Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding once again and commend her for her leadership. I wanted to join the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and I did not have enough time to finish when I was enumerating all the kinds of products that the Chinese People's Liberation Army sells in the United States. The point is that the point that the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] made, and that is that this subsidizes the Chinese military apparatus, the same one that brutally occupies Tibet, sells weapons of mass destruction into the Third World. The toys you buy in the United States from Poly Technologies and the rest subsidize the Chinese military.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chairman of the subcommittee, who suggested that we can place all of these China bills in the foreign operations bill. As the ranking member on that committee, I heartily approve of the suggestion of our chairman, but I would not want to do that without the full debate that we are having here, and I think that is the value of this China package. I think the value of the discussion probably exceeds some of the clout within this legislation because this is indeed a gentle touch, but nonetheless a necessary one, and I commend my colleagues, especially the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for their leadership in putting this package together. To the issue of freedom of religion in China, the reason that this legislation that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is proposing, promoting religious freedom in China, the persecution of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and others, is well documented. Do not take my word for it. The State Department's own Country Report states, in the area of freedom of religion, ``Although the Constitution affirms toleration of religious beliefs, the Chinese government seeks to restrict all,'' and that is the Chinese Constitution affirms toleration of religious beliefs, ``The Chinese government seeks to restrict all religious practice to closely controlled and government-sanctioned religious organizations and registered places of worship. At the annual National Religious Affairs Conference in January, religious policy was `readjusted' to emphasize harder line aspects. During the year,'' that would be of 1996, ``many religious groups were subjected to increased restrictions, although the degree of restriction varied significantly in different regions of China.'' ``The campaign to shut down unauthorized groups is in the hands of the police and religious affairs officials and is being conducted concurrently with other police actions against criminals and underground separatists, pro-democracy and labor groups. The national goal for 1996 was to register or close down all unregistered religious groups.'' ``In 1996 police closed down dozens of underground mosques, temples and seminaries and hundreds of Protestant house church groups, many with significant memberships; leaders of such groups, including itinerant teachers and evangelists, increasingly have been detained for lengthy investigation. There are NGO reports of deaths of detainees by beating. Some congregations have been hit with heavy fines. In Shanghai, home of the patriotic Protestant headquarters, authorities have been particularly tough.'' I will conclude from the pages of reports on lack of religious freedom in China, but to say that Premier Li Peng stated recently that China upholds freedom of religious belief, but that religion should serve the aims of socialism. That is from our Country Report that states the condition of religious freedom, or lack thereof, in China. I too want to quote from Nina Shays' article and just state that in it she says, ``Catholics and other Christians are being persecuted and martyred before an unknowing, indifferent world and before a largely mute Christian community.'' And that, unfortunately, is true as well. That is why the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] in this legislation is so important, because we cannot continue to ignore religious persecution in China while we profess to support religious freedom throughout the world. When President Jiang was here, again, at the famous breakfast, I handed him a letter from Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei, the Bishop of Shanghai. Cardinal Kung asked President Jiang in this letter-- In the name of 8 million Roman Catholic faithful and clergy in China and also in my name, I respectfully appeal to you, Mr. Chairman Jiang, to defend the right of the Chinese citizens to true religious freedom and to permit the Roman Catholics to maintain religious communion with the Pope in order to keep the fullness of their faith. I further appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to immediately release Su Zhimin, Bishop of Baoding Diocese, Hebei and An Shuxin, Auxiliary Bishop of Baoding; Han Ding Xiang, Bishop of Yong Nian, Hebei; Zeng Fingmu, Bishop of Yu Jiang, Jiangxi; and all other faithful and clergy who are being held in detention camps, labor camps and jails in China. The Cardinal goes on to say, ``May China, under your able leadership, be internationally known as a country which has true religious freedom.'' In calling for the freedom of these bishops, of course, Cardinal Kung, who is in exile because he cannot practice his faith in China, is calling the world's attention to the religious persecution of Catholics as well as Christians, Muslims and Buddhists in China. If this Congress is willing to withhold a visa to a family member of a Canadian businessman because he is doing business with Cuba, why should we not withhold a visa for a repressor of religion in China? I urge my colleagues to support the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and vote ``aye.''

