Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for yielding, and I commend him and the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim) and particularly the author of this resolution the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), his cosponsor the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and our great Senator, Senator Boxer, for their authorship of this. How wonderful this is for us in the Congress of the United States to be naming a Federal building for someone who just a few short months ago we called ``colleague.'' And indeed it was an honor for every one of us who had ever had the privilege of calling him ``colleague'' to serve with Ron Dellums. As has been mentioned by my colleagues, he served here with great dignity. He brought a brilliant intellect, great integrity, tremendous passion and energy to all of the issues that he cared about. I think it is particularly appropriate that this conversation is taking place on a day when we are also honoring Thomas Edison, Lewis and Clark, fitting that Ron Dellums' name should be listed among the great pioneers of our country, because a pioneer he was indeed and is indeed. Although he does not serve in Congress, he is still a leader for social and economic and environmental justice in our country and indeed throughout the world. And as we all take great pride in the role America played in ending apartheid in South Africa, we must remember that it was not easy and it took great and tremendous leadership at the start and was met with resistance from the start. But Ron Dellums was there from the start. He fought that fight. And I cannot help but think that it has to be his proudest boast that he helped end apartheid in South Africa. As a Bay Area Member, as a Member from California, I want to say what great pride his constituents take in Ron's service in Congress. Actually Ron has a Bay Area-wide constituency, actually a national constituency, because of his eloquent leadership and passionate leadership and the great intellect that he has brought to issues. And so, I want to join my colleagues in support of this resolution. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) mentioned, for generations to come, young people will go to that Federal building and the name ``Ron Dellums'' in history will be synonymous with honor, integrity, concern about issues, social and economic justice in our country and throughout the world. Thank you very much to those who led the way on this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) especially, for giving us the privilege in this House. In honoring Ron Dellums, we bring honor to this House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 1998 the African-American Civil War Memorial was dedicated in Washington, DC. This memorial pays tribute to the Black soldiers who fought in the Union Army to end slavery and preserve the United States of America as one nation committed to freedom and justice for all. Among the words of praise given for these brave souls was a poem written by San Francisco columnist and civic leader Noah Griffin. I submit for the Record To The Massachusetts 54th, In Memoriam, a tribute to one of the black regiments which fought in the Civil War. To The Massachusetts 54th In Memoriam When the drumbeat and the fife subside And the celebration's done, When the memory of the men who died Both North and South is one. This regiment will still shine forth In annals of the free: The Massachusetts Fifty-Fourth Who fought for Liberty. Abe Lincoln had refused to act, Moreover, Stanton too. The one to recognize the fact Was the Governor John Andrew. He fought to do what saved the war: Bring Blacks into the fray. For up 'til then there'd been a bar By both the Blue and Grey. When Lincoln signed the document Which brought Emancipation, The administration did relent, Accompanying authorization. From the Commonwealth the call rang out: ``Come Colored Men to Arms.'' Amid the ridicule and doubt They answered war's alarm. They came from city and the farm; Left sweethearts, wives and mothers To wear that Union uniform, And free their shackled brothers. From every state they filled the roll, From Maryland to Maine. The Gov'nor more than reached his goal, The mandate now was plain: To show that these Black fighting men Were equal to the task: To never have to prove again; To never have to ask. They served for less than equal pay, Accepting none, 'til righted. Enlisted, they remained to stay, Their honor yet unblighted. Eli George Biddle, Edward Hines And Sergeant William Carney: The knowledge of whom redefines The Northern Grand Old Army. Andrew had turned to Robert Shaw To lead this regiment. For in this bold Brahmin he saw The strength of firm commitment. The men trained with exactitude, To Milit'ry precision. With courage, strength and fortitude They faced their disposition. Fort Wagner in South Caroline Would prove their maiden test, To see if courage would align By bringing forth the best From Blacks who fought to free the slave, For Justice and the Right-- These soldiers who when called on gave New meaning to the Fight. With neither map nor smooth terrain They charged the mouth of Hell. Into the with'ring blast they came Ignoring shot and shell. Young Colonel Shaw, while rallying forth With sword clutched in his hand. Exhorted, ``Onward Fifty Fourth'' His ultimate command. He died upon the parapet. He fell amidst his men. All buried in a common pit, Returned to earth as kin. The standard bearer breathed his last; The flag was going down. Thrice wounded Carney grabbed it fast: ``It never hit the ground.'' This soldier from New Bedford soil, Who hailed from Company ``C'' Half-dead amid the bloody toil, Dismissed his own safety. The men fought valiantly that day, Though victory was denied. Amid the wreaths and laurels lay A source of new found pride. For courage, neither black nor white; Resides within us all, When we surrender to our plight And answer duty's call. When the drumbeat and the fife subside And the celebration's done, And the memory of the men who died Both North and South is one. This regiment will still shine forth In annals of the free: The Massachusetts Fifty-Fourth. They died for Liberty.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Gore recently honored William F. Grader, Jr.