Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for yielding, and I want to just convey a few thoughts at the end of this debate. First of all, may I identify my opposition, with reluctance, to the initiative as our distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He knows the high regard in which members of the committee, including myself, hold for him, and I regret having to oppose his well-intentioned initiative, which was successful in full committee. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and others who have been part of putting this amendment forward to repeal the repeal of Section 907. I think that some of the statements that have been made here today have been very useful and this debate has been useful. It certainly has focused the attention of our colleagues on a very important region of the world, and one which has emerging challenges for us. So in that regard, this debate has been very helpful, because it has been very educational on both sides of the issue. Frankly, both sides have very legitimate arguments about Section 907. However, I come down in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and commend him for his leadership in putting it forward. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) in his remarks laid out the issue very clearly. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) earlier laid out the issue I think very clearly, as did many of our colleagues in the course of the debate. So I will not revisit that, except to say very simply that this Section 907 was put into place because there was a blockade of humanitarian assistance. The blockade was by Azerbaijan and Turkey for assistance going to Armenia. The minute the blockade is lifted, Section 907 is lifted. So this is about balance. I do not understand how this new amendment came to the full committee where we said, let us be fair, let us lift Section 907, and let us leave the blockade in place. It seems to me we have balance here with Section 907. As my colleagues know, some of the Section 907 provisions were relaxed in the course of time. We said that assistance could go to NGOs in the region, nongovernmental organizations in the region, but not to the Azeri government. There were concerns that people had of uncertainty about the leadership in Azerbaijan: the President had been the head of the KGB when Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union. So there were serious questions about human rights and Democratic freedoms in Azerbaijan, but the main issue was the blockade. Through the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Section 907 was further relaxed when he visited there, saw that the Azeri refugees needed assistance too, and we knew that, but he brought the story back firsthand, that certain assistance could not reach them through the nongovernmental organizations. Some aid had to go through the government. So we agreed, under the gentleman's leadership, we agreed to this relaxation so that humanitarian assistance would be delivered through NGOs wherever possible, and if not, in some instances through the government. So everyone has been open to this being an effective tool for balance in the region. One more point about the peace process. There is a Minsk process in place which some Members have addressed here, and the 907 is a motivation for the Azeris to participation in the Minsk process which could bring peace to the region. Our humanitarian assistance and our cooperation with all the other countries in the region, whether it be Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh or Azerbaijan, should be related to their willingness to participate in the peace process. So in terms of substance, I think Section 907 is the motivation to keep the Azeris at the table, and again, would be lifted when the blockade is lifted. So much for the substance. Our colleagues who are very familiar with this issue have presented it very, very clearly before us, but I just wanted to put that in perspective a little bit. Now, in terms of some of the debate that has gone on here today about questioning motivation. Since the oil companies have been interested in Azerbaijan, there has been a heightened awareness of Azerbaijan and the need by some to lift the Section 907. I am not questioning anybody's motivation here today; I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. However, I want to say 2 things. My chairman knows what high regard, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) knows what high regard I hold for him. But for him in the same remarks to be expressing his dismay at the suggestion that the oil companies were influencing our decision and then questioning the motivation of our colleagues, saying that they are motivated because there are Armenian Americans in their community

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. For the distinguished chairman to be questioning the motivation of our colleagues because they are motivated by the Armenians in their community, and in the same presentation talk about the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti Defamation League, B'nai B'rith, who are on his side of the issue, I think is not fair. I think it is contradictory. The fact is that the American Jewish Committee and the Anti Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith have every right to express their view on this subject, but do not say the Armenian Americans are not an appropriate motivation for Members to come to this floor, but these other groups are. We welcome their input anywhere in the world starting, of course, with Israel, and if they care to intervene in some other area of the world, they have a right under our law to do that, and I respect that. But I hope that the rights of Armenian Americans would be respected as well. My final point is that I listened attentively as the distinguished chairman spoke about this as something