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. There are some points I want to make to clarify a point I had made earlier. For a point of clarification, I want to say how appropriate the legislation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is. Some have said, why should we deny visas? It is the policy of the Clinton administration to deny visas to family members, say, for example, of Canadian businessmen if those Canadian businessmen are doing business with Cuba. Their children cannot get a visa to the United States. If that is the Clinton administration policy, why then would they, and I do not necessarily support that, in fact, I do not, but how can the administration that supports that then turn around and say, but we think it is inappropriate to deny the visa of a torturer and a persecutor of religion in China and Tibet? It is on the subject of Tibet I am going to use a little more of my time. The country report on China and Tibet reports that during the year 1996, authorities increased repression, imprisonment, and abuse or torture of monks and nuns accused of political activism. This is a tactic the Chinese use. They accuse the nuns and priests of activism because of their loyalty to the Dalai Lama, His Holiness. According to authoritative Chinese press reports from May, Beijing launched a campaign to limit criminal activity in the guise of religious practice. The crackdown appears to have three goals: to stop acts of defiance, to break the political power wielded by the Lamas and to remove officials loyal to the Dalai Lama. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese authorities have kidnapped the Panchen Lama and installed their own successor to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Imagine, imagine that they have kidnapped this child and replaced him with another child. I just want to reiterate what my colleagues have mentioned as well. When I asked the question and others in the room asked the question about religious repression in China, President Jiang categorically denied that there was religious repression in China, right there before a mixed audience, the House and Senate, bicameral, bipartisan; categorically denied. That was an untruth. We must show the world what the truth is. This legislation does that, and has a penalty attached to it. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of the Members who came together to find our common ground to speak out for promoting human rights and freedom in China and Tibet. I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] for her initiative in presenting this very important legislation that we have before us which would provide funding to increase the monitors to monitor human rights violations in China. Mr. Speaker, those who oppose some of the efforts that we have been putting forth to promote human rights in China have said that our efforts will isolate China, that we want to isolate China. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have the privilege of representing San Francisco. A large number of people in my district are Chinese Americans. They are just like the rest of Americans, they are not a monolith. They all do not agree on the tactics of using MFN, but they all agree that a freer China will make the world safer, and that is something that we all must work and strive for. That is why I was so very disappointed last week when, in preparation for Jiang Zemin's visit, President Clinton, in his speech laying out his plan for U.S.-China relations, put forth six areas of profound interest between our two countries: the environment, trade, fighting narcotics, et cetera. But he did not include promoting a freer China or human rights in China or promoting democratic freedoms as one of those areas of profound interest. I think the last week has demonstrated, with the protests, et cetera, that although that might not have been a priority in the President's speech, it is a priority for the American people. And the Ros-Lehtinen legislation today will help us promote human rights in China. The administration, instead, chose to roll out the red carpet to the head of the regime that rolled out the tanks in Tiananmen Square. They gave a 21-gun salute to the leader of the military that proliferates weapons of mass destruction and brutally occupies Tibet. And they toasted at a dinner, they toasted the man who controls the torture of Wei Jingsheng and many other political prisoners of conscience and religious prisoners, as well. When President Jiang was here, some of us had the opportunity to meet with him. And in that meeting, he denied that there was any political repression in China, that there was not any harvesting of organs for profit, it was just a rumor, when that is well documented, that there is religious freedom clearly blossoming in China. And I presented him something that I will refer to later, the religious freedom legislation, a letter from Ignatius Cardinal Kung asking him to free the Catholic bishops who have been sent to prison or to labor camps. He denied categorically that China had every proliferated weapons of mass destruction. While President Jiang was in the state of denial and calling all of this just rumor, political prisoners were suffering in China. We must monitor that. While he was denying that this was taking place, prisoners of conscience were suffering in China. We want the message to go out to them that their suffering and their courage and their determination to promote a freer China is shared by Americans who promote Democratic values throughout the world. And this additional funding for monitoring will help to document, so that the American people will know and that we can say to the president when he denies it is happening, President Jiang, who denies it happens, we know and the prisoners know that we care about them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time, even though I am not in agreement with his position, but I appreciate his generosity. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-Markey amendment to the underlying bill of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros- Lehtinen]. I support that bill, as well as this amendment. This is probably the most important issue that we will debate on this whole China issue in the House. I certainly care about promoting democratic freedoms in China, and I am very concerned about the $50 billion trade deficit that we will suffer this year with China. But even if those two issues were not a factor in our U.S.-China relationship, the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the most serious issue that we in the Congress have to deal with. It is about nothing short of the safety of the world. I am afraid that the President's move to certify that China is in accord with the cooperative agreements on the nuclear accords is just a fiction, and I believe that it is very necessary for Congress to take a very close look at what the Chinese have promised and what the prospects are for their keeping their promises, because indeed the law on proliferation and certification calls for performance before a country can receive certification, and President Clinton is intending to give certification on the basis of promises. My colleagues have reviewed some of the promises made by China and promises not kept by China, and I would be happy to share the pages and pages and pages of unkept promises on the subject of proliferation, but I will just refer to one in particular. On May 11, 1996, the Chinese pledged that ``China will not provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.'' The end of that year, December 1996, the CIA's assessment on China's nonproliferation record stated, ``During the last half of 1996, China was the most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction and technology to foreign countries. The Chinese provided a tremendous variety of assistance to both Iran and Pakistan's ballistic missiles programs. Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, material and technology for its nuclear weapons program, with China as its principal supplier.'' That was 6 months after the pledge. Then, this year, in talking about the certification, President Clinton said, after the CIA, in an unclassified report to Congress, revealed that, President Clinton said, ``China has lived up to its pledge not to assist unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in third countries and is developing a system of export controls to prevent the transfer of sales of technology and weapons of mass destruction, but China still maintains some troubling weapons relationship.'' That last sentence is fraught with meaning because it covers a very vast array of violations by China, but China still maintains some troubling weapons supply relationships. That means they are still proliferating weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton said that only a short while after the Office of Naval Intelligence Report on Worldwide Maritime Challenges, March 1997, stated, and this is blown up for the review of my colleagues, Discoveries after the Gulf War clearly indicate that Iran maintained an aggressive weapons of mass destruction procurement program. A similar situation exists today in Iran, with a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass destruction programs in the Third World and is taking place in a region of great strategic interest to the United States. I just want to close by saying, when we asked President Jiang in the breakfast, the famous breakfast meeting, has China engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; well, we know they have, but: please comment on China's proliferation, he deferred to his foreign minister who stood up and said China has never proliferated any nuclear technology, has never proliferated any nuclear technology; never. So when we base our policy on promises by China, I think we have to look at the record. The Congress needs the additional time to review that. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Markey amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. It is bad enough that foreign mining companies get public lands for $5 an acre. The grazing program allows them now to graze their cattle on Federal lands at bargain basement rates. Why should the American public subsidize the grazing activities of such foreign mining corporations as Australia's Newmont Gold and Canada's Barrick Goldstrike. When they talk about the thousands of small ranchers on Federal lands, they are not talking about the Japanese land and livestock company Zenchiku, which runs a huge cattle operation in Federal lands in Montana. Low Federal grazing fees are being used to prop up the cattle operations of such foreign firms as E. M. Remy of Switzerland and Two Dot Ranch Inc. of France and Switzerland. All the foreign firms cited range in the top 4 percent of the size of the cattle operations grazing on Federal lands. The Interior Department Inspector General noted in a 1992 report that there was no limit on the grazing privileges and benefits provided to foreign operators. We have the opportunity to change these policies now. It is time to end the exploitation of public resources and the rip-off of the American taxpayer. The Miller amendment makes foreign grazing operators pay the higher of either the State or private lease rates in the State in which the Federal permit or lease is located. Let us end this piece of corporate welfare for foreign firms and adopt the Miller amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Miller amendment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to instruct conferees to block the extension of section 245(i). According to INS statistics, two-thirds of those using 245(i) are the spouses and children of American citizens