Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to mark the contributions of two highly respected California journalists. On Sunday, May 23, 1999, veteran Bay Area television journalists Belva Davis and Rollin Post will be honored at the San Francisco City Hall Rotunda. Their combined experience spans 70 years, a long and rich engagement with the social, cultural, and political history of the Bay Area. Belva Davis, winner of multiple professional awards, has worked continuously on television since 1966, when she became the first African-American female reporter on the West Coast. Since that breakthrough, Belva has contributed significantly to the shape and the texture of today's television news. Her sharp, poignant reports stimulate community awareness. Her commitment is further demonstrated by deep involvement in numerous community organizations. She is also a labor activist and a visible supporter of African-American culture and history. During her career, Belva Davis has reported for, or anchored, such public affairs programs as KRON's ``California This Week'' with Political Analyst Rollin Post, BayTV's ``Close-up with Belva Davis'' and ``Bay Area Close UP,'' KQED's ``A Closer Look'' and ``Evening Edition.'' She has also served as News Centers 4's anchor and urban affairs specialist. Most recently, she joined Congresswoman Barbara Lee's citizen delegation to report a week-long series on the people, culture and politics of Cuba and on Cuba's relationship with the United States. Belva has received six local Emmys, the 1996 Governor's Award of the Northern California Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, a Certificate of Excellence from the California Associated Press Television and Radio Association, and the Golden Gadfly Award of the Media Alliance. She has honorary doctorates from Golden Gate University and John F. Kennedy Universities. The Media Academy of Oakland offers an annual journalism scholarship in Ms. Davis's name. When Rollin Post announced his retirement, Belva said: ``I've been learning from Rollin Post for three decades, and we have become the real political odd couple. He has taught me how to make the most complicated political issues interesting to a sometimes disinterested electorate.'' Rollin Post has covered politics in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 40 years. With keen understanding of public affairs, Rollin has covered 14 national political conventions. In addition to state and local political issues, Rollin reported from Cuba in 1978 on trade, tourism, and hijacking. In 1986, Rollin was on special assignment in the Philippines during the transition to democracy. ``Rollin is an old-fashioned reporter who gives you the facts and is genuinely interested in the process, the politics, the issues and ideas. He is exceptionally fair-minded and doesn't have a cynical bone in his body,'' wrote John Jacobs, political editor of McClatchy Newspapers. With a passion for politics, along with a touch of idealism, Rollin brought clarity and understanding to the political process. Early in his career, Rollin worked for KPIX-TV, where he concentrated on politics and general assignments. He was also head writer and producer for ``The Paul Coates Report,'' a nationally syndicated television interview show. Rollin joined KQED in 1973 to work on three programs: ``A Closer Look,'' ``Newsroom,'' and ``California Tonight.'' In September 1979, Rollin joined KRON-TV, where he served as NewsCenter4's political editor for 18 years. While co-anchoring on KRON's ``California This Week.'' Rollin and Belva brought passion and insight to the issues of the day. Because of their pioneering spirit and leadership, Rollin and Belva became mentors to the next generation of journalists. Rollin speaks of Belva with great affection: ``She's a Type A; I'm the type who likes to take naps.'' Currently, Rollin hosts ``Our World This Week,'' an international news show produced by BayTV in cooperation with the World Affairs Council of Northern California. Among his many awards, Rollin received the prestigious Broadcast Preceptor Award from the 32nd annual San Francisco State University Broadcast Industry Conference. He has also been honored by the Coro Foundation for his influential leadership in the public arena. In celebrating the lives and careers of Belva Davis and Rollins Post, we are paying tribute to two remarkable people whom we are also fortunate to know as friends.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and, as always, for his extraordinary leadership and now on this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues would have all been very proud of the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) as he chaired the conference on this bill, for this emergency supplemental bill. He represented our House with great dignity and great humor and great patience, and we all commended him for that. Of course we are always proud of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his advocacy for his point of view, a point of view that many of us share. In saying the compliments that I have extended to the chairman, it makes me all the more reluctant to rise in opposition to this bill. Certainly it is about time for us to provide the emergency funding for the victims of the hurricanes in Central America. It is 7 months since those hurricanes struck, and they exacted the worst natural disaster in this century in this hemisphere. Here we are 7 months later finally coming to the floor, but, hallelujah, here we are. It does provide assistance to our farmers and FEMA for the devastation in our own Midwest and Oklahoma and Kansas. But I object to the fact that that emergency assistance must be offset. This is an emergency supplemental bill. Of its nature, it does not need to be offset. Part of my opposition to the bill springs from the fact that we are making the exception for these disasters in our own hemisphere while we are spending billions of dollars; and I do not think that should be offset either, I fully support the spending that we are doing in Kosovo. How is it offset? By nearly $1 billion in cuts in food stamps and $350 million in section 8 housing. I take the word of my colleagues when we say that this will not have an impact on the delivery of food stamps and housing, nutrition and housing for the poor people in our country, and that this is excess funds appropriated, uncommitted funds that will not be spent this year. I understand that, and I respect that. But I do not understand why we have to go to that pot. Certainly there is other uncommitted appropriated funds. There are other appropriated uncommitted funds we can go to without sending a message that, not only do we take exception to offset funding for hurricane disasters in our own hemisphere and in Central America and offset it from the poorest of the poor account in our country, there should have been a better place for the offsets if we needed them in the first place. Then I support, of course, the substantial assistance to refugees. But, again, we are talking about spending so much more money that is not an emergency. