Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, heeding his admonition about the time, I want to say, I said in my remarks that he has standing to speak on this issue. I am very glad that he put on the record the fact that Republican Presidents supported this policy, which he opposed consistently under Republican and Democratic Presidents. It is with admiration for him, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) who will represent the Democrats very well on that committee, indeed the American people on that committee. It is not about personalities. It is about the policy.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and his hard work on this very, very difficult issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns about the resolution that we will have before us soon, a resolution to establish a Select Committee on National Security and Other Concerns with China before us today. It is a troubling one to me. The concerns presented here are serious and they are important. Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to exercise oversight of policy decisions. Indeed, the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on International Relations are the appropriate venues for such oversight. When there is a connection between campaign contributions and policy decisions, that investigation is being done by the Justice Department. Over the years, I have been proud to work very closely in a bipartisan fashion with my Republican colleagues on the China issue, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), whom I respect very highly and will miss very, very much when he is going on to happier things. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who will chair this committee, is one of the finest Members of this body. I respect his intellect, his sense of fairness and appropriateness in dealing with these issues. It is not anything against him that I have the question, but concerns about the nature of this committee. I have worked closely with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and others who have consistently opposed the current U.S.-China policy. These people that I mention and others on the Republican side have real standing in criticizing the consequences of the policies. As my colleagues know on both sides of the aisle, I have pulled no punches in criticizing the President, whether he was a Republican President or a Democratic President, for what I think is the wrong China policy. But as one who has consistently joined with some of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in raising concerns about the Chinese military for many years on this floor, I see today's action as a move by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership to exploit the China issue. As I say, as one who has worked very hard and long on this issue, I regret to see that the Republican leadership has just walked lock step with the Clinton administration on China and, as responsible as President Clinton is and his administration is, on the consequences of that China policy. Allowing U.S. satellites to be launched on foreign rockets is a policy started under President Reagan, continued under President Bush and President Clinton. So if there is a criticism of the consequences of that policy, then the blame should be laid at the feet of both parties in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, indeed, again this year the Speaker could not move quickly enough to support the President's request for a special waiver to grant Most Favored Nation status to the People's Republic of China. He sent a letter of support to the President almost before the request for the special waiver reached Capitol Hill. I see this Select Committee as an attempt by the Speaker to seek cover for his affiliation with the President on the China policy. Do they think we have no memory? Do they think we do not know what we say on the floor year in and year out by the proliferation and the Chinese mobilization and their interest in acquiring U.S. technology and then all of a sudden the obvious, predictable consequences of that policy, obvious and predictable to many of us, is all of a sudden being investigated by a Speaker who, day in day out, time and time again, and at every opportunity has supported ignoring those concerns? And so, I see this as an attempt to set up this committee as venue hopping. There have been investigations. I can show my colleagues a stack of reports on committees investigating this issue. As I say, I believe, and I do not deny Congress's right to oversight, to investigate, and to be relentless in doing that in terms of the consequences of policy. Establishing this Select Committee to me, after all the sweat and strain and work that we have put in trying to educate Congress to the dangers of the policy that the Republican leadership has supported year in and year out, looks to me like a cynical and hypocritical act which does a disservice to the debate about U.S.-China policy, cost the taxpayers money, and wastes Congress' time. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the proposal of Mr. Condit can be considered to fairly fund and fairly consider how we should go forward with this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I rise to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for their leadership and their courage for bringing us to this moment of truth. Are we for campaign finance reform, are we for cleaning up the system, or not? My colleague mentioned the first day when we were all here and raised our hands and pledged to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The greatest enemy to our Constitution, foreign or domestic, is the money in the political system that undermines and mutes the voices of the American people. Mr. Chairman, when Washington was first established as the capital of our country, it was a swamp. In 200 years, it has returned to being a putrid swamp contaminated by the impact of campaign money into the system. Again, against the wishes of the American people. I rise against this amendment because I see it as an attempt to unravel and undermine the courage of the Meehan-Shays, Shays-Meehan bill. This is a good bill. It strikes a balance.