and lawful permanent residents. Another portion is used by skilled immigrants sponsored by companies. Section 245(i) can only be used by prospective lawful permanent residents and under careful scrutiny of Federal authorities. In order to adjust their status, eligible immigrants must meet the same criteria they would if their visa applications were reviewed overseas. Allowing section 245(i) to expire will force a cruel separation of families. Silas Archila, who lives in my district in San Francisco, is in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. He and his wife run a child care center. If his wife is not able to adjust her status through section 245(i), she will be forced to leave him to be a single parent of their 4-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, and she will be barred for 3 years from immigrating to the United States. Allowing section 245(i) to expire will force many battered immigrant women to return to countries that cannot protect them--even though, as part of their Violence Against Women Act case, each woman has already proven to the INS that returning to that country and being forced to leave the United States would cause her and her children extreme hardship. Failure to permanently extend this provision places unnecessary burdens on families and businesses, which will also suffer from the loss of skilled workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today President Jiang Zemin is being entertained at the White House. The plight of the people of China and Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the United States. So I would join my colleagues in reminding President Clinton that when he toasts President Jiang Zemin, that he not forget that Mr. Jiang Zemin is directing the torture of many prisoners of conscience in China as the State dinner proceeds. And as the Clinton administration gives the 21-gun salute to President Jiang Zemin today, which the Chinese Government insisted upon, that President Clinton and all those assembled remember the shots fired in Tiananmen Square. By the way, the bullets that killed the young demonstrators, the bills for those bullets were sent to the families as a cost to them for killing their children. And I hope the President and those gathered will not forget the millions of people in labor camps for their religious and political beliefs. Prisoners of conscience are told that nobody knows about them and that nobody cares. That is a painful form of torture. But we all remember Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan and so many others in prison, and I hope that President Clinton will have them on his mind as he toasts President Jiang Zemin today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is with great sorrow that I join my colleagues in observing the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Walter Capps. It was like a chill wind coming through this Chamber last night when the word spread, the unbelievable word spread that Walter had passed away. Mr. Speaker, my first reaction was it cannot be true. After that, how unfair. How unfair. Walter was only here 1 year, but I thought back to his accident about 1\1/2\ years ago and, as I prayed and tried to understand why Walter would leave us, I thought perhaps God decided at the time of the accident that Walter would have 1\1/2\ more years to live and that would be his gift to his family and to this Congress and, therefore, to the country, because certainly, although Walter only served here 1 year, the quantity of time he spent here was not great, the quality of the time he spent here was unsurpassed. He had a tremendous, as our colleagues have referenced, impact on this body, on our colleagues, by the dint of his personality. He was truly a gentle man. We call each other gentleman, gentlewoman; this man was a gentle man. Mr. Speaker, I was recalling two happy incidences, one in which Walter made others happy and one in which I saw him enjoy himself within the past 2 weeks. The first incident was a while ago during the campaign when my family and I were very honored to host a reception for Walter in our home. And after he spoke, the people who had gathered there were so impressed, so inspired, so full of hope, that a person of Walter's caliber and his background and his commitment would be willing to endure the rough and tumble of politics and try to come to Congress. In fact, the first response to his speech was tearful and joyful and then tremendous applause. He made us happy and hopeful. Then just 2 weeks ago, Lois joined Walter at the White House for the ceremony for the awards of NEA and NEH. Walter had been a recipient of NEH, a participant in the past and he was in his glory. He was in his element. He was recognized by the people there as one of them, a man who bridged both worlds, the political and the creative and the humanitarian. Mr. Speaker, like so many others here, I want to recognize Walter's patriotism, he certainly loved the American flag and all that it stood for; recognize him as a teacher by profession and by his nature he taught us; and say to Lois, I hope that it is a comfort to you, Lois, to Lisa, to Todd and Laura, that so many people mourn your loss, so many people recognize Walter's worth. My hopes and prayers go out to you and I join my colleagues in extending the good wishes of the people of my district to your family and to Walter's constituents. He loved his family. He loved his constituents. He loved his country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Clinton administration will roll out the red carpet for the ruler of a regime that rolled out the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Tomorrow the Clinton administration will give a 21-gun salute to the heads of the Chinese military that proliferates weapons of mass destruction and brutally occupies Tibet. I do not think that that is an