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) did a great job on the riders, but not a complete job. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the supplemental.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), for affording me a little bit of time to clarify my position on the Sweeney amendment, which I said earlier that I had hoped the committee could accommodate. It was more in the spirit of what the amendment says about the willful identification of U.S. intelligence agents also including such protections to cover former agents. I think there should be a stern penalty for those who would be involved in the willful identification. I do not think that, as the Sweeney amendment says, there should be minimum mandatory penalties but that should be left up to the judges. These people put themselves in harm's way. They deserve our protection, but the minimum mandatory sentence is not what it should be.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment and commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of our committee, for his accommodation of the Hinchey amendment. But I want this amendment to survive the conference because I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has provided some great leadership to us today in presenting this amendment. That is why I am very grateful to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for his amendment to accommodate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Our distinguished chairman laid out some important considerations in his observation of this amendment, and they are important. There are other equities to be balanced, and I am glad that my colleagues have come to an agreement on the amendment. But, again, I want it to survive the conference. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Our President was in Guatemala a few months ago, or was it weeks? So much happens so fast around here. I was very proud of the statement that he made. Latin America had been in turmoil for a couple of generations, as we all know, some of it, sad to say, and in Guatemala in particular, with the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and other American entities there. The President, I think very courageously, recognized what happened there and, in doing so, I think began to open the door to a better future for the intelligence community. In Central America and in Latin America the expression ``nunca mas'' is so famous, because in Argentina, in Chile, and Central America, people are revisiting their sad recent past. An important bridge to the future has been truth commissions which have identified, not to find revenge, but to seek some level of justice and some level of openness and admission about what happened to clear a way for the future. If we, the United States and specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, had a role in the death of President Allende, just as if any Chilean had a role in it, putting it behind us requires facing the truth about it. So I think that, as far as Chile is concerned, this is a very important amendment, but I think it also will build credibility for us if we are not in a state of denial about the CIA's involvement but of acceptance of what the reality was. We will find out what that is as a result of the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I also, though, want to say that, unless we are forthcoming on our role, it is very hard to see why Latin Americans will be forthcoming about what their role is. I think that we can lead by example in this way. I also would like to take the occasion to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his leadership and activity in trying to persuade our government in making the documents available for the Pinochet case to the Spanish government. I hope that this will be a message to repressive dictators everywhere that a day of reckoning comes, and that they just cannot commit these atrocities and then say, well, let us put it all behind us. As I say again, this is not about revenge, it is about truth. It is about justice. It is about opening the way for a better future and building credibility for what we do. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss). We should not jeopardize the safety of our sources and methods. I think that his amendment is a constructive one. These people risk their lives just the way our young people do in the military. We are proud of the military. We are proud of the people who put themselves in harm's way to gather intelligence for us. So while we are not condoning any activities that were not legal, we cannot proceed with reasonable intelligence gathering if those who are called upon to do so are in jeopardy because of unintentional identification. This is especially true at a time when we want more women, we want more minorities, we want more diversity, we want more language skills, we want more cultural understanding into the Central Intelligence Agency. We want them to have the same level of protection that others have had in the past. Building that diversity with an openness and an admission of what our past has been I think will build more support for what we need to have, which is the best possible intelligence to avoid conflict and to supply whoever the President of the United States is with the information he needs to lead. With that, again I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), our ranking member, for their leadership on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time and commend both the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for their leadership on our committee and in conducting the proceedings, in the gentleman from Florida's case as our chairman, in a very fair and nonpartisan way. I as one from the left of the spectrum came to the committee to subject the budget to the very harshest scrutiny, to declassify as many documents as was possible in our national interest, and also to hopefully see more diversity among the people who work in the community. I think that is important because we should have the community tap the talents of all the people in our society. I think it will lead to better intelligence because we will have resources far beyond those that we have now. Today, I wanted to address a couple of issues which are current in my remarks about the bill, and because we may be called into the appropriations supplemental conference at any moment, I am going to talk about some of the amendments in my remarks here today. But on two issues, Chinese espionage and the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, I wanted to make a couple of observations. In terms of the alleged espionage at our labs, I think this is a very, very serious problem. I believe it is unfortunate that the safeguards were not in place to protect our critical advantage, our competitive advantage in terms of national security and the weapons that are at our disposal. I think that what is happening in Kosovo is a demonstration that war should be obsolete as an option. But