Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Ms. Speaker, it sometimes happens that the unexpected juxtaposition of disparate events imposes its own logic, and the emerging pattern rivets our attention and commands our respect. So it is with the recent passing of three extraordinary women: Frances Ross, who died December 9th at 84 years of age; Helen Feinberg, who followed on February 22nd, also 84; and Vivian Hallinan, who departed March 16th after 88 years of life. Of the same generation that was tempered in the Great Depression and triumphant in World War II, all three women shared many characteristics and values. All, of course, were native or adoptive Californians. And, in the trail-blazing spirit of the Golden State, all were true pioneers in their respective fields: Ross in the treatment of the mentally ill; Feinberg in nursing and human rights; and Hallinan in a wide range of progressive causes. All three women exhibited, early in life, the qualities we associate with leadership. They were relentless champions of social justice, peace, equality, democracy, and freedom. And in the pursuit of those values, their perseverance was legendary. Finally, and perhaps most impressive, Frances, Helen, and Vivian also shared the exquisite ability to balance an active life in the public domain with an equally impressive dedication to family and friends in the private realm. In conclusion, Frances Ross, Helen Feinberg, and Vivian Hallinan were courageous leaders of a generation that is rapidly passing from our scene. We are losing a national treasure, and we should all pause to register our common loss. Details about the wonderful lives of these three women are included in the following tributes. [From the San Francisco Examiner, Dec. 11, 1998] Frances Lillian Ross--Advocate for Mentally Ill (By Eric Brazil) Frances Lillian Ross, who pioneered residential treatment for the mentally ill in San Francisco, died Wednesday in San Rafael at age 83. She had been in failing health for two-months, following a stroke at her Villa Marin home. From 1965 through 1997, Mrs. Ross was executive director of Conard House, which developed the model for treating mentally ill patients in a non-institutional setting. ``She was instrumental in establishing what community mental health looks like in this town,'' said Steve Fields, executive director of the Progress Foundation. Conrad House ``was very, very much on the ground floor. It was one of the first models of a halfway house, if not the first,'' recalled psychiatrist Dr. Price Cobbs. Born in San Diego, Mrs. Ross attended 13 grammar schools and three high schools--including Polytechnic in San Francisco--before graduating from San Francisco State. Even before the '30s had ended Mrs. Ross had lived an eventual life--as a ``girl cashier'' at the World's Fair on Treasure Island, as Northern California campaign manager for winning Democratic gubernatorial candidate Culbert Olson and in organizing relief for Spanish civil war refugees. During the early 1940s, she was a teacher and social worker in Central Valley migrant labor camps, including Marysville- Yuba City, where she met and married her late husband, Fred Ross, a community organizer, whose career--including the discovery of farm labor leader Cesar Chavez--became legendary. Her youngest son, Fred, now chief of staff to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, recalled that his mother taught birth control as well as drama and other subjects to wives of farm workers. He said, ``Birth control was called `baby spacing,' then, and one of the women asked her, `Is that to teach us how to space them closer together or farther apart?''' On the eve of World War II, Mrs. Ross worked to get refugee Jewish physicians out of Germany, and after the war began, she operated a drill press and worked for racial integration at a Cleveland airplane parts manufacturing plant, while her husband worked with Japanese Americans who had been relocated to the Midwest from the Pacific Coast. At age 41, Mrs. Ross returned to San Francisco State and obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology. Her professional career was interrupted by polio, and she was unable to work for nine years. When Mrs. Ross was hired as executive director at Conard House--she had been a rehabilitation counselor at Lighthouse for the Blind--institutionalization was virtually the only recognized form of treatment for the mentally ill. Mrs. Ross started Conard House's co-op apartment program, which provides an extended period of recovery for clients admitted to the program's halfway house. Katherine Erickson, owner of two retail gift shops at Pier 39, who worked for Mrs. Ross for seven years at Conard House, recalled her as ``the most powerful woman I've ever worked with . . . a most extraordinary woman. She had the ability to cut through the B.S. and see what was really going on.'' Mrs. Ross is survived by daughter Julia, a director of recovery systems in Larkspur; sons Robert, a high school teacher in Davis, and Fred of San Francisco; and by three grandchildren and one great-grandchild. A memorial service will be held Dec. 19--her 84th birthday--at 3 p.m. in the auditorium of Villa Marin in San Rafael, where she had resided for the past 13 years. The family suggests that friends wishing to remember Mrs. Ross with charitable contributions direct them to the Post Polio Support Group of Sonoma County, 4672 Park Trail Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95405; or to the Larkspur public library.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the organizing work of Cesar Chavez and to memorialize his lifelong struggle for justice, respect, and decent living conditions for America's farm workers. Cesar Chavez was born on March 31, 1927, on a small farm in Arizona. When he died in 1993, at the age of 66, Cesar was President of the United Farm Workers of America. For most of his life, Cesar toiled on farms--both picking fruit and organizing workers--and dedicated himself to improving the plight of migrant workers. Cesar grew up living as a migrant farm worker in the Southwest, and migrated with his family in their struggles to earn a living. His experiences taught him the importance of collective action and the importance of organizing to address America's economic and social inequity. Cesar Chavez and his family were living in the East San Jose barrio of Sal Si Puedes, roughly translated this means Get Out If You Can, in 1952. That year, Cesar met Fred Ross Sr., an organizer for the Community Service Organization (C.S.O.), one of the first civic action groups in the Mexican-American communities of California and Arizona. Fred Ross became his mentor, and together they built 32 chapters of the C.S.O., organizing thousands of Mexican Americans to become active leaders of their communities. Cesar taught these leaders how to organize and win battles to end discrimination in education, housing, employment and health care. He led successful citizenship, voter registration, and get out the vote campaigns in both urban and rural communities throughout California. Because of his efforts, more than 500,000 new voters were added to America's rolls in the 1950's and early 1960's Due to his determination and hard work, he rose from his humble origins to become the national director of CSO. He departed in 1962 to found the National Farm Workers Association. Against great odds, Cesar led a successful five year strike and boycott that rallied millions of supporters to the farm workers movement. He forged an international support coalition of unions, religious groups, students, minorities and fair minded consumers. From the beginning, he adhered to the principles of non-violence practiced by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1968, Cesar fasted for 25 days to reaffirm the UFW's commitment to non-violence. The late Senator Robert F. Kennedy called Cesar ``one of the heroic figures of our time'' and joined him in Delano when he ended his fast. Cesar's work has had a lasting impact on our nation. Seventeen million Americans honored the grape boycott, and thousands joined his non-violent struggle for justice in more active ways, through picket lines, civil disobedience, going to jail, and working as five dollar per week plus room and board volunteers, the same compensation that Cesar earned. My San Francisco District Director, Fred Ross Jr., son of Cesar's mentor, was one of these young people inspired by Cesar to join the cause and help migrant workers win the respect, dignity, and decent living conditions that they deserved. On August 8, 1994, Cesar posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor in the United States. Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor honored him by inducting him into its Hall of Fame. I support House Joint Resolution 22, To Commemorate the Birthday of Cesar E. Chavez, which would declare March 31 a Federal holiday in his honor. Cesar dedicated his life to improving the living conditions of America's workers. I urge my colleagues to recognize his life's work.