appropriate welcome. While I agree that we must engage China, that the leaders of our two countries must meet to discuss issues of concern, I think it is completely inappropriate to have such a celebratory atmosphere surrounding the visit. The more appropriate auspices would have been a working visit President Clinton used to welcome many other leaders of important countries to Washington, DC. Tomorrow, though, Project Democracy in China, of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars and the Tiananmen Memorial Foundation, will hold a press conference, and I join with them in their aspirations when they call upon the President and the United States to demand that China's human rights record be condemned, its prisoners of conscience released, and demand political reform in China. I urge my colleagues to join us in Lafayette Square for a protest rally at 12 noon in front of the White House.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the school voucher proposal for the District of Columbia. Our focus as a Federal Government should be on improving our public schools rather than abandoning them. Diverting public money to private schools is not a way to improve education. It is, however, an experiment that is doomed to fail leaving this city's schoolchildren as the casualties. Not one of us is going to contest the assertion that the D.C. public schools need help. But the way to do this is through efforts like comprehensive school reform, by engaging parents, teachers, and the community in creating and maintaining high performance centers of learning with challenging academic standards. Creating a voucher system does not solve the problem, it merely shifts the responsibility elsewhere. It also does not guarantee that students from low-performing schools will meet the admission standards of private institutions. Public school choice, magnet schools, charter schools, and comprehensive school reform efforts can provide effective alternatives to passing our problems off on private schools. The GOP voucher plan offers this ill-conceived alternative to 2,000 of the school system's 78,000 students. General Julius Becton, the superintendent of the D.C. Public Schools has set out on a serious effort to provide the best education we can for all of the children of the District of Columbia. Our Federal responsibility in education is to support States and local school districts in their efforts to make better public schools and better learners. It is not an acceptable solution to engage in misguided social engineering by draining funds that would be used to improve the public schools. The Democrats of this House have a plan, a good plan that raises the prospects for all of America's public schoolchildren, not just a select few at the expense of all the rest.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect and the highest esteem for the maker of this motion, Chairman Callahan. However, while I agree with him on process, I cannot agree on the substance of this motion. We debated a motion to instruct on this identical issue on an appropriations bill just yesterday. We have had at least seven votes on this issue on three or four separate bills this year. Although I oppose the gentleman's motion, I respect his desire to keep this issue in the appropriations bill. This authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, is the proper and appropriate place to discuss this difficult and contentious issue. I oppose this motion because I oppose the Mexico City policy. Mexico City restrictions will cripple international family planning organizations in providing family planning and reproductive health services that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions performed worldwide. This is not a pro-life issue. This is not a pro-choice issue. This is a women's reproductive health issue. During yesterday's debate, one of my colleagues who supported the Mexico City gag rule also stated that he supports responsible organizations that do engage in family planning. Yet he was one of 147 Members of this body who are on record voting to completely eliminate international family planning funding. I agree with my colleagues who said yesterday that threat of a Presidential veto on a bill filled with other important issues should not be the sole basis for voting down this issue. However, if some of my colleagues believe so passionately in the Mexico City gag rule provisions, and I respect that they do, I challenge them to introduce separate, free-standing legislation to do what you will effectively do with this language--to eliminate all international family planning. The Mexico City provisions will crush our successful international family planning efforts, which work to reduce the number of abortions performed worldwide--in Russia, in Chile, in Colombia, in Hungary, the list goes on and on. My message today is very simple. Family planning reduces abortions. Family planning saves lives. Mexico City restrictions gag family planning efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] for her courage and leadership in defending women of America, their lives and their safety. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amended version of H.R. 1122. This bill, in its original form and as amended, puts at great risk women's health and future fertility. The bill provides no exception to protect a woman's health. It would prevent a qualified doctor from using a medical procedure that could be the most medically appropriate one to save the life and health of a woman. This House of Representatives lacks the extensive medical qualifications needed to determine what is in the best interest of the patient. Why are we in the House of Representatives now choosing and deciding about medical procedures? It is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, this bill forces qualified physicians to make a choice between their best medical judgment and a prison sentence. Doctors should not have to fear criminal prosecution for providing what they have determined to be the most compassionate care possible for a woman in an excruciating circumstance, and that circumstance is that the baby is not viable, that the baby is lost, that people who have been joyfully expecting a new baby have to face the terrible reality that the baby is not going to survive. This is just the most helpful way in terms of the woman to proceed, if the doctor, the woman, and her family decide to go this way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect the health of the woman and vote against this legislation which is both unconstitutional and inappropriate. Let me say that I understand how difficult this issue is for all of us. It is not easy to have this kind of discussion. But I believe that this is not an issue that rests with Congress. This legislation destroys the family's right to face a devastating circumstance with safety and dignity. The President will not sign a bill that threatens this right. This decision is appropriately made by the woman. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would like to also express interest in this issue on behalf of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and will include his statement in the colloquy for the Record, except to just add that Legal Services Corporation's programs handle more than 50,000 cases involving clients seeking protection from abusive partners. This is a very important provision that we are asking for. I thank the chairman for his cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following statement:

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the excellent job they did with this very complicated and difficult bill. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, the Senate included in its bill language which I introduced in this body, language to require that the Legal Services Corporation include only the income of the client when determining the eligibility for services in cases of domestic violence only. Out of deference to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and his desire to keep this kind of authorizing language off his appropriations bill, I chose not to offer the amendment at the time of the bill. But it is important. More than 4 million women each year are abused by their husbands or partners. Eligibility for legal services is now determined by household income, leaving open the frightening possibility that victims of domestic violence would be denied legal assistance because the abuser's income exceeded the threshold for household income requirements. The Senate provision ensures that legal aid clinics will not be forced to turn domestic violence clients away based on the income of their abusers. Today I seek the gentleman's assurance, Mr. Chairman, that we can work together to address this issue during conference. We must ensure that no victim of abuse will be refused legal assistance based upon the economic status of the abuser.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays amendment prohibiting the use of fiscal year 1998 funds to make irreversible plans for the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census. The Census Bureau has acknowledged that at least 4 million Americans were not counted in the 1990 census. Twenty percent of these undercounted individuals reside in California. California is home to 12 percent of all U.S. residents. An undercount in the census places a disproportionate burden on our State. Scientific sampling is a necessary tool to achieve the most accurate census in the most difficult to reach areas and populations. We all know that some population groups are missed in the census far more than others. African-Americans are 7 times as likely to be missed as whites. In 1990, children accounted for 52 percent of the undercount. Statistical sampling will improve accuracy in counting minorities, children and the poor, all traditionally undercounted during the census. California is home to the largest Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islander populations among all 50 States. Between 1989 and 1993, the number of poor children, age 15 to 17, increased from 894,000 to nearly 1.4 million. An undercount denied significant Federal funding for education, child care and housing programs, among others. An undercount as significant as 1990's denies equal representation for people of color at all levels of Government, including this body. The National Academy of Sciences, American Statistical Association, Population Association of America, National Association of Counties, National Conference of Mayors, Council of Chief State Schools Officers have all endorsed the use of sampling to account for households that do not respond to census questionnaires or visits. Accountability in sampling is increased through the Mollohan-Shays amendment, which creates a special board of observers to monitor the census process and protect it from any manipulation. I urge my colleagues to support the most accurate census possible. Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan-Shays amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the distinguished service of the SS Stephen Hopkins, an American merchant vessel, who sailed during World War II. The SS Hopkins holds a unique distinction in U.S. merchant marine history. On Saturday, September 27 the city and county of San Francisco will observe SS Stephen Hopkins Day and the 55th anniversary of the only American Ship to sink a German Navy Surface Warship. The Hopkins sailed out of her home port in San Francisco on April 14, 1942. On September 17, 1942, during her maiden voyage in the South Atlantic Sea the Hopkins and her crew waged a courageous battle against two heavily armed German vessels. This battle earned the Hopkins the citation of U.S. Government Gallant Ship. Her citation inscription recounts the events of that fateful day when, ``Two enemy raiders suddenly appeared out of the morning mist to attack her. The lightly armed merchantmen exchanged shot for shot with the enemy raiders, sinking one and setting the other a fire. The stark courage of her crew in their heroic stand against overpowering odds caused her name to be perpetuated as a Gallant Ship.'' The Hopkins was lost as a result of that valiant battle after sustaining destroyed engines, exploded boilers, and catching fire from stem to stern. Only 15 of the 19 surviving crew survived the 31-day lifeboat trip which brought them to safety in Brazil. Mr. Speaker on behalf of the Congress, let us join the veteran merchant mariners and San Francisco community in commemorating the service of SS Stephen Hopkins and the brave crew who sailed her into history.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership in bringing this important amendment to the floor. With apologies to the distinguished chairman for objecting to his unanimous consent, and certainly in support of it now, I rise to encourage our colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment. In defense of the Legal Services Corporation, our colleagues have quoted the Constitution, and, of course, most recently the pledge to the flag which we make here every day, and in that pledge to the flag it has been said, and is said here every day, the pledge for liberty and justice for all. That is exactly what the Legal Services Corporation is about. We brag and boast about American values and the rights that we have as Americans, but we truly do not have those rights unless we have access to legal services to protect those rights and the right to sue to protect them. Other colleagues have quoted and referenced their own experience with Legal Services, and I just want to talk about the fact that two-thirds of those eligible for Legal Services are women and children, most of them families. They receive services in areas such as juvenile law, family law, housing, health and education, and clinics perform critical services for victims of domestic violence. Some of our colleagues have said what is not included here, and I will not go into that. I will submit it for the record. There have been staff cuts in Legal Services. It is a dollar well spent by the Federal Government. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for liberty and justice for all and to vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, ranking member on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time and commend him for his service on the Committee on Rules. But apropos of today on the task force, I want to join him in commending the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our distinguished chairman, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] for their service as chairs, for their balance, for the respect they had for Members, for listening to us, and for producing a consensus document that has as one of its virtues the balance that we were all striving to have to produce a bipartisan consensus. I am disappointed this morning that we have this rule before us which has within it the potential to unravel the work of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. For 4 months, the task force worked together to iron out our differences, to carefully review the options before us. When you put a package like this together, it has a oneness, an integrity, a comprehensiveness. If you take this piece out, you lose balance. That is why I was hoping that the Committee on Rules would afford to the task force, in light of the work that was invested and the careful attention to all the considerations that was given, that we would be able to have a rule that would call for a vote up or down on the comprehensive package. That was what was appropriate in 1989 when the ethics package came before the House. This is the proposal, not this, cannibalized by taking chunks out of it, because we have to compare this to the status quo, and this product of the task force is better than the status quo. But if amended as allowed under this rule, we will be making a step backward. Why is this package so worthy of the consideration, without amendment, of this body? First of all, because of the responsibility that is attached to it. The Constitution requires and the American people expect Congress to uphold a high ethical standard. The public expects us, again, and the Constitution requires us to be able to judge our own Members. We have a responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards to protect the integrity of the House of Representatives. This Chamber, in which we serve, should be a sacred room. We also have a responsibility to protect our Members from the kinds of assaults without foundation that they are susceptible to, as we are all susceptible to as public figures. That balance between upholding the integrity of the House and respecting the rights and the reputations of our Members is exactly what this task force proposal does. In the report that is sent to the House in this rule, there is the potential to, as I say, go backward in this debate and once again incur the unhappiness of the American people about how Congress judges itself. The time limit that is allowed to be voted up or down here would be an invitation to no action taken on legitimate complaints that are placed before the committee. I oppose the consideration of the subpoena being kicked up to the full committee, because the ethics process is based on a bifurcated process: Part of the committee investigates; the other part of the committee adjudicates. The investigative committee does its investigation confidentially, and then it presents its report to the other members of the adjudicatory committee for its adjudication, as