Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this very, very important issue. Certainly we all support the spirit of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, and I also commend the maker of H.R. 1691 for bringing it to the floor. In its current form, however, the bill could undermine existing civil rights laws. We do need the Religious Liberty Protection Act. But, as I say, it could also, in its present form, undermine ongoing efforts to extend much-needed legal protections to currently unprotected and deserving individuals who suffer discrimination. While the Religious Liberty Protection Act was designed to protect an individual's exercise of religion from the overreach of government, law, and regulation, I believe this act would itself overreach and could undermine laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, and parental status. If this law passes without the Nadler amendment, individuals with disabilities, unmarried cohabitating couples, and single mothers could face more legal discrimination. We would all, I think, oppose a measure that would allow an individual to use his or her religious exercise rights as a basis for legal claim to circumvent civil rights laws. I do not think there is any argument about that. We would, none of us, ever permit this rationale to be used to permit discrimination on any basis of race against African Americans or Asian Americans. Yet, discrimination clearly and harshly continues against other individuals and groups. If the issue were race, we would not be having this debate. We would all stipulate that that discrimination should not take place. This same principle should apply to these populations that could be adversely affected. That is why the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, the American Association of Pediatricians seek a civil rights solution to this bill. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) offers that. I think that we must support the underlying bill, if and only if the Nadler amendment passes. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Horn amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to increase funding for the NEA and the NEH by $10 million each. In doing so, I too want to pay tribute to our former colleague, Sid Yates. Everyone who enjoys the arts in America owes a great debt of gratitude to Sid Yates. We miss him. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is doing a good job in managing his first bill and of course it is with great admiration and respect for the chairman of the subcommittee that I respectfully disagree with him and in support of this amendment. Next I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership as head of the Arts Caucus in the Congress. This is a very, very important part of our congressional agenda and it is one that deserves a great deal of attention from Members. We are all in her debt for the time and the commitment she has given to the arts on behalf of everyone in America and on behalf of her colleagues. Mr. Chairman, the poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for the moral good is imagination. In the challenges that our young people face today, they need all the imagination that they can get. The exposure to the arts that they get through the NEA helps them build confidence in their classwork, honors their creativity and it is just good for their personal enrichment as well as their ability to earn a living later. The increase that is requested in the President's budget for the NEA will enable the NEA to implement its Challenge America initiative. Challenge America would ensure that increased funding would go directly to underserved populations in order to increase participation and exposure to the arts by focusing on arts education and broadening access to the arts, afterschool programming for young people at risk, preservation of cultural heritage, and building strong community-based arts partnerships. Again, encouraging imagination. Bringing the arts to the center of community life through partnerships with arts organizations, school districts, chambers of commerce, social service agencies, city parks departments, tourism and convention bureaus and State arts agencies is a crucial part of the agency's mission and of the Challenge America initiative. Federal support for the arts is necessary to ensure that broad access is possible for people of all economic backgrounds and in all regions of the country. Today, arts agencies in 50 States and six territories receive Federal funding through the NEA to support the arts. Over the last three decades, the NEA has substantially increased arts activities in every State in this country. We have talked about building confidence, we have talked about the arts being a bridge to greater academic achievement and what that means in a young person's life. The gentleman from Washington cited some examples in his experience. I just wanted to convey to my colleagues my experiences, I will just do one example, though, of town meetings I have had in areas of our community which would fall into the category served by Challenge America, underserved populations. In those communities where crime is a big issue and unemployment is a fact of life, the parents who come to my town meetings say to me, ``Please, please, please do not cut the arts programs in our schools.'' This is the one source of encouragement, the one place where our children gain confidence, the one place where they express themselves freely. We must retain it. It is interesting, because one would think that these parents would start talking about other issues relating to crime or to joblessness or other concerns that challenge the community. But they see and recognize how fundamental the arts are to the self-fulfillment of their children and how indeed through imagination they can attack some of the problems that they face in society and that they will face as they grow older. Again echoing the words of the poet Shelley, imagination is the greatest force for moral good. Let us support imagination. Support the Slaughter-Horn amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 244, congratulating the U.S. women's national soccer team for winning the 1999 Women's World Cup. Their achievement is something in which all Americans can take pride. On July 10, the U.S. women's national soccer team played the Chinese national women's soccer team to a scoreless draw after 90 minutes of regulation and 30 minutes of overtime. The match pitted two extremely well-balanced and talented teams against each other and while both teams' defenses held the other scoreless, all spectators were treated to a fast-paced and exciting match. The success of the U.S. team is the clear result of Title IX, the 1972 law banning sex discrimination in schools, including discrimination in athletics. All of the players on the U.S. team are the children of Title IX and now all Americans can enjoy their success and the success of that landmark legislation. I am proud to live in a country that has given women the ability to play in an event that has become the most successful women's sporting event in history. Over 90,000 fans attended the final, the largest attendance ever for a women's sporting event and the game received a 13.3 rating, a national record for a soccer match. In addition, the nearly month-long event sold over 650,000 tickets, far exceeding organizer's initial expectations. As one of the host cities, San Francisco and its citizens participated in the excitement surrounding the 1999 Women's World Cup. I join the citizens of San Francisco in congratulating the U.S. women's national soccer team on attaining their second World Cup and wish them success in the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, people from my district in San Francisco come to visit my office wanting to talk about their personal battle against disease. They include parents of children with juvenile diabetes, women fighting a breast cancer diagnosis, families of people with Parkinson's, and people struggling with HIV disease and AIDS. They come to talk about different problems, but speak with one resounding voice about how they want Congress to respond. Their message to me, and to all of us, is that funding for the National Institutes of Health must be doubled over five years. My colleagues, we must heed their message and continue to increase NIH funding to achieve this goal. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education, I strongly supported last year's $2 billion, or 15%, increase in the research budget at the NIH, bringing total funding to $15.6 billion. And this year, I am an original cosponsor of H. Res. 89, legislation that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that NIH funding should be increased by another $2 billion in fiscal year 2000. I support these increases because I believe we are on the verge of making great leaps ahead in our ability to treat and prevent a wide range of diseases. Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of NIH, has testified before the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee that, ``discoveries are occurring at an unprecedented pace in biology and medicine, presaging revolutionary changes in medical practice during the next decade.'' We have a responsibility to take advantage of this enormous opportunity to advance science, fight disease, and save and prolong life. There are many success stories to point to at NIH and many challenges that lie ahead, including eliminating health disparities, reinvigorating clinical research, finding cures and vaccines for hundreds of diseases including malaria, cancer and HIV, and mapping the human genome and making in accessible to scientists across the world. As Dr. Varmus testified this year, ``Throughout the world, the NIH is considered the leading force in mankind's continuing war against disease.'' Our wise investment in NIH is paying off. We must enter the new millennium investing in science that can unlock secrets of human disease and human health, and change our world for the better. I urge my colleagues to support a doubling in NIH funding over five years.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo recently spoke to the National Italian American Foundation as part of its Congressional Lunch Series. Andrew Cuomo is a model for those who would serve the nation, and while he comes from a distinguished family, he has already made his own indelible mark on our society. His remarks were filled with humor and passion about family and culture, discrimination and opportunity, and the economic success so many communities are enjoying today. Andrew Cuomo also spoke eloquently about helping all Americans share in that success, so that our nation can truly be its best. It is with great pleasure that I ask for this transcript of Secretary Cuomo's remarks to NIAF to be entered into the Congressional Record. Remarks by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF), June 15, 1999 It is a pleasure to be with NIAF once again. They are a great organization telling the truth about the Italian- Americans. The President just released our new State of the Cities report. I think it frames a few issues, that--as this is a policy forum--would be a good stepping off point. The State of the Cities report says basically two things. It says first there is a great apparent success story that is this nation, and one that we should celebrate because it is true: this is the strongest economy in history. It breaks all sorts of records. The President relishes that fact, the Vice President relishes that fact, the Congress relishes that fact and we all should, because it is true. But it is not at the same time the only reality. There is another reality for people and places that are left behind in the new economy. Their reality of failure is as stark as the other reality of success, and it is also more painful as a reality. So you have a time where you have this great economic success. Eighteen million new jobs, lowest peace time unemployment since I was born 41 years ago, crime down, poverty down, welfare down--that is one story of America. But there is also another story. A story of those places that are left behind where three out of five people aren't even in the stock market--so they don't celebrate when you go to 10,000 or 11,000. Yes, you have more millionaires than ever before, but you also have the greatest income inequality in over 20 years. You have the highest homeownership rate in history--66.7 percent--but you also have 600,000 homeless Americans, at the same