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, our Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. How we spend our money should reflect what is important to us. The budget should address our current needs and capitalize on opportunities in the future. The budget should recognize the strength of our country, not only in terms of our military might, but also measure our strength in terms of the health, education, and well-being of American families. I cannot think of two better measures of a budget than its attention to educating our children and improving the health status of all Americans. This budget turns away from both these urgent priorities, putting tax cuts ahead of all else. The preschool education program Head Start is one example. Head Start is one of our success stories. It offers early education and nutrition services to lower income children and it has been proven effective. Within 10 years, this budget would decimate Head Start, cutting funding by nearly one-third. One hundred thousand low-income children would lose Head Start services. The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over Head Start funding. In the area of health, the Republican budget is just as short- sighted. This country faces many challenges in health care. Forty-four million Americans are living without health insurance. And at the same time, we face tremendous opportunities to improve and extend lives with health research. It is our obligation to act on these challenges and opportunities. This Republican budget turns away from them. The budget proposal cuts discretionary health spending by 31 percent over 10 years without spelling out what will be cut. Will it be health promotion at the Centers for Disease Control? Health care for the uninsured at the Health Resources and Services Administration? Health research at the National Institutes of Health? The answer is that all these vital areas would suffer under the Republican budget, and that would have a direct impact on the health status of people across the country. This budget also ignores Medicare, calling for unspecified Medicare ``reforms,'' and proposing no tangible resources to shore up the health care program on which tens of millions of seniors depend. The Republican budget chooses a tax cut over health care and health research. This Republican budget is dangerously out of step with our values. It is short-sighted and it makes its biggest cuts where the poor will feel them most directly. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Harriet Tubman and her life-long dedication to social justice. We remember Harriet Tubman for her role in winning freedom for African-Americans. We remember her work on behalf of the Underground Railroad. We remember her courage in risking her life and freedom to help others to escape the tyranny of enslavement. Harriet Tubman was born a slave in the early 1820s in Bucktown, Maryland, near Cambridge. At birth, she was named Araminta, but later adopted her mother's first name. In 1884, she married John Tubman, a freed slave. Starting life on a plantation, she grew up doing hard labor in the fields and suffering repeated beatings. Once, at age 13, an overseer struck her with a heavy weight and, for the rest of her life, she struggled with the serious effects of a fractured skull. In 1849, after her owner died, she fled alone to Philadelphia on the underground railroad. Congress then passed the 1950 Fugitive Slave Act, a law that criminalized providing help to runaway slaves. Nevertheless, Harriet immediately dared to make her first return trip. Over the next decade, Tubman used the Underground Railroad to make 18 separate trips to free slaves. In total, she helped more than 3,000 slaves escape and earned the nickname ``Moses'' for having led so many of her people to freedom. It is said that she planned carefully, never repeated her route, and became an inspirational role model. Her success is measured by the reactions of slave owners, who placed a $40,000 bounty on her head, a fortune in today's dollars. During the Civil War, she worked as a Union spy, scout, and nurse. In these roles, she helped even more slaves to escape. After the Civil War, she campaigned to raise funds for black schools. Later, she established the Harriet Tubman Home for Indigent Aged Negroes in her own home. Like many others who have dedicated their lives to social justice, Harriet lived her later years in poverty. A few years before her death, Congress finally awarded her a monthly pension. Today, I urge my colleagues to refresh our recognition of her life an and good works. The date of Harriet Ross Tubman's birth is uncertain, but experts believe it is March 10, 1820. She died on March 10, 1913. It is, therefore, highly appropriate to honor this American hero during March's Women's History Month. At her death, Tubman was impoverished in economic terms, but her life was rich with great accomplishments, great works, and the knowledge that she had brought freedom to thousands of slaves. She is an inspiration to all of us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 177th anniversary of Greek independence. There are, of course, no final victories in the long struggle to extend the principles of equality and democracy. Thus, we should take advantage of every appropriate opportunity to celebrate the triumphs of freedom over tyranny. In this spirit, our annual remembrance of the Greek delivery from Ottoman oppression merits special attention, for it was Aristotle himself who said, ``Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.'' In effect, we celebrate the 177 years that have followed the redemption of Aristotle's ancient promise. As we listen to the urgent bulletins from the Balkans, we are reminded every day of the fragility of the ancient Greek ideal. Wherever tyranny and ethnic cleansing prevail, the principles of equality and democracy are under siege. Listen once again to the profound wisdom of Aristotle: ``If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.'' On this day, let us remember how intimately intertwined are the histories of the United States and Greece. Look at the Declaration of Independence. Look at the Constitution of the United States. Look at the very architecture of our beautiful Capitol. Greek to the core, all of them. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson was quite explicit about our connectedness: ``To the ancient Greeks,'' declared our third President, ``we are indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' In turn, America has opened its heart to multitudes of Greek immigrants and has, of course, reaped the rewards of that enlightened generosity. In San Francisco, certainly, we have reaped enormous benefits from the vibrant presence of our spirited Greek-American community. And Americans also responded with the Marshall Plan, immediately following World War II, to the plight of a seriously weakened and imperiled Greece. As we brood today over the darkening skies in the Balkan countries, we should pause for a moment to give thanks for the continuing relevance of ancient Greece and the continuing example of modern Greece.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment, thank the gentleman once again for his leadership in bringing this to the Floor, and recognize our distinguished chairman for his first bill on the Floor, as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I regretfully disagree with my distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, of which I am the ranking member. Just reviewing Mr. Callahan's own words at the end of his comments is an argument for the Obey amendment when he said, in his view, that Mr. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, was not concerned about this amount of money but about the precedent it would set. That is known as uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a plus in the financial world. The crisis in Asia speaks to our not taking this money from callable capital for the multilateral development banks, in particular the Asian Development Bank, because we need money for an emergency. As appropriators we all know the hard fights that go into determining what an appropriation will be for a particular year. We should respect that process. We thought these were important priorities. We voted for this funding. Now, with this bill, we are saying, we did not need to spend that money anyway. We should respect the regular order, and the regular order says that under the budget agreement we have caps, yes, but we also provide for emergencies not to be offset. As I have said earlier in my comments against the bill as presented, if thousands of people die, millions of people homeless, entire economies wiped out in the countries hit by this storm, the hurricane, if that does not constitute an emergency, it is hard to see what would. There probably never would be an emergency, if the worst natural disaster to hit the Western Hemisphere is not considered an emergency. What we are saying to the people of Central America is, we feel sorry for you but we do not consider you an emergency. Our process calls for our appropriating funds in a very deliberative process. It also calls for us to have this emergency fund, just as any family in America would have some savings for a rainy day. Well, the rainy day came to Central America, and it came again and again and again, and those people were wiped out, both their economies, their personal lives, their homes, et cetera. What we want to do is to help rebuild their economies. With our assistance, we want them to develop the private sector. We want them to be self-reliant. We want certainly to provide the emergency assistance to begin with, but we want them to develop their own economies. Why should we have to do that at the expense of the callable capital for the multilateral development banks, some of which lend into that area? Why should we do that by thrusting uncertainty into the markets about the credit