Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Lewis] was quite correct in his line of questioning. Indeed, the Mexico City language, if it were applied in the United States, would be unconstitutional. What we are saying with this Mexico City language, otherwise known as the gag rule, is that we will apply unconstitutional prohibitions to organizations which receive international family planning funds from the United States. Let me be clear: No funds, and I am going to read them, because this is the existing law, and for Members who voted for the President's finding in the previous resolution, I want them to understand very clearly why the Mexico City language indeed is a gag rule, indeed is unconstitutional, and as other Members of this body have said earlier, is unnecessary. First of all, I direct the Members' attention to the chart. Current prohibitions on use of AID funds for abortion-related activities cannot be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any other person to have an abortion. USAID funds cannot be used to lobby for or against abortion. These funds cannot be used to purchase or distribute commodities or equipment for the purpose of inducing abortion as a method of family planning, and these funds cannot be used to support any biomedical research which relates, in whole or in part, to methods of or the performance of abortion as a method of family planning. To make sure that this Helms language is enforced, there are very stringent safeguards in place which again I want to call to our colleagues' attention. Strict procedures assure that no USAID funds are used for abortions, including legally binding contracts. USAID funds are provided in the context of legally binding contracts and grant agreements that include standard clauses, specifically listing prohibited activities. Violators are subject to heavy fines and loss of future AID funding. USAID closely monitors how its funds are used through requiring detailed annual work plans, numerous detailed reports on all project activities, site visits, management reviews, and review and concurrence on project publications, and regular audits. Contracts and agreements with foreign or private organizations are subject to regular, independent audits, as defined by the Federal acquisition regulation system. USAID grantees are required to maintain extensive documentation of expenditures of foreign subcontractors who are subject to audit. I go into this level of detail to emphasize once again that what we have proposed here today and what this House approved has nothing to do with abortion, and that the Mexico City language again would be unconstitutional in the United States. Why should we subject our grantees abroad to that gag rule, which as I say again, is unconstitutional in our country. A couple of more points that I want to make, because comments that were made here on the floor beg for clarification. It has been repeated over and over again, certain critics of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and of government funding of international family planning programs have recently, they are stepping up this campaign citing IPPF, International Planned Parenthood Federation, as promoting abortion around the world. Let me state, the International Planned Parenthood Federation does not accept or promote abortion as a method of family planning. IPPF believes that contraception is the first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Access to family planning service is the most effective way to reduce abortions and the mortality caused by them. I have more information on that if Members have questions about that. Another point that I want to reference the Smith bill, again with the greatest respect for the gentleman, in his bill, the Mexico City language, the gag rule, states that, notwithstanding any provisions of the bill, no funds appropriated for population planning activities may be used by an organization to engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of any foreign countries governing the circumstances under which is permitted, regulated or prohibited. Among other things, that is what this language does, which would change current law if it were passed and signed into law, which the President will not sign. So we have an exercise in futility at this hour of the day, and I will try to be brief. But I believe that it is necessary to protect the vote of our Members who voted in favor of the President's finding earlier. Why are we subjecting organizations engaged in family planning internationally to conditions and standards which first of all are unconstitutional in the United States but do not apply here either? Our colleagues used the termed fungibility. If you give your money for this, it frees up your other money to do that. That is exactly what happens every time we grant a contract or a grant. Are we subjecting the defense community to the scrutiny of its spending on what it does with its own money because they receive defense contracts from the Federal Government? The list could go on and on. It just does not seem fair to me that we should gag organizations from using their own funds for their own purposes. And if that includes making information available to women, it has nothing to do with the Federal funds that we vote in this body, and it does nothing with the constitutional approach that we take to our grantees in the United States. What is further at issue here is this subjects that same scrutiny to the subcontractors, to these international family planning organizations. So all of this presents a gag, a hindrance, an unnecessary encumbrance. I urge our colleagues to follow this issue closely and to reject it on this vote today, as I have said over and over again. The highest regard for the maker of the motion, this gag rule has no place in our country. It should not have any place in our funding for international family planning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as Congress convenes this morning, official and diplomatic Washington is gathering at the National Cathedral to honor and give thanks for the life of our Ambassador to France, Pamela Harriman. Many of us would like to be there but our official duties prevent us from doing so. As is demonstrated by this portrait of Lafayette in our gallery, along with the only other portrait, that of George Washington, our relationship with France is a very special one, and indeed we sent as our Ambassador our very best. I know it is a source of great pride to Pamela's family that the President of France eulogized her as well as bestowed upon her France's highest honor. I know it is also a source of pride that the President of the United States and the First Lady will eulogize her today and mourn her passing. I hope it is a comfort to Ambassador Harriman's family that so many people in this House, and indeed so many Americans, join our First Family in mourning this great loss. Pamela's last weekend, before she took ill and then died during the week, was spent attending the christening of her great-grandchild, her Churchill great-grandchild. What a perfect end to a great life. I know I speak for many here when I say to Pamela, adieu, and thank you.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield to other Members.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36, the Presidential finding on international family planning funds. As I call on my colleagues to vote for this resolution, I want to remind us all why this vote is occurring. Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Livingston, has presented a long version of it and I will do a brief one. But, first, I want to commend him for the spirit of fairness in which he has enabled this resolution to come to the floor, which is in keeping with his great leadership as chair of our committee. I also want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is in opposition to this resolution, has his own resolution on the floor today. I do not think I have ever served with a finer Member of Congress. He is a great champion for child survival issues and human rights issues throughout the world. I have great respect for him. Unfortunately, I disagree with him on this issue, but I want to pay homage to his commitment to child survival issues. Mr. Chairman, we are here today because of an agreement, as our chairman mentioned, that was entered into in the fall. In order to break an impasse, President Clinton and the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership, entered into an agreement on the foreign aid bill and, indeed, the entire and continuing resolution for fiscal year 1997. Under the agreement President Clinton agreed to a reduced level of funding for population of $38.5 million and to a 4-month delay in any obligation to have the funds. The funds would go forward now or March 1 if the President certified to Congress that the delay is having an adverse impact on international family planning programs and the House and Senate vote to approve the President's finding. Indeed, the President's certification states that further delay will cause serious, irreversible and avoidable harm to the lives and well- being of many thousands of poor women and children throughout the world. Indeed, the delay undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival and actually increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from all regions of the world show increased contraceptive use by reducing unintended pregnancies plays a major role in reducing abortions. I join with many well-known development organizations, such as CARE, World Vision, Save the Children, and some church-related groups such as Church World Service, Lutheran World Relief, and the National Council of Churches, to name a few, in urging my colleagues to vote yes in accepting the presidential finding. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the balance of my time to make three points. What do the population funds do, how are they used; second, what they do not do, they do not promote abortions, and how do we monitor that. U.S. support for international family planning programs emphasizes voluntary family planning as a part of an integrated approach to population and development that includes complementary activities to promote health, the status of women, child survival, and strong families. The goals of U.S. leadership in global population are: To promote the rights of couples to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, improving individual reproductive health, and reducing population growth rates to the levels consistent with sustainable development. I will put more in the Record about the work of our international family planning efforts. Time does not permit me to go into more detail here. However, I will say that gains made from the delivery of services such as immunization, diarrheal control, and nutrition programs for children are most effective and sustainable when combined with programs for women on child spacing, maternal health services, and access to contraceptives. In fact, in most instances throughout the developing world by sheer necessity the delivery of these programs takes place simultaneously. Inaction today not to accept the President's finding would disrupt child survival and family planning services and will end up costing us dearly both in human and financial terms. What the population funds do not do: AID's funds are not used for abortion. As this chart indicates very clearly, since 1973, with the enactment of the Helms amendment, AID's population program has been legally prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method of family planning. I will state these prohibitions specifically, and I have the actual statutes with me at the desk if any one of our colleagues wishes to inspect them. No USAID funds can be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate a person to have an abortion. No funds can be used to lobby for or against abortion. No funds can be used to purchase or distribute commodities or equipment for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning, and no funds can be used to support any biomedical research which relates in whole or in part to methods of or the performance of abortions as methods of family planning. Strict procedures assure that no AID funds are used by contractors for abortions, and these procedures in place to ensure that no funds are used include, and I have another chart on that, legally binding contracts that include standard clauses specifically listing prohibited activities. Violators are subject to heavy fines and loss of future funding. It also includes close technical monitoring for requiring detailed annual work plans, regular independent audits according to Federal acquisition regulations of both contractors and subcontractors. There have been claims that all population funds will be dispersed without pro-life safeguards if this resolution passes. This is simply not so. It is essential to restart funding for these international family planning programs to promote the health and well-being of millions of families throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to characterize this vote, based on the exploding population growth we are experiencing, as vital to the future of our planet, and one that is first and foremost about providing families with the real means to lift themselves from poverty, provide for their children and live with dignity. We must not hold the poor children of the world hostage to congressional politics. Let us take a step forward today, not backward. Vote ``yes'' on the resolution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]. (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], who probably knows more about this issue than any of us in the Congress. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] a member of the Committee on Appropriations and another champion for international family planning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this visual era that we live in that has never been truer. But words have power, too, and a name, Herb Caen, to our community was worth 1,000 words every single day for nearly 60 years, mostly with the San Francisco Chronicle. Last week we suffered a great loss in our community with the passing of Herb Caen. It was a tremendous loss for the entire Bay area community. Indeed, Herb Caen gave us our sense of community with his sense of humor. But 1996 was a great year for Herb. It was the year he turned 80, it was the year he got married, it was the year he was awarded the Pulitzer prize, and it was the year that our community recognized him at Herb Caen Day. This special day was put on by Willie Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, and our Chief of Protocol, Charlotte Maillard, and over 75,000 people turned out to pay tribute to Herb Caen and to name an over-3-mile stretch of street in San Francisco Herb Caen Way. Seventy-five thousand people, joined Walter Cronkite and Joel Grey and other figures, celebrities, many in the sports arena, politics, the arts, show business in paying tribute to Herb. I do not know of any other person, living person, who has had such a tribute, who can make that claim. His funeral took place this past Friday, and thousands of people attended. In the evening there was a candlelight march after work for the many people who could not take time off during the day, along Herb Caen Way, to honor him. It is very hard to explain to our colleagues a person so special that tens of thousands of people would turn out for him in life and in death, but he lived as he had died, surrounded by friends. So I once again on the floor of this House want to extend my deepest sympathy to Herb's wife, Ann Caen; his son, Christopher; and Stacy, Steven and Catherine. It is a very difficult time for them and for all of San Francisco, the area which considered itself part of Herb's family. Our mayor, Willie Brown, said it best when he said