that not being the case, we have to protect the investment we are making in our national defense and we have to, as our chairman has said, have a force multiplier in the intelligence that we have to prevent conflict and to equip our President with the best possible information. But in dealing with the espionage issue, I hope that we will be careful not to impugn the good reputations of the many Asian Americans who are so excellent in the field of mathematics and science and who have provided great service to our country, our Asian American community. We must be very, very careful about how we deal with that issue in those terms. We must also not impede the free flow of scientific information. I am not talking about our secrets. I am talking about that kind of information that should flow freely among scientists and it should flow internationally. I think every person and every country in the world benefits from that. We also must not demoralize all of the scientists at the labs. We must recognize the service they have all provided to our country and not investigate any one of them because of their national origin, that we must have real cause, and it be directed toward programs that they are working on rather than, as I say, national origin. In terms of the air strike, there are accidents that happen in war. This was not an accident. This was a stupid mistake. I think that the Chinese government--and I have never been one to pull a punch in my criticism of the Chinese government as everyone here knows--deserves the apology which it has received from the President of the United States. I think the Chinese government deserves an inquiry into how this happened to allay any suspicions that they may have that it was anything but a mistake or an accident. I also think that our country should make reparations to the families of those who died and those who were injured in that tragedy. I do not think that we should, as some in China and the China Business News have suggested, hatch some economic favors for the Chinese to make up for the bombing of the embassy, and I do think that the Chinese, in respect for all the catering to the Chinese that President Clinton has done, owed him the courtesy and the respect of showing his apology to the Chinese people far earlier so as not to inflame the sentiments of the Chinese people against the United States. It is interesting to me to see these young people driven up in buses, corralled by the Chinese military to the front of our embassy where they threw pieces of sidewalk over a number of days at our embassy with our ambassador inside. I did not see anybody being taken away by the police except to be escorted to safety where young people 10 years ago, almost to the day, when they demonstrated peacefully in Tiananmen Square were rolled over by tanks. So I would hope that in addition to our apology, our reparations and our inquiry that the Chinese would also look into the perpetrators of that demonstration, that violent demonstration, against the American embassy in China. Since I do not have very much time, I am going to go on to the amendments since I might have to go to committee and I will not be here to speak on them. I think that most of the amendments offered by our colleagues should be accepted by the committee, specifically that of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) relating to the Kosovo Liberation Army. I hope the committee will be able to accept the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), which I think is very well founded, about the investigation of the assassination of President Allende. I understand the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) may or may not offer his, but I hope we can work out the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), which I think is a valuable addition to the bill. I hope that the committee will accept the recommendation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and I certainly support the recommendation of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and I hope that that will be worked out. With that I again commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the way he conducts our meetings and the proud leadership of our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I also commend Mr. Hall for his tremendous leadership. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said earlier, no one has greater standing in this body than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) when it comes to meeting the needs of the hungry throughout the world. We are blessed to serve with him, and it is a privilege to call him colleague. Mr. Speaker, we are all very blessed to have the privilege to serve in this body. We speak for the American people. They give us this privilege, and we should deal with it responsibly. We owe them that, to use our best thinking and our arts of compromise to come to agreement on issues for America's future. At no time is it more important that we put our partisanship aside, as when we put our children in harm's way, our young people in harm's way, as they are now in the Balkans. That is why it was so disappointing to see the rule that came to the floor this morning. Last night I went home fully prepared to come in to vote for the rule. We were told that we had bipartisan cooperation and that it would be an open rule. Indeed, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations heralded it just that way in his remarks just a few moments ago when he said this is an open rule which will allow each Member to bring his or her amendment to the floor. But what form do those amendments take? Would others consider it their amendment if, as in the case of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Republican majority altered the amendment? Certainly they knew the appeal of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. It is responsible, it addresses our military needs, it recognizes the increased cost of the huge number of refugees who unexpectedly descended upon Macedonia and Albania, and it has the urgency of Hurricane Mitch contained in it. It also addresses the needs of America's farmers. They knew that it was responsible. They knew it would appeal to their Republican Members. That is why it was so disappointing to see the illusion of an open rule with a rule that changed the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, co-opting the provision on agricultural assistance and giving a piece of that amendment to one of their colleagues, hoping to deflect support from the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin by having a separate agricultural vote. And what they also lost is the success of the Obey amendment, which contains, again, $175 million in humanitarian assistance. Others have said that there is disagreement about the policy and the war and the air strikes and the rest. I myself support President Clinton's action and commend him for his courageous leadership. But one thing we all agree on is that the American people want us to provide humanitarian assistance. They