Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) did not have an additional amendment. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI. Therefore, say, for example, if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) had an amendment and he wanted that to be heard on Monday when we reconvene, he would have to be on this piece of paper, or can we make additional----

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant minority leader.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2605). This amendment addresses two provisions in the bill where Committee language would result in threatening the progress being made to protect wetland areas and the wildlife they shelter. The amendment would address two issues by: --striking the reporting requirement for the Corps --striking the appeal of wetlands designations prior to completion of the permitting process Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army oppose these provisions in the bill. EPA's letter states: Both provisions will significantly impair the Administration's ability to provide fair and effective protection for the nation's critical wetlands resources. The Army summarizes its opposition by stating: The Administration strongly objects to a provision that would short-circuit the review process for wetlands jurisdictional determination by making the review of these initial decisions appealable to the Federal courts prior to a final permit decision. Although the Administration supports the creation of an administrative review process for these determinations, the bill would generate unnecessary and premature litigation, set back efforts to ensure a fair and amicable resolution of potential disputes, and undermine the ability of citizens and communities to participate on an equal footing in the permit process. These are letters from the people in charge of this process; individuals who are considered experts and intensely involved in balancing the interests of appropriate development environmental protection. The language in the bill destroys the unique balance that is necessary to protect our nation's wetlands and, instead, tilts the scales toward development of these areas. When we have threatened or endangered species, there are laws with the specific purpose of safeguarding our natural identity. The same criteria should be applied to guard against exceptions for wetlands development. These areas are diminishing; we know that. Given that knowledge, our focus should be on taking extraordinary steps to protect extraordinary areas. I urge my colleagues to support the Visclosky amendment and to keep in place the necessary protections intended to protect and preserve precious wetlands which are retreating at an alarming rate from our natural landscape. Vote yes on the Visclosky amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a champion for human rights throughout the world and at home.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a champion of human rights; and also, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield control of the time back to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a person who has been a faithful trooper in the fight for human rights throughout the world and a great leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a champion of human rights, particularly in the New Independent States and in eastern and central Europe, and a champion throughout the world for human rights.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry about how much time is remaining in the debate.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have to husband the time very carefully because we proudly have so many people who want to come to the floor today to speak on behalf of human rights in China, fair trade for the United States, and a safer world. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the President must request a special waiver to grant what is now called normal trade relations to China. He must request a special waiver for normal trade relations to China. What we are not here about today is to isolate China or any discussion of it. So anyone who is on the other side of this issue who wishes to characterize those of us who want to help the Chinese people as isolating them do a grave disservice to the debate. The issue is not whether bringing this issue every year is productive or constructive or has improved human rights in China. The issue before this body is: Is the present policy, the Bush-Clinton China policy, working? We were told when they delinked trade and human rights that it would lead to improvement in both. Wrong, it has led to failure in both. Now we are calling this normal trade relations because we changed the name last year. There have been all kinds of name changes. For example, this policy was called constructive engagement before. It was neither constructive nor true engagement, so then they changed it to a strategic partnership. It was not that either, so now they call it purposeful, principled engagement with our eyes open. Do not take my word for it, it is in their book: Purposeful, principled engagement with our eyes open. Mr. Speaker, that is a refreshing change from with our eyes closed, blinded to the atrocities in China and the unfair trade practices and the proliferation of weapons. And I am just waiting for next year when I think maybe it will be called purposeful, principled engagement with China with our eyes wide open and the wax cleaned out of our ears. Because then, maybe then, the administration and the proponents of this absolute concession to China, maybe then with the wax cleaned out of their ears, they will hear the pleadings of the monks and nuns in Tibet who have been tortured for decades by the People's Liberation Army. They will hear them over the sound of the army of lobbyists here in Washington, D.C. here to lobby on this issue. And maybe then with the wax out of their ears, they will hear the crying of the Panchen Lama, the baby chosen by His Holiness to be the next Dalai Lama, kidnapped by the regime. And we have said nothing. Maybe then they will hear that baby cry over the clinking of champagne glasses as they toast the abusers of human rights in China. And maybe with the wax out of their ears they will hear the cries of people still in prison for speaking freely. Maybe then they will hear the pleadings of the families and the prisoners still in prison, hundreds of them, for speaking freely in Tiananmen Square, and the thousands who are in jail because of their religious beliefs. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in the Record the statement of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops opposing renewing MFN and in support of this resolution: Department of Social Development and World Peace, Washington, DC, June 30, 1999. Dear Representative: The upcoming vote on extending ``normal trade relations'' status to the People's Republic of China presents the Congress with a significant opportunity and challenge to send an unmistakably clear message about our national concern for the protection of basic human rights. Each time over the past several years when the issue has arisen, it has been our conviction that no Administration has been sufficiently committed to pressing the Chinese authorities on their systemic violations of certain fundamental human rights. Our Conference has focused particularly on the issues of religious freedom and we have repeatedly cited the persecution of religious groups, such as the unregistered Protestant and Catholic churches, and the intrusive interference by the state in the internal life of the ``open'' or recognized churches. The persecution and control of Tibetan Buddhism is especially shameful and known to all. We acknowledge that the present Administration has made efforts to raise these issues with the Chinese authorities, but little, if anything, has changed on the human rights front in these last years of increased engagement. Indeed, the continued detention of religious figures as well as of democracy advocates only point up the necessity for unrelenting official U.S. firmness on issues of human rights and religious freedom. The trade status debate may not be the best forum, but it does offer the Congress an important opportunity to raise the priority of human rights and religious liberty. Therefore, I urge you to send as clear a message as possible by voting to overturn the President's waiver of the relevant sanctions of the 1974 Trade Act. A strong vote to deny MFN/NTS status to China should strengthen the Administration's commitment to putting human rights at the top of the China agenda and send a strong signal that the status quo is not acceptable. Sincerely yours, Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop of Newark, Chairman, International Policy Committee, U.S. Catholic Conference. So, Mr. Chairman, I plead with my colleagues who have voted on the other side of this issue. Ten years is enough. The trade deficit has gone from 3 billion to 56 billion. It will be $67 billion for this year. It has not led to better trade relations, it has not led to more U.S. products going into China. Quite the reverse. A $67 billion trade surplus for the regime to consolidate its power, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues, the human rights violations continue. And this past week, they have arrested between 10 and 20,000 people for the practice of their self-help, for their own self-help group. Ten to 20,000 people, no food, no water. Do not give the regime a waiver to abuse human rights, abuse trade practices, and proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Vote for the Rohrabacher amendment. This is not normal.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a hard worker for human rights throughout the world and a star in the freshman class. (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been so very hard at work on behalf of human rights in China and a fair deal for the American worker. (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just take a moment to respond to some comments I have heard here today. First, we are here to complain about a policy that does not work. To those who say that the trade will lead to human rights, this trickle- down notion, this trickle-down liberty notion has not worked. So we do not want to start a trade war with China. I am going to tell my colleagues why that is not going to happen. First of all, though I want to recognize once again that the name has been changed from Most Favored Nation status to Normal Trade Relations, and that the name was not changed to protect the innocent. The human rights violations continue. As we speak, the regime that we want to hand $67 billion to is rounding up people for their freedom of expression in China. On the trade issue, here is the item: $71 billion. So if we threaten to revoke MFN or NTR, whatever colleagues want to call it, the Chinese are not going to walk away. Where are they going to sell 71 billion dollars' worth of goods? They cannot. The same threat that the administration used on intellectual property violations should apply here. So they are not going any place with 72 billion dollars' worth of goods. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for reminding me of his other question that he expressed earlier. The leverage that we have in this debate, and that is why we bring it up every year, is that of course we are always hopeful that, as people open their eyes, they will open them up further and see that the policy is not working. But one of the benefits of bringing it to the floor has always been that, when most favored nation status was in doubt, when Democrats, before we had a Democratic President, were voting against most favored nation status for China, and when it was in doubt, each year, the Chinese Government would release prisoners leading up to the time of the debate. Chinese prisoners have said to us that their conditions improved markedly at a time when they thought the most favored nation status was in doubt. The very minute that MFN was delinked and then the vote became less, shall we say, of a message to Beijing and the Clinton administration, then the Chinese knew that they could proceed with impunity, and they no longer have to make any concessions to anyone, because they have known what Members of Congress have told me in this body. It does not matter what China does, we will never support sanctions on China. How can that be? But it is. So that is what is lost in all of this is the prospect for a change in policy, always improve the conditions for the