rating of these multilateral development banks? The Secretary of the Treasury said he was recommending a veto to the President of the United States for this bill if the callable capital provision was in the bill, for reasons of dipping into that fund in the first place, and as a precedent, certainly, to make matters worse. So let us not try to gloss over the importance of a credit rating. Let us not gloss over the importance of certainty versus uncertainty. That is why we appropriated the money in the first place, because it needed to be there for us to do our share. If we pull the callable capital, what if the other countries do, too? Why is it not okay for them, if it is okay for us? We are getting on some dangerous territory here. I think we should not confuse the message by having two fights, here. What we are talking about is the very reasonable amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that addresses the four areas we have talked about, one of them being the callable capital; another, the Exim-Bank and the war chest of the Exim-Bank, again putting our assistance for trade or export financing in doubt; the $40 million cut from development assistance; and the $45 million in cuts from Eastern Europe and the new independent states, just at a time when those countries are faced with such uncertainty. Why, facing one problem, are we making matters worse in other parts of the world, when what we should be doing is using the money that the American people think we have saved for a rainy day to help meet the needs of the people who are devastated by the consequences of Hurricane Mitch, the worst natural disaster in the history of the Western Hemisphere? Certainly it is an emergency. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the full committee for yielding this time to me and for his leadership in bringing another proposal to the floor today which would eliminate the offsets that the Republican majority insists upon. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); This is, I believe, the first bill he is bringing to the floor, and of course I acknowledge my distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). From the start, Mr. Chairman, I thought that this would be an easy vote, that we would recognize the emergency nature of what happened in Central America and that we would proceed without an offset. That was the understanding I had from our distinguished chairman, and then other voices weighed in, and here we are in conflict today. Mr. Chairman, I would contend that if a natural disaster, the likes of which we have never seen in this hemisphere, taking thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of homes, maybe millions, and hundreds of thousands and millions of people out of work, wiping out the economies of these countries is not an emergency, I do not know what is. The distinguished chairman of the committee cited the 1997 budget agreement and said that there are caps within that agreement that we must live under. However, that same budget agreement does call for emergencies not to be scored; no need for offsets in case of an emergency. If the worst natural disaster in the history of the western hemisphere does not warrant emergency funding, we might as well scrap the whole concept of emergency funding. My distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), references our Secretary of the Treasury and says that the Secretary knows more about international finance than anyone in this body, and I hope that that is so. But nonetheless, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama does not respect the advice of the Secretary of the Treasury, when the Secretary says that it is reckless for us to use the callable capital at the Asian Development Bank as an offset what Mr. Callahan thinks the Secretary would tell him personally is not what the Secretary said on the record in our committee and in a letter to the President where he recommended a veto of this legislation if the callable capital offset was included in the final package. That is why, and there are many other reasons why, it is so important for the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to prevail today. I certainly rise to support the recommendations in the bill for emergency disasters and reconstruction assistance in Central America, the Caribbean and Colombia. Hurricane Mitch, as we have said, was a terrible devastation causing an estimated $10 billion in damage, and, as I said, thousands of deaths. The event, along with the earlier Hurricane Georges in the Caribbean and the more recent earthquake in Colombia have brought this request for emergency assistance before us, and I am pleased that the committee has recommended funding the full request. I am dismayed, however, by the insistence on the offset. I fully support the $100 million in the bill for the Jordan. This is a down payment on additional military and economic assistance to help Jordan stabilize itself in the wake of King Hussein's death. As I have said, I oppose, I must unfortunately oppose the bill because of the offsets used in this package. The bill insists offsets for the disaster mitigation programs and the emergency fund farm assistance but does not insist on offsets for the $195 million to restore the Department of Defense hurricane cost. Why the inconsistencies? Our young people, part of the American military, bravely, courageously, unselfishly and tirelessly assisted the people in Central America at the time of this hurricane, in the immediate wake of the hurricane. Certainly we want to pay back the Department of Defense for services rendered; that does not need to be offset, it should not be, I agree with that. But why treat other assistance differently than the military assistance, the assistance of the military in this bill? Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will strike the most objectionable offsets in the bill, and I enthusiastically support that. The 1 billion in offsets in the bill, $825 million comes from international programs, all of the proposed rescissions from foreign ops bill will have a detrimental program impact, and I intend to work hard to remove them from the bill before it is sent to the President. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, so we increase the leverage of the President, sustain a presidential veto, and have a change in this bill so that we are not helping the people of Central America at the risk of exacerbating the financial crisis in Asia by taking a large chunk of the callable capital for the Asian Development Bank as an offset. The rescissions in the bill will hurt development programs such as health, education and even child survival. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any more time. I will place the rest of my statement in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and to oppose the passage of this bill unless the Obey amendment prevails. I rise to support the recommendations in the bill for emergency disaster and reconstruction assistance for Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia. Hurricane Mitch was the worst natural disaster to hit the Western Hemisphere in recorded history causing an estimated $10 billion in damage, and thousands of deaths. This event, along with the earlier Hurricane Georges in the Caribbean, and the more recent earthquake in Colombia have brought this request for emergency assistance before us, and I am pleased that the Committee has recommended funding the full request. I also fully support the $100 million in the bill for Jordan. This is a down payment on additional military and economic assistance to help Jordan stabilize itself in the wake of King Hussein's death. Unfortunately I will have to oppose this bill because of the offsets used to fund this package. The bill presented offsets the Disaster Mitigation programs and the Emergency Farm assistance, but does not offset the $195 million appropriated to restore the Department of Defense hurricane costs. This bill started out in Committee as a bipartisan product with no offsets. If the worst natural disaster in the history of the Western Hemisphere does not warrant emergency funding, we might as well scrap the whole concept of emergency funding. international finance Mr. Obey intends to offer an amendment which will strike the most objectionable offsets in the bill, which I will enthusiastically support. Of the $1 billion in offsets being in the bill, $825 million comes from international programs. All of the proposed rescissions from the Foreign Operations bill will have detrimental program impacts, and I intend to work hard to remove them from the bill before it is sent to the President. The rescissions in the bill will hurt development programs such as health, education and even Child Survival. Cuts to our trade promotion programs lessen the number of U.S. firms we can help develop export markets. Cuts in peacekeeping accounts will severely hinder the training of troops from African countries in peacekeeping methods. Cuts to Eastern Europe will slow reconstruction in Bosnia. Congress agreed to fund these programs last year and we should not be pulling back from these commitments. debt relief The response of the American people to this event was truly heartening and indicative of the widespread sympathy and support for the needs of our southern neighbors in this Hemisphere. There is no question that the vast majority of the American people support well directed humanitarian assistance. This aid package enjoys widespread