do not want to see the most vulnerable, the children and the elderly, starving and freezing and going without the absolute basic necessities. But unless we have the additional humanitarian assistance, that will be the case. In addition, in the so-called open rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), as was mentioned, was denied the opportunity to put in $150 million in additional food assistance for the refugees. How can this be called an open rule if the gentleman from Ohio, who is on the committee, has standing on the issue, is present at the table to make his case, is denied the opportunity to present an amendment which will give people food to eat? We are talking about the basics. I was pleased to join our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), on a visit to the Balkans. We visited the refugee camps. We can speak firsthand as to the needs there and to how those needs have grown since the administration made its request to Congress. I support the President's request, I support the President's support of the NATO action, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. For some reason, between yesterday, when there was a spirit of cooperation for an open rule that we could all support. That rule would give the American people what they should expect of us, which is a reasoned and informed debate on the actions in the Balkans and how much we should be paying for it. Instead we are faced with the choice of voting for twice as much money as the President asked for in his bill on a policy that the Republican majority rejected last week. I guess they are saying, ``We do not agree with you, but we want you to spend twice as much money to pay for it.'' In sadness, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for accepting the amendment and for his comments, and I want to commend him because indeed he has at every opportunity, impressed upon the administration that more funding would be necessary. That is why this is a great opportunity for us. It takes some of the pressure off of our foreign operations bill where we may be asked to provide even more humanitarian assistance. But at least today we can get the $67 million especially to focus on the food needs within the disaster assistance account.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman. The administration had intended to use the existing P.L. 480 title 2 resources and surplus commodities from the section 416(b) program to meet the needs in Kosovo. As we know, the needs have exceeded in terms of numbers of refugees and the duration in the camps, and I just respond to the issue that the gentleman had brought up. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman [Mr. Callaham] for his leadership, the distinguished ranking member [Mr. Obey], the distinguished chairman of the full committee [Mr. Young] for his cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join my distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs in commending the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this issue. As I said last night, I support his amendment. We can all agree to the need for those camps from the standpoint of sanitation and hygiene and meeting the needs of these refugees who have been dislocated or are grieving or malnourished and the rest. I would hope that the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, I understand there is about $100 million unprogramed there that can be used for this purpose, and I would support the gentleman's appeal to the conference committee with that. I want to again acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). To be in his company and that of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), two leaders on child survival issues throughout the world, is indeed an honor; and I once again commend them.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in order to increase the amount of humanitarian assistance that is available for the refugees in the Balkans. We have disagreements in many areas here, but one thing we all agree on and the American people are interested in is to provide humanitarian assistance to the refugees. With the passage of the Latham amendment we have some breathing room, some headroom in the foreign operations programs, and my amendment takes $67 million from the Latham amendment activity and adds it to the AID disaster assistance account in order to meet the emerging needs in Kosovo including the provision, and emphasizing the provision, of food. As my colleagues know, both the Obey amendments had a provision for $175,000 for additional humanitarian assistance, and Mr. Hall's amendment had $150 million for additional food. Neither of these prevailed; the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did not pass, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) was not made in order. However, I want us to just stipulate to the fact that there is general agreement that more food is needed. Many of us, including the distinguished chairman of the full committee, were in the Balkans and we saw people waiting in line for hours for food. We saw little babies who had crossed the mountains and through the forests have only cold tea for 2 weeks of their very young lives. The refugee problem is a greater one than was anticipated. If we do not increase the humanitarian assistance, Mr. Chairman, I believe we will have a second humanitarian disaster. Therefore in this amendment I will submit more information for the Record, but in the interests of time I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which increases the humanitarian assistance in the bill by $67 million and with a special focus on food programs.

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

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment. The alternative presented here today provides for the full request of the President for Kosovo, provides for a real pay raise for our troops, provides high priority operation and maintenance funding for DOD, increases amounts for emergency food assistance for Kosovo, and most significantly, provides the funds for the Central American disaster and for American farmers without offsets. It is now over six months since Hurricane Mitch struck Central America, and this Congress has yet to provide any of the reconstruction assistance that is vitally needed to help our neighbors to the South. While the House and Senate have passed bills providing this assistance and everyone involved espouses their good intentions, no funding has been made available. This amendment adds the full $956 million for the Central American disaster as an emergency. The Kosovo bill contains about $600 million to address the humanitarian needs of the Kosovar refugees, and it does so without offsets. This same standard should be applied to emergency funds for Central American. Both of these events are true emergencies and should be funded as such. I want to remind members that the planting season has begun in Central America and many of the 100,000 small farmers wiped out by the Hurricane are without