--Zeke to his many friends--with the presentation of an Environmental Hero Award. This award, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is particularly meaningful as we celebrate the International Year of the Ocean. Zeke Grader has been an environmental leader in the San Francisco Bay Area community for many years and has always stood firm in his conviction that sustainable fisheries could be an achievable goal on the Pacific Coast. His efforts on behalf of fishery restoration and sustainable fishing practices set an example for our government and for coastal communities throughout America. Zeke was responsible for creating the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen in 1976 and he has served as its Executive Director since that time. His leadership at the Federation has resulted in the implementation of federal safeguards to bring greater protection to our marine resources and to restore weakened fisheries. The human hand on the environment has been anything but gentle. By 1997, one third of U.S. marine fisheries were overfished, costing the U.S. economy $25 billion and coastal communities thousands of jobs. In managing our U.S. fisheries, the effect has been evident in the loss of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, lake trout in the Great Lakes, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, cod in the Georges Bank; and these are only a few examples of the great loss worldwide in fisheries depletion. At a time when the reports about ``scorched earth fishing'' are so alarming, it is heartening to know that individuals like Zeke are making such an important contribution to preserve fishing stocks and to seek solutions to reverse this aspect of our planet's deterioration. For the 22 years Zeke has been head of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen, he has been responsible for sounding the alarm on overfishing along the north Coast and for striving to bring about improvements to sustain our marine resources. These concerns are very important to the San Francisco Bay Area where healthy fisheries depend on healthy habitats in the wetlands and waters of our great delta and estuary that feed into the Pacific Ocean. Zeke has been an extraordinary leader and we are grateful for his dedication to the environment, and particularly to its marine resources. We are all beneficiaries of his great efforts in support of a strong and sustainable environment. Zeke is one of those rare leaders who we will look to for guidance on our troubled waters in the next century.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Further to the point that the gentleman has made, the authors of this study, one of them, in testimony before a Senate staff briefing in July, said, ``The conclusion of our study was entirely misrepresented in the U.S. Congress as evidence that needle exchange did not work.'' In fact, the author points out, ``In Canada, local governments acted on our research,'' the author is speaking, ``on our research by expanding needle exchange programs.'' That was the correct conclusion to be drawn from that research.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, because the gentleman just referred to the so called only reputable studies that have been made and, of course, the people who did that study have already said that their conclusions have been misrepresented here. Our colleagues are going to vote the way they vote, ignoring probably the fact that we are talking about an issue that has already been dealt with by this Congress. But I want the record to show that this Congress, and as my colleague has pointed out, that we have supported the National Institutes of Health. We take great pride in supporting the National Institutes of Health, and take great pride in advertising our support for increasing the funding for the National Institutes of Health. Why, then, would we run away way from the conclusions of the National Institutes of Health? And the National Institutes of Health, the Director, Dr. Harold Varmus; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Direcrtor Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Allen Leshner, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse; Dr. Claire Broome, Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control, another organization; Dr. Helene Gayle, National Center for HIV, STD and TB prevention; and the CDC. So the National Institutes of Health and the CDC leadership in their official capacity issued a consensus statement which states, after reviewing all of the research, ``After reviewing all of the research, we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs.'' The science says that needle exchange does not increase drug abuse. The National Institutes of Health consensus statement says, ``A preponderance of evidence shows either no change or decreased drug use. Individuals in areas with needle exchange programs have increased likelihood of entering drug treatment programs.'' The scientific and public health groups that support the needle exchange programs include the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Scientific leaders in our country are united in their conclusion that needle exchange reduces HIV infection and does not increase drug abuse. Do not take public health out of the hands of the science and public health experts. I urge my colleagues to separate themselves from any of these measures that prohibit the use of funds for HIV prevention and have needle exchange programs to do that. Members are going to vote the way they are going to vote, for political or whatever reasons, and everybody has to decide on his or her own vote. But we cannot ignore the science. If they want to outweigh the science with other considerations, make sure they know the responsibility that they have when they do so. But if we take pride in funding the National Institutes of Health, we at least should give some respect to the conclusions that they draw when they say the preponderance of scientific evidence, when we have studied all of the research, draws us to the conclusion that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not increase, and in fact in some instances reduce substance abuse. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) was so eloquent in his presentation about what we do know, those of us who take the bite of this wormy apple of the spread of HIV in our communities. We know something about how to prevent the suffering, suffering that these families experience. We know something about saving taxpayers' dollars, if that is the only issue that concerns people here tonight. Can we all stipulate that we are all against the spread of drug abuse in our country, and IV drug use? Let us all respect each other on that score. But respect is the word that I think tonight's debate is about. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and others have clearly laid out that the science says that the needle exchange programs save lives. Nobody less than the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Varmus, a Nobel Prize winner himself, has stated that over and over again. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) described a needle exchange program that I would not support myself, and that is not what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about a needle exchange program that is part of an HIV prevention program that gets people into treatment and prevention. I want to share just another thought here. When I was born my father was in Congress. He was chair of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. They did not have home rule then, but he was a big supporter of home rule because he respected the people of Washington, D.C. Why is it that every time this bill comes up, we see these assaults on local autonomy, and assaults on the intelligence and the decision- making ability of the people of the District of Columbia? These people have to deal with an important and dangerous public health issue that is facing them. They have drawn conclusions scientifically about how to stop the spread of HIV and all the suffering that goes with it, and all the expense to the taxpayer that goes with it. This Congress has already passed legislation prohibiting Federal funds to be used for these kinds of programs. Why do we have to go through this again, and say no local funds? Would Members want this Congress to be interfering in the business of Members' own communities? I do not think so. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Tiahrt amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Largent Amendment. One of the most important things we can do in this chamber is pass legislation which improves the welfare of children in our country. In the District of Columbia, there are 3,600 children in the foster care system, waiting for suitable parents to given them a home. There are half a million children in foster are in this country, but four out of five of these children are never adopted. Why would we put new, unfounded, discriminatory limits on the number of families that can provide a good home to a child? The answer, it seems, is to satisfy a social agenda which has singled out lesbians and gays as its current most favored target. It is unfortunate that once again we are debating not how to advance civil rights, but whether to take a step backward in time, and make policy based on prejudice, intolerance and ignorance of the facts. In the service of this social agenda, the amendment would create a senseless policy, interfering in the ability of parents and trained professionals to make family placement decisions, and affecting both heterosexual and homosexual unmarried adults. The amendment is the essence of old fashioned discrimination, imposing clear limits on an individual's participation in society based on their group status, rather than their abilities. But let me return to the welfare of children. All the evidence shows that lesbian and gay parents are as good at parenting as any other group of parents. The American Psychological Association reports that, ``the belief that children of gay and lesbian parents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation.'' Studies document that children of gay and lesbian parents show no marked difference in their psychological adjustment, intelligence, popularity with friends, or development of sex role identity, when compared with children of heterosexual parents. In addition, lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly in their overall mental health, or in their approaches to child rearing. In all these areas, the research finds no difference. There are half a million children waiting for homes and we are debating whether to let prejudice deny children a home with a family. Mr. Chairman, this amendment puts a right wing social agenda above the welfare of children and families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Largent Amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I especially thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor, which I wholeheartedly support and consider a breath of fresh air. I also rise in support of the underlying McDade-Murtha bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley Amendment. It is a sad day for the House when undermining equal rights for one group becomes the primary social cause for leading members. Unfortunately, this Summer we have witnessed a rising tide of verbal and legislative attacks on the lesbian and gay Americans among us. They have become the easy target of this legislative season. But let us put the rhetoric aside for a moment and say what this amendment really does. If you vote for this amendment, you are sending a message to federal managers and agency chiefs that it is acceptable to disregard talent and determination, intelligence and integrity, and hire or fire someone based on their sexual orientation. It is ironic that my colleagues, who are often so ready to criticize the work of federal agencies, are willing to vote that the right to discriminate is more important than the need for competence. The President's Executive order provides no special rights, no affirmative action, and no quotas for any group. President Nixon's non discrimination Executive Order did not require affirmative action based on age or religion, and neither does this one. This Executive Order is not about quotas, this is about saying discrimination has no place in our country. It says federal workers who happen to be lesbian or gay must simply be allowed to go to work every day to do their jobs just like the rest of us. I am proud to represent a city with many lesbians and gays who have courageously stood up for their right to equality. When an amendment like this is offered in the House, I think of the many able federal workers I have had the privilege to know and work with who are gay or lesbian. This bill would allow them to be fired on a whim, based on prejudice. An amendment which removes equal rights for these and other individuals defies logic and is without merit. And when we disregard merit on issues like this, we do more than affect the rights of federal employees. The words we speak and votes we cast in this chamber have broad impact--and when we send messages of prejudice and intolerance, we give licence to hatred. There have been proud days in this House when we have passed legislation establishing equal rights and protections. Today, unfortunately, we debate whether to take a step backward, and side with discrimination and prejudice. This Summer, some members of Congress have compared homosexuality with a disease. But the real disease is ignorance. The real sin is judging people solely by their group status. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hefley Amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of this subcommittee, I have an appreciation for the breadth of jurisdiction that the distinguished chairman and ranking member have to deal with, and I commend them for their great leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I do hope, as the process moves on, that I will be able to support the bill, because dealing with all of the issues that we have to deal with, as has been mentioned, there are some controversial ones. One of them deals with the children of America. I do not know if Members have seen, but a couple of weeks ago Columbia University released a study that said that one in four children under the age of six in America lives in poverty. How could this be, in a country this great? Maybe one of the reasons is that we do not have an accurate count of our children. Fifty-two percent of the undercount in the 1990 Census were children. They represent 25 percent of those counted but 52 percent were part of the undercount, a gross undercounting of the children. That is why I support the Mollohan amendment, because I think it addresses the controversy of the Census in a very, very smart way. It accomplishes three important goals: It prevents any interruption in the funding of the 2000 Census; it takes into account possible action by the Supreme Court to review the sampling question; and it provides for third-party review of the Census Bureau's plan for counting the 2000 Census. The 1990 Census was seriously deficient, particularly as it failed our minority communities, and as I have said, the children of America. We cannot meet the needs, minister to the needs of America's children, if we do not have an accurate count of those children. In the minority community, almost 9 million people were not counted in the process, including one in 10 African American males, one in 20 Hispanics, and one in 10 young Asian males. On top of this, there were 26 million errors in the last Census, 1.6 percent of the population was undercounted, 4.5 million people were counted twice, and the concerns go on, which I will submit for the Record. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I say that the Constitution requires that we have a Census. Every American counts. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan amendment when it comes up, to bring about a fair and accurate Census for America's children. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment. The Mollohan amendment accomplishes three important goals--it prevents any interruption in funding of the 2000 census; it takes into account possible action by the Supreme Court to review the sampling question; and it provides for third party review of the Census Bureau's plans for counting the 2000 census. The 1990 census count was seriously deficient, particularly as it failed our 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. On top of this, there were 26 million errors in the last census, 1.6% of the population was undercounted, 4.5 million people were counted twice and another 13 million people were counted in the wrong place. In fact, the 1990 census was the first census since 1790 to be less accurate than the census preceding it. We can do better than this and we owe it to all segments of our communities to make the strong effort to approve the Mollohan amendment to keep the census fair, accurate and representative of our diverse population. Full funding is necessary. Full funding of the census is necessary to prevent any delays in the preparation by the Census Bureau to proceed with its improved plans for 2000. The Mollohan amendment still leaves room for the Supreme Court to act on the census question without any interruption of plans by the Bureau to modernize, organize personnel and facilities and engage in contracting now. The Bureau has a plan; give them the money they need to implement the plan so that a severely deficient process can be improved. Secretary Daley has stated: ``This kind of living with a sword over the Census Bureau's head does not lend well to long-term planning. . . If Congress is going to have a fight and vote over what method ought to be used. . . . they should not hold hostage the census.'' The Bureau plan uses good science. The Census Bureau plan includes augmenting the traditional count with statistical sampling. Traditional methods by direct enumeration would be used to count most Americans through the use of mail surveys and interviews, with the remaining 10 percent hard-to-reach households estimated based on the characteristics of the 90% reporting from within the census tract. This plan is supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office and the Commerce Department's Inspector General. The General Accounting Office reports: ``Sampling households that fail to respond to questionnaires produces substantial cost savings and should improve final data quality.'' A report of the blue Ribbon Panel on the Census of the American Statistical Association states: ``Because sampling potentially can increase the accuracy of the count while reducing costs, the Census Bureau has responded to the Congressional mandate by investigating the increased use of sampling. . .We endorse the use of sampling for these purposes; it is consistent with the best statistical practice.'' On the Constitutional Question about ``actual enumeration,'' Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General during the Bush Administration, stated in a 1991 memo to the Commerce Department's General Counsel that the origin of the term `enumeration' in the Constitution ``is more likely found in the accuracy of census taking rather than in the selection of any particular method. . .Nothing. . .indicates any additional intent on the part of the Framers to restrict for all time. . .the manner in which the census is conducted.'' Gerson went further to state that a headcount ``might be subject to political manipulation in the form of a congressional refusal to appropriate sufficient funds. . .or by overly restrictive local review procedure. On the other hand, Census Bureau statisticians might perform a statistical adjustment in a manner yielding highly accurate results.'' ``Actual enumeration'' under the Constitution, translated into an actual headcount, makes no more sense today than the notion of the constitutional framers to count only \3/5\ of all Black male slaves in the census. Actually, times have not changed in that respect if you look at the 1990 census which was effective in counting only \9/10\ of our nation's Black males. We can do better than this and we have an obligation to utilize the best possible methods available to us. According to many analyses of Constitutional interpretation, the founding fathers were more concerned about accuracy of the census rather than the specific methods employed to obtain the count. The Carter Bush and Clinton Administrations all concluded that the Constitution permits the use of sampling and other modern statistical methods as part of the census. All of the courts which have considered the question have concluded that the Census Bureau may use sampling and other statistical methods to improve the accuracy of a good-faith direct counting effort. The Census Bureau should have the discretion to determine the best possible science and modern technology for conducting a fair and accurate census count. The Census Bureau has a plan--recommended by the National Academy of Sciences--for improving the 1990 census and we should put it to work. Accuracy is important to all communities in America--for their representation in Congress and for the return investment by the federal government. They depend on the federal dollars for roads, schools, senior centers, Medicaid and other vital support systems that are determined by the count and that improve the quality of life in their communities. Make the census accurate and let the Bureau do its work NOW. We cannot be happy with the fact that millions of people, and particularly minorities, are left out of the count. Every American counts. Vote YES on the Mollohan amendment to bring about a fair and accurate census for the year 2000.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays- Meehan amendment. I commend the gentlemen for their leadership in bringing hope to the House that we can finally drain the swamp that is the political process we are in. Madam Chairman, when Washington first became the capital of our country, it was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp putrid from the huge amounts of money that pours in here, special interest money stacking the deck against the average American seeking a legitimate role in the political process. I rise in support of real campaign finance reform. The Meehan-Shays Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is the best chance the American people have at realizing there longstanding demand that we end the corrupting influence of big money and level the playing field so that all Americans can participate and be heard. Meehan-Shays includes a ban on soft money at the Federal and State level; a ban on foreign money entering the system; voluntary spending limits; new limits on Political Action Committees; tougher political advertising disclosure requirements; and campaign enforcement and disclosure requirements, such as mandatory electronic filing of Federal Election Commission reports. President Bill Clinton has endorsed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and has challenged the Congress to send him campaign finance reform legislation that is meaningful, substantive and representative of real change. I do not think there is any issue more important than this one because it is about nothing less than our oath of office. Every single person who comes to this body to serve takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The greatest enemy to our democracy is foreign and domestic money poisoning our system. Vote ``yes'' on Meehan-Shays and give the political process back to the American people where it began and where it belongs.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the English Amendment is an unfair assault on the ability of average Americans to participate in the political process, especially women who cannot afford for the current system of big money politics to go on. The English Amendment would ban bundling which allows average Americans with limited resources to pool their contributions and support candidates through one organization. EMILY's List is a perfect example of an organization which accepts donations in support of woman candidates and bundles them for greater effect. In 1996, the average donation to candidates supported by EMILY's List was $95, and through these small donations $6.5 million dollars was raised. Most of the money raised by EMILY's List came from women. The English Amendment would limit the impact women have on the electoral process as contributors and as candidates. EMILY's List has helped to elect six women to the Senate, 44 to the House of Representatives, and three women governors. According to a recently released study of the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, 81% of all individual congressional campaign donors who gave $200 or more to one or more congressional candidates in the 1996 elections were men. Women contribute, but they contribute in smaller numbers and in smaller amounts. We must also identify the English Amendment for what it really is: A Poison Pill, an attempt on the part of the Republican leadership to undermine bipartisan support for campaign finance reform in the form of the Meehan-Shays bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1974 the world was shocked to learn of the brutal Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus. I rise today to join with my colleagues in marking this sad anniversary that has led to the partition of the island nation for nearly one-quarter of a century. I would like to thank and commend Mr. Bilirakis of Florida and Ms. Maloney of New York for their vigilance and commitment to a peaceful resolution to this act of terror that has brought noting but sadness and sorrow. As we mark this anniversary, our resolve is being tested. Peace of Cyprus appears elusive. One year ago there was enthusiasm and guarded, yet high expectations. Richard Holbrooke, the President's top foreign policy trouble-shooter had just been put on the Cyprus case and there was good reason to believe that on the heels of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, Mr. Holbrooke could bring all sides together for a meaningful and lasting peace in Cyprus. Today, the reunification talks are stalled, mistrust on all sides hampers the peace process, and an arms buildup on the island threatens the entire region. In the face of these obstacles some might say there is no current chance for an end to the Turkish occupation and the reunification of the island under the one legitimate Cypriot government. But now is the time for those who are truly committed to peace and justice to rededicate themselves to our collective goal. Turkey could demonstrate its commitment to peace by: Rescinding its recognition of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; Withdrawing its occupying army, 30,000 strong, which has for 24 years posed a threat to the people and government of Cyprus; Respecting human rights; Ceasing its tactics of intimidation in the Aegean; Engaging the legitimate government of Cyprus in meaningful peace talks in order to halt any increase militarization of the island. Although the United States has not been successful in restarting the peace process, Richard Holbrooke recently restated our commitment to a peaceful resolution to this crisis remains unchanged. I share this commitment to peace, and along with my colleagues support all efforts dedicated to reunification and peace for the people of Cyprus.