prisoners, lead to the release of some prisoners. But that idea that MFN or NTR, whatever my colleagues want to call it, is in doubt, that is gone. So the Chinese now say to the moderates among them, we do not have to do anything. And they do not. That is the tragedy. I used to say of President Bush, he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to send a message to the Chinese about what our policy should be and what our values were in terms of human rights, in terms of our own economy, and in terms of our interest in national security. President Clinton has followed that path, although we were hopeful that he might not. So that is what is lost on this. If I may say if, God willing it will not happen, but if this body ever entertains the notion of permanent MFN for China, we would be surrendering all leverage in terms of trade, proliferation, and human rights. Indeed, the biggest tool that the trade representative has in the negotiations on the World Trade Organization is permanent MFN. Certainly that should never happen until the situation is very changed in China. But all of these notions about trade, increasing this, this, and this will only happen if the regime will allow it. What is happening, instead, is that the regime is emboldened and enriched by a $60 billion per year in the trade surplus. I might say, in the Clinton years alone, over $300 billion of surplus by the end of this year to the Chinese regime. There must be a better way. There must be a better way. But we are squandering all of our leverage in order to meet the lobbying efforts of the exporting elites in whose interest it is. I went back and got this book because it is a resource book from the Chamber of Commerce. What is interesting to me is they talk about all the good things that will spring from normal trade relations with China. They have been singing this tune for 10 years that I know of at least, and it is all will, will, will, will. It is not about have or is benefiting U.S. So they have been squandering our leverage on the come, on what they hope will come sometime down the road in this great mirage, without a great deal to show for it in the present. Here is the book, and it says, on page after page, will trade with China, will build a brighter future for America, will power the future of America's high-tech industry, will drive America's automobile industry, will help raise U.S. exports, will help beef up American exports. And it goes on and on like that, and I keep thinking when is it ever going to occur to them that they have been singing this song too long. What fascinates me even more is that people buy it. But I guess hope springs eternal. In any event, let us give this policy a chance that says, of course we want to have engagement with China, but with our eyes open, truly, and not some new name that will change tomorrow on a policy that has not been successful and has been bipartisan in its failure.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for calling this Special Order tonight. I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others I know who want to participate to talk about the issue of Normal Trade Relations with China, formerly known as Most Favored Nation status with China. I guess I will start off with that point. The name has been changed, and not to protect the innocent. This policy, our U.S.-China policy has had more names. It has been called constructive engagement, strategic partnership, and now, most recently, principled purposeful engagement with our eyes wide open. Can Members imagine, that is what the administration calls its policy towards China. It has to remove all doubt that our eyes are wide open on this policy, lest someone think that we must be turning a blind eye to what China is doing in terms of trade, proliferation, and human rights, because indeed, only by turning a blind eye could one formulate this purposeful, so-called principled engagement with eyes wide open, because the policy has been a complete failure. There are three areas of concern, as my colleagues have pointed out: Human rights, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China, and the trade issue. My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) very eloquently opened his remarks by talking about the young man before the tank. He talked about the young people who echoed the words of our Founding Fathers. Many of those, indeed, hundreds of them, are still in prison for speaking out freely for democratic reform 10 years ago, at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Thousands of people are in prison in China for practicing their religion. Hundreds of thousands are in reform through labor camps for reeducation by the Chinese. Mr. Speaker, just this past week over 10,000 people were arrested by the Chinese for practicing Falun Gong, their belief system, and whether we agree with it or not, it is not up to us to decide on someone else's religion or their spirituality, but it is inappropriate, it is wrong, and we as a country should be speaking out when any country detains 10,000 people for wanting to freely associate and believe in something. I will go into that a little more if I have time, but having touched on the human rights issue, and I will talk about the proliferation issue in a moment, I want to talk now about the trade issue. What has distinguished this coalition that we have to oppose MFN for China, or now called normal trade relations with China, again a name change, is the fact that each year the President must request a special waiver in order for China to get whatever we want to call this special trade treatment that it receives. It is special for them because they do not have a market economy, and therefore, the President must request a special waiver. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a resolution to deny the waiver, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Let me tell them why. Just on the basis of trade alone, how can we think about giving China normal trade relations when China does not give us any such thing? We have heard the statistics that in 1998, the trade deficit was about $58 billion with China. It is higher this year. Over $1 billion a week, over $1 billion a week, is lost because of China's unfair trade practices. I wanted to call to my colleagues' attention, when the business community comes around, and indeed they do, to tell us how trade with China has grown, I want to show my colleagues just how it has grown. It has not grown so much in terms of exports to China. In fact, our exports to China are practically stagnating, the increase is so minuscule. However, on the imports from China, the increase is so staggering as to to be overwhelming, as be beyond explanation. When we started this debate around the time of Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit for that year was going to be $6 billion. For this year, it will be over $67 billion. What is missing in this picture? Who are the mad geniuses who have said that if we give MFN to China year in and year out, our trade will increase? Yes, indeed, it has, our imports from China, not our exports to China. Our exports to China are important. As I said earlier, this is an odd coalition that we have going here, people who have not agreed on other points. By and large, I represent a city built on trade. I have voted for fast track under President Bush and NAFTA under President Clinton and the rest. But something is very wrong about a policy that allows a country to do this. Let me read what is considered to be normal by those advocates for the Chinese regime. They think it is normal, and do Members think it is normal, when the U.S. trade deficit is surging every year, again, as I said, over $67 billion in 1999, is it normal that China continues to maintain barriers to U.S. goods and services entering the Chinese market, including high tariffs, pervasive non-tariff barriers and non-transparent barriers, non-transparent trade rules and regulations, restrictions on trading and distribution rights, restrictive government procurement practices, and restrictions on investment? I enumerate those because every possible way that we could gain something in trading with China is restricted to us. Is it normal that China continues to pirate U.S. intellectual property to the tune of about $2.5 billion in lost sales in 1998? That is not from me, that is from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. And China continues to utilize forced labor for production of exports to the United States, in violation of U.S. law. Is it normal that China demands technology transfer? And therein lies the biggest danger to our own economy's future. China demands a technology transfer. That is our intellectual property, too, our know- how. That is what we tell the American worker is our economic competitive advantage in the international markets. Yet, China is demanding that that technology be transferred to China. So if we want to sell products in China, we must produce them there, okay? So that is production transfer. That is one thing. But technology transfer says, and besides, you have to give us all of your designs on what you are making. Now we are your major competitor for our own market. You can produce in China, but that, Mr. Chairman, will have to be to export to another country. We are saving the Chinese market for the Chinese manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, to compare this trade relationship, which is unfair in every respect, let us see what the trade deficit would be in a free marketplace, but do not restrict U.S. products going into China having high barriers, and then say that this is going to lead to human rights in China, it is going to lead to all these good things, when it is not even leading to a decent balance of payments for the United States. I just wanted to point out to my colleague another point. That is, all of this hoop-de-doo about all of the trade with China, just let us talk about the exports, again. China has 1.2 billion people. Now, many, many of them are poor, and I always support assistance for basic human needs for poor people in China. So this is not about the Chinese people, it is about the Chinese regime. The Chinese regime, which controls many of the industries in China, to China we export 2.8 percent of our exports. Now, look over here. Belgium has 10 million people, 10 million people. We export 3.3 percent of our exports to Belgium. It is 3.3 to Belgium, 10 million people, and 2.8 to China, 1.2 billion people. Let us look at Taiwan. They have 20 million people. We export 4.1 percent of our exports to Taiwan. Get it? It is not about free trade, it is about barriers to products made in America going into China. Opponents, those who oppose our efforts tomorrow will say that we want to isolate China, and to vote for the Rohrabacher amendment is to isolate China. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, those who say that, and some of them in the highest places in our government, do a grave disservice to the issue by trying to caricaturize it that way. We certainly do not want to isolate China. Especially we do not want to isolate the Chinese people. The answer to every problem practically in our relationship with China is that the situation would be better if China were more democratic, if the people of China were able to choose their form of government, their form of worship, their form of assembly, their freedom of speech. The issue of Taiwan certainly would be better if China were more democratic. The issue of doing business in China would be better if China had rule of law. The issue of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states I think would be improved, too. On that point I will close my remarks. The administration and others who rationalize their support for a purposeful principled engagement with our eyes wide open will tell us that China is helping us on some very strategic issues worldwide. For instance, they will say that China is helping to stabilize South Asia. Oh, really? China is not trying to stabilize South Asia, China has mobilized Pakistan. Without the cooperation of the Chinese, the Pakistanis would not have the missile and other dangerous technologies that they have, and they continue to assist them, the Pakistanis. There is absolutely no question about that. So that has added to the instability in South Asia. Every time they agreed to stop doing it, they said they did not do it, they would stop doing it, would not do it anymore, and continued to do it. That started in the Bush years and continued in the Clinton years. Now we