credit, seeds or the other inputs necessary to plant their crops. Without a significant and immediate input of agricultural assistance we will undoubtedly face food shortages again soon in Central America. No funding is in place to begin the reconstruction of the 3,000 miles of rural roads or the 300 bridges destroyed by the Hurricane. Over 200,000 school children continue to attend classes in temporary open- air facilities. It is time to put aside our differences and get this badly needed assistance moving. The amendment also provides $100 million in assistance to Jordan as requested. The Obey amendment does offset this nonemergency spending. Finally the Obey amendment provides $175 million in food assistance for Kosovo. Unfortunately the Administration did not request any additional funding to meet needs in Kosovo. With over 600,000 refugees now in camps and another 800,000 to 900,000 people displaced within Kosovo, it is now clear that the need for food assistance has grown, and that the existing resources of the Emergency feeding programs will not meet the needs. In addition it appears that ongoing food programs for Indonesia, Yemen, Ethiopia, and Rwanda have been cut back to meet needs in Kosovo. The $175 million for additional PL 480 in the amendment will enable feeding programs to continue all over the world and emerging needs to be met in Kosovo. The assumptions used by the Administration did not take into account refugee needs beyond September 30th of this year. There are no funds in this bill to move refugees back into Kosovo. There are no funds in this bill to winterize refugee camps, if that becomes necessary. In short there is very little wiggle room with these humanitarian accounts to respond to changing circumstances on the ground. This $175 million in additional food assistance will ensure that all refugees will be fed wherever they end up, and it will ensure that cuts are not made to other vital feeding programs. Support the Obey amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I want to again commend him for his leadership in bringing the Obey amendment to the floor because, indeed, it is the responsible approach to the challenge that we have before us. Let me just first say that it is hard to believe that nearly 7 months ago there was the greatest natural disaster, the worst natural disaster in the history of our hemisphere since they recorded these things in Central America. I do not think the American people know that we have still not passed out of this Congress legislation for the disaster assistance that the American people in their compassion wanted us to do. The assistance is still hung up on budgetary gimmickry and offsets and the rest. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) corrects the situation in his amendment. Mr. Obey also recognizes the large number of refugees who have come out of Kosovo and puts $175 million more in for humanitarian assistance. Again, whatever we may think of the war effort and the air strikes, the American people, God bless them, want the refugees to have humanitarian assistance. It also addresses the needs of America's farmers here at home, and it is responsible in meeting the needs of our military. And how proud we are of our people in the military, both for putting themselves in harm's way and their courage, but also for the military's role in humanitarian assistance. They assisted most recently in the Balkans, and they were indeed largely responsible for our initial emergency assistance in Central America, even though we still have not paid the bill on that. So I ask my colleagues, when the time comes for amendments, to vote and support the Obey amendment and to do so with the knowledge that it is the responsible approach to meeting the needs of our military, to addressing the pay raise issue for the military, to honoring the commitment of the American people for humanitarian assistance and to do it in a fiscally sound way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Cornerstone Ceremony for John A. O'Connell Technical High School in San Francisco. In 1989 the Loma Prieta earthquake virtually destroyed the facilities at John A. O'Connell Technical High School, and forced them to relocate the school temporarily for a period of ten years. In the year 2000 the John A. O'Connell Technical High School will return to its former site and a new building structure in the Mission District of San Francisco. John A. O'Connell Technical High School will be the first San Francisco public school of the Millenium. Its curriculum will be revised to reflect the role of technology for today's classrooms and workplaces as its focus moves from a traditional trade school to a school emphasizing a curriculum that will embody a ``school to career'' principle. On May 10, 1999, the Cornerstone Ceremony for John A. O'Connell Technical High School will be hosted by officers of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of California. It is a true reflection of our diversity of interests to bring together so many organizations in support of public education. The Masons have a rich tradition of serving our communities, particularly education, and we are grateful for their support over these many years. The man whose name we honor today--John O'Connell--served the San Francisco community as its labor leader for almost half a century as a founder of the Teamsters Union and the San Francisco Labor Council. Their extraordinary vision and commitment bring us once again to the doorsteps of a new center for education and learning in the Mission District. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Congress, let us join in celebrating our continued support for pubic education by commending the leaders and representatives of the San Francisco Mission District community, labor community, and Masonic Lodges and organizations and other individuals who have contributed to this historic occasion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us this evening, and in doing so, yes, I want to stipulate to the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for human rights in China, and let us say that everybody in this room cannot tolerate the atrocities, the brutality that Milosevic has exacted upon the people of Kosovo. Let us not have a fight about anyone's sincerity on the issue. But in supporting this resolution, I want to say what it is not. This resolution is not a declaration of war. It is not a blank check for the President. It does not authorize the use of ground troops. In fact, I do not support ground troops in Yugoslavia. It is interesting though to hear those who have criticized President Clinton for taking ground troops off the table as an option now say that they do not support this because it could lead to the authorization of ground troops. It is interesting to hear the same people who want to double the appropriation from $6 billion to $12 billion and those are on the majority side of the aisle say they do not want to support the military action that that funding is being appropriated for. So how can we have it both ways? We criticize the President for no ground troops, but we do not want to support this resolution because it could lead to ground troops. We do not want to support this resolution because it supports the President's policy on the flights and the strikes, and yet we want to double the amount of money that is there. It reminds me of Yogi Berra who said of a restaurant, ``I don't like the food in that restaurant, and, besides, they don't give you enough.'' Mr. Speaker, let us sound a resounding vote of yes on this resolution, so Milosevic can hear it, so our flyers in the area can hear it, and for the children who are displaced in the region.