that the administration wants and we cannot tie the administration's hand, and that Secretary Albright is for this. Well, that is interesting. That is very interesting, and I would like to, for the record, just talk for a moment about the statement of administration policy about this bill, because Secretary Albright and the President of the United States are concerned about the dollar amount in this bill, but that interest seems to be ignored by the same chairman who was using them as an authority for why we should go forward with lifting Section 907. The administration strongly opposes Mexico City restrictions, as they say in this. The administration strongly objects to the committee's action to leaving U.S. funds for the Korean Peninsula Development Organization, including language prohibiting the President from exercising his authority to transfer funds from other sources for this purpose, and it goes on and on. The administration objects to the low figure for the New Independent States, and are concerned about the low funding for economic support. So if we are going to use giving the administration a free hand, we have to go across the board with that. And with that, since my time has expired, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I do seek to control the time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I can accept the amendment proposed by the gentleman. I think that the intentions behind it are good and certainly it is a restatement of what we all support, which is voluntary family planning. I do want to, though, bring up a couple of points about it, because paragraph 5 of the amendment requires that each family planning project provide a reasonable range of options of methods of family planning, including natural methods. I think that that is a very fine provision in his amendment. Under current law, the DeConcini amendment, which we have discussed here before, which is not deleted by this amendment, voluntary family planning projects must offer directly, either directly, referral or information, a broad range of family planning methods and services. The amendment has the effect of requiring that each project itself provide a range of family planning methods and options. Earlier we were talking about projects overall must offer a range of family planning methods. But according to the gentleman's amendment, it is every single project must offer a range. In other words, referral information about the availability elsewhere of other family planning options. I am reading the language of the bill. But simply put, the issue I am bringing up in support of the gentleman's amendment is that in the natural family planning, other options are not necessarily available in their projects. The gentleman's amendment does not delete the DeConcini language, which allows natural family planning projects to offer that option without offering a range of, a reasonable range of options, methods of family planning, including natural methods. So I think that we will have to address this issue in conference, but as I say, I say this rising in support of the amendment, calling attention to the gentleman to the situation that the amendment presents. I do want to use the balance of my time to say that the gentleman's emphasis on the word ``voluntary'' is one that I think every person in this body supports. International family planning is very, very important. I believe that it does reduce the number of abortions internationally, and that is a goal that we all share. It also is helpful for women to determine the size and timing of their families and that should not be a matter of coercion but a matter of conscience and of health and well-being of that particular family. So certainly involuntary sterilization, et cetera, has no place in any family planning projects that we would support. In fact, they would be repulsive to all of us who support international family planning. Again, the thoughtful Tiahrt amendment gives us the opportunity to say how many families internationally have benefited from that and that in our bill, we do support projects which Georgetown University has played a role in that provide projects, that provide natural family planning as their means of just that, family planning. The amendment also requires a report from the administrator within 30 days of finding any violation of any provisions with this amendment. This, I think, is an onerous requirement. I think the report should be made, but I am just saying that the 30 days may or may not be realistic. I hope we could revisit that in conference. Just for example, one family, one health service provider not informing one family planning acceptor of potential health risk is a violation. Even if corrected, the nongovernmental organization manager of the project, a report must still be prepared and filed with the committee. I just think it is onerous. It is appropriate, but we should talk about what will work and stay in the spirit of the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest regard for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations that I reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment. We usually are in more agreement than we are today, but I have grave concerns that this amendment can do real damage. I understand that this amendment has come about because of Congress' understandable concerns about the administration's use of the transfer authority to provide assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. However, I think that this amendment severely constrains the use of the section 614 waiver and to end altogether the Secretary's authority under section 451. These are two extraordinary authorities used judiciously by all administrations, including the present one, to respond to urgent and unforeseen foreign aid requirements. I am particularly concerned because it is directed at KEDO specifically, the Korean Energy