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 404, which commemorates the friendship which the United States and the Philippines have shared over the last century. I am proud that the San Francisco district I represent has a large Filipino-American community which has contributed greatly to the city's diversity. The friendship of the United States and the Philippines will only continue to grow as we move into the 21st century. One century ago, the Philippine's gained its independence from Spain, which had ruled over the Filipino people ever since Magellan claimed the islands for Spain in 1541. That day in 1898 was truly historic, for it marked the beginning of the close and wonderful relationship between the Philippines and the United States. Our relationship has always been mutually beneficially. During World War II, as the Japanese were conquering much of Asia, the Philippines became an historic turning point in the Pacific theater. History remembers General MacArthur's promise of ``I will return'' upon surrendering the Philippines to the Japanese only to keep that promise and retake the Philippines in one of the defining moments of the relationship both countries share. Soon after the war, the Philippines gained full independence from the United States and became a key strategic ally throughout the cold war. Today, the Philippines is one of the few true democracy's in Asia. In 1986, the world was captivated when Corazon Aquino's ``People Power'' revolution brought her into office. And just last month, the Philippines held peaceful elections resulting in their country's third democratically elected president in 12 years. As we enter the next century, we must work together to address new challenges. In moving forward though, we must embrace and reconcile past discrepancies. I therefore urge my colleagues to rectify a broken promise made during World War II. Fighting under the flag of the United States, many Filipino soldiers were promised full veterans benefits by the United States only to see that promise withdrawn after the war was won. I ask my colleagues, what better tribute to our relationship with the Philippines than to honor this promise as we end the 20th century. We must demonstrate, as General MacArthur did, the importance of keeping promises. Then we can work closely to address the problems of the next century.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Alternative Budget proposal offered by my colleague Representative Spratt. This Democratic budget alternative is faithful to the fiscally responsible, bipartisan Balanced Budget Act passed by the House last year. This alternative budget does not make drastic new cuts in Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, education and other vital priorities, as the Republican Budget Resolution does. The Democratic alternative does not focus new cuts on working families, the poor, the young and the old, as the Republican Budget Resolution does. The Democratic alternative offered by Representative Spratt respects the agreement this House reached with the Senate last year, and it addresses critical priorities in our nation. The Democratic alternative dedicates the budget surplus to Social Security to protect our seniors; it funds additional public school teachers and school construction initiatives for our young people. These are widely supported programs, and they answer the crucial needs of seniors and young people. The Democratic alternative is responsible and invests in our future. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative budget proposal.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Istook resolution because I cherish the first amendment. Under the First Amendment, students and citizens are not prohibited from the opportunity for religious expression. Students are free to pray privately or at school. Constitutional protections now are sensitive both to the needs of those who practice various religions, and to those who choose to remain silent. It should be quite telling that scores of religious organizations are strongly opposed to this legislation. First amendment protections on expression of religious beliefs are available, have served our country well for many years and are appropriate to allow religious expression to thrive without improper government interference. We have not had to be worried about government favoritism of a particular religion or of conflict between religious organizations for government resources. This legislation would change all that. This amendment is an extreme attempt to dismantle the protections so carefully drawn between church and state. I urge my colleagues to protect the religious freedom of all in our nation and oppose this unnecessary harmful legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the rule and to the budget resolution; in opposition to the rule because it deprives this body of the opportunity to debate other alternatives, for example, the Blue Dog budget. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our budget should be a statement of our national values. But in the budget bill before us the priorities and values are seriously askew. This budget plan is cowardly and irresponsible. It is cowardly because it masks the deep cuts it would make in education, health and nutrition programs by providing few details about which programs will be downsized and defunded. This budget is irresponsible because it violates the carefully crafted budget agreement that everyone is paying homage to here tonight, but this budget violates that carefully crafted budget agreement which passed the Congress last year. This budget today dedicated budget surpluses to untested private accounts for Social Security, when we should be shoring up the long- term financial health of the entire Social Security system. By cutting Medicaid $12 billion, we miss opportunities to expand health care access for children through the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is a very important investment for our country. The budget targets steep cuts on nondefense programs which are investments which pay off for us. Once again, when some Members want to look like budget hawks, it is the family, the working families of America, the poor, the young and the old who are their prey. But the programs, the investments that we should be making in Medicare, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, education and many other vital initiatives would all be cut substantially. Today we need a spending plan, an investment plan that protects Social Security, health and education, a budget that attends to our domestic strength and security as well as our international strength, and it must be done in a fiscally sound way. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the budget resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with my prized possession which is the great icon, the picture, probably one of the greatest symbols of the 20th century, of the lone man before the tank. And it is signed by almost every important dissident who has come out of China. It is a great treasure to me because of the courage of the people that are represented here. I rise today in support of the resolution, and I want to tell my colleagues why. But, first of all, I want to associate myself with some of the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), because far too often we have resolutions on the floor that serve as a fig leaf for those who, when the really serious issues come up like trade status and the rest, are never with us. Members are quick to criticize the impact of the President's policies while they have stuck with him every time a vote is taken, but use these issues for political purposes and bring up resolutions, as I say, to make themselves well, when they are voting against the really serious issues that we have to deal with. Having said that, I want to say that this is not about whether the President should go to China. I think the President should go to China when the time is right. He thinks that is now. I disagree, but I am not against his going to China. And it is not about whether we should be engaged with China, because we certainly should be engaged with China, but in a sustainably and constructive way, which I do not think we are right now. The reason why I am opposed to the President being received in Tiananmen Square is because the President is trying to frame his visit as the end of the Tiananmen era. That is not so. And just saying it will not make it so. The Tiananmen era will not be over until the Chinese regime reverses the decision of Tiananmen Square; until the over 100 people who were arrested at that time are freed and are allowed to speak freely in China; until the over 2,000 political prisoners are freed, not exiled but allowed to stay in China and speak freely, and over 200,000 people who are in reform-through-labor camps because of their political beliefs are released. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that Mr. Harry Wu said this morning if the President goes to Tiananmen Square, he will join the Chinese regime on the wrong side of history. I urge our colleagues to vote aye.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, recently, I received the news that Nat Bingham, Habitat Director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, had died in his Fort Bragg home. The loss of his life is a great loss for the many friends who knew and worked with Nat to protect threatened and endangered fisheries along our Pacific Coast. Nat's enthusiasm for his life's work was inspiring to all of us. Nat was a most unusual human being. He was a fisherman who believed in sustainable fishing. Protecting fisheries from depletion were goals that led Nat to develop a program to restore winter run chinook salmon at a time when there was little awareness of what their loss in the wild might mean. Many times, I've heard Nat use the phrase: ``This is a biological insurance program.'' Nat was a bridge across troubled waters. He confronted forceful opposition in his work and he always responded with grace, goodwill and solid science to support his positions. His ability to bring harmony out of discord was well known. Anyone who is aware of the Pacific Coast salmon decline also realizes that there are no simple solutions to the complex problems facing a number of salmon species in our region. Nat always had a way of emphasizing the positive and seeking solutions that would nurture and sustain the resource he devoted his life to protecting. We will always remember Nat--the sight of his tall figure entering the office--completely relaxed and always with a smile, and his indefatigable nature and lasting commitment to protecting Pacific Coast fisheries. My condolences to Nat's family--his son, Eli, and his daughter, Jalena--and to Nat's many good friends--Zeke Grader, Norman deVall, members of the Fleet--and scores of others who knew, respected and loved Nat Bingham. In the tradition of his family, Nat was an explorer; his great grandfather, Hiram Bingham, discovered Machu Picchu. We were fortunate to have been on the same journey with this special man. Our best memorial to Nat will be realized in following through with his initiatives to encourage sustainable fishing and to restore Pacific Coast fisheries. It is up to us now to continue Nat's voyage and to bring success to his efforts.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the anti-worker initiative on California's June 2 ballot. Proposition 226 is not a grassroot effort to reform campaign finance and protect the paychecks of California's workers, as its proponents would have us believe. It is a national right-wing effort funded by national organizations to set their agenda: To silence working families, first in our State, and then throughout the Nation. The primary backers of the California initiative do not even reside in our State. National business, conservative and anti-union organizations, and individuals, in a quest to set a national agenda State-by-State, have contributed more than 60 percent of the funding to the Prop 226 campaign. Backers include conservative, anti-union groups and individuals such as Americans For Tax Reform and J. Patrick Rooney, an Indianapolis millionaire who chairs the Golden Rule Insurance Company and is a significant GOPAC contributor. In the past 2 years, working families who participated in the political process won a minimum wage increase, protected medicare from cuts, and saved Federal job safety protections. So now this initiative's proponents are looking for payback. Please join the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, and working families in opposing this anti-worker initiative.