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 120, a resolution to disapprove the President's request for a waiver of Jackson-Vanik for Vietman. The purpose of this Presidential waiver is to allow U.S. companies to receive U.S. government support for trade and investment in Vietnam. I have the highest regard for Ambassador Pete Peterson and am confident that he will be a force for improving human rights in Vietnam. I have supported the normalization of relations with Vietnam and am blessed to have a strong Vietnamese-American community in my district. This community is not unanimous whether or not Jackson-Vanik should be waived. They are unanimous, however, about concerns regarding the continuing lack of freedom of emigration from Vietnam or about continuing human rights abuses there. If the Vietnamese government allowed freedom of emigration, the President would not have needed to request a waiver of the Jackson- Vanik law in the first place. Some progress in freedom of emigration is reportedly being made, but serious problems remain. The Vietnamese government has made some progress with people in the U.S. refugee program, Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees (ROVR), clearing 12,000 ROVR applicants--about 3000 per month for four months--immediately before President Clinton granted the waiver in March. Unfortunately, as soon as the waiver was granted, the approvals slowed back to a trickle--about 300 per month. There are reportedly still 4000 people we haven't been given permission to interview, including some of the most compelling cases. And, while Hanoi recently eliminated an important obstacle to U.S. access to people in ROVR, deeming that ROVR applicants will no longer need ``exit permits'' from local security police in order to be interviewed by U.S. refugee officers, the U.S. is unfortunately still forbidden to interview anyone whose name is not on a list supplied by the Vietnamese government. Problems remain in the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), too. ODP is a refugee program for re-education camp survivors, former U.S. government employees, and others who never left Vietnam. Thousands of people who qualify under this program have been unable to get exit permits--in some cases because the Vietnamese government does not like their political views. I am also concerned about continuing human rights abuses in Vietnam. While the Vietnamese government continues to insist that it has no political or religious prisoners, we continue to receive reports of imprisoned Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, pro-democracy activists, and others, some of whom are imprisoned for crimes such as ``using freedom and democracy to injure the national unity.'' Mr. Speaker, I understand the desire of the government of Vietnam to enter more fully into the global marketplace, as I understand the desire of U.S. corporations to obtain U.S. government guarantees and assistance for doing business in Vietnam. I also understand the yearnings of people who seek to be free. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution to signal to the government of Vietnam that more must be done to promote freedom there

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and his opposition to the Hilleary amendment when he is associating himself with my remarks.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hilleary amendment which would take much-needed funds from the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, the HOPWA program. I am sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns about the funding for the veterans program that benefits from this amendment, and that is why I wish that the 602(b) allocation for this particular appropriations bill could be larger. I sympathize with the attempt on the part of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to say we respect the need that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) points out, but recognize that this is also a bad place to take the funds. As the distinguished ranking member has said, it is a good investment in health. It saves taxpayers' dollars and, indeed, it saves lives. I feel very partial to the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS legislation because the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), and I were the authors of this legislation on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs years ago. It has been a successful program that has deserved continuing support of this House under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and now under the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for the clarity of his statement, for his leadership on this issue, and for the hard work that he has put into this important VA-HUD bill. He sees the whole picture. He knows the value of this HOPWA program. He has followed it over the years. So I am very, very pleased with his clear statement and the remarks of the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes). It is clear that, by reducing HOPWA's funding by $21 million, this Hilleary amendment would deny housing assistance to more than 4,800 people. It would result in the withdrawal of program support for an estimated 3,800 units of housing, including funds for rental assistance and homelessness prevention. If one has HIV, if one is HIV infected, the last thing one's immune system needs is the additional stress of homelessness or the threat of homelessness. We will hear today, Mr. Chairman, that the HOPWA funds may not be necessary because the annual new number of AIDS cases is declining. The reality is that the need for this housing continues to grow, as does the epidemic, as