Herb Caen is irreplaceable. Again, as I say, because he was so special, it may be hard for our colleagues to understand the esteem in which he was held. The mayor called him irreplaceable. I will borrow the words of W.H. Auden, with some poetic license, to try to give expression to the sadness of our community on the death of Herb Caen: Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, prevent the dog from barking with the juicy bone, silence the pianos and with muffled drum bring out Herb's friends, let the mourners come. Let airplanes circle moaning overhead, scribbling on the sky the message he is gone. Put crepe bows around the white necks of the public doves, let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves. He was, in our community, he was our North, our South, our East and our West, our working week and our Sunday rest. Our moon, our midnight, our talk, our song; we thought that he would last forever, but we were wrong. The stars are not wanted now; put out every one: Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun; pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods: for nothing can ever come to any good. I do not agree with that last line. Herb would certainly want his leaving to come to some good. On his Herb Caen Day he said when he died and, hopefully, went to heaven, when he got there he would say of heaven ``It ain't bad but it ain't San Francisco.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed by the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] and those of all of our other colleagues who have spoken in tribute to Black History Month. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] for having this special order, more importantly for her incredible leadership on issues of concern to our country, which as our colleague says, in promoting civil rights and equal justice and equal economic opportunity, helps make our country grow. So I thank you for that, Maxine, and to Mr. Lewis, and I am tempted to call him chairman, I hope I will again, Lou Stokes from Ohio for his great leadership over so many years in this Congress and in our country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today joining these distinguished leaders and many others in the room to celebrate Black History Month and the history of the civil rights struggle by remembering the life of a man who dedicated his life to peace and civil rights, Dr. Carlton Goodlett, physician, civil rights activist, newspaper publisher, champion of world peace and San Franciscoan. Dr. Goodlett, who was 82 when he passed away just this January 25, established his medical practice in San Francisco in 1945 and also became an aggressive civil rights advocate. He would associate himself with that characterization of aggressive. His role as president of the local branch of the NAACP represented the start of a long and fruitful public service. Dr. Goodlett denounced police brutality, demanded improvements in public housing, exposed the exclusion of Jews and African-Americans from the draft boards in San Francisco and often single-handedly demonstrated against restaurants that refused to serve people of color. In 1948, Dr. Goodlett joined with a partner to purchase The Reporter, a community weekly newspaper which then overtook its competitor to become the Sun Reporter. Perhaps you have heard of it. It is a very famous newspaper in our area. Under Dr. Goodlett's stewardship, the Sun Reporter became the main African-American newspaper in northern California. Anybody who wanted to be involved in politics in our area had to go see Dr. Goodlett, and he always, if not his endorsement, always gave very good advice. Dr. Goodlett juggled many activities and passions but never dropped a ball. In addition to his achievements in medicine, publishing and civil rights activism, he also placed himself directly at the forefront of liberal causes with his activity in the Democratic Party. Are we allowed to say the Democratic Party on the floor of the House? Is that partisan? In 1950 he joined with my predecessor, the great Representative Phillip Burton, in founding the San Francisco Young Democrats. He put his heart into supporting the campaigns of candidates he believed in, like Phillip Burton, John Burton and Willie Brown, our current mayor of San Francisco. On Friday, we all participated in Dr. Goodlett's memorial service. Three generations at least of Californians and Americans were present there. It was a joy to see the elderly join with the young people and talk about how they had received hope from Dr. Goodlett. They joined our distinguished colleague, Congressman Dellums, who gave the eulogy and summed it up with his usual eloquence when he stated, ``Carlton had zero tolerance for injustice * * * And he helped me understand that I am not only a citizen of the Bay Area or the United States. I was a citizen of the world. Now, I look and wonder, where are the new Carltons? Who will rise to take his place?'' Dr. Goodlett's presence was deeply felt. His absence will be felt equally. He was a man who did many things, all of them well. As we celebrate Black History Month, we need look no further for inspiration than Dr. Carlton Goodlett. He was a renaissance man who mobilized the intellectual resources of his area to fight for civil rights. He was a healer, a mentor, a courageous leader, an activist and advocate and truly a citizen of the world. As the world will mourn his loss, we must remember that he is an inspiration to us all. He was famous in our area. We have other inspirations, maybe not so famous in their own right. One of them that I would like to recognize today is Louise Stokes, mother of her namesake Louis Stokes, because she must have been a very remarkable woman. I have heard our colleague Lou Stokes talk about his mother with great pride and affection, but we know how great she must have been to have produced such a magnificent son, Congressman, chairman and another son Carl Stokes, mayor, judge and ambassador, representing our great country abroad. Carl had passed away within the last year and it was a tremendous loss again to all of us, but Louise Stokes is as much an inspiration and as much a leader in the fight for civil rights and justice in our country because of her role as mother in the civil rights movement. I mentioned that Carlton Goodlett was a leader in the NAACP, and I was so pleased to see our former colleague Kweisi Mfume, the president of the NAACP now, here in the Chamber this afternoon. He indeed is also another answer to the question, who will take Carlton's place. As we look around and see our colleagues serving in this House from the African-American community, we can be encouraged that the future is bright and, as our colleague Mr. Lewis so eloquently said, that you will all help to grow our great Nation. With that, I once again want to commend Congressman Waters not only for calling this special order but for your leadership, most recently your speech that you made that was on TV at least three times yesterday talking about our budget priorities in our country and providing the kind of leadership that we truly will need so that the hope and the dream of hope will be kept alive for all Americans, regardless of color. Thank you for allowing me to be part of this special order.