support in the Congress and throughout the country. Congress must move expeditiously on this request so that critical reconstruction efforts can begin before the onset of the rainy season. Our action here today will only complicate efforts to get this assistance to where it is needed. It is my hope that the provision of this assistance will become the springboard for economic and social development which lifts the poorest countries in Central America out of the grinding poverty they have suffered for so long. Unfortunately with the offsets in the bill which have drawn a veto threat and action on the bill stalled in the other body for reasons unrelated to the Disaster, I fear we are still a long way from the day when assistance arrives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Missile Defense Bill. I think we all agree that this is a vitally important issue to the American people. That is why I am disappointed by the Republican Leadership's decision to deny any member the basic right of introducing an amendment to this bill so we may have a full and open debate. For example, the closed rule under which we are debating this bill blocks the amendment from my good friend from Maine, Representative Allen. The Allen amendment proposes ideas I believe my Republican colleagues would support. The Allen amendment specifies that the United States deploy a National Missile Defense that is operationally effective and that a National Missile Defense System not jeopardize other efforts to reduce threats to the United States. If we can not agree on these points, then I fear we are farther apart then I imagined. The future of this country depends on a strong economy and a strong military. Neither is possible without an educated populace. That means that everyday, we have to make difficult decisions about where we spend our money and that we must be wise when deciding such matters. Therefore, we must not rush to deploy any missile defense system that will not guarantee our protection. This debate involves many complex issues. Lest some of my colleagues have forgotten, one of our potentially most significant foreign relations accomplishments over the last 30 years was our agreement with the former Soviet Union to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenals. I am talking about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the START II and III nuclear arms reduction proposals. And I say they are potentially significant because I worry that if we pass the current version of H.R. 4, we would be in violation of the ABM Treaty and force the Russian Duma to fail to ratify START II. Additionally, as far as Russia is concerned, do we really want to put pressure on a country trying to stabilize its fragile economy by tempting it to respond to our actions. I agree with my colleagues who believe that a new threat to our security has emerged and that we have a responsibility to address that threat. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know as well as anyone that the potential for a rogue state to strike our shores may exist in the near future. However, it would be irresponsible for us to rush to meet that potential threat by spending money on something that one, is not even technologically possible and two, even if it were possible, would not end the threat. Mr. Speaker, we do not need a missile defense. If we need anything, we need a strong non-proliferation policy. If my colleagues only want a missile defense, then they will have the chance to vote for that today. However, if they truly want to protect the American people, then they will only settle for something that also attempts to stop other, more realistic, threats to our safety, such as cruise missiles or smuggled bombs. The missile defense systems being considered do not adequately address these possibilities. The remarks of Secretary Cohen are very poignant here. The Secretary acknowledged that the Joint Chiefs of Staff worry more about a suitcase bomb going off in one of our cities and that very few countries would launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile aimed at the United States, knowing that they would face virtual elimination. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his kind comments. Yes, I am from Baltimore. And it was in the 1940s I remember as a little, little girl when Joe DiMaggio came to Baltimore in the 1940s to have, I think it was, a heel operation at Johns Hopkins University. My much older brother, Thomas D'Alesandro--just kidding--interviewed him for the Loyola College newspaper at that time, the Greyhound, and that was the thrill of all time for all of us. Because Joe DiMaggio was, of course, the great star. I was teasing our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), about the fact that he beat San Franciscans to the punch, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), they beat us to the punch with this resolution. Because while he was a Yankee, the Yankee Clipper, and while he always thought of himself in those terms, he was a San Franciscan and we claim him with great pride. His experience was that of many Italian immigrant families. He was raised partially in North Beach and then his family moved. He built a home when he was making $100,000 a year for his parents in the Marina district, which is a trip of not many blocks but a great distance for many Italian Americans at the time, in fact, a trip that the Pelosi family made from North Beach to the Marina as well. So, as a San Franciscan, I rise to convey the sadness of my constituents on the passing of Joe DiMaggio. We thought he would live forever, certainly his fame, his celebrity and his great dignity will, but also to express the pride of the Italian American community in his success. Many fans and sports writers consider Joe DiMaggio the best all- around player of all time. But that is not the only reason why this son of Italian immigrants who grew up in San Francisco's fishing community could to this day force millions around the world to pause at the mere mention of his name. Yes, it is the 56-game hitting streak and the speed on the base paths and the quick dash to the center field that made Joe DiMaggio a great American hero. It is also because, through all of his success, through all of his acclamation and praise, Joe DiMaggio was a modest man devoted to family, friends, and fans. He was a hero we could look up to without reservation or hesitation. Mr. Speaker, it might interest my colleagues to know that during the earthquake of 1989, the Marina district, where Joe DiMaggio's home was, was severely devastated by the earthquake. And as a congressional office, of course we had to help or constituents. But the sight that was so impressive to so many of us was Joe DiMaggio standing in line like just any other person from the Marina to get assistance from FEMA, not assistance but the direction where do we go from here on that. So through it all, he was, as I say, a modest man. He died as he had lived, quietly surrounded by friends and carrying the great dignity for which he will always be remembered. As a San Franciscan, as an Italian American, as an American, I thank my colleagues for this resolution and remembering the Yankee Clipper, San Franciscan, Joe DiMaggio.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fowler amendment with the greatest respect for the maker of this motion. I oppose the amendment on the grounds of its substance and find the timing of it most unfortunate. In doing so, though, I want to praise the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for their participation on the floor today. I would say for their leadership in bringing this issue to the floor, but I do not think that this issue should be on the floor today. Having said that, I applaud them for their impressive presentation on why we should be supporting the President's policy in Kosovo and why we should be opposing the Fowler amendment here today. I also want to commend my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his very wise amendment to the Gejdenson amendment and hope that this House will give it its fullest consideration when the opportunity comes. Mr. Chairman, other speakers this evening have said that Kosovo, is a very difficult decision. Well, Kosovo is a very difficult and dangerous place, and we are sent here, after all, to make the difficult decisions. I, for one, do not think that we, Congress, has a role in voting on whether the President should send peacekeepers into a region, so I do not think that this debate is a necessary one, and I think again that the timing of it is unfortunate. What is happening in Kosovo is a challenge to the conscience of our country, what is happening in Kosovo is a challenge to the future of NATO. I would say to our colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) that it is in our vital national interest, it is in our vital national interest to support NATO. Indeed the United States is so much a part of NATO that NATO is not effective without U.S. participation. I would have hoped that we could have had the administration bring the negotiations to fruition. There can be no agreement without American troops on the ground. The Kosovars would never agree to any peacekeeping force that did not include American troops. There can be no agreement without NATO in Kosovo, and NATO will not go in without U.S. troops. So our involvement is fundamental to any agreement about keeping the peace in Kosovo. I said earlier that Kosovo is a challenge to our conscience. Just a