time that you have the highest home ownership rate. So you have two very accurate realities, both stark in their own way--both a story of success and a story of failure. The paradox, however, is in many ways antithetical to what we believe in as a nation and what is in the long term health of this nation. You cannot survive, you cannot flourish with those disparities, with those polarities. It is especially true in the cities, as the report goes on to point out. The numbers are staggering. Most of the cities are doing well and I do not mean cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. I mean cities quite large, if you look at the 900 cities in the nation. Most of them are doing very well--about one-third of them are either smaller, poorer, or have higher unemployment. The strong cities, the cities that have done well in the transition to the new economy, are doing very, very well. The cities that have been trailing are falling farther and farther behind. You can see the story in the numbers, or you can just go down here to Anacostia in Washington, D.C. and drive through Anacostia and you will see the story. Or you can drive through parts of the South Bronx or through parts of Watts in LA and you will see the same story. Or go visit a public housing project. Pass by Cabrini-Green in Chicago and the situation is as bad as it has ever been. Talk about the Dow Jones index and they won't know what you are talking about. And if you look at the conditions and you feel the pain in the hallways you see how hollow our success truly is. The statistics tell one story, the lives tell a different story. Well, what do we do about it? This is not an overly complicated problem. We don't need to do any fancy studies to determine what to do. We just need to look at what we were taught originally. For me, the model was my grandfather Andrea Cuomo--I was named for him, Andrew--Andrea Cuomo, a little man, 5 ft. 6, 155 pounds dripping wet with change in his pockets, but he knew what needed to be done. The very concepts that he talked about--and I can hear his voice today, God Bless him--are still the concepts that we have to strive for. He would talk about this land as a land of justice, justice was so important to him. He would talk about this as a land of opportunity. Opportunity for all, opportunity for all, he would keep saying. We have to get back to those core principles and make them happen because they are not yet a reality. We need ``opportunity for all'' translated into what we are talking about in this town. You need economic development measures that get jobs back to cities. 84 percent of all new jobs over the past two years were created in suburbs--84 percent. The cities are losing the jobs. As you lose the jobs you will lose the people and you can not sustain it. Opportunity for all. Everybody should work, but that means there has to be a job there. It is hollow rhetoric to opine that welfare was no good and we really have made people work. One problem: Where are the jobs? Where is the training? Where is the day care? Where is the transportation? If you look at what the economy is doing, it is pulling the jobs from the people and places who need it most. We can correct that, we know we can correct it. We do it very well--we have economic development incentives, we can use the tax code, we can use grants, we can get the jobs back to where we need them. We have to do it. We have to fix the education system. Why? Because the education system was the insurer of opportunity for all. The public education system was the great equalizer, it said you can come from anywhere but you go to our public education system and if you work hard you can wind up being Mario Cuomo or Colin Powell or Bill Clinton--all from the public education system. We are losing that. When people get up and give speeches and say there is a crisis in education in this nation they forget the second part, there is not a crisis in education in this nation. If you are rich you get the best education on the planet in this country. If you are poor and cannot afford a private school or you are from a poorer school district, then you get a substandard education and you never catch up. The education system in this country is moving to two education systems--one for the rich side of town, one for the poor side of town. Go into the richer suburban school districts in the first grade, they'll show you that they put the child on the Internet in the first grade. You go to the same town, the poor school, they don't even have a basketball net. In first grade they will put them at computers with Pentium Processors--but in poor schools the most sophisticated piece of electronic equipment is the metal detector that they walk through on their way to the classroom. That is not opportunity for all. We are 19th out of 21 in 12th grade math and science. The countries we beat were Cyprus and South Africa. That is not a formula for long-term global economic dominance. We need health care because that's opportunity for all. Healthcare: you have 43 million uninsured, 11 million children uninsured. We need housing because that is part of providing the platform for people to do for themselves. With a strong economy, a cruel irony: we actually have the greatest need for affordable housing in the nation's history. 5.3 million Americans need affordable housing. What's happening, interestingly, is that the strong economy is driving up the rents. In San Francisco, the economy is so strong the rents are going so high those people who are on the bottom end or on fixed-incomes can't pay the rent. We know how to solve it--subsidize the rent, which is what you did for so many years, build affordable housing. We just have to want to do it. Opportunity for all, provide a safe community. We are doing that with a cops program--lowest crime rate, both property and violence, since 1973. You can do more as soon as we solve this insanity over the gun legislation in this town that's going on now--which I don't understand. Some people say ``well you don't understand it because you are a New Yorker, you are from the northeast, you don't understand the value of guns.'' No, no, I am an educated New Yorker, I have gone hunting up in Maurice Hinchey's district, bird hunting, quail hunting. I did pretty well. And I know this--that if you need an assault weapon to hunt, if your aim is that bad, you should just take up another sport. And I know that children don't need hand guns to hunt and I know the saying which they love to use in rebuttal: ``gun's don't kill people, people kill people.'' No--people with guns kill people, and if we had intelligent legislation to handle guns we would be doing even more. My grandfather would talk about this land of justice, which for him meant that being an Italian American didn't count against you, that the premise of the country was everybody could come--Jews, Italians, Irish, Blacks, Whites it didn't matter. You came and then you did the best you could and under the ``opportunity for all'' agenda they would work with you to make it happen. We still have not reached that. We really haven't. One of the things we do at the Department is Fair Housing. I can't tell you how many cases we see, every day, coast to coast, where discrimination is still alive and well--as ugly, as vulgar as it has ever been. Last year the case in Jasper, Texas where they took an African American man, they chained him to the back of a pickup truck, and they dragged him until he was decapitated. That's America 1999, not 1969. At the cusp of a new millennium with all this economic power, they're still killing people for the color of their skin. We had a case, a Portuguese woman moved into Missouri. First week, they planted a seven-foot cross on her lawn and burned it. Why? Because she was Portuguese--they thought she was African American--and that was their way of saying ``we don't want you here.'' A cemetery in New Jersey. On Rosh Hashana they knocked down all the tombstones in a Jewish cemetery. Discrimination is very much alive and well, and for Italians it's alive and well. Mario Cuomo was thinking about running for national office. At one time we did a few polls: Six percent name recognition of Mario Cuomo. Only 6 percent had heard of his name nationally. Nine percent thought he had connections to the Mafia. Discrimination is alive and well, and my grandfather would talk about the voice of liberty, the voice of liberty, that this country was the voice of liberty. What we did in Kosovo, thank God, was express and communicate the voice of liberty. What we are doing in China--which we should do more of--what we are doing in South Africa--is to keep that voice of liberty strong. Those are the avenues, the agendas, that I think that we have to approach to resolve the dual realities that we are seeing in this nation. Understand the realities, expose them--don't run from them--and then approach them. And I also believe this: That now is the time to do these things. We have a great economic success--let's use it to invest. If we are not going to do these things now, then when are we going to do them? They say the time to fix the hole in the roof is when the sun is shining. Well, now is when the sun is shining. If we don't take these dividends and invest now in Anacostia, when are we going to do it? If we don't now take up the fight for affordable housing now, when are we going to do it? If we don't take up the fight now for healthcare, when are we going to do it? If not now, when? I'll tell you when--never. Because all of the excuses are gone. If this Congress, if this administration doesn't push progressive government it will never happen--because you won't get a better moment than this moment. All the things yelled about for all those years--all the obstacles are stripped away. How many years did we hear about the deficit: ``well we can't do it, we have deficit''. The deficit--the great inheritance of the Reagan administration. Well, the deficit is gone. God bless President Clinton, you have a balanced budget, you are talking about a surplus. ``Well, the government can't do anything.'' Well, the government's reinvented. Confidence in government is at its highest point in 40 years. If we don't do it now when will we do it? If we don't do it now, we will never do it. And that, my friends, is a sin, because we have so much more to do, because the promise that this nation made to my grandfather and your grandfather is not yet fulfilled. They believed--they believed so much so that they came from all over the globe to this country. They got in little boats, they went across great oceans to lands they didn't even know--they didn't know how to speak the language--but the promise was so powerful. Opportunity for all, justice, brotherhood, discrimination against none. We'll help you make it, you will lift us all. And we will work with you to make it as a community. We are not there yet, but we can be. Now is not the time to be complacent. Now is not the time to pat each other on the back and say ``boy oh boy you see how that Dow Jones is doing.'' Now is the time to lock arms and go forward even stronger and harder than before and use this moment. We can do better. We are cheating ourselves if we say, this is all we can do. We are cheating ourselves if we are saying this is the best we can be, we've done it, this is America at its best. This is not America at its best. This is not America at its best. We can do more. Langston Hughes wrote a beautiful poem. I just want to read you a couple of paragraphs from it:

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, as an issue, the flag-desecration amendment is, of course, entirely symbolic. Its sponsors believe that support is, symbolically speaking, tantamount to being a patriotic American. But what is true patriotism in the context of the American experiment? At its heart, I believe, is an abiding tolerance--a tolerance so deep and so pervasive that it easily absorbs all insults. The American saga is, in essence, a tale of ever-expanding realms of acceptance and inclusion. Tolerance of extraordinary diversity is the mystery that lies at the heart of our origins and our destiny, the magnificent quality that renders the American project unique in human experience--diversity in ethnic and religious origins; diversity in language and lifestyle; diversity in aptitude and ambition; and, yes, diversity in behavior, including the bizarre, the distasteful, and even the contemptuous. We Americans are most patriotically American when we display our tolerance of virtually all behavior short, of course, of crimes against people and property. Simply turning away from even such objectional behavior as the burning of the flag is, then, a true test of our tolerance, a measure of our patriotism, a demonstration of our Americanism. E Pluribus Unum!

