Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks and for her leadership on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on all of the issues relating to debt relief and AIDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the Committee on International Relations and a champion on human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentlewoman that the gentleman from Alabama has been attentive to this issue. Indeed, we visited Ecuador and spoke to the authorities there, the U.S. counsel there, about this subject. So when the gentleman says he is looking into it, as my colleagues know, indeed he is.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for the purpose of engaging in colloquy with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his important statement, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a new Member to Congress, but a great champion for our country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the subcommittee. (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the leader on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I am not from Alabama, Mr. Chairman, but if I were, I know my colleague's fellow Alabamans would love to hear me say that we are not spending enough money on foreign policy, and we certainly want to prevent another Kosovo and prevent spending billions of dollars, and we want to save lives instead of spending money on defense. This is about our national security. And, also, we do not need a tax cut.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to begin my remarks on the fiscal year 2000 foreign operations bill as I always do by complimenting the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for the manner in which he has developed this bill. Given the constraints of a low 302(b) allocation and the contentious policy issues that normally weigh this bill down, he has done an excellent job of balancing funding and policy considerations. Both the subcommittee and the full committee markups went as smoothly as could be expected for this bill, and that is a testament to his fairness and his bipartisanship. It is also a tribute to the bipartisanship on the Democratic side of the aisle, I might add, and I commend my fellow Members on the Democratic side. It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and his Republican colleagues on this bill. Having said that, I also want to make it clear that the total level of spending in the bill of $12.625 billion is not adequate to meet our national security requirements and will, I believe, seriously impair the President's ability to carry out an effective foreign policy. That is why the administration has put out a veto threat on the bill, that is one of the reasons, the underfunding. I have indicated my support for the bill on the basis that the chairman has been judicious in his distribution of the resources available to him. It will be necessary at a later time to provide additional resources for this bill to enable the United States to meet new challenges and maintain our leadership around the world. If that does not happen, I would have to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' at some later date in order to sustain a presidential veto. And another issue of contention is the Smith amendment. If the Smith amendment passes, and the Mexico City language is included in this legislation, I would then oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do so also. The bill now contains only $100 million of the $1.4 billion requested to support the Wye River Accords. I would expect these funds to be included at a later stage in the process also when needed to implement the accords. There is also a need to address additional resources for other needs, such as support for the peace implementation efforts in and around Kosovo, and for meeting U.S. commitments on debt restructuring to poor countries. This is a very high priority for many of us in the Congress. The bill is, therefore, in my view, a work in progress. If additional resources are not forthcoming at a later time, I will be urging those who support this bill at this time to oppose it. The total recommendation of $12.625 billion is almost $2 billion below the President's request and is $715 million below last year's spending level for foreign assistance. The programs in the bill that are most severely underfunded include the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union; the International Development Association, IDA, which does so much to assist the poorest of the poor in Africa and other places in the world; AID's operating expenses; Debt Restructuring; the Global Environmental facility; and the Non- proliferation, Anti-terrorism, and Demining account. On the positive side, the bill includes $680 million for the Child Survival and Diseases Program fund, known by us affectionately within the committee as the Callahan Account, which will enable the expenditure of $145 million to combat HIV/AIDS, as well as fund increased efforts against tuberculosis and other childhood diseases, such as measles and malaria. Of course, we would like to be doing more, and that is why we want the funding levels up. In addition, the bill includes $30 million for displaced children, orphans and blind children, which is an increase over last year, and I thank the chairman for that. The bill also includes funding for vitamin deficiency programs, polio eradication, and basic education. Poll after poll, Mr. Chairman, shows that the American people support well-directed humanitarian aid programs that assist poor children and the poor countries with basic human needs. While the bill does not contain a separate account for African development assistance, and I wish that it would, it does maintain last year's funding level for Africa. Maintaining last year's level is not a victory, but at least it did not get cut, as other programs have; and I would hope that as