have them saying, those who support this policy, saying they are helping us with North Korea, to stop their missile development program. Either they are not trying very hard or they have failed to intercede, or they are not very effective. But in any case, North Korea is proceeding apace with its missile program, and not only that, they are selling to Pakistan technologies that they have received from China. So this is not about how they are helping us in North Korea. If they were helping in North Korea, it would be in their own interest, anyway. We do not have to bribe them by ignoring their human rights abuses in order for them to do what is right as far as North Korea is concerned, if they are a responsible so-called strategic partner. They still continue to make the Persian Gulf area a very dangerous neighborhood. We all know that we have a national interest in the Persian Gulf because of oil. We went to war because of that. Our young people are still in the Persian Gulf. When they are, they are looking right at missile technology, C-801 and C-802, sold to the Iranians by the Chinese, and other dangerous technology as well. So I think that our policy with any country should be to make the trade fairer, to make the people freer, and to make the world safer. On all three of these scores this policy has failed. So what we are asking our colleagues to do is, we know most-favored- nation status, so-called normal trade relations, is not going to be revoked. The President would never allow that to happen. But what we can do tomorrow is to send a message to Beijing that the people in prison have not been forgotten, that we are not stupid when it comes to our own trade relationships. Even though the exporting elites run the show around here, there are some people who can add. Then, in terms of proliferation, our national security is at stake, and that we know what they are saying is not true, and they can blame it on whomever they want, but their government is either responsible for the proliferation, or else they are not capable of signing an agreement about proliferation. But somehow or other, they must be responsible or unaccountable, but they cannot be both at one time. That is why I was so pleased that my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) extended the invitation to speak about this issue a little more at length that we will have on the floor tomorrow. Let us remove all doubt, this is not about isolating China, it is about pro engagement with the people of China; that we do not accept the premise that increased trade will lead to more personal freedoms, more democratic freedoms in China. For 10 years they have been singing that song, and it has not worked. And in any event we do not subscribe to a principle of trickle-down liberty, anyway. What we want is a brilliant future with China economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, in every way. That can only happen when China treats its people with the respect that they deserve, and then we will have an engagement that is sustainable of our national values, sustainable of our own economy, and sustainable of international security. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, picking up on what the gentleman from Ohio said, he reminded me that we were willing to raise an Army to redress human rights violations in Yugoslavia, and now we will not, they do not want us to raise a tariff to protect human rights in China, and indeed criticize us for raising our voices against China. The fact is that the policy has failed. They have to blame it on someone, so they say we keep bringing this up so we are demonizing China. No, we are not. In the words of Harry Truman, ``I am not giving them hell. I am just describing it, and it seems like hell.'' We are not demonizing them. We are just telling it the way it is. If that sounds bad, that is not our fault. That is what is going on there. I did want to call to the attention of our colleagues the letter from the Department of Social Development and World Peace of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, which was sent to all Members asking for them to vote against the special waiver and in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) tomorrow. I also wanted to call to the attention of our colleagues just in terms of expression of religion that the Falung Gong, imagine any other country in the world, if 10,000 people were arrested in the week, what the clamor would be on the floor of Congress and what the White House would be saying about our values and the rest of that, but it is practically ignored. Because money speaks so loudly, it is so deafening that people cannot hear these cries. But we want the government in Beijing, we want them to get the message that this action has been noticed, that these people will not be forgotten. Many of the messages that we are receiving are that the Falung Gong members had no food, no drink, no medical attention for 5 days. They are in a very difficult situation. I received this letter from my district, the Bay area Chinese newspaper today in the San Francisco Bay area reported that China has arrested 1,200 party officials and is forcing them to read the guidelines of the party and to abandon the Falung Gong practice. They are sending them to these reeducation schools, all of them in the same place, to reindoctrinate them. So it is they who are so cowardly because they are so frightened. The regime is so frightened because they have no legitimacy. Their power springs from the barrel of a gun, and that is where it is. So the peaceful evolution that the gentleman from Ohio described of economic reform leading to political reform can only happen, and sometimes does happen, if it is allowed to happen. But if it is perceived as an evil, as it is in China, and it is prevented from happening, then the consequences to those who want to speak out more democratically will obviously be repressed, as they have been a couple of hundred of pro-democracy people wanting to form other democratic parties in China have been arrested at the same time as this Falung Gong arrests have been taking place. So the situation that the gentleman from Ohio describes in the country report of the State Department, China, Yugoslavia, Tibet, Kosovo is so similar. Now I do not want anybody declaring war on anybody. I mean, violence to me should be obsolete. But the fact is, if we are going to have any respect for our moral authority, any respect for our values, we have to have some level of consistency and at least on how we speak out and how we use our leverage, our incredible over $60 billion leverage this year to promote democratic themes which will benefit, not only the people of China, but the people of the world.