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I called to the attention of our colleagues the wonderful life and courageous death of Susan Yoachum. No one could better memoralize our loss than Susan's husband Michael Carlson, whose statement I am commending to our colleagues today. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 1999] Grace in the Face of Fear--Susan Yoachum Met Her Death From Cancer as a Hero (By Michael Carlson) It was a public event when my wife, Susan Yoachum, died of breast cancer a year ago today. As political editor of The Chronicle and as a television commenter, she had become a familiar name and face. Her funeral was covered on television, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown ordered city flags to fly at half-staff, and the White House sent a letter of condolence. Susan's struggle with breast cancer had been no less public. She had spoken and written movingly about her ordeal. She wanted to put a human face on a disease that is the No. 1 killer of American women ages 25-55. She hoped that by personalizing breast cancer, more might be done to prevent and cure it. And she wanted to spread the word that early detection--through monthly self-exams and regular mammograms--can increase a woman's chance of survival. My mourning was less public. And I was more private about my reaction to Susan's illness. Recently, I decided to speak out about Susan and her fight with cancer at the invitation of The Breast Cancer Fund, a research, advocacy and patient-support charity that honored Susan at its annual ``Heroes Tribute.'' The idea of heroes and the nature of courage are topics that I have thought about a lot since Susan died. The dictionary defines a hero as a person admired for their courage. I admire Susan for the courage she showed in facing her own death. What she taught me about courage could be the first chapter of my own self-help book, ``All I Need to Know About Living I Learned From How My Wife Chose to Die.'' In addition to everything else she is and was to me, Susan is my personal hero. She did not consider herself courageous and would have been bewildered at being called a hero. She did not consider herself courageous and would have been bewildered at being called a hero. Two days after realizing her cancer had spread, Susan recorded a conversation with her sister-in-law in her journal: ``Patti said last night that she told her friends that I was brave. It sounds so noble and grand that I loved the sound of it at once. Yet I don't feel brave.'' Susan told me she didn't feel brave because cancer and death scared her so much. When she was first diagnosed with cancer in 1991, Susan wrote about her fear: ``I have met younger women with breast cancer and older women with breast cancer. Some are mothers; some are grandmothers; some are executives; some are artists. They are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, rich, poor, bitter, hopeful--but there is one thing that all of us are, and that is sacred.'' Susan was more blunt six years later when her cancer spread. ``I'm scared out of my wits,'' she wrote in 1997. ``It's the kind of fear that makes your blood run cold, the sort of fear that floods in when you lose sight of a child in a crowd.'' Why do I call such a frightened person courageous? Courage has nothing to do with being fearless. ``Usually we think that brave people have no fear. The truth is they are intimate with fear,'' writes Pema Chodron in ``When Things Fall Apart.'' Courageous people are those who persevere in spite of and in the face of their deepest fears. Susan was intimate with fear. Despite that, from 1991 and until her death in 1998, she lived her life with remarkable energy and spirit. She did more than just persevere. She celebrated life. She faced her illness by living as if each day was a gift. She believed that life was to be enjoyed today, now, before time ran out. Susan enjoyed her life immensely and brought happiness to those around her. She fought for those things she thought important, including raising awareness about breast cancer. She continued to write about politics for as long as she could because she thought it was important and because it brought her joy. And Susan had fun. In her words, she inhaled life. That took courage. Although Susan did not consider herself courageous, she understood what she was doing and wrote about it: ``How many times in therapy-kissed California have we heard that the only things we can control are our own responses to what befalls us?'' Susan's response to her fear was ``to make peace with life and death'' and ``to make some peace with the cancer.'' ``It is going to be with me every day,'' she wrote. ``If living with cancer every single day is the price of living . . . it is worth it. I'll pay it. I've been paying it. I will continue to pay it.'' Susan believed that having cancer demanded ``that you try to grab all that you can from life--even more than you thought was there, even more than you thought you could.'' ``Breast cancer is a wake-up call: to cherish the laughter of children, to savor the fragrance of flowers and to feel the majesty of the ocean,'' Susan wrote. When you feel like you're on the cutting edge of life, the sky looks a little more blue, sunsets look a little more red, and the people you love seem a little more dear.'' I now have met numerous women with breast cancer who know exactly what Susan meant. Those women have looked their own demons in the eye and have found the courage to celebrate life. I admire their courage. They are, as Susan was, heroes living among us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, sadly I rise to remind my colleagues that today marks the first anniversary of the passing of Susan Yoachum, one of the most respected political writers in California. Born on May 12, 1955 in Dallas, Texas, Susan Gail Yoachum graduated in 1975 from Southern Methodist University in Dallas with bachelors' degrees in journalism and political science. She was a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, the Independent Journal in Marin County and the San Jose Mercury-News, where she was part of the news team that won a 1990 Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Loma Prieta earthquake. At the Mercury-News she exposed chemical contamination of drinking water in South San Jose, disclosed unsatisfactory medical care for the indigent, and wrote about industrial espionage. She joined the San Francisco Chronicle in 1990. She wrote some of the biggest political stories of the 80's and 90's. She covered national, state, and local politics for the Chronicle. Her assignments included the 1992 presidential campaign, the governor's race in 1990 and 1994, the 1991 San Francisco Mayoral race and the 1992 U.S. Senate race. She also wrote in-depth about issues, from affirmative action to abortion, from tobacco tax to the hazards of toxic chemicals. Susan was promoted to political editor in 1994. Her love of language surfaced at an early age: She become the National Spelling Bee Champion in 1969, winning her title by correctly spelling the word, `interlocutory.'' Susan was renowned for her wonderful wit and sense of humor. In 1992, she was the first to call Democratic Senate candidates Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer the ``Thelma and Louise of American politics.'' She had a passion for politics--the drama, the intrigue and, most important, the effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. She brought an unusual combination of idealism, pragmatism, and skepticism to her work. Last year, when the candidates for California's governorship debated, Susan wrote one last memorable piece of political analysis. ``What I was hoping for, while I've been sidelines by illness, was a discussion of issues and what difference it would make who ends up being elected governor in a time of prosperity,'' she wrote. ``I wanted to see the candidates discuss their plans for schools instead of acting like school bullies in their 30-second ads.'' Susan brought to her fight against breast cancer the same indomitable spirit, tenacity, passion, and humor that served her so well as a political writer. She was called a ``real life Murphy Brown'' for her courage in sharing her personal battle with cancer with hundreds of thousands of readers. But Susan was more than that. Her work has been a lighthouse beam through the fog of local and national politics,'' wrote the Wall Street Journal's Marilyn Chase. ``She stands as a model of professionalism and courage in the workplace. The lesson for colleagues of cancer survivors: Professionalism doesn't disappear with a diagnosis.'' Susan wrote movingly about the 180,000 women who get breast cancer each year. ``I have metastatic breast cancer,'' she wrote last September. ``It's a tough word to spell and an even harder one to say, but it's meaning is rather simple. It means a runaway strain is careening through my body. I want there to be a face that goes with these statistics. It certainly doesn't have to be my face: it can be the face of someone you surely know and love who has had her life torn apart by this disease. This carnage has to stop. I wrote to plead for more and better research, for more and better treatment. Like too many women before me, I wrote to plead: Find something to save my life. To save all of our lives.'' We can best remember Susan by working to ensure that America's families are spared the suffering she experienced.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers- Campbell substitute and to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership and that of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). This legislation is necessary because it will reduce gun violence, save the lives of our children, and protect the safety of our families and communities. We have all heard the statistics, Mr. Chairman, about every day 13 children's lives are lost to gunfire. But did my colleagues also know that, in 1996, gunfire killed 4,643 infants, little children, and teens. We must take action to protect our children. Support the Conyers- Campbell bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, H.R. 1070. This important legislation will help women beat back the ravages of breast and cervical cancer and save lives. Every year, Cervical cancer kills 4,400 women and breast cancer kills over 46,000 women and is the leading cause of death among women between 40 and 45. This bill builds on a current program which covers screening services, but does not cover treatment for women who are detected with cancer. The bipartisan Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act takes the vital next step to offer lifesaving treatment to cancer victims. The medical community has the technology to detect and treat breast and cervical cancer. This bill will strengthen the existing ad hoc patchwork of providers, volunteers, and local programs that often results in unpredictable, delayed, or incomplete. The bill will offer consistent, reliable method of treatment for uninsured and underinsured women fighting breast or cervical cancer. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that H.R. 1070 has 248 co-sponsors. I want to compliment Representative Eshoo on her work on this issue. However, I am not pleased with the Republican leadership which has given inadequate attention to this bill. The Republican controlled House has not even held a Committee hearing on the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act''. This bill has enough co-sponsors to pass. We should pass this legislation and help save the lives of women.