own public relations firm. On the street late one night, he had wrestled a gun from the hands of a mugger. He was a risk-taker, a man who lived life to the fullest. I had the opportunity to join his partner, Paul Holm, and his family and friends in celebrating his life at a memorial service in San Francisco. Our hearts go out to them for their loss of this brave man. House Concurrent Resolution 232 expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States owes its deepest gratitude to the passengers and crew of Flight 93, and calls for the placement of a memorial plaque on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. It is with both great sadness and deep appreciation that I cast my vote for this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join in thanking the Spann family for being with us tonight. You honor us with your presence. Mike Spann was an example of the best that our country has to offer. Again, I want to extend the condolences of all of our colleagues and certainly my constituents to his mother and father who are with us, his sisters, his wife, Shannon, their baby, Jake, and Alison and Emily. Mike Spann will always be in our memory and in our prayers. God bless him and God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I know it was difficult, and I congratulate them in doing it. I am pleased to follow the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my distinguished chairman on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, a longtime member on that committee. Following the lead of my own constituents, we put the first money for international AIDS into that bill several years ago. We could never get the attention that he is getting here today on this issue. I know how hard it is, and I commend him for it. We tried to get the attention of the G-7 to put AIDS on the agenda a dozen years ago in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and only recently have the ramifications of AIDS been recognized at that level. So it is with great enthusiasm that I commend all of my colleagues, and I rise in support of H.R. 2069. Madam Speaker, we must never forget that every single day, 8,000 people die of AIDS; 8,000 people die every day of AIDS. Think of it. It is so staggering. It is unimaginable, almost. But we are concerned about every single one of them and about protecting every single child in the world and person in the world from contracting HIV and AIDS in the future. The United States must take the lead in the global effort to end the global AIDS pandemic and the havoc it is creating in the developing world. Halting this crisis can only happen with new resources, and the dramatic step that is being taken today is a very, very important and significant step forward. The social, economic, security, national security, and human rights cost of this crisis are devastating entire nations. Projections show that by 2010, South Africa's GDP will be 17 percent below where it would have been without AIDS, and the United Nations has estimated that AIDS could kill up to 26 percent of the workforce in Africa. India already has more infected people than Africa. Madam Speaker, I will submit my full statement for the Record because, again, the statistics are staggering. Madam Speaker, $750 million is an excellent step forward. We need to do more. Experts are predicting that without significant prevention and treatment efforts the number of Indians living with HIV/AIDS could surpass the combined number of cases in all African countries within two decades. Developing countries will be unable to turn the tide on this epidemic if even the most basic health care is unavailable for most of their citizens. People must be educated about HIV and how to prevent its spread. Increased testing and counseling opportunities are desperately needed. Basic care and treatment that can be delivered in homes or makeshift clinics is essential. And the need for support for the growing number of children orphaned by AIDS looms large. We know that prevention and treatment work. Comprehensive prevention efforts have turned around HIV epidemics in Uganda and Thailand, and averted an epidemic in Senegal. In a small village in Haiti, community health workers have been trained to deliver high quality care, including the advanced medicines used to treat AIDS in our country. The provisions of H.R. 2069 will help impoverished countries expand and replicate effective programs, and strengthen the capacity of indigenous health care systems to deliver HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. Our investment in the fight against the global AIDS pandemic not only has a direct impact, but is also promises to leverage significant funds from other countries and multilateral institutions. Specifically, the $750 million authorized for multilateral assistance will demonstrate this country's dedication to the new United Nations Global Fund, and other international efforts. Fighting AIDS requires a real, sustained commitment, and the money we provide is a signal to other nations that we will do our part. The fight ahead of us against the global AIDS pandemic is a long one. We have no choice but to engage in the fight and to prevail. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2069.