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership and guidance throughout this process. Clearly without his involvement, we would not be here today with a bipartisan recommendation for a sanction for the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the investigative subcommittee, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida, Porter Goss, our Chair of the investigative subcommittee, again acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, as ranking member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from the gentleman from new Mexico, Mr. Schiff, in the course of our service there. Clearly, from the debate so far, you can see that we had many unresolved difficult issues to deal with, and under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], we went through that. I want to also commend our special counsel, James Cole, for making us stick to the facts, the law, and the ethics rules as those elements that were the only matters relevant to our decisions, and many thanks to Kevin Wolf and Virginia Johnson for their assistance and professionalism. I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], say in his earlier days as a prosecutor he might entertain thoughts of bringing jury tampering charges. If he decides to do that, I hope that the gentleman will include in his package the dirty tricks memo that is now in the public record that is a written document about attempts to undermine the ethics process directly by the Republican House leadership. Let me say though we did produce a bipartisan product. I hope our work will serve as a foundation for a bipartisan solution to be agreed to today. Today, others have said it, is a sad day. I think it is a tragic day. Here in the House of Representatives we will sanction a sitting Speaker for the first time. It is an unwelcome task to pass judgment on any of our colleagues, but we have a responsibility to uphold ethical standards called for in the rules and expected by the American people. I associate myself with the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin's, remarks about the process. We should not have to choose to make the American people aware of either the hearing, a full hearing, or the report. But since we have a report, I urge everyone to read it. I think it is very instructive and gives lie to many of the mischaracterizations that have been made about the violations that the committee charged Mr. Gingrich with and those which he admitted to. The last few weeks have been dreadful. But we have an opportunity to say today to the American people that when we come to Washington, we do not check our integrity at the beltway, and that power is not a license to ignore ethical standards. We also have an opportunity to tell the American people that sanity can reign in the Congress by demonstrating our ability to agree and disagree in a respectful way. The American people gave us the privilege to serve; they expect us not only to make the laws and to obey the laws, but also to live up to a high ethical standard. So today we are here to address the failure of Speaker Gingrich with regard to the laws governing charitable contributions and GOPAC, and his failure to respond accurately and reliably to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I would like to just take a moment to refer to the book, because as I asked people to read it, I want to point out the statement of alleged violations which was originally set forth by the special counsel. This is on page 155. Based on the information described above, the special counsel proposed a statement of alleged violations to the subcommittee on December 12. The statement of alleged violations contained 3 counts: Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW and ACTV, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's status under section 501(c)(3). Second, Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and other activities in that regard, with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of those organizations' status under 501(c)(3). And, third, Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee, directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. These were not the alleged violations that were passed out at the committee because we did not come to agreement on them, but they are the original allegations by the special counsel. I think everyone is well aware that we have charged the Speaker in our statement of alleged violations that he did not ensure that the law was complied to in his activities, and that he gave information to the committee that was not accurate. Think how much easier it would be if we could all use the 501(c)(3), not consult a lawyer, and build our political agenda around tax deductible considerations. The American people in their generosity give the opportunity to charitable institutions to do charitable work. That does not include subsidizing our political activity. At the grassroots level we have always had to comply with the law in relationship to political activity and 501(c)(3). If we have to do it at the grassroots level, so should the Speaker of the House. As the counsel mentions in his statement, some members of the committee and the special counsel were in favor, as I mentioned before, of the original proposal. After much deliberation, all four of us could agree on a statement of alleged violations that despite, in quotes, ``Despite significant and substantial warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not seek the legal advice to ensure that his conduct conformed with the provisions of 501(c)(3),'' with the law. Why did he not? Why did he not? Either because Speaker Gingrich knew what the answer would be no, from an attorney, ``No, you cannot do this,'' or he was reckless in conforming with the law. The committee decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Speaker Gingrich's conduct was improper, did not reflect credibly on the House, and was deserving of sanction, serious sanction, and Speaker Gingrich agreed. The next issue in my view is the most serious, that of not dealing honestly with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is interesting to me that Speaker Gingrich has repeatedly stated that ethics are important to him. Why, then, did he say that he was too busy to respond to the committee accurately? Again, either he was trying to get complaints dismissed and an accurate answer would not achieve that end, or that ethics were not important enough for him to take the necessary time. As our colleague, Mr. Cardin, has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich gave one answer in the earlier letter in order to respond to a complaint regarding use of official resources for his course, so he said GOPAC did it. Then when we asked the question if GOPAC and 501(c)(3) cannot be that cozy, then he said GOPAC did not do it; and then in the third communication to the committee, he stood by his previous letters. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] prefers to call it a comedy of errors. I think it is violating our trust that we have among Members. Every day that we speak to each other in this House, we refer to each other as the gentleman from Georgia, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman from Maryland. We trust each other that we will deal truthfully with each other. Unfortunately, in terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the committee on a number of occasions, and in his violation of the agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that Mr. Gingrich, in his dealings with the committee, is not to be believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different answers not because it was a comedy of errors, but because he thought he would get away with it. I was particularly concerned about the ``too busy'' defense. We cannot say that ethics is important to us and then say we are too busy to answer the central question asked by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Maintaining a high ethical standard is a decision, and it requires making it a priority. It is not just something we do when we are not too busy. We expect the Speaker of the House to be busy. We also expect the Speaker of the House to be ethical. Speaker Gingrich himself has stated that the Speaker must be held to a higher standard. I do not put any additional burden on the Speaker. I think all Members of Congress should be held to a higher ethical standard. When new Members arrive in Congress, one of the first documents they receive is the House Ethics Manual. And one of the first responsibilities impressed upon all of us is to uphold a high ethical standard. Clearly, Speaker