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution that is on the floor before us to declare the United States at war with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In doing so, I want to make three points. First of all, this is deadly serious business that we are talking about. This is not an academic discussion about when war should be declared, and what Congress's role is. As one who was a party to the suit that was sent to the Supreme Court under the leadership of Ron Dellums, I firmly believe in Congress's prerogative to declare war. So on that, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and I agree. But on the timing of this resolution and the substance of it I disagree. I think that there is a tremendous need for us to do something to stop what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. I was there myself last week. I held those babies in my arms. I spoke to 95-year-old women who had walked across the woods and the mountains to get to the camps. We do not need any reiteration of all of the suffering, and we all stipulate that we all want to end the suffering there. So this vote is not about how serious we are about ending the suffering. The other point I want to make is that the United States is the greatest democracy in the world. People look to us as they aspire to be stronger democracies, especially the emerging democracies throughout the world. When they see us play games with something as serious as the declaration of war, it sends a very strange message to them. Now, I know playing games is not the intent of the gentleman, but that is what the appearance of this is. Again, this is not an academic discussion. It is a debate about as serious as it gets in this body. And we have to be very clear about what our goals are. We have to be very clear about the timing of our actions. And we have to be very clear about what it means to other countries when they see us engage in a debate at a time when the prospect for war, sending ground troops, is not a lively one. When I was in the Balkan region last week, and at the end of last week, talking to the representatives of NATO who were here for the 50th anniversary, there was no will for sending in ground troops. So there is no urgency to this resolution today. The timing is very bad. The lesson that we send to other democracies is very poor. I urge my colleagues, for the sake of the seriousness of the war and the example that we set as a democracy, to vote ``no'' on the Campbell resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and for bringing this motion to instruct to the floor. I am pleased to hear that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has no objection to the motion to instruct and would not agree to the Senate offsets. I wish he would not agree to the House offsets as well. The reason we are here having this discussion, as the Speaker knows, is that, according to the budget rules, when there is an emergency funding bill, an emergency supplemental, we do not have to have offsets. What is an emergency? Well, many of us think that the greatest natural disaster in this hemisphere in this century, Hurricane Mitch, was thousands and thousands of people losing their lives, millions of people losing their homes and their jobs. The economy is wiped out in Central America. We think that constitutes an emergency. By any measure, it is more of an emergency than most bills we have called emergencies, most of the situations we have called emergencies before. It was our understanding, going into the bill, that the distinguished leadership of the Committee on Appropriations of the subcommittee and the full committee did not see the necessity for offsets. But instructions from the Republican leadership were to have offsets. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has very eloquently described the consequences of some of the offsets in the House bill relating to plutonium, relating to callable capital, thrusting uncertainty on the international financial institutions. But this motion to instruct is about not making matters worse by having the House conferees not agree to the Senate offsets, which, as I say, would only make matters worse. So here we are in a situation where ordinarily we would not need offsets, but this time the Republican leadership has foisted them upon the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations. We have a bill coming up soon for Kosovo where I hope we will not have offsets. It is hard to explain the inconsistencies in how we deal with these emergencies. We agree that we must move this along, as the distinguished chairman said. But in order to do that, we have to have some very serious, mature conversations about these offsets. I just want to convey to the House briefly some of the consequences of this delay that has been caused by this debate on the offset, this departure from the regular order in terms of funding an emergency supplemental bill. Most of the world seems to have forgotten, because other events have begun to eclipse what has happened in Central America. It is the fate of the Central American countries who suffered the devastation of Hurricane Mitch. It is now the end of April, 6 months after Hurricane Mitch struck, and none of the sorely needed reconstruction assistance has been approved by Congress. This is an emergency. AID and the Defense Department were able to respond to the immediate needs and restore basic health and sanitation to the devastated areas. However, in doing so, they are using existing resources that have been exhausted. I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman, when he talks and sings in praise of the work of the DOD and the U.S. military in Central America and their assistance there. They are to be praised; the situation would have been much worse without them. We are very proud of their effort. But it is hard to understand why the money going to the DOD does not need to be offset, but all the other spending on Hurricane Mitch needs to be offset, again, another inconsistency. To be more precise, several of the major NGOs operating in Honduras, such as CARE, the Catholic Relief Service, and Save the Church are running out of funding, really momentarily. The major Food for Work program under way in Honduras has run out of food to pay its workers. One hundred thousand small-scale farms will not receive credit or inputs for the first crop of basic