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield on that point. I just want to add this further point, and that is that the trade representative herself has said if a country does not want to comply with the World Trade Organization regulations, there is really not much we can do about it. And China has really received the message from the world that nobody is going to step up to the plate, because the too-big-to-fail doctrine is in effect. All the countries want their piece of the trade. Of course they are buying. China is buying from them; they are selling to us. They take the money they make on our trade, go buy stuff in other countries, win their political support in all the other world bodies, diminishing anything we could possibly do in a multilateral body in terms of human rights or other issues. So the World Trade Organization only will work if the members coming in are of good faith. An economy as big as China's coming into the WTO, which refuses to play by the rules, if that country refuses to play by the rules, can wreck the WTO and wreck some of the western democratic economies as well, and that is really serious. But we are in this immediate gratification stage for certain businesses in America. There is nothing long term about values, our economy or international security.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

Ms. PELOSI. Further seeking clarification, when the gentleman says recognizing that Members of the Committee on Ways and Means in both parties agree or disagree on this, does that mean that only a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the majority or minority party can control the time?

Ms. PELOSI. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, could the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) clarify the intent of this unanimous consent regarding the distribution of debatable time?

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment, with great respect for the maker of this amendment but in complete disagreement, because it would eliminate funding for international family planning under the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and to support the Campbell-Maloney amendment. The Smith amendment, if enacted, would punish women and families around the world in a misguided effort to affect China's family planning program. I do not understand why the poorest women on this planet, year in and year out, must be held hostage to the conservative politics of the Republican party. And I say that, as I say, with respect for the individuals involved here. We should ask, who suffers from the Smith amendment? The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 600,000 women die each year of pregnancy and child-birth related causes. Nearly all of these women are in developing countries. The UNFPA funds program to reduce this mortality and related health problems. Women around the world, particularly impoverished women, will be harmed by this amendment. I understand my colleagues' concern about some of the horrible practices in China. That is why this amendment says that any funds used in China by UNFPA will be deducted from the UNFPA. None of us, none of us, support forced abortions or forced sterilizations. The Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment addresses these concerns by specifically banning U.S. funds from being spent in China. Furthermore, it requires that for every dollar that UNFPA spends in China, America's contribution will be reduced, as I have mentioned. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I follow closely the human rights violations in China. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is a leader on that subject, and I support what he wants to do about China. And that is what we do in the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment. While current law already bans U.S. funding for abortions or abortion services, to once and for all overcome any misunderstanding, this amendment once again reiterates that prohibition of U.S. funding for abortions. We should note that UNFPA is already on record in opposing coercion and UNFPA conforms to universal human rights standards. The UNFPA does not fund abortions nor abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. UNFPA opposes China's one-child-per-family policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and to support the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment. With these legal protections and the tremendous need for family planning efforts around the world, Congress should not block important programs that promote women's safety and health. UNFPA programs work and these programs should be given the opportunity to go forward.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and thank him for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, I want to borrow his chart to show the tragedy of the spread of AIDS from 1987 to 1997. Much of this could have been prevented. We cannot talk about commerce and the economic situation in Africa without talking about HIV and AIDS. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for years I have urged the administration to address the issue of AIDS in the developing world. I thank gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has worked on this issue from the perspective of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to make the AIDS issue a top item on the G-7 and G-8 agenda. If they are dealing with the economies of the developing world, they must deal with the issue of AIDS. There have been success stories in Africa. Uganda is one of them. So we must cooperate with Africa on the AIDS issue. We will do so in the spirit of this sense of the Congress. I wish this could be a stronger amendment and have the power of law. We must make it have the force of law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.