Gingrich did not live up to his own professed ethical standards of the House, and, indeed, to the ethical standards in this book. I urge my colleagues to read this report. I think when you do, you will see that it gives lie to the mis characterizations of our Republican colleagues that the violations were nothing, or that they were like trespassing or double parking. Either our colleagues were ill-informed, and that is what I choose to believe, or they have a cavalier regard for the tragedy of the Speaker admitting bringing discredit to the House of Representatives which he wants to lead. Now we come to the penalty. As you know, we have a financial penalty because we believe that the inaccurate statements that the Speaker said to us prolonged the process. There are other reasons why there is a financial penalty, but that was one of them. And the subcommittee concluded, and I quote, ``that because these inaccurate statements were provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount of money in order to determine the facts.'' So I urge our colleagues, in light of all of that, to support the bipartisan recommendation of the committee. The $300,000 penalty I believe speaks eloquently to the American people, who may not know the weight of one of our sanctions or another, but they understand $300,000. And I hope that this money will not come from the Speaker's political campaign funds, because I think that will increase the cynicism of the American people about what goes on here in Washington. Whether the Speaker remains Speaker is up to the Republicans. He is technically eligible. I hope you will make a judgment as to whether he is ethically fit.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, very quickly I want to make two points. Our colleagues have talked about this not being about financial gain to the Speaker. Indeed that was not our charge to the committee to find that, and we did indeed not find it. But this was about power, so when we talk about high ethical standard, it is not just about money; it is about what Members will do for power. The second point is, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] alluded to other penalties for other violations of House rules. Those cases were brought to conclusion. Mr. Gingrich admitted to these charges, thereby freezing the record. We could possibly prove intent if we had the full process gone through. So I want to make that distinction.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise as a member of the special investigative committee of the Ethics Subcommittee on this unfortunate case that we are looking into, and I rise in support of the motion to recommit. There are many areas where I might have some disagreement with the rules package, but I am very pleased that the Democratic leadership has given us an opportunity to present the motion to recommit around the timetable. With all respect in the world for our colleagues, and that means every single colleague in this House of Representatives, I believe that we need to heed the request of the special counsel for an additional amount of time for a few reasons. First of all, and I say this without questioning the motivation of anyone on either side of the aisle about why the rules are in the package the way they are, the simple fact is that the special counsel, and by unanimous vote of the subcommittee, two Democrats and two Republicans, supporting the timetable that the special counsel has put forth, are making this request. And I believe that the burden is on those who would deny the special counsel that extended time. Why do we need more time? Several things have happened that have not been addressed here yet, or forgive me if I have not heard them. I would like to associate myself with those remarks. First of all, one of the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has decided to leave the committee, so it required the appointment of a new committee member who has to become familiarized with the facts in the case, because this is a facts-driven, facts-based case. And without going into any of the material aspects of it or any of the substance of this case, but only to process and only to time, I thought I would never see the day when the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would come to the floor and say that she would turn down the request of the special counsel to the committee for a couple more weeks to complete the work of the committee. I say that very regrettably. On our subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Porter Goss, and with two Democrats and two Republicans, we have worked in a very bipartisan fashion all along and continue to in supporting the request of the special counsel. I do not and never did think it was appropriate to have a vote on this important matter on Inauguration Day. Do my colleagues think that vote is going to take place without any debate? That would not be right. So I say to my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and I say this with the highest regard for the distinguished majority leader, not impugning any of his motives in this or anyone else on either side of the aisle, whatever we think about the resolution of the case, I think we must agree that if the special counsel says he needs a couple more weeks, we must give him those weeks unless we can prove why that should not happen. The burden of proof is with those who would vote against the special counsel. Mr. Speaker, I also want to make another point as to why more time is necessary. Because of a flurry of accusations and representations about the confidential work of the subcommittee that came out, it required us to go down another tangent to deal with that, and it necessitated a statement by the special counsel that the reports that were floating out there were inaccurate. So in 1 week the special counsel has had to deem those rumors inaccurate and come out with his own statement asking for more time, in which he says each member of the subcommittee has carefully considered this recommended schedule and agrees it is the best course on which to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to commit.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, for years, some of us have had serious questions about the Army's School of the Americas and its connection to some of the worst human rights violators in our hemisphere. Last weekend, information released by the Pentagon confirmed our worst suspicions: U.S. Army intelligence manuals, distributed to thousands of military officers throughout Latin America, promoted the use of executions, torture, blackmail, and other forms of coercion. We now have concrete proof of what we had suspected. For almost 10 years, U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to promote an approach that advocates using, and I quote, ``fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, beatings, false imprisonment, executions, and the use of truth serum.'' What is the official Department of Defense explanation for promoting the routine abuse of human rights? Bureaucratic oversight. Again I quote, the ``use (of this material) since 1982 evaded the established system of doctrinal controls'' according to a 1992 investigation. Mr. Speaker, the enormity of this ``bureaucratic oversight'' and its contribution to a climate of terror, persecution, injustice, and civil war in this hemisphere is difficult to comprehend. What is not difficult to comprehend is that we should put an end to this tragic chapter by closing the Army School of the Americas. Americans don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent promoting human rights abuses and terror.