grains, corn, bean, and rice as the planting season gets under way. Planting season is now upon us, and many farmers are without seeds to begin their first major crop since the hurricane. Low yields on the first crop will of course continue the food shortages and increase the emergency food requirements. Over 2,940 miles of roads and 300 bridges destroyed by the hurricane remain unusable. No significant funding has been provided to begin this rebuilding. Without funds for infrastructure or agricultural recovery, the over 100,000 laborers displaced by the hurricane will remain unemployed or underemployed. This increases pressure on migration to the U.S. Roughly 200,000 school kids have no schools or are managing in open- air facilities. Over 1,700 schools were destroyed by the hurricane, and little funding to rebuild them has been made available. Over 700 health clinics, providing the most basic of health services to the impoverished area, were destroyed. The chances for the recurrence or the spread of epidemics for malaria, cholera and dengue fever increases as the recovery of health systems delayed. Congress needs to act now to make this funding available. It is in fact long overdue. We want an economic recovery in Central America. We do need to provide some assistance to spur that along. We should be doing it without offsets. Certainly we should do it without the Senate offsets. It is in that regard that I once again commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership in bringing this very enlightened motion to instruct to the floor, and I am delighted that the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Young) has no objection to it. Let us move forward, keep our promises to our Latin American neighbors and relieve their plight as we move forward. We must move now.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 84th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide that took place in Turkey between 1915 and 1923. This antecedent for all subsequent 20th-century genocides began on April 24, 1915, when the rulers of the Ottoman Empire began the systematic and ruthless extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey. By the end of the Terror, more than 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children had been massacred and more than half a million others had been expelled from the homeland that their forbearers had inhabited for three millennia. Last weekend I traveled to the Kosovo war zone with other members of a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Delegation. The official briefings were important and informative; but the visit to a refugee camp was staggering. I saw whole landscapes of misery, broad vistas of suffering, vast panoramas of despair and destruction. Yet I heard very little. The silence was deafening. It was the sound of deep sadness. I was in Macedonia, but I suspect that the scenes I was witnessing are reminiscent of the Anatolian plateau circa 1920, when the Armenian population was experiencing a demographic disaster of Biblical proportions. As we enter the Third Millennium of the Christian Era, it behooves us to remember. If we ignore the lessons of the Armenian Genocide, then we are destined to continue our stumblings through the long, dark tunnel of endless ethnic-cleansings, genocides, and holocausts. Let us, then, remember to remember.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her great leadership in bringing this very, very important piece of legislation to the floor. This is a great day for the House of Representatives. This is a day that brings honor to the work we do here as we honor Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is the legitimate heir of the founders of our country. I hesitate to say Founding Fathers because in some ways she is a founding mother for all that our country stands for. She is in the tradition of freedom, equality, and of liberty. How wonderful, how wonderful that this House of Representatives and thus then this Congress of this United States will award her the Gold Medal. Every American who has ever lived and who ever will live owes Rosa Parks a great debt of gratitude for her courage, for her leadership. It did not stop when she changed the course of history in our country. She continues to be a source of inspiration to all of us. Again, we thank Rosa Parks for her courage and for allowing us the privilege of honoring her.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution that is on the floor now. Here we are once again. Americans are participating in the annual rite of spring; of course, that is tax day, April 15. If one thinks it is a painful day for them, think of my family. It is my husband's birthday and he has to spend this day doing the painful task of paying taxes. We all can take legitimate pride in the democratic pageantry of voluntary compliance. Tax compliance, like voter turnout, is a sensitive measure of civic health and it is based on an American sense of fairness. That is the main reason I oppose this resolution, which has become part of the rite of spring, an attempt largely on the part of our Republican colleagues to grandstand the tax issue. Certainly we would all love to live in a world where we did not have to have any responsibility and pay any taxes, but that is not the world that we live in. Certainly we want our people to pay the least amount of tax that should be required of them, but it has to be based on tax fairness. It is so ironic that just yesterday the House Republicans ran through a $1.74 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2000 that was absurdly fixated on huge tax cuts for the rich, does absolutely nothing to extend the solvency of Medicare, and assumes deep cuts in key domestic programs. Today the GAO reports that a majority of the largest international corporations doing business in the United States continue to pay no Federal income tax, and today, with this resolution, our Republican colleagues want to make sure that that does not change and to make sure that it is more difficult to close any tax loopholes. Our Founding Fathers considered this, as has been mentioned by my colleagues. They considered and rejected this supermajority, this two- thirds requirement, because of the majority rule that they were wedded to and which has served our country so well. Sometimes I think that the attempts of my colleagues to protect the assets of the very wealthy in our country are subscribing to the Leona Helmsley quote, ``Taxes are for little people.'' Well, I want to spend a moment talking about the real little people of America. The real little people of America are children, the very destiny of our civilization, who continue to suffer the insult and injury of Republican budgets. The latest Republican budget, to take the most egregious example, has privileged tax relief for the prosperous over Head Start funding for children. Is it fair to deny a child a proper start in life? Will that child grow up to comply voluntarily with this Tax Code, if that is our issue? Crucial to America's children is the economic security of their families. That includes the pension security of their grandparents, and that means a living wage for all working adults, and saving Social Security, which the Democratic budget did a better job at, in addition to extending Medicare. In addition to that, access to quality health care and high-quality education to large segments of the American population are values that the American people have. Our budget, how we take in revenue, how we spend it, should be a statement of our values. It should be based on fairness and it should prepare us for the future. I think the budget yesterday and this resolution today do neither, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. PELOSI. At least.