few years earlier Bosnia was, and over 200,000 people were killed there. I wondered when I was a child and first learned about the Holocaust and read ``The Diary Of Anne Frank'' as a teenager, I wondered how did this ever happen? Didn't anybody know? Why didn't anybody do anything about it? And when the Bosnian situation came along, I could see how it happened. People knew, people cared, but people did not want to get involved. Before the 2,000 people who have been killed, 2,000 plus in Kosovo, grow to a greater number, I hope that we can be smart about this and support the reasonable negotiations that would involve U.S. troops on the ground. Two thousand people were killed there, many of whom are women and children. There have to be certain recognitions. As I have said before, there is no effective NATO without U.S. participation. There is no effective peace agreement without U.S. participation of troops on the ground, and the other recognition is that Milosevic the ruthless president of Serbia, as we know, and is a ruthless killer. He has an endless appetite for killing people. So it is not a question of his conscience ever being challenged. We cannot count on any balance, on any reason, on any humanitarianism springing from the other side. It must spring from NATO and, again, the U.S. is almost synonymous with NATO now. I talked about the timing, and I want to return to that, Mr. Chairman, because I think that this is really unfortunate. The President of the United States is bringing a message of compassion and humanitarianism to Central America after the most disastrous natural disaster in this hemisphere. Over thousands of people killed, millions of people made homeless, thousands without jobs, economies wiped out. The President is bringing the compassion of the American people there. That is an appropriate mission for the President. The Secretary of State is joining him. The Secretary of Defense is out of the country, and we bring up a resolution to undermine their efforts in Kosovo. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-timed resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller Amendment to the Ed Flex Bill to promote educational accountability. We all recognize that education is central to the lives of America's children and is central in our effort to develop healthy communities. At today's Appropriations Subcommittee Labor-HHS-Education Hearing, I listened to the Department of Education's testimony. They stress the importance of results and performance based educational instruction and funding. While Federal education programs should be administered with flexibility, this flexibility must be met with effective accountability provisions and assurances funds targeted for America's impoverished children. For these reasons, I support Democratic amendments to strengthen educational reporting and accountability requirements and to require local districts to target funds to economically disadvantaged students. To be effective and accountable, states and schools must develop and maintain effective management and information systems, collect student data, design and implement effective assessment plans, and issue timely and parent-friendly reports. I support Representative Miller's amendment to require States that seek waivers to first have in place a viable plan to assess student achievement. It also requires States to use the same plan throughout H.R. 800's full five-year flexibility plan. States must establish, as they determine appropriate, concrete quantifiable goals for all their students as well as specific student subgroups, such as impoverished students. If states find achievement gaps between student subgroups, they must set goals to close these gaps. We must not choose between flexibility and accountability. America's children deserve both. We must work for both and target our education funds effectively. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for yielding time to me. I again applaud him for his great leadership on human rights throughout the world. I associate myself with the remarks in his statement, both in support of human rights and in clarifying the record about the bipartisan nature of the security issues that were raised by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I also want to salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been a champion on human rights throughout the world. He has worked tirelessly for human rights in China and Tibet, and he has been an articulate voice that should be a comfort for all of those who fight for freedom throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly significant year for us, the U.S., to take the lead on the U.N. resolution in Geneva. It has been 40 years since the Dalai Lama fled Tibet. It has been 20 years since the democracy wall repression in China, where those who dared speak out for freedom in 1979 were arrested for very long prison terms. It has been, can we believe it, Mr. Speaker, 10 years since the tragedy of Tiananmen Square, since the massacre of those young people who dared to take as their symbol our statute of liberty, and as their clarion call the words of our Founding Fathers. So it behooves the United States of America in this particularly significant anniversary year that commemorates serious repression in China and Tibet to take the lead, as our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) said, not only to introduce a resolution but to urge other countries to support it, too. In the absence of our leadership brave Denmark, in which the United States is so ably represented by the son-in-law of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and his family as our distinguished ambassadors there, brave Denmark introduced the resolution. China's response? China said this resolution, at the U.N. commission, will be the rock which smashes Denmark's head. How distinguished of them to frame it in that way. But let us show the bravery of Denmark. It is the very least, I think, that we can do. Some of our allies, the Brits, for example, said they were not going to introduce the resolution because they were going to give China this year to demonstrate an improvement in human rights, and then make an evaluation this year. Well, what did they see in that year but increased repression? Sure, there was a show when President Clinton went to China, and there was just enough done on both sides for domestic consumption, both in China and in the United States. But the fact is, and as the record shows, it was not real. I have been an ardent supporter of human rights in China, and foe of the failed policy of both the Republican and the Democratic administrations. The irony of it all is that we are diminishing our voice in human rights for trade purposes, and ha, ha, ha, the Chinese regime has the last laugh there, because they have refused to open their markets to our products. Our reward for ignoring their human rights violations and their repression is a $60 billion trade deficit with China; $60 billion for the Chinese regime to buy more weapons for their military and more money to consolidate their position in power, and to continue to repress those who speak out for democratic reforms, the same democratic reforms, by the way, which they, in theory, signed up to support when they signed the U.N. Technician resolution, which they have not ratified and which they have not implemented. Mr. Speaker, what is it that will happen if this resolution passes? If this resolution passes on the Floor, we will be giving the Clinton administration the leverage that they need, the leverage that they need to go in to the U.N. Commission and say, the Congress of the United States, speaking for the people of the United States, wants us not to ignore the human rights violations in China any longer. If we win, and if we are serious about our leadership there we will win, because our failure will be indicative of our lack of enthusiasm there, and we have to get moving soon, but if we win there, it will make a serious difference to the pro-democratic reforms in China. We lose all moral authority to talk about human rights anyplace in the world if we refuse to speak up on it in a place because there are some trade deals involved. Our ideals and our deals are important. We cannot ignore our ideals. So let us hope that when the President and the administration boast of having a consensus for their trade policy with China, which they do boast, that they will now also recognize the vote in Congress; as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) indicated, 99 to nothing in the Senate, and congratulations to them in the other body, and hopefully we will have a unanimous vote in this House of Representatives. When we do, we will be sending a very clear message to the Chinese regime that we know what is going on there. My colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) very generously named many of the prisoners there. They say, Mr. Speaker, the most excruciating form of torture to a prisoner of conscience is to tell him or her that nobody in the world knows that they are there or cares that they are there. Today this Congress has the opportunity to say, we know you are there, we salute your fight for freedom, we want to associate ourselves with your aspirations, we want to live up to the legacy of our Founding Fathers, and we are not going to be a prisoner, ourselves, of any trade relationship; one, of course, that does not even advantage us. Because what would it profit a country if it gained the whole world in terms of money, but suffered the loss of its soul? Today we have an opportunity, because of the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) to make our message a very clear one, and urge the administration, in the strongest possible vote, to support and take the lead on the resolution in Geneva.