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey- Harman amendment to repeal the provision in this bill prohibiting privately funded abortion services in U.S. military hospitals overseas. I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this important issue. Women stationed overseas in service to their country and female military dependents rely on base hospitals for medical care. Access to comprehensive reproductive health is essential for all women, civilian or military. Under the bill, as it currently stands, however, these women who volunteer to protect and serve their country in the military are denied the same protections under Roe v. Wade as the Americans they are serving and protecting. This is not a request for special treatment--it is a need for equal treatment and equal access to health care. This amendment does not permit taxpayer-funded abortions. No Federal funds are used for abortion--that will not change. It simply repeals the current ban on privately funded abortions in military hospitals and restores equal access to reproductive health care for military women stationed overseas. And it preserves the conscience clause and would not coerce any doctor to perform abortions. It provides military women the right they already have as American women--to make a safe and legal choice with their own funds. I urge my colleagues to repeal this unfair ban and vote yes on the Lowey-Harman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 125th Anniversary of an American legend: blue jeans. Or more specifically, Levi's jeans. On this day, the 20th of May, 1873, a California businessman named Levi Strauss patented the process of putting rivets in blue denim pants for greater strength. He did so with the help of his business partner, Jacob Davis, a tailor from Nevada. From that moment on, Levi's jeans have been a part of daily life in America and around the world. Initially, the jeans gained popularity for their superior quality and durability, but the invention was destined to become an international phenomenon because of what they came to represent: the spirit of personal freedom and originality. For more than a century, Levi's jeans have been part of the cultural experience in the United States and overseas. From frontier independence to the fall of the Berlin Wall; from Woodstock to the White House; from the assembly line to casual Friday, blue jeans have been the uniform of individuality allowing the wearer to express his or her essential self. It's remarkable to think that what was conceived as a garment for California gold miners has evolved into a global icon for independence. But then again, good ideas have a way of making themselves well-known to everyone. The familiarity we all share with blue jeans is proof of that. On this, the 125th anniversary of the invention of Levi's, please join me in acknowledging the spirit of freedom and limitless possibilities that they symbolize.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for calling this special order about a very special person, Terry Sanford. I am very moved to hear the words of my colleague, and as our other colleagues from North Carolina as they extend condolences and pay tribute to Terry Sanford. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) is right. Terry Sanford was a very, very special, unique person. We were blessed, those of us who had the privilege to know him and the people of North Carolina were indeed blessed to have him as their governor and their United States Senator. As we all know, he loved North Carolina, and he loved the people that he served there. He loved them so much he wanted the best for them, and that meant an end to racism and support for education for all children. Of course, that was his political lifelong endeavor. Terry Sanford, one of the reports of his passing said that he died as he had lived, surrounded by new projects to be involved in, but we all know that he had died as he had lived also being surrounded by his magnificent family and so many friends, and my condolences on behalf of my constituents to Margaret Rose and to Terry's wonderful family, his children and his grandchildren on his passing. He has made a significant difference in the lives of people across the country, not only in North Carolina, because he served as a model, a real model as a southern Governor. He transformed the southern governorship. He, more than anybody, brought the South into a modern era in terms of education and fighting to end racism. I first got to know Terry well, although I admired him from afar, when we were both running for chair of the Democratic National Committee. Neither of us won. I ended up throwing my support behind Terry, and still neither of us won, but he ended up being a United States Senator and I ended up being a Congresswoman from California, so we do not think we did too poorly, as it all turned out. But I was very, very proud of our friendship, and was the beneficiary of much of his political wisdom and advice in the course of that race, and subsequent to that. Of course, after that he went back to become the head of Duke University, of which he was very proud. He said, ``Of all of the things that I have done, the fulfillment of my professional life was Duke. I went there with a concept and I think with a mandate. I went out to make it a nationally recognized school,'' and of course, he did. The institute there, the Sanford Institute, is named for him, the Institute of Policy Science, Political Science Affairs, as the gentleman mentioned. Terry first started getting involved in politics when he was 11 years old. His first taste of it came when he was marching in a torchlight parade for presidential candidate Al Smith in 1928 in Laurinburg, North Carolina. He carried a sign that read, ``Me and Ma is for Al.'' So he had it in his system, that fever in the blood, early on about it being