Development Organization. KEDO's needs are urgent. We are well aware of strong opposition on the other side to KEDO, and that debate had appropriately taken place in our committee. I regret enormously that the Committee on Rules did not allow my amendment in order, which would have been a very fair amendment, which would say none of the funds would go unless the U.S., we ourselves, the United States, could confirm that the North Koreans were complying, that we had access to confirm the compliance. But the Committee on Rules chose to reject that. Now the chairman is coming in with a further hit at the administration on this. I say to the chairman, with all due respect on this, that he is playing with fire. We played with fire in the committee, and this is another step down that road. And so I urge our colleagues to oppose the Gilman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and following on the remarks of our distinguished ranking member, I want to say that I share the concerns that our colleagues have about the irresponsibility of the North Korean regime. Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, several of the members, I do not see any of them in the room at this time, visited North Korea last year. And by that, I do not mean Panmunjom but into North Korea, to P'yonghang the capital, and I can certainly firsthand agree with the horrible state of affairs. As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, I have traveled with our chairman and members of the committee throughout the world and have seen poverty everyplace. But the poverty of spirit we saw in North Korea, the cruelty of the regime, that they could sit back while their people were eating bark and roots and grass, and yet spend a fortune on the war machine that is there, because they are focused and they are militant and they are irresponsible, it is for those reasons that I think we are playing with fire today when we are trying to tie the hands of the administration. Once again, the inconsistency of our colleagues who argue on 907 that we should not tie the administration's hands, and on this very, very dangerous issue, proceed to do just exactly that. This is a very serious vote. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gilman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and with the greatest respect for my chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). At the start, I want to commend him for the manner in which he put the bill together. Although we disagree on some of the provisions in the bill, he was very open and accommodating whenever it was possible for him to be on some of the initiatives from our side of the aisle. I also want to commend our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), for the manner in which he conducted the full committee on this legislation and his openness. But we have some very serious policy disagreements that I will discuss in a moment. First, in addition to praising my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to join the gentleman from Alabama in commending our two Members who have served so well and who will be leaving the Congress this year. This will be their last foreign ops bill. First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates); Chairman Yates, Ranking Member Yates. In the full committee I mentioned that he has been hailed as a great mentor, legislator, leader, thinker, intellect. But I wanted to commend him as a great patriot because of his work as chair of the Interior Committee and then as ranking member on the subcommittee. He was a great patriot in protecting the natural resources of our great country, the cultural heritage of our country, and the freedom of expression of our constitution. For all of that, we are most grateful to him. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) had a resume before he came to Congress that served him well here, and indeed served our entire country as a diplomat; an ambassador. He also brought the fighting spirit of the labor movement and the commitment of a strong Democrat. His diplomatic skills as an ambassador and as part of our delegation will be missed greatly. This Congress will miss his expertise in many areas, including his knowledge of this hemisphere and his leadership on issues of concern to our country. Mr. Chairman, the service of both of these gentlemen will be missed and I will certainly miss their votes on our committee. This bill, I think, should be what it has been in the past, an area where we come together in a bipartisan spirit to promote democratic values, to give expression to the compassion of the American people, and to make very hard-nosed decisions about what is in our national interest. I do not think that many of these issues are partisan issues. Indeed, the luxury of our committee is that very often we are the kaleidoscope. We are in different designs on different issues. Many of us for example on both sides of the aisle support 907 and many on both sides of the aisle oppose 907. I join with my Republican colleagues in opposing the initiative of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). We also have strong human rights' advocates on the committee from both sides of the aisle. We have issues like IMF, where there are Democrats and Republicans on one side of the issue and on the other side of the issue as well. So we are used to working cooperatively in a bipartisan manner. Our chairman traditionally likes to give to the executive branch, to the President, the prerogative to have as much flexibility as possible. At least that is normally what the practice has been. Not so in this bill. First and foremost, I oppose the legislation because I do not think it rises, in terms of its vision and its resources, to the challenge that our country faces as the sole global leader of the world. I also think those resources which are, as the chairman mentioned, $315 million