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding the time, and for his very, very generous remarks. Mr. Speaker, I commend the makers of this resolution and rise in support of it, but in doing so I first want to acknowledge the considerable contribution of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to human rights throughout the world. Everyone has known for a long time, certainly in our city and in the State of California we have taken great pride in the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Now the whole world knows more about where his leadership and his drive on promoting human rights springs from and, of course, it was his own experience in the Holocaust. He has moral authority. He has knowledge. He has exercised leadership. So I am honored to be recognized by him to speak on this important resolution. This resolution urging free and fair elections in Indonesia is important because promoting freedom, and free and fair elections, is important, but also because Indonesia is in a fragile state at this time. It is just a matter of months since the fall of Soeharto and now many, many parties, scores of political parties, are lining up for the elections. We have some issues, we have, some of us in this Congress, with Indonesia, and that would be the resolution of the situation in East Timor and that looks promising now; the situation in terms of the role of the military in a civilian society, that was better before, has worsened and hopefully these elections will return the military to its appropriate role in a civilian society. Most recently, there was concern in Congress, and it continues, on the treatment of the ethnic Chinese population in Indonesia, particularly with the rapes that happened of the Indonesian Chinese women. Those are no longer alleged. They are admitted to in reports from the government, and many of us in Congress have written to the Indonesian government, to the President, urging that the disposition of that issue be central to our relationship with the Indonesians. We have concerns generally about human rights in Indonesia and also about the conflicts between Muslims and Christians and how the government is dealing with that. Nothing could create a better climate for tolerance in the diverse country that Indonesia is than the legitimacy of a free and fair election. We anticipate that with great hope. We urge the Indonesian government to do everything in its power to make sure the elections are free and fair, and we look forward to working on many issues, some of which I named here, with the newly-elected Indonesian government. That includes, of course, the members of parliament there, too. It is a very diverse country, as I have said. There are many, many, many different fragments in Indonesia. The country could disintegrate but I think that that prospect would be diminished greatly if the elections were free and fair and the new government were legitimate and was addressing some of the concerns I mentioned in terms of respecting everyone in that diverse society, as well as respecting the appropriate role of the military in a civilian society. Again, I commend the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on the subcommittee, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their leadership in bringing this to this floor and I hope we will have a unanimous vote in support of it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, does the census count? Yes, the Census counts for every American and it should be as accurate as possible. The Census Bureau has devised a plan to increase the accuracy of the ten-year count. We should listen to the experts on this issue and leave the decisions to the experts who know how to determine the best means for accomplishing the best count. What are our choices? In all of the talk about the census and its fairness, the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and the debate on methods, our choices really are very simple. We can use the ``old'' methods, or we can use the modern methods recommended by the Census Bureau. We can have an inaccurate census using the ``old'' method, or we can have a more accurate census using updated techniques for counting, recommended by the Census Bureau. The 1990 census failed America's minority communities. Almost 9 million people were not counted in the process, including one in ten African-American males, one in twenty Hispanics and one in ten young Asian males. To make matters worse, there were 26 million errors in the census with 14.5 million people counted twice and another 13 million people counted in the wrong place. In fact the 1990 census was the first census in 200 years to be less accurate than the census preceding it. This approach is unacceptable. Why would we retrace our steps down a failed path AGAIN? We owe it to all segments or our communities to make the strong effort to keep the census fair, accurate and representative of our diverse population. In California, the statistics were alarming and had far-ranging consequences. 2.7% of the people living in California were missed in the 1990 count. There is much at stake in this process for California and its communities--to be counted, to be represented and to reap the federal benefits intended to spring from the best possible census numbers. In San Francisco alone, African Americans were undercounted by 13% and Hispanics by 16%. The 1990 census showed that 27 states and the District of Columbia lost $4.5 billion over the decade in federal funds due to the failure to correct the 1990 census. California was the state most harmed by these inaccuracies. Our state would have received $2.2 billion more in federal funds during this period--$2,660 for each person missed. The Republican majority has proposed a $400 million ad campaign to highlight the census. Why spend almost half a billion dollars and do nothing to correct the inaccuracies of the past. Under this plan, we will get even less for our money than ever before. What kind of goal is that? If there is a move to restrict the Census Bureau in its plans and the process is thwarted, we could be faced with a partial government shutdown with funding cut off for the departments of Commerce, Justice and State under the June 15 deadline. This crisis is avoidable and should be entirely unnecessary under the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision supports the current efforts of the Census Bureau--to use the ``old'' method for the purposes of state apportionment in Congress under the law and to use methods recommended by the census experts to use improved counting to redistrict within each state and to distribute federal funds. This is a fair compromise. The Supreme Court agrees. The Census Bureau is committed to producing the most accurate numbers possible for all uses other than for apportionment, and the Republican majority wants to prevent it from doing its job. The rich ethnic diversity of our urban and rural areas should not be under-reported, underpresented and under-funded under a failed system. We must have a more fair process for counting our nation's minority communities under a process that brings the greatest number of people into the headcount. Yes, the Census counts. Every American should be concerned about a fair count and support the work of the experts at the Census Bureau in giving them the tools they require to do the best job for the best money. The American people deserve the best.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). Mr. Speaker, as a representative of San Francisco in the Congress, I wanted to speak because many of the people in our region, even though we were not represented officially by Mo Udall in the Congress, certainly have considered him a leader on many of the issues of concern to our area. He had political alliances with the Burton family in San Francisco, and now that I represent San Francisco I wanted to speak for my constituents in honoring Mo Udall. I think that any of us who served with Mo would say that one of the great privileges of our political lives was to be able to call him a colleague. He served with such great intellect and, of course, humor, as we have all heard. He was a teacher to us in many ways, as a colleague; and he was a teacher, of course, in his later years with the dignity with which he faced his challenge. We are very fortunate. I know that Mo was very pleased with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) coming to Congress to serve the great State of Arizona; and I also know, we all know, what a thrill and what a joy it was to Mo to have his son, Mark, and his nephew, Tom, serve in this Congress. What a perfect way for his life to end, to see the tradition of greatness and dignity live on in this body, and Lord knows where the tradition will go from here. I wanted to make one point about the environment, however, because, as we all know, Mo was born in desert country, but he fell in love with the snow-capped Alaska wilderness and its vast beauty that was so unlike his roots. After a trip there, Mo spent a good portion of his service in Congress dedicated to the protection of the great Alaskan wilderness. He was responsible