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCarthy amendment, and commend the gentlewoman for her extraordinary leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the McCarthy amendment that will prevent gun violence, save the lives of our children, and protect the safety of our families and communities. The tragic shootings in Littleton, Colorado have provided Congress with a renewed opportunity to achieve these goals. In response, the other chamber approved gun control legislation that would require gun safety locks, ban importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require gun show background checks. While Congress should go farther, these changes represent real progress. At the very least, House action should match this progress and pass these measures to strengthen our gun control laws. Unfortunately, we debated some amendments that undermine progress and some that would inexcusably weaken existing gun control laws. The Dingell gun show amendment weakens current law by reducing the maximum time allocated for background checks by licensed dealers operating at gun shows from three business days to 24 hours. If this shorter waiting period becomes law, the Justice Department reports that of those now denied guns, 40 percent would obtain a gun. For Saturday background checks, this 24 hour rule would preclude 60 percent of current denials. Let's not pass laws that encourage convicted felons to purchase guns on Saturdays and which reduce Saturday background check denial rates 60 percent. The impact of easy access to guns is devastating. According to the Children's Defense Fund, each and every day gunfire in America takes the lives of nearly 13 children. In 1996, gunfire killed 4,643 infants, children, and teens. Between 1979 and 1996, firearms wounded 375,000 children and teens and killed more than 75,000. We must take action to protect our children. When adults have easy access to guns, access by children often follows. This access to firearms, heightens the real problems of our adolescents and youth violence. It is important to note that guns remain the most common method of suicide for children. Guns bring finality to violence and increase its deadly toll. The NRA claims America has too many gun laws and existing laws are not enforced. They are wrong. Gun control laws are enforced. Today's USA Today reports that enforcement of the Brady gun control law has blocked the sale of more than 400,000 illegal gun sales. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy amendment. Gun control laws are not problem. The problem is gun control loopholes. Let's close the loopholes. In closing, I wish to thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her extraordinary leadership to save the lives of America's children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in opposing this amendment. I rise to oppose it, and reluctantly, because of the high esteem that I have for the maker of the motion and for her cosponsors of it. My colleagues from California are tired of hearing my stump speech when I say to people when they ask me, what are the three most important issues facing our Congress and our country, I always say the same thing: The three most important issues we face are our children, our children, our children. Everything we do should be about their well-being and the future that we are providing for them. That is why it is very interesting for me today to come to the floor and see this blanketed condemnation of the entertainment industry being discussed on the floor. Certainly in the problems that we have in our country and the challenges that our children face, and in the aftermath of Littleton, Colorado, there is enough blame to go around everyplace. I know it is not the intention of the maker of the motion, but to some this amendment might seem like an attempt to deflect the blame from the gun industry and the easy accessibility of guns to another source of the violence in our country. As a politician, and I use that word with great pride, I myself am very offended at the way the public in a blanket way condemns us. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) said that we are either brain dead or bought off. I do not think that that was an accurate characterization of anybody in this body on either side of the aisle, but I think that the American people may think that of the Congress, and so when we hear Congress mocked, criticized and condemned for insatiable appetite for campaign funds, we are accused of being bought off across the board, I certainly do not think that they are referring to me or to my colleague, or to any individual in this body. Blanket condemnations really, as they say, all generalizations, are false, including this one. The condemnation of the entertainment industry, I think, is grossly unfair. Should we look into and do research on the impact of violence in the media on children and how they react to it? Certainly. I think if everybody had the goal in mind that this amendment ostensibly has, the Committee on Rules of this body would have allowed the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor as part of this bill. The Obey amendment, the Obey safe schools amendment, talks about safe schools, healthy students, community action grants to prevent violence, alternative schools for at-risk and delinquent youth, 21st century community learning centers, the National Academy of Sciences study on mental health. We have to be looking into the mental aspects of this as well. The violence that the industry puts out is market-driven. I think that we must look to all of the root causes of the violence in our society. We must look into the home, we must look into how children's consciences are developed, but we cannot, when we are delinquent in all of the other areas, then decide to make life easy on ourselves by giving a blanket condemnation of the entertainment industry. I do not want to go into the number of jobs it creates and into what it does for the balance of payments and all that, because if they were doing the wrong thing, even that would not justify it. But I will say that our colleagues should oppose it; however good it sounds, it comes to us at the price of freedom.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in order to protect my 5 children and my 4 grandchildren, I rise in opposition to this frightening amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, today the House will take action on legislation which is supposed to reduce violence in our country. Instead the Republican majority has chosen to do violence to the gun issue by its tactics of delay and process manipulation. Today we are here to make legislation. Instead the Republican majority is here to make mischief on this issue. The American people expect and our children deserve a timely and open debate. Instead we have a delayed debate camouflaged by a convoluted legislative mischief. It is amazing to see how far the Republican majority will go to do the bidding of the NRA. Just so we know what is happening, here today the House bypassed its traditional order, and debate takes place without the benefit of authorizing committee action. Last month the Republican leadership promised committee action, and today's floor action breaks that promise. The House leadership denied the Committee on the Judiciary members the opportunity to debate these issues and instead has allowed the National Rifle Association the time to mobilize and deflect America's pro gun control sentiment with a multi million-dollar lobbying campaign and recently drafted legislative maneuvers. If we were serious about this, we would have allowed the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to come up. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the following article about one of our very own, Congressman George Miller of California, who this year marks his 25th year of service in Congress. This article poignantly captures George's commitment to public service and his unwavering belief in our system of government. As George says in this article, being a Member of Congress ``is a privilege. It's what makes me get up in the morning and go to work, knowing in one fashion or another you're going to get to be a participant in our Democratic system. It sounds really corny, except it's really energizing.'' This article also presents comments from the people who do not share George's views but who bestow upon him their respect for his integrity, his candor, and his unrelenting pursuit of what he believes to be right for this country. [From the Contra Costa Times, June 6, 1999]; A Favorite Son Goes to Washington--Repeatedly By Daniel Borenstein Washington--Despite George Miller's limp from his surgery, the 6-foot-4-inch congressman sets the brisk pace as he and fellow liberal Rep. John Tierney of Massachusetts cross the Capitol grounds. The pair lament the high prescription drug prices Americans without health insurance are forced to pay. To Miller, it's a political weapon to embarrass Republicans with ties to drug companies. And it's a wrong that could be righted--if the Democrats were in the majority. ``It sure would be fun if we could get this place back,'' he says. Meet George Miller, ambivalent congressman. On the one hand, he loves throwing political grenades across the aisle and watching Republicans squirm. On the other, he longs for days before the 1994 elections when Democrats ruled the House of Representatives. Those were days when he wrote landmark legislation on water subsidies, nutritional aid for poor pregnant women, foster care and offshore oil drilling. These days, he tries to defeat Republican bills. Miller, D-Martinez, was first elected to the House a quarter-century ago, at age 29. Today he is 54. Of the 435 House members, only 17 have been there longer. He came to Washington with the Watergate class of 1974, one of 75 new Democrats elected to the House three months after President Nixon resigned. Only six remain in the House. Although most of the players have changed, the game continues. And Miller, who played linebacker in school and belongs to the minority party in Congress, is once again playing defense. ``On offense, you've got control of the game, you know when the ball is going to be hiked, you know what the play is,'' he says. ``On defense, you've got to try to anticipate, you've got to think about it. You've got to stop things from happening.'' A mischievous smile spreads under his white mustache. ``Sometimes,'' he says, ``it's more fun.'' Miller's time on the floor is up, but he won't stop talking. Rep. William Goodling, R-Penn., chairman of the Education Committee, raps the gavel repeatedly. Finally, he slams it down with a thunderous bang that echoes through the cavernous hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building. ``Oh, bang it again if it will make you feel better,'' Miller says. ``I'll bang it and I'll bang it on your head,'' Goodling snaps back, then threatens to have the sergeant at arms remove him. This is what Miller calls ``calculated chaos.'' Later, he marches out of Rayburn House, across South Capitol Street, into the Longworth Building--bypassing the metal detectors as members of Congress are entitled to do-- and into the elevator. All the time ranting about the Republicans. He checks the elevator lights to see what floor he's on and realizes the man next to him is watching Miller complain to a reporter. ``Never mind us,'' Miller says with a smile. ``I'm pontificating.'' A big bark Miller is a top Democratic pontificator. With his booming voice, imposing physical presence and quick debating skills, he has become a liberal voice for, and within, the party. ``Nobody out-barks George when he's trying to make a point,'' says Leon Panetta, former congressman and former White House chief of staff. Panetta knows Miller well. He served in Congress with him, lived in Miller's row house 2\1/2\ blocks from the Capitol for about eight years and played basketball with him in the House gym. In some ways, Miller is the same on and off the court, Panetta says. ``If he felt somebody hit him wrong, he'd tell him, he'd yell at him, and sometimes he'd stomp off, and everybody knew George was pissed.'' But, ``stay out of his way for an hour and you'd be fine.'' There was little doubt you'd want him on your team. ``When he plants himself under the basket there aren't a hell of a lot of people who are going to go through him.'' These days, the Democrats plant Miller on talk shows, at news conferences and on the House floor. He is one of about 15 House Democratic leaders who meet almost daily in a small windowless conference room in the Capitol to plot strategy. Last month, when, in the wake of the Littleton, Colo., high school shooting, the Senate passed new gun laws, Miller insisted House Democrats push for the same without delay, despite warnings from some Democrats that there could be political fallout from the gun lobby. When former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was facing accusations he used tax-exempt money for political purposes, Democrats sicced Miller on him, dispatching him to make the case on every national television show from Washington that was interested. When Miller couldn't get the House to take up campaign finance reform, he used delaying tactics