Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, and under the way the 5-minute rule works, that is, people come and it is not divided on each side of the issue, which is the way the 5-minute rule works, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and I have worked very hard to try to bring something that was honed down, with minimal controversy, to the floor. Clearly, the House must work its will, and it is doing so, largely with authorizing issues, I might add, I mean debates that have been carried over from the authorizing committee; and that is completely appropriate. But recognizing all that we have been through today, I ask unanimous consent that each side of the amendment have 10 minutes, and then we take the vote and proceed with the other votes this evening.

Ms. PELOSI. Each side of the issue.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield, is that tonight, on Monday?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is it my understanding that the amendments that we would be taking up after the Andrews amendment are limited to the amendments that are on this piece of paper?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under the reservation, may I make inquiry to the distinguished chairman about the nature of this resolution?

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, completely agreeing with the gentleman from New Jersey that much more money needs to be in this bill, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pitts amendment. The Pitts amendment, as has been mentioned, prohibits use of child survival funding for programs designed to control ``fertility or reduce or delay childbirth or pregnancy except breast feeding programs.'' This amendment is offered under the inaccurate assumption that the child survival fund which is used to counsel women on health choices is an inappropriate use of this funding. It is time for people to realize the simple fact that we cannot separate the health of the mother from the health and well being of the child. I have this chart. It is hard to read, but I will try to walk my colleagues through it because it demonstrates very clearly why this is a dangerous amendment. While we may be talking politics here and theorizing, the reality is in the Third World. It shows on this chart that in Zambia, for example, when children are spaced 2 years apart, the mortality rate is higher than if they are spaced farther apart. Now, do not think of 2 years in the United States. Think of 2 years in the developing world. Do not think of my children. I had five children in 6 years, I mean almost to the day, in a very comfortable, secure, nourishing atmosphere. But this is the complete opposite of that. So I do know a little bit about of what I speak. Then if we go to Tanzania, we see on the chart, 4 months the mortality rate is the red line. Four to 5 months, we see the purple line, the mortality rate goes down. We get to 48 months plus and the mortality rate is much lower. So these funds from the child survival account are very, very important to child survival. That is what we are demonstrating here. Now, the gentleman says this counseling can be done out of the Population Fund. Exactly. And that is what this amendment is about, reducing the funds available for population funding, family planning. That is what this amendment is about. Yes, it is important. My colleagues cannot tell me that they do not recognize the importance of counseling on spacing of children and how that decreases the mortality rate. But, yes, that is important. Take it out of the family planning money. That, my colleagues, is the essence of this amendment, indirect but very, very direct. Indirect in theory but direct in impact assault on the family planning funding. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Pitts amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Ms. PELOSI. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from New York is a great leader on human rights throughout the world and it is always a joy to work with him. He is an inspiration to all of us. I completely agree with the gentleman entirely on his motivation on this legislation. But I have to agree in part with the gentleman from Alabama for the following reason. I have fought him tooth and nail on cutting this $224 million from IDA in the bill. While I share the concerns the gentleman expresses in the amendment, to go on and cut more from IDA I think would diminish any arguments we made about the impact of the $224 million already cut from IDA. I think what the World Bank did is appalling. As the gentleman knows, under his leadership and working with him, we have called meetings together with the people who work at the World Bank, with many congressional offices participating in these meetings. We jointly, 60 of us, sent a letter at the urging of the gentleman from New York and me to President Wolfensohn about this. This is appalling. The World Bank is ignoring its own standards on resettlement as well as the environment. There are many reasons why they should not have gone down this road. I do not like what they are doing as far as Tibet is concerned. We have fought that in this House year in and year out. And now the World Bank is asking those of us who have not only opposed the Chinese policy of resettlement in the Tibetan areas of Han Chinese, they are asking us to pay for it by our contribution to the World Bank. The World Bank did a very stupid thing. The World Bank has invited some very, very close scrutiny in terms of resettlement and environment which, as I say, are violated in what they have done. June 30 marked the end of any IDA funding to China. The other poor people in the world will pay the price for what the World Bank refused to listen to us on. The Chinese government has had its way with the World Bank and I think that it is appalling. But as one who has fought the fight with the gentleman against the repression in China year in and year out, I cannot let the Chinese regime take assistance away from people in other parts of the world because of their behavior there, and just because the World Bank has done something I do not like does not mean that we should take away their funding. So sharing every value that the gentleman presented, agreeing completely that the World Bank is wrong, wrong, wrong on many scores as far as this is concerned, appalled by the ethnic cleansing that this represents on the part of the Chinese government, but nonetheless saying that we cannot take any more money from the fund that goes for the poorest of the poor people. I find myself in a very difficult place, Mr. Chairman, but because I was going to have to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment, I wanted to explain to my colleagues why. He is completely right, but I have a counter-equity that outweighs that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, well, I do not urge anybody to do anything. I am just telling them why I will be voting ``no,'' because I have resisted the gentleman's $224 million cut and do not see how then to go on and support an additional cut to IDA. With that and with the deepest respect for the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and begging his forgiveness because he has been the champion on Tibet, the champion on Tibet, I offer that explanation to the body.

Ms. PELOSI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just sought recognition to concur with the gentleman's request with the approval of the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say two things. First of all, we all agree that the drug problem is a terrible, terrible tragedy for our country. In addition to trying to do drug crop eradication, we must focus on treatment and prevention and to the end that we all share here. But two points I want to make. One is, I was very concerned about the New York Times article this morning that talked about the war on drugs and the war against the rebels merging, because we have always talked about the war on drugs being a war on drugs in Colombia. So I hope that, as we proceed, we do with great sensitivity to the human rights of the Colombian people.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we concur with the acceptance of our distinguished chairman, and commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their leadership on this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in support of the Greenwood amendment. I do so for the following reasons: Listening to the debate, I think that it is important to make a couple of points. One of our colleagues said that we should have the same limitations on the organizations overseas that we have in the United States. Indeed, if we tried to put this gag rule on any organizations in the United States, it would be unconstitutional. I think we should treat the international organizations the same way as we treat those in the United States, and, that is, with the freedom of speech. Secondly, I am very baffled, I will join my colleague from Colorado in using the word ``baffled,'' by the comments of some of our colleagues. If indeed our colleagues agree that abortion should be permitted in case of rape, incest and life of the mother, why then would we say that there should be no conversation about this subject in case of rape, incest and life of the mother for women who need to terminate a pregnancy overseas and organizations who are striving to reduce abortions with family planning? Mr. Chairman, if we want to reduce abortions, we know the best way is to fund family planning. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers a fine alternative. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just acknowledge the statement of the gentleman that giving this amendment to the groups is like giving soft money to a candidate. Does that mean that he then is opposed to soft money in campaigns? I hope it does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) a distinguished leader and a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader on issues of family planning throughout the world and a champion of poor women and poor families.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of that 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).