for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which transferred 55 million acres of land to the Alaska natives; and he was successful in imposing a prohibition on energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I bring this up because my constituent, Dr. Edgar Wayburn, worked with him on that. I know my time has expired. I will submit the rest of my statement for the Record, but I say of Mo it was not only that he represented his area so well, he was a leader for our entire great country. Morris K. Udall--Mo to everyone--was a giant in this Congress and in all aspects of his life. After dedicating a lifetime to protecting our national treasures, he became one. Born in the desert country, he fell in love with the snow-capped Alaska wilderness and its vast beauty that was so unlike his roots. After a trip there, Mo Udall spent a good portion of his service in Congress dedicated to the protection of Alaska's great wilderness. He was responsible for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which transferred 55 million acres of land to Alaska's natives and he was successful in imposing a prohibition on energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am pleased to note that one of my constituents, 92-year-old Dr. Edgar Wayburn of the Sierra Club, worked tirelessly with Chairman Udall to protest these lands. Mo Udall's contributions to protecting our environment and preserving the American landscape reached far beyond Arizona, and his work has touched all our lives and the lives of our children. In Congress, we will continue to work to honor Mo's memory and seek passage of the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act to provide permanent protection to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the last Congress, this legislation had 150 cosponsors. It is the most appropriate means to honor this great Congressman and environmentalist. You might think a person would lose their sense of humor after suffering defeat--not so for Mo Udall. Success eluded him in his run in the Presidential primaries of 1976 and in his two runs at election for House Speaker. Mo never abandoned His humor--if you're running for leadership, ``you've got to know the difference between a cactus and a caucus.'' We are particularly fortunate to have Mo's son, Mark, serving in Congress to carry on the Udall tradition with his cousin, Tom. Mark has stated about his father, ``He taught me that humor is essential to the workings of a strong democracy. He taught me to take your work seriously, but not yourself too seriously.'' I am pleased to serve with the new ``Udall Team'' in Congress. Mo Udall imparted great lessons to all of us. On Vietnam, ``I am unhappy because we are involved in this war at all. As far as I am concerned, it is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.'' On environmental stewardship, ``We hear a lot of talk about our American heritage and what we'll leave our children and grandchildren. The ancient Athenians had an oath that read in part: `We will transmit this city not only not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.' '' Mo Udall may have lost many battles, and his greatest last battle against Parkinson's Disease, but he was a winner for our nation and leaves a legacy of outstanding leadership, a model for all of us serving in Congress. Before his death, Mo was honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996. Our country is blessed by his life, from 1922 to 1998, and from his work on behalf of the environment, civil service reform, campaign finance and myriad other initiatives to improve people's lives. Mo Udall was a captivating individual who is remembered by his engaging wit, his humility, his perseverance and incomparable accomplishment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the 38th anniversary of the founding by President Kennedy of the Peace Corps, one of our nation's most successful international relief and development programs, I rise in support of Peace Corps reauthorization funding to meet President Clinton's goal of expanding the number of volunteers to 10,000 early in the new millennium. Thanks to the 150,000 peace corps volunteers who have served overseas, communities around the world have benefited from the continue to reap the benefits of the contributions of the Peace Corps. 6,700 volunteers are serving in 80 countries, working to bring clean water to communities, teaching children, helping to develop small businesses, and preventing the spread of AIDS. Today, volunteers are making contributions by working along side local people throughout the world as AIDS and environmental educators, business advisors and teachers. Through their work, they are helping people of developing countries to help themselves for only 1 percent of our foreign aid budget. There is no greater testament to the success of this program than the Peace Corps Director's recent visit with Kenya's minister of public works who had been taught by a Peace Corps volunteer and Tanzania's minister of education who could still recall all of his Peace Corps teachers. Communities around the world, including our own, are better off today as a result of Peace Corps volunteers, their mission, their contributions and their commitment to service. The Peace Corps is a successful international diplomacy program that is improving the lives of people in the developing world and enriching the lives of Peace Corps volunteers who return from the field to contribute to their own communities across this nation. We can be proud of this program and its legacies and salute the members of this body who have served. Volunteers are returning home to be leaders in every field. Young and old of all backgrounds are not only sharing their commitment to altruism and volunteerism throughout the world, but are coming home to continue their commitment to service in an ever increasing multi- cultural society. As the Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 669.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the Waxman amendment to H.R. 350 would provide equal protection under the law. If we can protect the private sector, surely we can take the same step to protect the public welfare. H.R. 350 is dejavu all over again--it is the same tired ``Contract with America'' attempt to lessen the burden of federal mandates on private business. It would provide a procedural advantage to legislation where costs of more than $100 million might be imposed by Congress on the private sector. Under this procedure, a point of order could be raised on any bill the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determines would cost the private sector more than $100 million a year. The point of order could trigger a 20-minute debate and vote on the cost of the legislation. Who saves and who pays under this plan? Protection of public health and safety and the environment would seem the logical answer and, yet, H.R. 350 defies logic. Remember, in this Congress the financial interests of business outweigh protection of the public good. As an example: what if legislation on environmental compliance for a business cost $100 million or more? The legislation would be subject to a point of order and debate. But, if it were defeated, the public would suffer, in effect repealing federal environmental protection. Why would we give this type of advantage to business at the expense of the public? Why would Congress put the interests of business over protection of the public good? The American Lung Association states, ``This legislation will create new procedural hurdles on legislation designed to safeguard public health and the environment.'' The Association cites as examples legislation to regulate tobacco or clean air that might be defeated as a result of this procedural protection. The Waxman amendment would provide equal footing to legislation that might weaken or repeal mandates on the private sector which protect the public's health and safety, or the environment. It would open the debate and require a vote to provide the balance needed to afford protection of the public interest, along with the protection of business interests. The Waxman amendment would require the CBO to identify whether or not a bill contains any such provisions that might threaten existing environmental law and protection of the public. A point of order could be raised, providing an opportunity for debate and a vote where members would be held accountable for their position. Over the past four years, we have experienced repeated attempts to attach anti-environment ``riders'' to critical legislation. There has been a concerted plan by the Majority to weaken or repeal the environmental progress of the past two decades. In most cases, debate has been closed and votes have not resulted on these individual measures which have threatened our forests, drinking water and clean air. The Waxman amendment would provide the same procedural obstacle to anti-environmental legislation as proposed to protect business under H.R. 350. It would give Congress an opportunity to open the debate on issues with health and environmental consequences. H.R. 350 asks us to think twice about imposing a burden on the private sector and think not once about the consequences for the rest of society. Think again--support the Waxman amendment--vote ``yes'' to protect the public health and our environment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the point of order. Mr. Speaker our Republican colleagues have agreed that censure is not constitutional. Censure is indeed a Constitutional option. In 1800, Rep. Ed Livingston (NY) introduced a censure motion against President John Adams. The President was successfully represented by Congressman John Marshall of Virginia. Representative Marshall argued the case on the merits and never once argued that censure was unconstitutional. John Marshall went on to become the Chief Justice of the United States and was the father of much of our constitutional law. Indeed in the landmark 1819 decision McColluch vs Maryland, the court ruled that ``there is no phrase in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers.'' The power of Congress to censure is an obvious corollary of the legislatures inherent power as a deliberative body to speak its mind. It is therefore clear that censure is not prohibited by the Constitution and is indeed a germane penalty. I urge the Chair to rule the censure motion in order.