that forced Members to repeatedly drop what they were doing and rush to the House floor to vote on motions to adjourn. It was what the Los Angeles Times called ``Miller's guerrilla war.'' Political blood It's little wonder Miller thrives on politics. He was reared on it. His father, George Miller, Jr., was a state senator who became chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee. Today, the bridge spanning the Carquinez Strait between Benicia and Martinez bears his name. George Miller III was born in Richmond on May 17, 1945. He was one of four children, and the only boy. About five years later, the family moved to Martinez. When he was still a baby, his father was first elected to the Legislature. The Miller household was as political as they come. ``When I was younger, it was race relations. We had people coming to our house to get counseling and encouragement from my father to get involved one way or the other, organizing to send people to the South, the Freedom Riders. ``When I was older, in college, it was the free speech movement, the war in Vietnam. Those were the debates that took place in our living room.'' When he was in high school, his father would drive by the bus stop in the morning. ``He said, `What's going on in school?' I said, `Nothing,' `Get in the car. Don't tell your mother.' And I'd go up and follow him around. Sit in on meetings in the governor's office, or sit on the floor in the state Legislature, run errands for him, and get to know people. ``And watch and listen and watch and listen.'' A learning experience Shortly after midnight on New Year's Day 1969, Miller's father had a heart attack and died. He was 54. Looking back, Miller says, that time is a blur. He had just started law school in the fall and he and his wife--Cynthia, who was his sweetheart at Alhambra High School in Martinez-- had two young boys. ``I don't think I really had a chance to mourn my father's death the way I would have liked to have,'' he says. He was soon running in the special election to replace his dad. Though Miller was just 23, then-Assemblyman John Knox, D-Richmond, and Democratic Party leader Bert Coffey, friends of Miller's father, felt he was the best shot to keep Republicans from gaining a majority in the Senate, which at the time was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. He beat Supervisor Tom Coll of Concord and banker Fortney Stark of Danville in the Democratic primary. But then he had to face John Nejedly, who had been a district attorney for 11 years. Miller was outmatched. ``There was no record,'' Nejedly recalls. ``The only thing that could be said was he was his father's son.'' The voters agreed. Nejedly trounced him and served in the state Senate for the next 11 years. Miller went to work in Sacramento as legislative assistant to then-Sen. George Moscone. While working in the Capitol, Miller completed law school. Off and running He says he would probably be practicing law today had Democratic Rep. Jerry Waldie not decided to run for governor in 1974. ``I had been to Washington once,'' Miller recalls. ``I thought back east was Reno.'' But law school had taught him how much influence he could have in Washington. ``There was a real sense you could bring about change.'' Coffey, who had been his father's longtime political ally, conducted a poll and found the young Miller had a shot. With that, Miller was off and running. ``He was still young, but now he was experienced and ready,'' says Philip O'Connor, his campaign manager in 1974. ``He had five years in Sacramento.'' This time, the bigger battle was expected to be the primary, in which Miller faced a local labor leader and Concord City Councilman Dan Helix. ``His previous run against Nejedly helped him a lot,'' says Helix. This time, ``he came over as someone who had studied the issues. He was articulate. He showed a good sense of humor. He was relaxed.'' Miller won the primary and defeated Republican Gary Fernandez, Richmond's vice mayor, in the November general election by 56-44 percent. It was the last time Miller received less than 60 percent in a congressional election. Blessed by reapportionments for the 1980s and 1990s that continued to leave him a heavily Democratic district, Miller has never had another tough election challenge. Sanford Skaggs, the prominent Walnut Creek attorney who chaired Fernandez's campaign in 1974, says Miller could easily survive in a less Democratic district. ``I respect him a lot for his attitudes and honesty and devotion to public service,'' says Skaggs. ``Even though I disagree on some of his major positions, I think his motives are pure. He could survive in a tougher district.'' Banking on his name The most valuable thing his father left him, Miller likes to say, is his good name. He also left his son his political connections. The senator was not only one of the most influential members of the Legislature, he was also former chairman of the state Democratic Party and one of the early supporters of Rep. Phil Burton. He supported Burton when he ran for Assembly in 1956. ``Burton never forgot the kindness,'' writes Burton biographer John Jacobs. ``Miller had helped legitimize his candidacy.'' Burton went on to Congress, where he became one of the most influential liberals ever to serve in the House. When young Miller ran for Congress, Burton, a prolific fund-raiser, helped the kid. Miller remembers seeing Burton work a crowd that year on his behalf at a political event for U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston in San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel. ``He was raising money, literally taking it right out of people's wallets,'' Miller recalls. ``He was saying, `What are you going to do for the kid?' He came to me and said, `You need to raise money for George Miller.' I said, `I am George Miller.` He said, `Wait a minute,' and then he went on to the next guy.'' When Miller arrived in Washington, Burton took him under his wings. ``Phil was really his great mentor,'' Panetta recalls. ``It was as close to a blood relationship as you can get.'' Burton made sure he and Miller were on the same two committees, then called Interior, which handles environmental issues, and Education and the Workforce. Those are the same assignments Miller holds today, although Interior is now called Resources. And Burton taught Miller the ropes. ``First and foremost, he taught me the place isn't on the level,'' Miller says. ``What you hear is not always what's being said and what you see is not always what's being done. You really have to increase your abilities to observe and dissect information.'' Burton also taught Miller how to bridge the partisan gulf. Known for being loud and brash, Burton cribbed together bipartisan coalitions to pass some of the most significant park bills in the nation's history. He made sure his bills had something in there for everybody. Where Burton doled out parkland as a way to reward supporters or punish opponents, Miller reaches across the aisle with fiscal enticements. John Lawrence says Miller's approach has often been through economics. Lawrence went to work for Miller's campaign in 1974 while he was a UC-Berkeley doctoral student, followed him to Washington and has worked for him ever since. ``It's been as much how much it tears at your wallet as how much it tears at your heartstrings,'' Lawrence says. ``From a fiscal standpoint, George has always been very attuned that these programs have to make economic sense.'' It's a concept embraced by Rep. Dan Miller, R-Fla. The two Millers are not related and are far apart on most issues. But they are the lead sponsors of the bill to end sugar subsidies, which they call corporate welfare that stimulates overproduction of sugar, and pollution, in the Everglades. When it comes to sugar subsidies, cheap mining of federal lands or building roads in national forests. Dan Miller says he and his East Bay colleague find common ground in their opposition. ``I'll come at it from a fiscal perspective, he'll come at it from an environmental perspective, but we agree.'' Staying power The reality is that the Miller-Miller bill has almost no chance of passage in this Congress. But George Miller is used to that. Most of his legislative accomplishments have come after years of persistence. ``He's had a lot of staying power,'' says Lawrence. ``That has served him well. That's what is largely responsible for his reputation as a legislator.'' It also helped that he was in the majority party for his first 20 years in Congress. It was then that he won passage of some of his most significant legislation, including: Poor pregnant and postpartum women and their infants receive free food and nutritional supplements. Oil drilling rights on federal lands are now awarded by competitive bidding, replacing lotteries that gave the rights away for almost no fee. The federal government shares revenue it receives from off- shore oil drilling with the affected state. In California, the money is earmarked for education. Federal matching grants are available for local programs that aid victims of domestic abuse. Parents who adopt foster children receive federal money for a youngster's care. Previously, funds were cut off when a foster child was adopted, leaving a disincentive for adoption that kept a child from being bounced from home to home. Water wars Miller's toughest and biggest legislative victories have been in his battle with California farmers over water. It culminated in 1992, when Congress passed legislation co- written by Miller and then-U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J. The bill is Miller's ``legacy,'' says one of its opponents, Dan Nelson, executive director of the San Luis & Delta- Mendota Water Authority. ``He is thought to be the father of that legislation. It has fundamentally changed the way we do business. Some of it good and needed and some of it, frankly, punitive or inequitable.'' The Miller-Bradley bill overhauled the distribution of federal water in California. Farmers lost the open-ended contracts for cheap water and now face tiered pricing that encourages conservation. For the first time, using water to restore fish life in San Francisco Bay and the Delta became a priority. Many California farmers hate the bill, which dramatically drove up their water costs. And they blame Miller. ``He's got a long history of vilifying and terrorizing agriculture, which has given him a bigger-than-life place in the eyes of farmers,'' says Jason Peltier, manager of Central Valley Water Project Association. Though Peltier has fought Miller for years, he admires the political skills the congressman displayed as he masterfully pushed through the bill. The water reforms weren't left by themselves in the legislation, but packaged with dozens of major projects for 16 Western states. The lessons from Miller's mentor were being used. ``We needed the ornaments on the Christmas tree,'' Lawrence says. ``We learned a great deal at Phil Burton's knee.'' Clinton clashing Those were heady times for Miller. He had just ascended to chairman of the House Interior Committee, the post Burton had held until his death in 1983. With Bill Clinton's defeat of President Bush in 1992, Miller was about to lead the House's environmental committee while his party controlled Congress and held the presidency. Miller was even being mentioned as a possible interior secretary in the new Democratic administration. He took himself out of the running, however, saying he didn't want the post. It's unlikely he would have fit in. The Clinton administration has been a disappointment to him on environmental issues. ``They get a little weak in the knees when the pressure gets turned up,'' Miller says. Most recently, Miller was sharply critical of a Clinton administration decision to weaken the standards for labeling tuna ``dolphin-safe.'' Miller, who fought for the original standards, says the latest move will increase the number of dolphin caught in tuna nets. ``You have to look at all of this on a continuum,'' he says. ``The clock doesn't run out and you win or lose. Things ebb and flow in politics, and that's what makes it frustrating to some extent because it's never static.'' A haven in Martinez Miller is also in continuous motion. He usually rises Monday morning in Martinez, gets on a plane and heads for Washington. Barring a congressional trip to Brazil, Japan or the Northern Mariana Islands, come Thursday night or Friday, he returns to the district. That's the way he's done it for the past 25 years. For a few years, his family lived with him in Washington, but