below fiscal year 1998 and a full $1.1 billion below the President's request, greatly reduces the President's flexibility with the narrowing of those resources. I am concerned that just $3.5 billion instead of the full $18 billion for the IMF has been included in this legislation. And as I mentioned during the debate on the rule, I am very concerned about the lack of opportunity for us to debate the IMF. There were 12 amendments coming from both sides of the aisle on the IMF, and the Committee on Rules rejected every one of them. The whole world is wondering how we are going to deal with the economic crisis in Asia. Is the IMF the appropriate way to go? Regardless of what side we are on on that issue, this House should be debating that issue. And the idea we can put $14.5 billion into the bill in conference, I think is really unfair to the Members. And, really, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that this body cannot have a debate on a subject of grave concern, that is the economic stability of the world. As far as the allocation of funds, my concern about the number, the $315 million below last year's request, springs from some of the unrest that is out there in our fragile new democracies. As we all know, the economy of Russia is in a very depressed state. Russia happens to be the leading market for exports from some of the new independent states; for example, Georgia. The country of Georgia, with President Shevardnadze who is a leader in that region as well as the President of his own country, has worked hard to democratize Georgia, to implement the market reforms, to reform the economy, and he is losing his export market--Russia. Georgia is being flooded by cheap products from Russia now, undermining its economy. And we further exacerbate the situation by reducing the aid that we give to Georgia, giving a real lever to his opponents there who are not the democrats of Georgia, thereby undermining his leadership. He did what we asked him to do and we lowered the assistance we are giving him. And that is just one example. I am also concerned, and I have an area of disagreement with some of my Republican colleagues, that the bill denies all funding for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. The agreement between the U.S. and North Korea provides the only basis for U.S. access to troublesome sites in Korea. Ending the program eliminates any possibility of ending North Korea's nuclear ballistic missile programs and may, in fact, jeopardize the security of U.S. troops in the region. My request to at least debate the issue was denied by the Committee on Rules. And further into the debate today, I will suggest what my amendment would have been. We have discussed the fact that the bill has language restricting international family planning organizations from using their own funds for purposes that they deem worthy of their mission. And the bill shortchanges the global environmental facility of the World Bank to the point where it will literally run out of funds this year. I am disappointed that we could not get greater funding for the Peace Corps, but I salute the chairman for the figure he did put in, and his willingness, if we have any more money at the end of the day, to put more funds in for the Peace Corps. And I salute Chairman Callahan for his leadership on the child survival and disease account. He is truly a champion in the world. And his initiatives were met with some resistance along the way, so I commend him for his vision and for his perseverance and for his success on behalf of the children worldwide. I just wish the bill had a bigger allocation so child survival could be funded higher. And, again, I personally thank him for the HIV/AIDS prevention control money and the UNICEF funds. The funds for the Middle East have been reduced, largely under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). And as we all know, the Middle East, regardless of the fate of this bill today, the Middle East funds will be there. They are the safest appropriation allocation in this bill. So I again thank the chairman for some of the initiatives that are there and for his leadership, but I regretfully must oppose the bill because it is inadequate to the task. Everyone in America is familiar with President Kennedy's statement in his inaugural address, ``My fellow Americans, Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' But the very next line of that great speech is, ``And to the citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do, working together, for the freedom of man.'' I do not think that the allocation for this bill and the priorities and the opportunities that are missed in this bill are a match for those great words. I hope, at the end of the process, that they will be, and that we can all join in supporting this bill, making it the bipartisan package that it traditionally has been and hopefully will be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip of the House and a champion on international issues relating to the American worker.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who was praised by many of the previous speakers.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It is a very distinct privilege to recognize the ranking member of the full committee and a person who served for many years at ranking member of this subcommittee. It is a intimidating feat to have to follow in his footsteps as ranking on this committee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and for his presentation of this rule, which I rise with great reluctance to oppose. My reluctance springs not from the substance of the rule, that is easy, but reluctance springing from my respect and regard for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). The chairman is my friend, and this is probably the last rule which we will be contending with each other over. I want to take the opportunity to say what a pleasure it has been to serve in Congress with the gentleman. The gentleman knows of the respect that I have for him, and that is why it is very difficult for me to oppose the gentleman on this rule. But the gentleman made it easy, because I think this rule is a contortion and, in my view, violates the agreement that we had with our committee. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation, and it seems like an annual event, where we get an agreement with the Republican leadership of this House that we will have free and fair debate and vote on the international family planning issue. No matter where one stands on that issue, Members understand the unfairness that is contained in this bill. The record of our Committee on Appropriations was clear. When our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), spelled out very clearly how our rights were protected on this issue on the floor or in any other arena that it would be taken up. My complaint is not with our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), nor is it with my colleague and the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). It is a joy to serve with both of them, and I respect them highly. My complaint is with this Republican leadership of this House which, after agreements are made in our committee, has to go and run and check with the far right to see if it was okay. We specifically conveyed to the Republican leadership that a second- degree amendment was not part of the agreement. They knew that. The reason my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) says, well you usually get the second degree, why are you complaining if I do. The point is that, in the interest of comity and cooperation, we said, okay, proceed and put the gentleman's language in the bill if we get a chance to amend it on the floor. So, indeed, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has a privileged position. His language is part of the legislation. Why should he have two bites at the apple, especially when that is in violation of our agreement. So one of the casualties of this will be, of course, the trust that we can have working together in the Committee on Appropriations, because, clearly, we should be talking to the far right wing if we want to be sure about what the arrangement will be when we come to the floor. It takes the rug out from under our own committee leadership and any commitments they make to us in committee. When that commitment was made, it specifically mentioned that the leadership, the Republican leadership of the House was a part of the agreement. So here we go again. That is just one point, the point of unfairness, which of course seems to be the banner of the day around here. But this rule, even if that unfairness were not an issue, and let us for a moment put it aside, I call this rule a rule suitable for ostriches. Let us put our heads in the sand on all of the troubled spots in the world. For example, Korea, North Korea, the rules committee would not allow an amendment on Korea. International environmental issues, we cannot have an amendment on that issue. The list goes on and on. Africa, we cannot have an amendment on what is going on in Africa. Even with those amendments that were made in order or those which under the rule can be submitted because they were printed in the Record, there is a very, very narrow amount of time with which those issues are to be debated. If we subtract the time for the amendments that the gentleman provided time for in the amendment, there are 2 hours, only 2 hours to discuss disasters of the whole rest of the world, Ireland, Africa, disaster assistance, the list goes on and on. The International Monetary Fund. That takes me to that point. Members in this group, in this body are divided on the issue of the International Monetary Fund. Wherever we are on that issue, I think it is fair to say that this House should be debating that issue. Some of my Republican colleagues said to me, do not worry about the IMF. If you support the IMF, we are going to put the $14.5 billion in in conference. Oh, really. Do my colleagues think that is appropriate, a $14 billion appropriation in conference without this body having the opportunity to debate it pro and con? I think that that is not right. It is hard to imagine how such a distinguished group of people who are interested in the economy of our country could say that the International Monetary Fund should not be debated on this floor. So it is for reasons of substance, reasons of fairness, and reasons of timing that I oppose this rule. I just want to make the further point in terms of timing that, not only is the timing of restricting all the debate on the amendments to 5 hours unfair, but it is also about the timing, of the jamming, of the railroading this bill onto the floor before Members are even versed as to what the issues are that are contained in it. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so I can agree with him?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that the gentleman has said, and I salute him for everything that he has done. The gentleman is so right. He takes a back seat to no one on all of the issues he said. I want him to know that I was not referring to him. I was referring to elements outside of this body.