very appealing, and also wanting to be a public servant. Ironically, when I said that we became friends running for chair of the National Committee against each other, but became very fast friends after that, ironically, Hubert Humphrey had offered Terry the job of Democratic National Chairman in 1969, but Terry turned it down at that point. It was probably not to be. At any event, he had bigger things in mind, and that was really the education of the children of North Carolina at every level, including higher education, and in the Senate, to be a fighter, and he was a peacemaker, bringing peace in Central America; again, fighting for education for all of America's children, and an end to racism. We could probably all go on for a long time talking about him, because he was a very special person. In the course of our lives in politics we work with many people whom we respect and we admire, but we all have to admit, as wonderful as we think each other is, that there are some people who are very special, and Terry was one of those. One of the sad things, I think, is that he never became President of the United States. I always thought he would be such a great President. Instead, he brought his leadership, his scholarship, his dignity, his grace, his kindness, his love for people to the wonderful challenges that he had, which were not inconsiderable: Governor of the State, a United States Senator, and as he said, a president of Duke being his crowning glory. In some of the obituaries, his family has to take great pride and satisfaction in the obituaries that were written about him. But throughout his life I think he was held in such high esteem and respect that everybody knew when you worked with Terry Sanford you were working with somebody that was a true leader. It has been said that Terry Sanford set forth a standard for leadership as a Governor, university president, and United States Senator that few could equal. He leaves a progressive legacy to North Carolina, one of courage and one of hope. He demonstrated his courage by being one of the first Southerners to endorse John F. Kennedy for President, one of the first Senators to endorse a Catholic for President; and we all know the hope and courage many times over, but that is just one example. His legacy will long be felt among the young people of North Carolina, and for future generations to come. I consider it a privilege to have known him. Again, I express the condolences of my constituents, because in California he is well known and well respected. I extend their condolences, as well as those of my own family, to the Sanford family, and thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for allowing me to be part of this special order for our special friend, Terry Sanford.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the Chinatown Community Development Center of San Francisco, which has been selected to receive the Fannie Mae Foundation Sustained Excellence Award. For the past 21 years, the Chinatown Development Center (CCDC) has served Northeastern San Francisco neighborhood's through providing low- income housing development and management and by fostering a sense of community. CCDC incorporates a unique approach to community development that combines housing advocacy with community involvement through grassroots organizing and neighborhood planning. Supportive services empower residents to become self-sufficient and to participate in formulating public policy issues that directly affect them. Throughout its 21-year history, CCDC's principal projects reflect how it has merged housing with community improvement. The significant contributions that CCDC has made include managing more than 1,000 units of affordable housing with a multitude of tenant services and the creation of 10 commercial spaces for small businesses to help provide employment for local residents. The CCDC has also contributed to fostering neighborhood pride through the creation of a street cleaning venture called the Chinatown Environmental Organizations and through coordination of neighborhood-based planning resulting in the renovation of five new parks, gardens, and courtyards in neighborhoods with limited safe, recreational areas. Additionally, CCDC provides citizenship and educational classes, as well as counseling and translation services for its residents. We in San Francisco are proud of our diversity and CCDC has played a key role in supporting immigrant and low-income populations throughout the city. By investing in low-income residents, CCDC has brought new life and hope to San Francisco's low-income neighborhoods. CCDC is a model of sustained high quality housing development and management combined with active grassroots community organizing. CCDC possesses a clear vision for sustaining its communities for years to come. I join with the people of San Francisco in congratulating and thanking Gordon Chin and CCDC for its 21 years of accomplishments and send my very best wishes for continued success.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), for his leadership and compassion in bringing this legislation to the floor as a sponsor of this bill. The life of the boy who gave his name to this legislation should remind all of us of the many different tragedies and demonstrations of courage and compassion the AIDS epidemic has brought us. In his short life, Ricky witnessed the prejudice and fear which surrounded hemophilia, AIDS particularly, in its first decade but which is still all too common today. He had hemophilia, but he contracted AIDS and was the victim of much discrimination. He and his family watched their home burn down because neighbors were afraid of his illness. His family struggled with the tremendous financial burden of providing for a child with hemophilia and AIDS. Ricky's parents saw their son pass away as they confronted the limits of treatment to fight the HIV disease. Each of these aspects of Ricky's life is important to remember today: The prejudice, the crushing financial burden, the hope for cures which have yet to come, and the inspiring courage and compassion of this young man, his family and friends. This was Ricky's story, and it is the story of thousands of