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time and I want to join with our colleagues in commending him for his leadership in helping to, once again I say in relationship to this bill, hammering out a compromise or a continuing resolution. I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee, for his leadership, his cooperation, and his patience. I wanted to mention one provision in the bill that I was particularly pleased survived the process and that is the addition of $100 million for the ADP program, the AIDS drug program, that provides some of the new therapies, the proteus inhibitors to people with HIV and AIDS. This $100 million is a very good investment because it will result in a savings to the taxpayer, but, more importantly, it will improve the quality of life and prolong life for people with HIV and AIDS. It will enable them to continue to work, to produce revenues for the Federal Government. So in speaking to it just on strictly fiscal terms, it is a good investment. It is a dynamic investment in that it will save money but, more importantly, as I say, it improves the quality of life. What will happen with the $100 million, I hope, is that half of it will be spent for the drugs themselves and the other half for the primary care necessary to provide the drugs to patients. Now that these proteus inhibitors are there, people have hope. Many more people are coming forward and being tested or seeking care because they know there is an answer. And those people need the primary care that goes with going on to a new protocol, a new drug program. Mr. Speaker, this is about wise spending. More importantly it is about giving hope. It is protecting the investment that the American taxpayers have made of billions of dollars into research for AIDS research. Now that we have found some encouraging therapies, it is important to make them available to everyone regardless of the ability to pay.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted that the Presidio bill, which has been on the floor over and over again, is finally, hopefully, going to become law. I am glad it is such a strong engine to bring some other things along. It was said about the Presidio in its life as an Army base that a shot was never fired in anger from the Presidio, or at the Presidio. As much as I thought we would come close, that seems to be true about the Presidio legislation again, thanks to the calm nature of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, too, want to join my colleagues in commending the leadership of the committee for the bipartisan cooperation and effort that has been made to bring this legislation to the floor. To say that our differences have been hammered out is probably a good word to use, but they have and we are here. I want to particularly acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman of Alaska, Chairman Young, and the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Hansen, as well as the gentleman from California, George Miller, our champion for the Presidio. Of course we would not be here today without the full cooperation of the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Ralph Regula, and the gentleman from Illinois, Sid Yates, the ranking member. I am grateful to them for all of their assistance in keeping the Presido going so that we this day can cross over a point where we reduce the cost to the taxpayer. I also want to state that the support for the Presidio as it is bipartisan, it is bicameral and we have a great deal of support in the other body under the leadership of two great Senators, Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein. In our community the support is bipartisan as well. One of our strongest and most staunch supporters, unfortunately, will not be able to enjoy this day with us. His name is Jim Harvey, a former chairman of the board of the TransAmerica Corporation, who died in early June. Jim was largely responsible for creating the Presidio council in 1991 which organized national support and philanthropic as well as pro bono donations to the Presidio as a national park. I will for the record, Mr. Speaker, present some of the accomplishments of Jim Harvey. I just want to say that it is as though Jim Harvey truly appreciated what Thoreau asserted many years ago: Goodness is the only investment that never fails. Jim Harvey was a good man. He will be pleased with our progress today. This legislation is important in terms of the Presidio as it recognizes the Presidio's worth as a national park as well as the need to streamline the management into a cost-effective structure for the American taxpayer. The Presidio trust brings a new approach to the Presidio that incorporates the best of the National Park Service and the best at real estate management into an alliance that will realize the best of the Presidio. Under this trust we will be able to give maximum access to the American people to enjoy the Presidio as a national park with minimum cost to the American taxpayer. The most eloquent spokesperson for the Presidio is the Presidio itself. So I hope that all of our colleagues will visit to see its magnificent scenic beauty, enjoy the military history and, for the history buffs here, also the great environmental worth that the Presidio has. Passing the Presidio trust bill as part of this omnibus bill is not the final act, but does open the curtain to a wonderful production that we can all be proud of. Phillip Burton's legacy lives on. The gentleman, Mr. Hansen, recognized the goal of Phillip Burton in authorizing the Presidio as a national park. I feel as the person who serves in Congress in Phillip Burton's seat that we have a responsibility to Phillip's legacy to make this a great national park. In doing so, and in closing, I want to acknowledge the work of Judy Lemons of my staff. Many staff people worked very, very hard on this. But Judy was present at the birth of Golden Gate national recreation area of which the Presidio will become a part. She has worked every day to preserve the integrity of the Presidio as a national park. This victory today is a triumph for Judy Lemons. I want to thank Judy and to all who have been faithful to the effort and part of our success today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great privilege to rise in support of this resolution and commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member as well as the author of the resolution for bringing it to the floor tonight, because in honoring Ted Weiss by naming this courthouse in his honor, we bring honor to the House of Representatives. Anyone who served in this House with Ted Weiss knows that on a daily basis he brought dignity to his service here and as he challenged the conscience of our country. Many of us were close friends of Ted's and had a regular dinner group, and so we miss him not only as a colleague but as a precious and dear friend. I had the special privilege of speaking at Ted's service. It was a shock to us when Ted passed away. So it was remarkable to see that in 2 days, it was actually the day after the primary election in New York, and all of the New York politicos were out in full force to see this funeral, the cross section, the rich, the poor, in a synagogue in midtown Manhattan. Harry Belafonte spoke and sang. Have you ever been in a temple where they sing ``Amazing Grace''? This was Ted Weiss, he was ecumenical, and he had a sense of humor. His beautiful sons spoke so lovingly of their father, and his loving wife, Sonny Weiss, helped us all through our grief. But why I mention his service was, I remember the lasting impression on me was that, there was Ted Weiss, this champion of the First Amendment, this super-patriot of defending our Constitution every single day of his public service, and especially in the Congress of the United States, there he was, wrapped in the flag, and I thought, how appropriate. I cannot think of anyone who deserves more to be wrapped in the flag for his defense of the Constitution and his great patriotism. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] mentioned that the Weiss family came here March 5, 1938. Many of us were in service here in the House on March 5, 1988, and will never forget how he rose that day to speak with great pride of his family coming to America 50 years before, that was obviously the 50-year anniversary, and how lovingly and how proudly he spoke of what America meant to the Weiss family and to this little boy fleeing tyranny and coming to America. Maybe perhaps more than some of us who have never had to flee tyranny, he appreciated what America means to the world and to its citizens and, as I say, deserved as much as anyone I can think of to be draped in the American flag. And so in that spirit, I again, with the greatest appreciation, commend all of those who have taken part in bringing this resolution to the floor. As I said before, in honoring Ted Weiss, we honor this House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the situation in East Timor, which was invaded and occupied by the Indonesian Government in 1975, has been of increasing concern to Americans in recent years. Five years ago, on November 12, 1991, in full view of a British television journalist, Indonesian troops opened fire on thousands of predominantly young East Timorese at a church cemetery. The Santa Cruz massacre became known throughout the world as a result of this shocking televised film. Now, nearly 5 years later, the Timor situation still cries out for a solution. One heroic figure in the midst of this grim tragedy is Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in East Timor. At the time of the Santa Cruz massacre, Bishop Belo helped hundreds of young East Timorese avert a violent end. To this day, Bishop Belo continues to work tirelessly to defend his people. Bishop Belo deserves our strong support for his efforts to defend human rights and to promote a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the tragic Santa Cruz massacre, I hope the administration will encourage the release of all East Timorese prisoners still being held in connection with the Santa Cruz events. Such a gesture of reconciliation would be in keeping with the portion on Humanitarianism of Indonesia's state philosophy, the Panca Sila. It would also be in keeping with Bishop Belo's extraordinary work for peace and human rights. The United States Catholic Conference, the public policy unit of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, has long taken a strong interest in East Timor. In 1994, the Catholic Conference issued a statement of solidarity with the East Timor Church. This statement is still relevant today. I request that the Bishops' statement be published in the Record and urge my colleagues to read it. Statement on East Timor (By Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, Chairman) Small nations oppressed by larger neighbors often draw sympathetic responses from the world community, but seldom has a population as small, and as distant from us, as East Timor held our attention as that tiny community continues to do. A population of some 650,000 Timorese has, for almost twenty years, lived under the control, and the abusive, harsh and often violent treatment, of their Indonesian military overseers. These people have survived the brutal invasion of December 7, 1975 and the subsequent policies which have been described by serious observers as nearly genocidal. More than 100,000 people--some estimates are much higher--perished in the early years as a direct result of Indonesian military rule. The massacre of unarmed and non-violent demonstrators at the Santa Cruz cemetery on November 12, 1991, captured in horrifying detail on film by a foreign filmmaker, is now etched in the consciousness of many. Repressive policies and actions directed especially against the young people of East Timor, and often against the Catholic church there, are a continuing reality. We admire the people of East Timor for their bravery, their suffering and their determination to preserve their culture against overwhelming odds, but we also feel the special bond with them that comes from our shared Catholic faith. The Church of East Timor, led by Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, S.D.B., has become a source of hope and encouragement for all the people. It is instructive to note that, during the 400 years of Portuguese colonial rule, Catholics remained a relatively small minority among the largely animist population, whereas today over 90% of all East Timor is now Catholic. It is surely a testament to the fidelity of that local church to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the church's commitment to the defense of human rights and the dignity of every person. East Timor continues to pose a political challenge to the community of nations. It presents a set of conflicting interests and rights not unlike other situations in the world today. Some of these areas of conflict, as in South Africa, the Middle East, and Central America, have witnessed extraordinary breakthroughs in just the last years; others, as in the Balkans and parts of Africa, remain apparently intractable. East Timor, it seems to us, represents a far less thorny problem than many others; it is a problem that can and should be solved. The mechanism that is already in place, namely the ministerial meetings between the governments of Indonesia and Portugal under the auspices of the United Nations, is the appropriate vehicle to advance the negotiations. Ever since 1983, the U.N. Secretary General has been entrusted with the task of finding a settlement to the dispute. The recent meetings, held in Rome and New York last year and in Geneva this May, thus far without participation of Timorese representatives, appear not to be moved by a sense of urgency. It seems appropriate for the Secretary General to press for more vigorous action to come from these meetings, and we urge him to do so. The United States and Indonesia are very important partners of one another. We recognize that our government has made a number of useful overtures to Jakarta concerning East Timor, for which we are grateful. We urge, however, that new initiatives be undertaken, to encourage both the resolution of the political crisis and full compliance on issues of human rights. We recognize that differing proposals for resolving the region's status may exist among the people, some apparently favoring annexation, others full independence, and the rest calling for a process that would eventually lead to a referendum determining the relationship. Prior to any political resolution, however, all can agree that there must be an end to the kind of political and even religious persecution and violation of human rights that continue to plague that tortured community. A year ago, Pope John Pall II expressed to the Indonesian foreign minister his wish that new talks on the future of East Timor might promote ``the well-being of that people in respect of their rights and cultural and religious traditions.'' We invite our Catholic people to pray for the well-being of our Timorese brothers and sisters, that they may continue to grow in their rich cultural and religious traditions, free of outside pressures and coercion. And we express our fraternal solidarity with Bishop Belo and all the church of Dili, asking God's blessing on their ministry to the people of East Timor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for giving me this time today and for his leadership, as well as that of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. While we do not always agree on many of the issues before the committee, I do want to associate myself with the comments that went before regarding the investigation of the potential drug Contra crack cocaine into the United States and especially into the African-American community. Before I go into that, though, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], that he made on the declassification issue and on the environmental issues related to the resources of the intelligence community and to thank him for his leadership on those two scores, as well as others, that come before our committee. They are both very important, and in the interest of time I will just associate myself with his remarks