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment, and in doing so to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her exceptional leadership on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) knows the high esteem with which I hold him but I disagree completely with his bill and I take great issue with its title, Local Census Quality Control Act. What kind of quality control is it to exclude minorities in our society from being counted accurately? What kind of quality control is it to deny them their due representation in this governing body? What kind of quality control is it to deny the proper funding to States based on an unenlightened process? This bill should pass only if the Maloney amendment is included. The Maloney amendment will allow the Census Bureau, an entity known to be able to do this, to be left to do their job and provide the most accurate count of all of America's peoples. The delay proposed by H.R. 472 undermines the Bureau's efforts to provide an accurate count by derailing the process in an attempt to invalidate the best possible census count. It denies fairness to people and it denies fairness to communities. As a Californian, I appeal to my colleagues from the State of California to support the Maloney amendment and to defeat H.R. 472 without the Maloney bill. This will do great harm to California. It certainly does to my City of San Francisco and I will submit that testimony for the record. Our country, as I say in California, the beauty is in the mix. We are blessed with a great and diverse population. That diversity is our strength. We must not undermine it by under counting it in the census and therefore undermining the representation that the beautiful diversity should have in this great legislative and deliberative body. So I again salute my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her outstanding leadership on this and urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Maloney amendment. Mr. Speaker, the only ``quality'' in H.R. 472 is poor quality. What kind of ``quality control'' is it to exclude minorities in our society from being counted accurately? What kind of ``quality control'' is it to deny them their due representation in this governing body? What kind of ``quality control'' is it to also deny the proper funding to states based on an unenlightened process? H.R. 472 is not about ``quality control.'' H.R. 472 is about delaying the process and denying representation. H.R. 472 is about denying the civil rights of individuals who deserve to be included in an accurate account. A post-census review was ineffective in the 1990 census; what makes it effective in 1999? H.R. 472 sends us on a retreat to 1990 methods which failed. There is a lesson to be learned here but, instead, H.R. 472 places us on a proven path of failure. Involving local government too late in the count is 1990 dejavu. The problems which occurred in 1990 with only 25% of local governments participating in the traditional local review has been addressed by the Census Bureau's Local Update of Census Addresses which is well underway and has already doubled local participation. The Maloney amendment would let the Census Bureau do what it is charged to do--use the best, modern techniques to provide the best census count possible. Individually, an undercount using outdated methods, can be damaging and an undercount also has a tremendous effect collectively--on entire communities. In the U.S. Conference of Mayors report on the fiscal impact of an undercount, this effect is noted: ``. . . the formulas used by the federal government to allocate funds in various programs include the number of people who are part of a socioeconomic group--for example, those living in poverty. Since such groups are the ones that historically are the most likely to be undercounted, the loss of federal funds in a city with large portions of such populations is particularly profound.'' Specifically, the report identifies San Francisco in stating: ``The impact of the undercount will be greater in the next decade if the Census 2000 reflects the same inaccuracy. The City is more likely than many other areas of the United States to be adversely affected if sampling is not used in Census 2000.'' The report continues in addressing the immigrant population in San Francisco: ``Studies have shown that communities having a large, relatively recent immigrant population, as well as those with a relatively large proportion of their households living in rental units, are especially prone to undercounts.'' From the time between the 1980 census and the 1990 census, 54,000 immigrants came to San Francisco and the net increase through 1997 has been 66,000. In addition to the undercount of the immigrant population in cities, there is also a concern which San Francisco shares with other urban areas in an undercount of the homeless population. In a year's time, 11,000-16,000 San Franciscans experience at least one episode of homelessness. Almost a third of this number is comprised of families with children which translates into a large potential undercount of children in urban areas. These are the individuals who will suffer from a delay that attempts to subvert the Census Bureau's efforts to provide an accurate count. Entire communities will also suffer as a result. All members of the California delegation should be particularly concerned about this delay and its impact on federal funding to communities throughout the state. The loss to California from the 1990 census undercount was $2.2 billion in lost revenue. As Governor Davis has stated, ``We can ill afford to lose another $2 billion over the next ten years.'' The Census Bureau is a known entity which employs experienced census experts. They should be left to do their job and provide the most accurate count of all of America's people. The delay proposed in H.R. 472 undermines the Bureau's efforts to provide an accurate count by derailing the process in an attempt to invalidate the best possible census count. It denies fairness to people and it denies fairness to communities. This should not be allowed to happen. H.R. 472 provides no ``quality control'' on the undercount; it is simply an attempt to continue the inequities of an undercount. Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney amendment and ``no'' on H.R. 472 without it.