the word says, for its judgment. But if the full committee is participating in the debate on subpoenas, then the confidentiality that Members should be entitled to in the investigative committee, of course, is blown to the wind, completely undermined, and, as has been said, does violence to the system. Let me just address one of the other amendments, which talks about who can file a complaint. I think the bill strikes a balance in that regard. Many people on the outside are disappointed that our bill places a higher threshold on outside complaints instead of keeping the status quo as it was before or being similar to the Senate, where anyone can file a complaint. We add the threshold that that person, an outside person, must have personal knowledge. I think that that is appropriate in the interests of the Members and the integrity of the House. It also affords the opportunity, as the amendment to this bill does not, for staff members in the House to be able to bring complaints. I thank my colleague from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. I praised both chairmen before. Particularly I want to praise the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] for his sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment, which would be affected by the raised threshold, for further raising the threshold for nonmember complaints. In any event, for these reasons, any one of these amendments, if they pass, would not chip away, but undermine the integrity of the project that we are bringing forward. Any one of these would undermine the proposal that we are bringing here today. The three of them would call for a no vote on the package, the final package, if those amendments were to pass. Once again, in conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] for their leadership and all that that word implies. This was a difficult task. They brought us to consensus. I think out of respect for their hard work, Members should support the package that they are presenting. I am disappointed that this Committee on Rules did not regard their work product in a way that honored the tradition of the ethics process of giving an up or down vote to the proposals that are put forth on an ethics package. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. It is with the highest regard for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and he knows I mean that when I say this, that I regretfully rise in opposition to his amendment and for the following reasons: The task force strove to strike a balance in terms of protecting this institution and the reputation of the Members of this institution, but having a process that was fair and open. I want my colleagues to know where we are now, what this task force does and why I think it is preferable to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is proposing. Right now an outside person or group can file a complaint against a Member on the strength of a newspaper article. The gentleman from Pennsylvania rightfully said in his comments that outsiders should not be able to wreak havoc on the reputations of Members of Congress on the basis of a newspaper article. The task force agrees. That is why the task force says that in order for an outsider to file a complaint against a Member that person must have personal knowledge of the offense that he or she is complaining about. Nonmembers who file a complaint on the basis of a newspaper article do not qualify. We say it positively and we say it negatively in here. And then an outside person can file a complaint, if they give it to a Member, if the outsider does not have personal knowledge. Members who sponsor a nonmember's filing of information offered as a complaint shall certify that the complaint is acting in good faith and that the matter described in the filing warrants the attention of the committee. So the task force also agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the Member should have to certify to the validity of the complaint. The language the gentleman from Pennsylvania is offering, if passed by this body, would be tantamount to preventing outsiders from offering amendments unless the Member of Congress went even further. I believe we have struck a balance. We are taking heat from both sides. The outside community thinks that the task force went too far in raising the bar for outside complaints; some Members think that that bar should be raised higher. We think the task force struck the appropriate balance, which is fair to Members, respects the reputation of the House of Representatives. With that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Murtha amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for yielding me this time and for his leadership in the bipartisan task force. Today is a happy day for me, Mr. Chairman, because it marks the end of my service on the task force since February but, more importantly, three terms before that, 6 years and 7, 8 months in the service of promoting the ethics of the House of Representatives. From that experience, I rise in opposition to the Bunning amendment. We have heard the word ``bifurcation'' around here today. For those Members who have not been paying attention before but maybe are now, that means that Congress previously agreed that we would divide the process into investigation and adjudication in terms of the work of the members of the committee. The bifurcation, or the subcommittee to do the investigation, ensured confidentiality, protected against delay, and preserved the integrity of the independent adjudication later should there have been charges brought. I think it is very, very important for us to preserve the separation of functions within the committee. Confidentiality is served, the integrity of the investigation is served, and fairness to the Member is ensured. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.