his late hours during the week and the need to be back in the district on the weekend led to even less time together. During that period, the family bought the Washington row house, where Miller still stays when he is in the capital. The two-bedroom, two-story, pale green brick house with the chipped paint and overgrown front yard in the middle of urban Washington is a striking contrast to Miller's suburban Martinez home nestled under towering trees. Martinez is his sanctuary. ``It really is the one place where I can just relax,'' he says, ``because I know on Sunday night or Monday morning I have to get back on an airplane and go back to Washington.'' The house is just down the road from the house he grew up in. His mother, now in her mid-80s, still lives nearby. The house is also where his two boys grew up. They're both grown now. In 1996, the oldest, George Miller IV, tried to follow his father and grandfather by running for the Assembly. He lost in the Democratic primary to Contra Costa County Supervisor Tom Torlakson, whose campaign slogan was ``His own record, his own name.'' Once again, a young Miller was beaten because voters felt he had little to offer other than a family name. The future Certainly, that can no longer be said of the congressman. At a time when many Democrats can only win by moving to the center, Miller clings to his liberal roots. ``He has never apologized for it.'' says Lawrence. ``He has never taken to the term progressive.'' Although he's been in Congress nearly 25 years, he's relatively young for a senior congressman. The 17 House members who have been there longer are all at least 60. On the other hand, his mentors--his dad, Burton, Moscone and Coffey--are all dead. And Miller is the same age his father was when he suddenly died from a heart attack. It all makes him think about his future. Sitting with his sleeves rolled up and his tie loose as he adds hot sauce to his enchilada at a restaurant half a block from his Washington home, he reflects on life in the capital. ``The loneliness factor, the empty house factor, it just wears on you,'' he says. ``But with all the stress and the strain and the long hours, I still think it's worth it.'' Miller still loves to be a political player. He ticks off the issues he had worked on that very day: child labor and sweatshops, sugar subsidies, the war in Kosovo, Sierra forests, Delta water, education standards. ``I've never taken the honor of being a member of Congress lightly,'' he says. ``It is a privilege. It's what makes me get up in the morning and go to work, knowing in one fashion or another you're going to get to be a participant in our Democratic system. It sounds really corny, except it's really energizing.'' The bottom line is that there's no sign Miller will retire any time soon. Indeed, he's making plans for the next phase of his congressional career. Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the Education and the Workforce Committee, announced last month that this will be his last term. Miller is in line to succeed him, to lead the Democrat's education agenda in the House. And to become committee chairman if Democrats win back a majority. Miller has put out word he wants the job. But to get it he will have to give up his ranking position on the Resources Committee. Central Valley water leaders are quietly gleeful. ``I'm excited for him to go pursue other areas,'' Peltier says. ``It also excites me that if the Democrats take control of Congress again, he won't be breathing fire on us immediately.'' Nelson concurs. ``Someone will just have to warn all the education people just what they're in for. It will not be status quo.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. American women have a constitutionally protected right to choose. We must protect this right. The Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment would reverse the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases overseas. This amendment would provide servicewomen and military wives who live on American overseas military bases, the same access to health care as their United States based colleagues. The women we station overseas are already making great sacrifices for their country by leaving behind their family, friends, and community. We should not deny them their constitutional rights nor access to reproductive services. This amendment would not expend Federal funds for abortion services. This amendment would not require health care professionals who oppose abortion to provide this medical service owing to their moral principle or as a matter of conscience. This amendment would return this policy to where it previously stood for many years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Department of Defense supports this amendment. Simply put, this amendment would allow women stationed overseas to use their own funds at overseas military hospitals to exercise their constitutional right to obtain abortion services. Current policy forces women who seek reproductive services to wait until they return to America or to seek out illegal and unsafe procedures near where they are stationed. Therefore current policy often jeopardizes their health and lives. While I certainly respect my colleagues' views on the question of abortion, the fact is that women do have a right to choose that option, in consultation with their family, their doctors, and their God, and we should not make that decision more dangerous for them. In the interest of making abortions safe when necessary, I urge my colleagues to vote to support the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment. By allowing the Department of Defense to move ahead on this, we will ensure the safety of the American women we have stationed overseas. We have a responsibility to do this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the occasion of the debate on the report, on the Cox-Dicks report, to comment on comments made by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) regarding the issue of sensitivity on the issue of our Asian-American community. But sensitivity is not really enough of a word. We certainly have to be sensitive as we go forward that the FBI in its investigations does not look into the background of anyone because of their ethnic background or their surname. Certainly they must be sensitive, but we have to make certain that one of the casualties of this investigation is not the good reputations of the people who have been so important to our national security--people from our Asian-American community, with their brilliance, with their patriotism, with their dedication. I hope that as we go forward with all of these amendments and all of the investigations that will continue, that we do not shed a light of suspicion on individuals or companies or concerns in America. I happen to be blessed in my district with a large Asian-American population, mostly Chinese American. Many of those families have been there longer than my own. They have been there for many generations. Some have been there for only many days. But all of them love America. They came here for a reason. We are the freest country in the world, and we cannot let this espionage investigation jeopardize that. Our country's attitude toward people and their rights cannot be a casualty of this investigation. I am particularly concerned, as one who has never pulled a punch in criticizing China and its activities in terms of human rights, proliferation and trade. I want to say here unequivocally that the jeopardizing of our rights in this country would be a more destructive consequence than any espionage we can find in this investigation.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding me this time and for her great service on the Subcommittee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and distinguished and respected he is. He talked about the chemical warfare that we would be waging on the unborn. But I want to point out to my colleagues that the Hyde amendment allows for termination of a pregnancy in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. If this is indeed the Hyde amendment and what the gentleman from Illinois believes and those who support the Hyde amendment, then why would they not want to have women have access to safe, early, nonsurgical abortion? I certainly respect the gentleman's religious beliefs and understand them, as a Catholic, myself, and mother of five, grandmother of four, and that we do not think abortion is a good thing. Abortion is a failure, it is a failure across the board. But to deprive the FDA of the opportunity to engage in research which would provide safe, nonsurgical terminations of pregnancy in case of rape, incest and life of the mother seems entirely contradictory to what the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is, if he sincerely believes in that, and I do believe he is sincere. It would trample on the FDA's ability to test, research and approve drugs based on sound scientific evidence, and in that respect the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is starting to have this body, this room, this Chamber, look like the Flat Earth Society again, Mr. Chairman. We have our Flat Earth Society days around here, and this appears to be one of them. RU-486 has been available to women in Europe for nearly 20 years. After extensive clinical trials in this country and France, the FDA has determined that this drug is safe and effective for an early medical abortion such as the kind allowed under the Hyde amendment for rape, incest and the life of the mother. But this amendment is not about access to one safe and effective drug. The Coburn amendment would have a dangerous chilling effect on the development of drugs that are used for a wide variety of purposes, Mr. Chairman. Drugs used to treat other conditions including cancers and ulcers can induce abortion. The FDA's ability to consider approval of these therapies would be abolished. And RU-486 also has promise for other potential medical uses including treatments for breast cancer, HIV and burns. The Coburn amendment forces researchers to turn away from these promising treatment opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the Coburn amendment puts a social agenda ahead of a woman's needs, ahead of needs of individuals confronting a variety of diseases, ahead of rulemaking authority of the FDA. Once again, this Congress must decide whether to put political agendas ahead of health research. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I say the gentleman's amendment would have a chilling effect on the research. Medical research thrives, we have free and open inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just briefly I want to commend the House for an action taken earlier on the passing of a suspension, which was the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act. This would temporarily suspend customs duties on participants in upcoming athletic events being held in the United States, including the 1999 Women's World Cup. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) who sits on the Committee on Ways and Means for her leadership on this, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who managed the bill here and the leadership on the Republican side, as well as the officials at the Women's World Cup organizing committee, especially their Chair Donna de Varona for their work to pass this provision. All of the players, trainers, coaches and family members participating in the Women's World Cup have been on a long and challenging road to reach the finals. Representing six continents, these individuals are some of the best athletes in the world. I welcome, and I know this entire Congress joins in welcoming them to this country and wish them all the best of luck. Our colleagues, in voting in favor of H.R. 435, welcome them indeed and help to ensure that the Women's World Cup is one of the most successful sporting events ever held. I thank my colleagues for their overwhelming vote. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an amended H.R. 435, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act, the original version of which already passed the House by vote of 414 to 1. I am pleased that H.R. 435 contains a provision to temporarily suspend customs duties on participants in upcoming athletic events being held in the United States, including the 1999 Women's World Cup. I commend the dedicated efforts of my colleague from Florida, Representative Thurman, who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, a well as of officials at the Women's World Cup Organizing Committee, namely their chair, Donna De Varona, for their work to pass this provision. When the 1999 Women's World Cup officially kicks off in 12 days, it will be the largest women's sporting event in history. With 16 countries participating and over 400,000 tickets already sold, the United States will be host to an international contingent of some of the world's best athletes, as well as numerous foreign dignities. Preparations are currently being finalized to ensure that this event is an international success and that the United States remains the premier staging ground for international sporting events. As a courtesy to participants in international athletic events, Congress has historically voted to temporarily suspend customs duties on the personal effects of participants in such athletic events and participants in the Women's World Cup deserve the same treatment. Suspending these duties will allow for a smoother entry process by ensuring that participants and their families do not have to pay entry duties on the equipment and other items they bring with them. All of the players, trainers, coaches and family members participating in the Women's World Cup have been on a long and challenging road to reach the finals. Representing six continents, these individuals are some of the best athletes in the world. I welcome them to our country and wish them all the best of luck. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 435 and thus help ensure that the Women's World Cup is one of the most successful sporting events ever held.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate San Francisco State University and to celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. It has grown from a teacher training school in 1899 with a student body of 31, to its status today as a racially and ethnically diverse, major urban university serving more than 27,000 students. While San Francisco State University was founded on March 22, this year graduation will be held on May 29. As SFSU graduates its 100th class, I'd like to recognize their contributions during the last century. Throughout its first century, this University has led the way in providing accessible higher education for California's residents, promoting excellence in teaching and learning, embracing diversity, and creating community partnerships that enrich the cultural and economic life of the Bay Area, while strengthening the educational experience of our students. San Francisco State University should be commended for its many achievements including, making global headlines for discovering new planets outside our solar system; establishing the nation's first College of Ethnic Studies; creating the only academic research facility on the San Francisco Bay; building one of the nation's top two Conservation Genetics Laboratories; creating the largest multimedia studies program in the country; and housing nationally recognized biology, creative writing and journalism programs. SFSU should be proud of the linkages that its programs and quality faculty have built for sustained community involvement and partnership throughout its history. SFSU serves as a national model of a community- engaged urban campus, housing more than 100 centers, institutes and other special programs and projects addressing such varied issues as the health of the San Francisco Bay; K-12 student math skills; and small business success and science skills for inner city youth throughout the state. The University has also sustained collaborative partnerships throughout San Francisco and the Bay Area, including the Valencia Health Clinic, Step to College, Community Science Workshops for California, the Vistiacion Valley Community Service Center, the Muir Alternative Teacher Education program, and the Community Outreach Partnership Center. San Francisco State is truly a model institution, making significant contributions in the Bay Area and beyond. They deserve to be congratulated for all their successes during the last 100 years and we wish them the best for the next century.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one of the most enduring images of the 20th Century is the picture of the lone man before the tank in Tiananmen Square. The distinguished gentleman from San Francisco, California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned it as an icon that is in the entrance of his office. It is a constant reminder to all of us of the courage of the young people in Tiananmen Square, and of course of the sadness that the human rights situation has not improved in China yea these many years. In fact, the policy of our country which was to provide trickle down liberty. If economics goes well and trade goes well, then the political freedom will follow. That simply has not happened. In fact, for all of our concessions to the Chinese, our trade deficit has gone from, $2 million when we started this debate, to this year when it will be well over $60 billion with China. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China still continues, no matter what anyone tells us. Of course we are witnessing the abuse of the good nature of our President with the violations by the Chinese on proliferation, trade, and the continuing violations of the human rights of people there. As a tribute to the brave dissidents who gave their lives, risked their personal security, and continue to do so in China, and in commemoration of the 10-year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, I was pleased to join my colleagues, some of who are present here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and others who, being lead sponsors on this resolution. A resolution that is not about economics, it is not about politics, it is about remembering. It is about remembering the challenge that these young people undertook in the spring of 1989. Millions of Chinese students and workers across China demonstrated peacefully for freedom of expression and the elimination of corruption by government officials. On June 3, the Chinese regime responded to these peaceful demonstrations by ordering the People's Liberation Army to use lethal force on the protesters around Tiananmen Square. Hundreds, if not thousands, we do not know the number because the Chinese Government will not give us access to that, were slaughtered in that night of horror. Thousands more were injured, and over 20,000 prisoners of conscience were arrested and sentenced without trial, to prison, to labor camps, and to years of torture. Prisoners of conscience tell us that one of the most extricating painful forms of torture occurs when the perpetrators of their torture tell them that no one even knows about them, cares about them, or cares about the cause for which they are in prison. The purpose of our legislation, which has strong bipartisan support in the House, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation with my colleague whom I respect so much, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), has strong bipartisan support in the House and in the United States Senate. The purpose of this legislation is to tell the prisoners and their torturers and the Chinese regime and the world that the American people remember. We remember the brave students who modeled their Goddess of Democracy after our own Statue of Liberty. We remember how the brave students echoed the words of our Founding Fathers in their courageous appeals to the regime. We remember the regime's responding with guns and tanks to crush the peaceful demonstrations. We remember today the many political prisoners who still languish these 10 years later in Chinese prisons. Our legislation parallels the petition being circulated by the Tiananmen leader Wang Dan and the global campaign for the anniversary of June 4. The petition calls on the Chinese Government to reverse the verdict of Tiananmen Square, to free the prisoners, to allow them and all Chinese to speak freely, and to allow for the return of the Chinese exiles. The petition has been endorsed by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Pen, to name a few organizations. On the day we introduced our Tiananmen resolution, the Chinese Government arrested dissidents for planning to distribute leaflets seeking redress for the massacre. The location of these pro-democratic activists is still unknown. That same day, a member of the banned China Democratic Party was beaten and stripped of his clothes by the police for merely speaking about democracy in a public park. At the same time, the regime, speaking through a signed editorial in the People's Daily, the official Chinese newspaper, claimed that overseas dissidents, exiles, and escapees are ``crowing'' at the ``murder'' of their compatriots who died in the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. What a pathetic commentary on the Beijing regime, that it feels threatened by dissidents in China and abroad! The regime has the power of their military and security forces at home and they have their economic partners abroad and supporters, including the U.S. Government, bowing to their every whim, and yet they are still frightened. And speaking of the U.S. Government, while we have bowed to their every whim, sad to say, the Chinese have not returned any friendship to the Clinton administration. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out, when the stupid mistake of bombing the embassy occurred, the President apologized and apologized and apologized and apologized, but his friends in the regime whom he visited and gave great face to last year, would not even let the Chinese people know that the President had apologized. And they participated in the orchestration of rocks being thrown at our embassy for 3 days, one of our consulates being set on fire, and the ambassador, in his own words, being a hostage in the embassy. This, after we have, as a government, catered to their every whim. And I might say that the President's apology was exceptional, because we usually do not apologize when we do not do something intentional. This was a mistake; it was not intentional. It might be of interest to our colleagues to know that when 20 Europeans were killed in a ski lift accident, which occurred in Italy, the United States of America expressed regret. And when we had the problem in Iran, when we mistakenly killed Iranian civilians, President Reagan expressed regret. So an apology is an intensified response to this accidental and mistaken bombing. The Chinese Government would not even accept what the President of the United States was stooping to in this case. I certainly think the Chinese people deserve to be apologized to or have our regrets extended to them. We should make reparations, we should investigate how the bombing took place, but we should not extend any favors to them on the economic front like premature entry into the WTO unless under commercially viable terms, and we should not ignore their continued violations of human rights in China. Our President went to China last year. He went to the extreme step of leading the People's Liberation Army band with a baton. He gave face to the regime and came back with a message that this was going to help improve democratic freedoms in China. It has not. It has not. On the heels of the President's visit, people who supported the China Democracy Party felt emboldened, spoke out, and they are now in prison. I know I have taken a great deal of time, but with the Chairman's indulgence, I would like to read some of the names of the people still in prison right now. Xu Wenli, for example, a leader of the China Democracy Party was arrested immediately upon speaking out. In addition we are remembering about people who are still in prison 10 years later for their activities at the time of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Cao Yingyuan, Chang Jingqiang, Chang Yongjie, Chen Dongxiang, Chen Qiulong, Chen Yanbin. And it is a long, long, long list, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to submit it for the Record. It is a list compiled by Human Rights in China, an organization dedicated to freeing the prisoners arrested at that time. human rights in china Beijing Citizens Still in Prison in Connection With 1989 June Fourth Crackdown Ten years after the Beijing Massacre and subsequent crackdown, hundreds remain in prison for their role in the 1989 protests. The list below contains the names of 144 individuals from Beijing alone who are serving lengthy prison sentences for their participation in the 1989 democracy movement. This information was