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican majority is not judging the President with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the President fundamental principles which Americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. I rise to oppose these unfair motions which call for the removal of the President of the United States from office, and in doing so wish to point out some difference between the investigation of the President and the investigation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). The first principle in our investigation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) was that at the moment we found exculpatory information it would be reported immediately to the accused and be made public. The independent counsel knew that the President was exonerated in Travelgate, Whitewater and Filegate, and he held that information until the hearing, indeed until after the election. This was not fair. Indeed, it is the responsibility of any prosecutor to immediately release information that is exculpatory. So it is not about Whitewater, it is not about Travelgate, and it is not about Filegate. It is about sex. It is about a punishment searching for a crime that does not exist. In the Gingrich probe we drew every inference in favor of the accused, but in this case it took a closing question from a member of the grand jury to Monica Lewinsky to say: ``Is there anything you would like to add to your prior testimony?'' for Monica Lewinsky to respond, and I quote: ``No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' The point is why did the independent counsel not elicit that important testimony? In the Gingrich case we spent a major part of our report explaining the laws which were violated. The Committee on the Judiciary has not proven perjury, it has not even defined perjury. Instead, it has kept the subject intentionally vague. Whether one is violating a marital vow or some other aspect of his personal behavior, it is not an impeachable offense. Our colleagues have not proven perjury. In the Gingrich probe we had a bipartisan unanimous vote in our subcommittee and an almost unanimous vote on the floor because we built consensus and we tried to bring the matter to closure, and I will submit the rest to the Record where I say that censure is closure, censure is constitutional. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States testified that it was. How can the Republicans, as we come to punishment, how can the Republicans exalt the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) to the highest post of Speaker after he admitted lying to Congress and try to impeach the President of the United States for lying about his personal affairs? I urge my colleagues to vote no, stop this hatchet job on the presidency, stop this hypocrisy, stop this hatred and vote no on all four counts. Responsibility in the Gingrich matter We had a bipartisan unanious vote of our subcommittee and a near unanimous vote on the floor because we build consensus and brought the matter to closure. We have that opportunity today with a motion of censure. Censure is constitutional. In 1800 Representative Livingston introduced a motion of censure against President John Adams. The President was successfully defended by Congressman John Marshall of Virginia who would soon become Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall is the father of much of our constitutional law and he never argued in the Adams case that censure was unconstitutional.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today is a tragic day for our country because, while our young people are fighting in the Persian Gulf and bringing honor to our country, we are bringing dishonor to it with our hypocrisy here in this Chamber. Today the Republican Party is not judging our President with fairness but is impeaching our President. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. PELOSI. I do not have enough time to yield, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the need to halt Saddam Hussein's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, concerned about the harm to Iraq's children but eternally grateful to our young people, to American troops, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action. I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say goodbye to my dear friend and colleague, Jane Harman, who in three terms in office has distinguished herself in the House of Representatives. Jane is leaving office at the end of the 105th Congress and her thoughtful approach to legislation and her fighting spirit will be sorely missed. Many of my colleagues, and especially those of us in the California delegation, know of her tenacity and commitment to the key issues that support America's families. This fighting spirit has been an inspiration to us all whether it was in debates over smaller classes for our children, economic opportunity for all, or a woman's right to choose. Jane Harman, thank you for being in the trenches; thank you for your leadership; thank you for making this House a better place because of your commitment to the people of this great nation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his extraordinary leadership in guiding us to a bill that many of us can now support on the floor. As ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, I unfortunately had to oppose my own subcommittee legislation when it came to the floor. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that under the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), working with our subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), although Mr. Callahan is not fully supportive of some of the increases in the bill that we have, we are able to have a product on the floor today that I can support. The conference for the foreign operations bill has a total funding of $13.5 billion for ongoing programs and happily and at long last $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund. With the International Monetary Fund, the full $18 billion is included. The bill includes language taken in large part from the bipartisan bill reported out of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services calling upon the administration to seek and obtain important policy changes at the IMF in areas such as labor rights, environmental protection, changing investor expectations about official rescues the moral hazard argument, opening markets and taking social conditions into account in loan programs. The inclusion of the IMF funding in the bill ends a yearlong effort by the House Republican leadership linking this funding to international family planning. That international family planning linkage is still there for UN arrears. It took an international financial crisis to end the linkage between IMF funding and the prohibitions that our Republican colleagues want to include in this bill on international family planning. What will it take at the UN? Will we lose our vote before the Republicans will agree to de-link the international family planning prohibitions from the UN arrears? The additional funding in this bill will help a number of vital programs-- $200 million has been added for the New Independent States and increased funding for other areas. The bill fully funds UN arrears, I am pleased to say, for the global environmental facilities. All in all, I am pleased with the bill, and I will support it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this country is blessed by the number of individuals and groups who give of their time to help the less fortunate. I would like to use this opportunity to honor one of these philanthropies, the John Bonham Memorial Fund. The Bonham Fund assists California youth organizations in teaching community responsibility and self-respect to children, primarily young girls. The Fund provides support to the California Police Activities League, the Big Sisters of Los Angeles and a group that teaches arts education to young girls in low-income areas. The Bonham Fund provides a wonderful opportunity for individuals to contribute to their community by providing enrichment and educational opportunities for low income, at-risk youth. Through the generosity of many, young people in communities throughout California and around the country are benefitting from the good works of this philanthropic organization. By providing our youth with access to such educational activities, the Bonham Fund is actively working to enrich the lives of California's younger generations. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring the Bonham Fund's admirable efforts.