the ranking member pointed out. In the 1997 reporting period, CDC reported 60,634 new cases, to be precise, in the United States. HOPWA funding is primarily allocated on a formula basis. Almost since its inception, funding for HOPWA has not kept pace with the number of new communities eligible for HOPWA funds. I would like to name what those communities are for 1999. FY 1999, it is expected that seven communities, Birmingham, Alabama; Buffalo, New York; Honolulu; Wilmington; and the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah will become eligible for HOPWA funds, and five other States: Hawaii, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin, which would otherwise have lost funding due to their urban areas qualifying separately under the formula. As a result of the good news of the success of powerful drugs fighting the virus, the number of people living with AIDS is increasing dramatically. But so are their needs. In 1997, the number of people living with HIV increased 13 percent. But in order for the drug therapies to work, people need the stability of having a home. Some of the people on the AIDS drugs must take as many as 40 pills a day at regular times. People cannot comply with the rigors of these drug regimens if they are homeless, moving from shelter to shelter, or trying to cope with impending homelessness. The number of people living with AIDS has increased by 13 percent. It is important to remember who benefits from HOPWA funding. HOPWA funding is for people with HIV/AIDS and their families. About 25 percent of recipients of HOPWA funds are family members who reside with persons with HIV/AIDS. Over 96 percent of the families and individuals who received HOPWA assistance were households with incomes of less than $1,000 a month. I know it is difficult for many of us to vote against something for the veterans, but I urge my colleagues to understand what this need is. Many of the people who benefit from the funds are veterans. Vote ``no'' on the Hilleary amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Deputy mayor of San Diego. I appreciate the perspective he brings to this debate. I particularly want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, because a statement I made was contradicted by the maker of the motion, I want to submit for the Record the five versions of the Riggs amendment. This will be a resubmission, Mr. Chairman, because they have already appeared in the Record on July 15, in the case of one of them; on July 16, in the case of two of them; on July 21, in the case of another one; and the amendment that we have before us. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that it is interesting that the gentleman stood up and said he spoke here on behalf of Catholic Charities and Salvation Army, and now he is backing off the Catholic Charities defense because he knows it was not a legitimate one. It is one that does not say that if you oppose the Riggs amendment, then you support domestic partners. That is not the issue at all. It is about local autonomy. And, as I say, there is nobody here to have to defend Catholic Charities. They do a good job themselves. They are in contract with the City of San Francisco to provide the services that Federal dollars do provide. We do not want them to have to spend some of that money trying to separate which dollar is a San Francisco dollar, which dollar is a California dollar, which dollar is a Federal dollar. We would rather they have the maximum use of those funds for the delivery of services to meet the needs of the people of our community. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to represent San Francisco, particularly so in conjunction with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who spoke so eloquently against this amendment earlier. But we all respect our cities that we represent and we respect our colleagues; and when we ask them to vote for something, we should be on the level with them. When this legislation comes to the floor, it is about local autonomy. I do not think that the VA-HUD bill is the appropriate venue for us to have a discussion about domestic partners. I do not think it is the appropriate venue for us to tell all the corporations in America, many of the largest corporations in America, and I have the list which I will submit for the Record, that what they are doing is immoral and indecent. Perhaps the gentleman thinks that is a legitimate debate for this Congress to have. Let him bring it up as an authorizing measure, but not to interfere with this VA-HUD bill. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs): Amendment No. 15. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be provided to the City of San Francisco because the City requires, as a condition for an organization to contract with, or receive a grant from, the City, that the organization provide health care benefits for unmarried, domestic partners of individuals who are provided such benefits on the basis of their employment by or other relationship with the organization. Amendment No. 24. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by title II may be provided to any locality that requires as a condition for an organization to contract with, or receive a grant from, the locality, that the organization provide health care benefits for unmarried, domestic partners of individuals who are provided such benefits on the basis of their employment by or other relationship with the organization. Amendment No. 25. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by title II may be provided to the political entity known as the City and County of San Francisco, California. Amendment No. 30. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to implement Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code of San Francisco, California. Amendment No. 31. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. XX. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to implement section 12B.2(b) of the Administrative Code of San Francisco, California.