primarily compiled by Li Hai, 44, a former Beijing student who was arrested in 1995 for making the list public. He was subsequently sentenced to a nine-year prison term for ``prying into and gathering'' ``state secrets.'' The individuals listed below include a wide variety of Beijing residents--from peasants, security guards and factory workers to engineers and cadres in the State Planning Commission. At the time of their arrest, they ranged in age from 17 to 71. In the official propaganda, these demonstrators were called ``rioters,'' and were charged with ``arson,'' ``hooliganism,'' ``disturbing social order,'' and other criminal offenses. For the most part they are people who were seen on television screens around the world in May 1989, marching in the streets, blocking the path of the troops entering the city with improvised barricades, running through the streets on the night of June 3-4, and throwing rocks and paving stones at tanks and armed personnel carriers. Many are thought to have been detained merely because they were out on the streets. In general, these people were brought to trial more quickly and received more severe sentences than did the prominent students and intellectuals who were arrested. The average sentence of those not given life terms is approximately thirteen years. Li Hai, the persons on this list, and the many other ``namesless'' individuals jailed throughout China in connection with the 1989 crackdown might not be as internationally well-known as some dissidents, but their lives and liberty are equally significant. Human Rights in China submits the following list to President Clinton for presentation to Prime Minister Zhu Rongji during his visit. Human Rights in China urges the Chinese government to demonstrate its commitment to making genuine improvements in the human rights situation by releasing all of the prisoners on this list, as well as the thousands of other political and religious detainees throughout China. list of beijing citizens still in prison in connection with 1989 tiananmen square crackdown Beijing No. 2 Prison: Name, Age--Sentence, Charge (see key below for charge name). Cao Yingyuan, 40--10 years, #6; Chang Jingqiang--25, Life, #4, 5; Chang Yongjie, 31--Susp. death #4, 6, 9; Chen Dongxiang, 57--14 years #3; Chen Qiulong, 38--13 years, #3; Chen Yanbin, 23--15 years, #7; Liang Zhaohui, 26, worker--13 years, #4; Liang Zhenyun, 32, auto-mechanic--12 years, #11; Liang Zhixiang, 25, worker--10.5 years, #4; Liu Changqing, 34--15 years, #4; Liu Chunlong, 26--12 years, #4; Liu Huaidong, 31, cadre--13 years, #10; Liu Jianwen, 29, worker--20 years, #11, #10; Liu Kunlun, 43, cadre--13 years, #4; Liu Quann, 44--15 years, #4, #13; Liu Xu, 28, worker--15 years, #4; Liu Zhenting, 36, worker in Beijing No. 2 auto plant--17 years, #9; Lu Xiaojun, 36, worker--13 years, #9, #10; Ma Guochun, 35--11 years, #9, #10. Ma Lianxi, 44--15 years, #11; Ma Shimin, 26--11 years, #4; Meng Fanjun, 29, worker--13 years, #11; Mi Yuping, 39, worker--13 years, #4; Niu Shuliang, 26, worker--12 years, #4; Niu Zhanping, 43, worker--12 years, #4, #12; Peng Xingguo, 41--15 years, #4; Qiao Hongqi, 38, worker--12 years, #11; Shan Hui, 28, worker--14 years, #9; Shi Xuezhi, 58--Life, #4; Song Shihui, 24, worker--11 years, #9, #10; Su Gang, 28, teacher--15 years, #4; Sun Chuanheng, 28--Life, reduced to 20 years, #2; Sun Hong, 27, worker--Susp. death, #4; Sun Yancai, 32--Life, #9; Sun Yanru, 27--13 years, #9; Sun Zhengang, 33, worker--14 years, #4; Wang Jian, 30, worker--13 years, #9; Wang Lianhui, 31--Life, #9; Wang Lianxi, 43, worker--Life, #4; Wang Xian, 30, worker--Life, #4. Wang Yonglu, 30, worker--11 years, #11; Wang Yueming, 32-- 13 years, #4; Wang Chunmo, 34--11 years, #9; Wang Dongming, 37, worker--13 years, #4; Wu Ruijiang, 28, cadre--13 years, #9, #10; Xi Haoliang, 27, worker--Susp. death, #4, #5; Xu Ning, 26, worker--12 years (reduced by 2 years), #4; Yan Jianxin, 30, worker--11 years, #9, #10; Yang Guanghui, 25--12 years, #4; Yang Jianhua, 38, worker--14 years, #9, #12; Yang Pu, 34--Susp. death, #4; Yang Yupu, 33--15 years, #4; Yu Wen, 29, worker--12 years, #10; Zhang Baojun, 27--13 years, #4, #9; Zhang Baoku, 29, worker--12 years, #4; Zhang Baoqun, 32-- Life, #4; Zhang Fukun, 39--Life, #4; Zhang Guodong, 27--Life, #4; Zhang Kun, 28, worker--11 years, #4; Zhang Maosheng, 30-- Susp. death, #4; Zhang Qijie, 32, worker--Susp. death, #9, #10, concealing a weapon; Zhang Qun, 27, worker--Life, #4. #7--Organizing a counterrevolutionary group #8--Conspiring to subvert the government Common criminal charges: #9--Robbery; #10--Hooliganism; #11--Stealing or seizing gun or ammunition; #12--Disturbing social order; #13--Disrupting traffic. Notes: (1) Some of the ages of prisoners in Qinghe Farm No. 3 Branch are age at date of arrest; (2) Sentences marked with an asterisk * could have been subject to reduction or supplementation; (3) ``Susp. death'' means a death sentence with a two-year reprieve. This means that if the prisoner has behaved well during the two-year period, the sentence is normally commuted to life. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the Global Petition Campaign for the 10th anniversary of the June 4th massacre. It is an open letter to the Government of the People's Republic of China calling upon the regime to reverse the verdict of Tiananmen Square. So we are associating ourselves in the Congress today with the aspirations of those brave people, including Wang Dan who was imprisoned for his political beliefs and his participation at the time of Tiananmen and after; and we are also associating ourselves with those many people who are still imprisoned. Free the prisoners. It is 10 years later. What do you have to be afraid of? And then in closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that were it not for this Congress, we really would not be having much to talk about today. But year in and year out we keep this on the front burner. There is no story written about China that doesn't talk about the disagreement we have between at least the Congress of the United States and the Chinese regime about promoting democratic freedoms. We do not in this body subscribe to the principle of trickle-down liberty. We subscribe to what our Founding Fathers established this country on. Those words of our Founding Fathers were echoed by the young people in Tiananmen Square. For that, they were crushed by tanks, and for that, they will be remembered by us in this resolution remembering Tiananmen. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank the gentleman for his indulgence in affording me the opportunity to speak at this length on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material I referred to above. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the Chinese activists detained in recent crackdown around June 4. Yang Tao--Detained May 5, 1999; Present situation unknown. Mr. Yang, 29, is a former student leader of the 1989 Democracy Movement. In 1989, Yang was listed as #11 on the central governments most wanted list of 21 leaders of the democracy demonstrations. Now based in Guangzhou city, Guangdong Province, Yang previously served a one-year sentence for ``instigating a counter-revolutionary rebellion'' for his 1989 activities. Human rights monitors in Hong Kong reported Yang had been formally arrested on May 24 and faces criminal prosecution for his recent activism. Jiang Qisheng--Detained May 19, 1999; Present situation unknown. Mr. Jiang, 51, is a former graduate student leader of the 1989 Democracy Movement. Jiang was elected by People's University classmates as a representative on the ``Dialogue Delegation'' that conveyed student communications with central government representatives in May 1989. He served a 17-month sentence for his 1989 activities. Since his release, Jiang worked closely with Prof. Ding Zilin, the mother of one of the demonstrators killed on June 4, 1989, and participated in numerous petition campaigns. Liu Xianli--Sentenced to four years for inciting to overthrow state power on May 9, 1999. Mr. Liu was arrested in March 1998 while putting together a book of interviews with many Chinese democracy and human rights movement. His secret trial was held in November 1998, but his sentence was only recently released to his family. The following are the names of the Chinese worker prisoners still imprisoned for 1989 democracy activities. Yu Zhijian--life sentence for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Yu Zhijian, 31, is a former primary-school teacher from Hunan Province. Yu gave speeches in Hunan during the early spring in support of the 1989 democratic movement. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to join the demonstrations there. On May 23, Yu and two friends threw ink- and paint-filled eggs at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square. Yu was sentenced to life in prison in August 1989. According to a 1996 Human Rights Watch report, he was believed to be serving in solitary confinement at the Lingling Prison in Hunan Province. Yu Dongyue--20 years for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Yu Dongyue is a former fine arts editor of the Liuyang News, a city paper of Liuyang city, Hunan Province. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to join the demonstrations there. On May 23, Yu and two friends threw ink- and paint-filled eggs at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square. Yu was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in August 1989. He reportedly served at least two years in solitary confinement. He is said to be serving in Hunan Province Yuanjiang No. 1 Prison. Recent news articles report Yu ``was suffering severe mental illness.'' Lu Decheng--16 years for counter-revolutionary sabotage. Lu Decheng is a former worker at the Liuyang (Hunan Province) Public Motors Company. He traveled to Beijing in May 1989 to join the demonstrations there. On May 23, Lu and two friends threw ink- and paint-filled eggs at the portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square. Yu was scentenced so sixteen years imprsonment in August 1989. He reportedly served at least two years in solitary confinement. He is said to have been moved from his original prison in 1992, but no updated informaiton is available. Chen Zhixiang--10 years for counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement. Chen Zhixiang, 33, is a former instructor at the Guangzhou (Guangdong Province) Maritime Transport Academy. Chen was involved in the Guangzhou city-wide 1989 democratic protest and arrested in late 1989. He was convicted of ``counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement'' in January 1990 and received a ten year sentenced. He is reportedly held in the Shaoguan Laogai Detachment in Guangdong Province. Li Wei--13 years for taking part in a counterrevolutionary group. Li, a worker at the Changchun (Jilin Province) No. 1 Motor Works, joined a `workers' forum' in 1987 and 1988. In Spring 1989, he joined a number of marches led by workers at the Changchun No. 1 Motor Works in support of the democratic movement. Li was detained in June 1989 and convicted of actively taking part in a counterrevolutionary group'' in November 1990. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Chinese authorities confirmed Li's sentence to the US government in November 1991. He is reportedly being held in the Liaoning Province Lingyuan No. 2 Laogai Detachment. Wang Changhuai--13 years for subversion. Wang was the Chairman of the Hunan Workers Autonomous Federation prior to the crackdown on the democratic protests of Spring 1989. Formerly a worker at the Changsha Au tomobile Engine Factory, Wang turned himself in to authorities in late June 1989. Wang was sentenced to 13 years improsonment for `subversion'. He is reportedly being held in Hunan Province Yuanjiang No. 1 Prison.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time and for his very generous comments. They are reciprocated by me in terms of his leadership on this issue for the past 10 years, really for his whole life, as a champion of human rights throughout the world. I want to also thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his steadfastness. Ten years have gone by, and we have been working on this issue a very, very long time. I wish the outcome, this 10 years later, would be a better one to report on human rights in China. But I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership over the years and in the recent days in moving this legislation out of the committee. I appreciate that very much.