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 117 because this bill accomplishes nothing in the war on drug abuse other than highlight the misplaced emphasis of the country's anti-drug efforts. The bill seeks to tell voters how to cast their votes, and disregards the votes of over five million people in my state. It focuses on arrests and prosecution rather than education and treatment as the answer to drug abuse. And it seeks to make criminals of people in pain because of serious illnesses. This is no war on drugs. It is political grandstanding. H.J. Res. 117 disregards the proven medicinal uses of marijuana, including increasing the appetites of people with AIDS who have wasting syndrome, and reducing nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy. Opponents of medicinal marijuana argue that there are other ways to ingest the active ingredient in marijuana, including the use of synthetic THC. However we know that the oral drug containing THC does not work for all people. The logic of the authors of this legislation therefore seems to be that a very ill person should be sent to jail because he or she used the smokable form of a drug whose active ingredient is currently licensed for oral use. Voters in my home state passed an initiative authorizing seriously ill patients to take marijuana upon the recommendation of a licensed physician. Proposition 215 has provided as many as 11,000 Californians who suffer from AIDS and other debilitating diseases with safe and legal access to a drug that makes life a little more bearable. Fifty- six percent of the electorate voted for Prop 215. The voters have spoken, and there is no need for federal intrusion on this matter. Thousands of constituents in my district struggling with AIDS and cancer will tell you that choosing the appropriate medical treatment should be a decision for public health officials, physicians and patients. Congress would do well to stay out of the prescription business. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can pass truly effective measures to address drug abuse in our country. According to the Legal Action Center, over half of federal drug control spending is dedicated to the criminal justice system, and only 18% goes to drug treatment. To effectively fight the war on drug abuse we must get our priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Today's legislation, which encourages making criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy, is not a step towards controlling America's drug problem. I therefore oppose H.J. Res. 117.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, for seven of the eleven years that I have served in Congress, I have served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the ethics task force. It is from that perspective that I have several questions to ask. If indeed what we are talking about here today is the process under which the Starr report will be released, why then have the airwaves been filled with details of the Starr report for the last 36 hours? It has supposedly been under lock and key here. One can only assume the leaks are coming from the Independent Counsel's office. My second question is to you, Mr. Speaker. Why would you not afford the President of the United States the same opportunity you were given by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of having almost a week's advance notice to review the charges against you, so that you could have your response be part of the report? Let me just say, the good news about the leaks is that this four-year investigation apparently vindicates President Clinton in the conduct of his public life, because we are only left with this personal stuff. My third question relates to our Founding Fathers. I believe the last question is what would our Founding Fathers think of this course we are embarking on today? I think they would say it was not for the investigation of a President's personal life that we risked our lives, our liberty and our sacred honor. I know they would not want us to rush to judgment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman contending that the details that the news media is putting out there about the Starr allegations, and I remind the gentleman that the Starr report is a list of allegations, it is not a statement of fact, and they will be unanalyzed, no witnesses cross-examined and the rest, is the Chairman of the Committee on Rules alleging that the White House is leaking the information that is in the Starr report, which the Speaker has not allowed the President any advance viewing of?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for and heartfelt thanks to Larry Williams, who is retiring from his post as Director of the Sierra Club's International Program. For the past seventeen years, Larry has taken a leadership role in promoting the protection of the environment on the international level and people around the world are the beneficiaries of his vision, his dedication and his unrelenting advocacy. Larry is a true champion of the global environment and, therefore, a champion for this world's children and for our future. One of Larry's major successes, on which we worked closely, was the development and passage of legislation requiring the multilateral development banks (MDBs) to do environmental impact assessments and to make those assessments publicly available for MDB-financed projects. With the implementation of this legislation, now known as the ``Pelosi Amendment,'' new environmental policies and standards have been set internationally. Ten years ago, MDB-financed projects like highways, dams, irrigation works and power plants, would largely be built without regard for their irreversible impacts on the environment and without the informed participation of affected communities. The prevailing approach to large-scale development projects was to build them first and worry about the consequences later. Local citizens were often the last to know that important wetlands would be drained, rivers diverted, forests cut down, or entire communities displaced by projects supported by US tax dollars. With Larry Williams' leadership, the Pelosi Amendment to the International Development and Finance Act of 1989 changed that. Now, citizens in communities from the Amazon River Basin to the Himalayas and all other points around the world have access to information about proposed MDB projects that will have major impacts on their lives. The Pelosi Amendment has been the Trojan horse for transparency, participation