we go forward with the bill we will have an increase for Africa. The total, of all accounts, the bill provides $1.6 billion in assistance to Africa. With respect to the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, the bill contains $725 million. This is far too low, well below last year's level, and $307 million below the President's request. This means serious cuts in the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative and cuts to emerging republics, such as Armenia and Georgia, and reductions in programs that support small businesses, exchanges, and regional initiatives, which are also designed to develop a new generation of pro-reform leaders and institutional partnerships. Mr. Chairman, the cut to AID's operating expenses will scale back necessary security improvements. The cuts in the nonproliferation account will limit new initiatives for anti-terrorism, export controls, and demining. I mention all these, Mr. Chairman, so that our colleagues will know what the impact is of the underfunding of this bill. It provides only $50 million of the $143 million for the Global Environmental Facility. In addition, the cuts in the Development Assistance account will mean cuts to bilateral and environmental programs. The bill includes only $33 million of the $120 million requested for debt restructuring, and prohibits funding for the trust fund for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries, HIPC. This request was made before the recent historic agreement among the G-7 in Cologne, Germany, which has broad support from governments, multilateral institutions, and religious groups. Granting generous debt restructuring to the world's poorest countries, as called for in these new agreements, will be the most significant poverty alleviation action we can take in a generation. The amounts currently in the bill do not even put us on the playing field. I would hope that we could get it to a level where we could honor the Jubilee 2000 initiative goal of debt forgiveness in the months ahead. Mr. Chairman, I have been pointing out some of the deficiencies and some of the pluses in the bill. In the interest of time, I will submit the rest of my statement for the Record and just close by saying that this House takes pride in providing ample resources to the defense bill to protect our national security. The importance of an engaged foreign policy with the resources to back it up also protects our national security. In that interest, Mr. Chairman, I did want to just take a moment to acknowledge the tragedy of the plane that went down in Colombia and ask for just a moment of recognition for those brave young men who lost their lives. I respect their dedication to a dangerous task and would ask the House to take a moment to acknowledge their ultimate sacrifice. Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961, and everybody in America knows this quote, President Kennedy said, ``My fellow Americans, ask not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' But everybody does not know that the very next sentence, the very next sentence the President said, and I was there to hear him when I was a college student in Washington, D.C., the very next sentence is, ``My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of man.'' Mr. Chairman, that is what we do in this bill and, hopefully, what we do in this Congress is to reach out to help promote the freedom of man throughout the world. This embodies what the bill is about or should be about. My colleagues, we have an obligation to move forward together to provide for a robust foreign assistance program that enhances our national security. This bill is a start and it should be supported, of course, unless the Smith amendment succeeds. However, we have a long way to go before the end of the year to finish the job. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues have heard this before, but I am not going to use the full 2 minutes. Hopefully, that will be true. Mr. Speaker, I think the statement that was made by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is a very interesting one in that he is talking about the provisions in the bill that relate to Armenia and Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabagh and how that area of the world has been dealt with in the bill. I think it is indicative of the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in resolving some of these controversial issues that come up in this bill. We have spent hours overnight on this bill in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor, but in the interests of managing those issues well, we worked together, made our compromises so that the House, the full House, would be spared some of that controversy. That is why, again, I was so disappointed when the rights of the minority were not respected, and I disagree with my distinguished colleague whom I respect enormously in his characterization of the bill of the rule as a fair one, because I do not think it is. As I say, if we had been coming into this, fighting to the finish, I could understand why the majority would want to suppress the minority, but we have tried to cooperate every step of the way, and indeed I have said I would support the legislation if the Smith amendment does not pass. In the interests of trying to support the bill with the Greenwood amendment as a substitute for the Smith amendment, that would still enable us to support the bill; but instead, not only did they wrench the right of the minority ranking member to introduce an amendment, but also put it in the form that does not solve any problem except maybe one, to help the majority pass the rule on their side. So if they are going to have this unfair rule, they are going to have to do it largely with Republican votes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank him also for his leadership on many of the issues that are in the foreign operations bill relating to child survival and honoring the gospel of Matthew. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his participation in bringing the rule to the floor. I have great admiration for him and for my distinguished chairman of the full committee and I reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule. In our subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, we had tried very hard to work with our distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) to move along the legislation, to honor the schedule that our Chairman just put forth and to not hold up the works. So we agreed to set some difficulties off to a later date. This bill is a work in progress. It is seriously underfunded. I mention this now because I want to point out that to have the bill come in a bipartisan way to the full committee was a result of bipartisan cooperation; and cooperation, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, is a two-way street. We were disappointed after that in full committee that $200 million in this already underfunded bill was taken out again. But nonetheless, in the interest of staying on schedule and moving the legislation along, I urged my colleagues to support the legislation in the hope that down the road there would be additional funding in the legislation. This bill is nearly $1.5 billion, $1.3 million less than the administration's request and more than $700 million, less than last year's bill. So that is why I was really quite disappointed to learn of the rule, when I, as ranking member, who had, with my fellow Democrats on the subcommittee, cooperated in bringing this bill forward and not delaying it with many of the controversies that we have had in the past. When I as ranking member went to the Committee on Rules to request a ranking member's prerogative, as I see it, to have an amendment to this bill, an amendment that would address the concerns that many of us have with the Smith amendment with the Mexico City language, but one that would be a substitute for it. I was very precise in my request, although I was not insistent that the bill be in my name, I was insistent that the amendment be in the form of a substitute. So that when we ask Members to make this very important decision, it would make a difference. However, this rule, is something for everyone and nothing for anyone in terms of advancing the issue. I almost have to use the word cynical in describing it. I think it makes the House look silly and belittles the importance of the issue. The rule limits debate on both amendments to 20 minutes each. This is a very important issue, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) mentioned. It is an issue of importance and controversy before this body, so we have two amendments, 20 minutes each, 10 minutes on each side to debate it, eliminating the possibility of a full and serious debate on both sides. It also allows for the consideration of the Pitts amendment. Now, I as ranking member do not get an amendment, but this allows for the Pitts amendment as the only other legislative amendment to be made in order. I am not sure what criteria the Committee on Rules uses to choose this one amendment out of all of the requests that were made for legislative amendments. My guess would be that because it once again adds additional restrictions to programs designed to help poor women and children under the guise of a population-related restriction, that somehow it takes precedence on the Republican side than the other proposed amendments. The truth is, we should not have any of these legislative amendments in the bill. They should not be made in order. This is a repeat. We have been here before. I have a great deal of respect for the makers of these motions. I am very pleased with the interest in this foreign operations bill. But what I am saying to my colleagues is that if we are asked to cooperate every step of the way, in subcommittee and full committee to stay on schedule and cooperate with an underfunded bill for which the White House has issued a veto threat because of the Smith amendment and because of the low funding figure, then one would think at the very least that the ranking member would receive her due, which would be an amendment to this bill, to trump legislative language which does not belong in the appropriations bill in the first place. So that is why I come here with a degree of sadness and disappointment that once again we have to travel down this road. When this happened before, we held up the House with rollcall votes and this or that. I am not going to do this now, because this is frankly tiresome. What I am going to do is urge my colleagues to register their disapproval of this by voting ``no'' on the rule, for my colleagues to do just that; and again, I wish that we could have had some cooperation, but apparently, the cooperation is only supposed to come from our side and not from the Republican side on this. So with great regret, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this bill, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) as well for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor. I rise in strong opposition to the Barr amendment for the following reasons. The findings of scientific research, the will of the voters of the District of Columbia, and compassion for people with serious illnesses all argue against this amendment. In the spring of this year, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that marijuana is ``Potentially effective in treating pain, nausea and anorexia of AIDS-wasting and other symptoms,'' and it called for more research on the use of marijuana in medical treatment. That is the latest science. Finally, we must consider the need for people with cancer, AIDS, and other serious illnesses who want access to a drug which can help them deal with the symptoms of their illnesses. Of course, all of us in this body are opposed to illegal drug use, and those of us who are voting ``no'' on this amendment are strongly opposed to illegal drugs. I hope there is no question about that. We are also against the use of Federal law to make criminals of terminally ill people who are trying to use a proven remedy to seek relief. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventative Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association all support access to marijuana for medicinal purposes. Voters in my home State passed an initiative in November 1996 authorizing seriously ill patients to take marijuana on the recommendation of a licensed physician. Proposition 215 has authorized as many as 11,000 Californians who suffer from AIDS and many other debilitating diseases with safe and legal access to a remedy that makes life a little more bearable. Thousands of constituents in my district struggling with AIDS and cancer will tell us that choosing the appropriate medical treatment should be a decision for public health officials, physicians and patients, not for the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Barr amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of safe and secure adoptions for the children of the District of Columbia, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Largent amendment. We in Congress do not have any duty more important that protecting the welfare of children. Why, then, would we deny young people in the District of Columbia the right to have two legal guardians instead of one? There are 3,100 children in the District foster care system, and over 1,000 of them are ready to be adopted. Each of them needs a loving and stable home. This amendment would promote adoptions that are less stable and secure by outlawing joint adoptions by individuals not related by blood or marriage. The sponsor has made it clear that his amendment does not prohibit adoptions by gays or lesbians. Of course it should not. According to the American psychological association, studies comparing children raised by non-gay and gay parents do not identify developmental differences between these two groups of children. But since the amendment do not prohibit these adoptions, the logic of the proposals is difficult to grasp. If gay or lesbian couples are going to be adopting children, shouldn't we want those adoptions to be as stable and secure as possible? What purpose do we serve by making these adoptions more precarious? What is really at play here is a lack of comfort with fully affirming lesbian and gay adoptions and lesbian and gay families. And what is sad is that some members of Congress would ignore the scientific evidence and allow their own lack of comfort to stand in the way of secure family placement of children. I ask you--in light of the evidence and the overwhelming need, do we have a right to stand in the way of making adoption placements as stable and secure as possible? Are we acting on behalf of children, or our own prejudices? Both the child Welfare League of America and the Children's Defense Fund oppose this dangerous amendment because they recognize that children in the District deserve the most stable homes we can find for them. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Largent amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished ranking member has pointed out the sad tale about the cases of AIDS in Washington, D.C. One-half of all AIDS cases in children are a result of injection drug use by a parent. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues if they would spend 10 cents to spare the suffering of a child with HIV AIDS. In San Francisco we have reduced to zero, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) mentioned, the transmission rate from mother to child because of the needle exchange program and outreach to pregnant moms. In Baltimore, Dr. Beilenson has told us there are 1,000 people, because of the needle exchange program, who are off drugs now. As far as the hepatitis C argument, it does not apply in this case. Last year, Dr. Varmus, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Satcher were among the scientists who signed a letter saying we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs reduce transmission. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to save a child's life. Vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment. One-half of all AIDS cases in children are the result of injection drug use by a parent. Would you spend ten cents to spare a child the suffering of AIDS. In San Francisco we have reduced to zero the transmission rate from mother to child because of the needle exchange program and outreach to pregnant moms. That is our experience. As for the science, last year, leading scientists issued a statement on needle exchange programs. The signers included Dr. Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize winner and director of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and Dr. David Satcher, our Surgeon General. They wrote: After reviewing all of the research, we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs. The Tiahrt amendment tramples on the ability of D.C. residents to govern themselves. A vote against this amendment is not a vote for needle exchange. Have the courage to save a child's life--vote ``no'' on Tiahrt.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and just in protecting the rights of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), when we are talking about a subsequent time, so that he knows, will this debate on his amendment begin, the proceedings, at 4 o'clock on Monday; is that the correct understanding?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would it be agreeable to all sides if we went 10 minutes on each side, finished it tonight, took the votes, went home and took the rest on Monday?

Ms. PELOSI. No, 10 minutes each.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?