other people, many of whom have died, many are living today with hemophilia, HIV and AIDS. The resources that Congress can provide will not solve the tragedy of hemophilia and AIDS for Ricky Ray and others like him, but they will help individuals, families and communities begin to recover from the calamity that has befallen them. Whether the Federal Government acted appropriately to protect blood clotting products in the 1980s is not the issue today. At issue now is providing assistance to individuals and families who have been forced to confront a personal and financial crisis brought by two debilitating diseases. The Federal Government must do many things to respond to the AIDS epidemic and to hemophilia. It must protect the Nation's blood supply; provide prevention interventions; in the case of HIV-AIDS, fund research to find a cure and a vaccine; and support health care and needed services for those who are ill. But as with other major catastrophes, the Federal Government also must provide the resources which help families and communities take the first steps toward recovery. For that I am grateful to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his leadership, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his participation in this, as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1023.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor and to express my gratitude to him for giving us this opportunity today to speak out for American values. It is interesting for me to hear some of our colleagues, who have always opposed any initiatives that we have on this floor on human rights in every aspect, political, freedom of the press, religious, to come to the floor now and say, oh, no, we cannot support this because it is only about religion and it creates a hierarchy. They were not there for us when we had the full array. We have an opportunity today with this religious persecution act to begin to address the full array, and it is an opportunity that I believe we must take. My colleagues have said no one likes religious persecution. Of course we do not, and I would stipulate that every person in this body is viscerally and intellectually opposed to religious persecution. But the business community is once again weighing in and saying, oh, this bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting human rights throughout the world. If this was not such a serious matter, that would almost be laughable. It is pathetic. But, Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to say that what this bill does is give recognition to the persecution of people on the basis of their religious faith. What it does not do is tie the President's hands. Indeed, it gives the President more leverage. It gives him more leverage because he can then say to a country that this is what the Congress has said: I can exercise a waiver if I see that it would be beneficial to the cause and in our national interest. But the persecuting country must demonstrate that use of the waiver would be beneficial. So I believe that this is appropriate. I think the Committee on International Relations did an excellent job in modifying the legislation so that it would have the support of many more people here who were concerned about the Presidential discretion. Mr. Chairman, as we debate this bill today, I am sad to report that in China the Catholic bishop, elderly and frail Bishop Zeng Jingmu, 78 years old, who is the unofficial bishop of Yujiang, a diocese among the poorest in China, was at the top of the list of the jailed Catholics in China. Perhaps my colleagues saw recently on May 10 the news in the paper that he had been released. Did my colleagues know that he was imprisoned for his Catholic beliefs? Maybe not, but, oh, there was great celebration when this was released. But released he was not; he was assigned to house arrest. An elderly Catholic bishop whose health is failing, who had been assigned to 3 years in a reform-through-labor camp, was, in order to get some kudos from the Clinton administration, freed from the labor camp and put under house arrest. The problems are severe. This legislation is modest and moderate. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving us the opportunity to vote our conscience today. I urge my colleagues to support the Wolf legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for engaging in this colloquy and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted.

Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces?

Ms. PELOSI. Is it also the case that the law requires the intelligence source or method or law enforcement matter in question must be related to the activities giving rise to the sanction and the provision is not to be used to protect generic or speculative intelligence or law enforcement concerns?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is it then the case that the committee intends that the provision will be narrowly construed and used only in the most serious of circumstances when a specific sensitive intelligence source or method or criminal investigation is at risk?

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on this important committee. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a colloquy concerning section 303 of the bill. Before doing so, I want to commend our chairman for his leadership also and to thank him for including full funding for the environmental program in this legislation before us today, the recognition that new issues need to be addressed, not that the environment is a new issue, but new compared to its being a priority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and in the intelligence authorization bill. In any event, I rise to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. As the chairman knows, this section of the bill extends for 1 year the authority of the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My first question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history of this provision, enacted in 1995, would be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 more year?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for his cooperation and concurrence in the view of the chairman.