and accountability at the MDBs. For the first time, citizens were given the right to know in advance what projects their government and the Banks had planned. Knowledge is power. More citizens now know about, comment on, monitor or participate in Bank-financed projects than at any time in the past, with the hoped-for effect of improving projects and mitigating environmental impacts. Larry Williams, the tireless international campaigner for the Sierra Club, was one of the primary forces behind the MDB reform campaign that led to the development, passage, and implementation of the Pelosi Amendment. Larry's leadership brought changes to the World Bank which one observer said were the outcome of ``four years of congressional hearings and constant badgering by environmentalists.'' Larry Williams has touched the lives of millions of people who will never know directly of his untiring efforts on their behalf. I commend him for his untiring efforts and am honored to have been able to work with him. We will miss him.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 421, a resolution deploring the murder of Guatemala Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi. In late July of this year, I joined my colleagues Representatives George Miller and Ciro Rodriguez on a three-day visit to Guatemala. The visit was organized by the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights. Our goals were to encourage the Guatemalan government to carry out a thorough investigation of the April 26, 1998 murder of Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi; to provide visible support to the Archbishop's Human Rights Office and other human rights organizations in Guatemala; to encourage the United States government to play a more active role in supporting efforts to improve respect for human rights in Guatemala; and to demonstrate full support for the implementation of the peace accords which have brought an end to 36 years of civil war. Our delegation met with government officials, including Guatemala President Arzu, church leaders, and representatives of numerous community organizations. We paid special attention to the investigation of the tragic murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi. Because of Bishop Gerardi's invaluable work in defense of human rights and the fact that he was killed only days after the release of the report, ``Guatemala: Never Again,'' this crime necessarily has political connotations. If it is not resolved, it would be a devastating blow to the peace process and to domestic and international confidence in the implementation of these goals. We were encouraged to hear of the government's commitment to aggressively pursue all leads, motives and evidence related to the tragic murder of Bishop Gerardi. Since late July, we have learned that the prosecution has made an initial request for information about the military officers whose names were originally provided by the Archbishop's Human Rights Office. It is vitally important that the prosecution go forward with an exhaustive investigation of the leads suggesting military involvement, just as it has been fully exploring other possible leads. The expeditious and judicious resolution of the investigation into Bishop Gerardi's murder is critical for the continuation of support for the peace accords. Therefore, I rise in support of House Resolution 421, which calls for the Government of Guatemala to take all steps necessary to resolve the heinous murder of Bishop Gerardi; to continue its efforts to establish effective civilian law enforcement and judicial institutions; to make a renewed commitment to successfully implement the peace accords, especially those accords concerning human rights; and that the United States government provide all necessary support to the investigation of Bishop Gerardi's murder and to continue to support the full implementation of the peace accords.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martinez Amendment to the Riggs Amendment. I appreciate Rep. Martinez offering the Amendment in my absence. I was unable to leave the Appropriations Committee mark up. The Riggs Amendment denies funding to school districts because they are out of compliance with State Law or State Constitutional Law, even if compliance is not possible given federal court mandates. This amendment will punish school districts, and the students they are responsible for, merely because these districts are caught in a bind between conflicting laws. The San Francisco Unified School District is currently under a federal court decree to provide access to English as a Second Language classes and bilingual education. Though the District has pledged to comply with state law to the greatest extent possible, the District is acting appropriately and legally by obeying a federal court decree. The Martinez amendment to the Riggs amendment simply provides an exception for school districts, like San Francisco, which are caught between state and federal legal mandates. The Martinez amendment states that funding will not be denied if violation of state law is ``necessary for the eligible entity to comply with Federal law (including a Federal court order).'' If the Riggs Amendment passes without the Martinez amendment, the San Francisco Unified School District stands to lose over $1 million in fideral funds used to provide services to over 21,000 children. At least five other school districts--including Chicago, Denver, New York City, San Jose, and St. Paul--are under court-ordered consent decree regarding bilingual education. The Congress should not force school officials in these districts to choose between resources for children and compliance with a federal court order. The Martinez Amendments to the Riggs Amendment protects school districts that are simply trying to comply with the law. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to the amendment.