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that no one here says that Catholic Charities approved of domestic partners laws. What we are saying is that no law in San Francisco forces Catholic Charities to accept domestic partners laws or stops it from contracting with the City. Catholic Charities and the City of San Francisco have reached their accommodation. There is no fight here in our city on this issue. I do not know why the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) wants to start one on this floor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment. When I came to the floor to oppose the amendment, I did so on the basis of the issue of local autonomy. Having the concern that I do about the impact of a vote on my colleagues that I wish the maker of this motion would share, I am concerned when I hear him making statements about the practice in San Francisco that is not true. Either the gentleman is ill-informed or he chooses to ignore the truth in this situation. What this amendment will do is to single out one city. I ask my colleagues, do you want your city singled out next? None of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to implement Section 12B.2(b) of the Administrative Code of the city of San Francisco. This is the fifth version of the Riggs amendment. It took five versions for the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) to conclude what he wanted our colleagues to consider because this is a very sloppy approach to legislation. It is in violation of local autonomy and it is unconstitutional. As I said, I came to talk about this in terms of local autonomy, and if I have the time I will, but I do want to set the record straight. First of all, the city of San Francisco is not forcing anyone to act against his or her or their principles. Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) said he is here on behalf of Catholic Charities. He said that. Catholic Charities and the city of San Francisco have entered into a very amicable agreement about how Catholic Charities will continue to provide the services that it does exceptionally well in helping with the homeless and with child care and other delivery of services as contractors to the city of San Francisco. There is peace between Catholic Charities and the city of San Francisco. I do not know why the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) wants to create a war there. In terms of the services provided by the Salvation Army, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) says that there has been a shrinking of programs and they have not been able to provide the services that they have been contracted to do, and that simply is not true. Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) says that San Francisco has offered sole-sourcers the opportunity for a waiver but it would not offer that waiver to the Salvation Army. Not true. That waiver is available to Salvation Army. They chose not to accept it, and in September their contracts will lapse and San Francisco will award the contracts for the delivery of services that Salvation Army so ably provides. Perhaps the contract will go to Catholic Charities which is complying with the law in San Francisco, as I say, very peacefully. I say to my colleagues I care about the impact of this vote on them and I do not want to ask them to do something that is not in their interest at the end of the day, and I believe it is in their interest at the end of the day to protect the local autonomy. Indeed, in the words of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), who said on another occasion, when he was arguing against Federal control, he urged us, and I quote, to decentralize authority and responsibility and, yes, funding and revenues back to the States. This was in the context of the block grants in education. Then he said, in turn, we will be disbursing power to our fellow citizens. Well, that is a great idea. Why not support it today? In another statement, he advised the House, we have to have a national policy which specifies that the Federal Government no longer can impose mandates on State and local government. Well, if the maker of the amendment were to be true to those words, he would vote down his own amendment today. The Riggs amendment would prohibit, as I say, any funds from being used to implement section 12B, or the antidiscrimination section of the San Francisco Code to the Administrative Code of San Francisco. I want my colleagues to hear the words of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. If any of my colleagues have cities and towns in their districts, and I assume that they do, they might want to know that they have said: ``The modified,'' and this is now the 5th modification, ``Riggs amendment strikes at the heart of a local jurisdiction's obligation to ensure that civil rights are protected within its boundaries.'' The Office of Management and Budget warns that ``The amendment would impose an unfunded, expensive and extremely burdensome administration requirement on the city.'' Can my colleagues just see it now? We are going to administer some homelessness or child care or whatever the service is, and we are going to have to figure out what part of it going to Catholic charities is federal, in a way that meets the criteria of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) but not those of the City of San Francisco and the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, this body is not the city council of any city in the country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-advised, poorly- formed amendment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his statement. I know that he is a former member of the city council, and deputy mayor or vice mayor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic courage displayed by Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson during Friday's violent episode that took place in our nation's Capitol. These two brave men, in the ultimate act of selfless defense of others, put themselves in harm's way to protect the public, members and staff in the United States Capitol building. Through their heroic actions, they averted a potentially more tragic situation. These two men are a tribute and a testament to law enforcement officers everywhere who risk their lives daily to defend the citizens of this nation. In light of this grave tragedy, let us not be swayed from keeping our nation's capitol open to the people. Let us also recognize this tragedy as a harsh reminder of the price we sometimes pay for freedom in our country. We are grateful for these men who, in the ultimate sacrifice, gave their lives in the defense of others. We are thankful for the law enforcement officers who risk their lives in the defense of freedom in our country and pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. I offer our deepest gratitude to the officers who work day in and day out for the protection of the citizens of this nation and I offer my deepest sympathies to the families of these two heroes, Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson, Our thoughts and prayers are with the Chestnut and Gibson families.