and spend my time on the issue of the crack cocaine. I think it is perfectly appropriate that we have the exchange that we have had. Certainly we do not want to just make accusations, we want to see what is real about them in order for us to keep faith with the American people, with the intelligence community, and as my colleagues know, that is a big order. I would just like to say that when I first came to Congress, which was 9 years ago, shortly thereafter we had a conference in our community, headed up by Dr. Cecil Williams of the Glide memorial to see why we had this epidemic of crack cocaine among African-American women. There were those in the African-American community who thought, and others of us who shared their view, that there was an attempt to target these women as well as targeting the African-American family. It seemed like an act of the devil, and I had hoped that it was not true, and I still do hope that it is not true. So that is why when the articles came out in the newspaper and we heard other rumors of this, it rang true, it related to something, and hopefully again it is not true, but it does beg the question. If the Central Intelligence Agency was not involved, and let us hope they were not, did they know that the Contras were involved in drug trafficking at a time when the United States was funding the Contras? If they did not know, if the Central Intelligence Agency did not know that the Contras were engaged in drug trafficking to get money, why did they not know? Is it not the business of the Central Intelligence Agency? So while I respect the first response that we have received from Director Deutch, whom I hold in high regard, I do think that we have to look into this, and that is why I was so pleased to hear our chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], respond to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] that the subpoena powers would be available; that is my understanding, and that I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] for her leadership and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] for speaking out on this issue. But we are at a crossroads. Much has been said about the end of the cold war and the rest. We are at a crossroads now where we look at the intelligence community and say why are we committing x number of billions of dollars in resources to this? Why is it justified? And there has to be a justification in this stiff competition for the dollar. At the same time, we have to have confidence We want our President, whoever that President is, to have the best possible intelligence to help make his decisions to help make the world a safer place. We do not want to see us going into a place where intelligence funding is justified by economic espionage or other things that are not appropriate to it; those that are appropriate in the realm of the economy, sure, but not just across the board. And at this very time we have this very serious question about the integrity of the intelligence community in the past decade, of the CIA in the past decade, at a time where this Congress was divided in a way that new Members have not even seen the likes of. So I want to associate myself with those, especially the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], who have expressed grave concern about this issue and again leave on the table the question if this did occur, let us find out, and if it was occurring, this transfer, the sale of crack cocaine for money for the Contras was taking place, and the CIA did not know about it, why did they not know about it?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and say that I completely agree with him that we should not be taking at face value anything we read in the newspaper, especially something of this gravity. However, we do need to look beyond the headlines. I do not take him to say anything other than that. I wanted to make one more point. In our Committee on Appropriations last week we had a big item for interdiction, hundreds of millions of dollars we spent for interdiction. We are spending that on the intelligence community to keep drugs out of the United States, and at the same time we do not know, we might not know about one very, very egregious example of drugs coming in which we should have been aware of, that we may have been party to. I think it is a very serious issue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her leadership and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and to the veto override of H.R. 1833. I believe it is unconstitutional and interferes directly with the practice of medicine. It is an unwarranted and unneeded government intrusion into medicine and into the family. The bill destroys the family's right to face a devastating circumstance with safety and dignity. But don't listen to me. I think that nothing speaks more eloquently to this issue than the voice of some of the families who have been through these very, very sad circumstances. Many women who have undergone this procedure have bravely shared their stories with Members of Congress and the country, because of their great fear that other women facing tragic circumstances late in pregnancy will not have access to the safest possible procedures. One such women is Vikki Stella, whose beautiful family is shown here. Vikki writes that her husband Archer and she live in Illinois, in a western suburb of Chicago. They have three children, Lindsay, Natalie, and Nicholas. A little less than 2 years ago Vikki had a procedure that this legislation would ban. She was in the third trimester of pregnancy for a much-wanted son. She was diabetic and therefore her health was of particular concern. During the pregnancy she had to inject herself many times a day with insulin, et cetera. She had prenatal tests showing her pregnancy was normal, but at 32 weeks she says her world was turned upside down. She went in for another ultrasound which found grave problems that had not been detected before. ``Ultimately,'' she said, ``my son was diagnosed with at least nine major anomalies that included a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all.'' Vikki said never in the lives of her family would they have imagined a disaster like this could happen to them. Their options were extremely limited because of her diabetic situation. A C-section or a normal labor were not options available to her without having potentially severe health consequences. The best option was a highly specialized surgical abortion procedure developed for women with similar difficult conditions, called an intact D&E. ``This procedure was gentle,'' says Vikki. ``Our baby was delivered intact. We held him in our arms and said our goodbyes. We named him Anthony.'' Losing Anthony was a great tragedy for her, which she so generously, the Stella family has so generously shared with this Congress so that other women will have the best possible options available to them. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Vikki Stella referred to above: July 29, 1996. Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: My name is Vikki Stella. My husband Archer and I live in Naperville, Illinois, in the western suburbs of Chicago. We have three children, Lindsay, who is twelve; Natalie, who is seven; and Nicholas Archer, who is seven months old. I am one of the women who stood with President Clinton as he vetoed H.R. 1833, the so-called ``Partial Birth Abortion'' Ban Act. A little less than two years ago I had a procedure that the legislation would ban. I was in my third trimester of pregnancy with a much-wanted son. I am diabetic and, therefore, my health is of particular concern. During the pregnancy, I injected myself twice a day with insulin and checked my blood sugars eight times a day by pricking my finger and using a glucose meter. I had more prenatal tests than most women including an amniocentesis and five ultrasounds. Our doctor had pronounced my pregnancy ``disgustingly normal.'' But then at 32 weeks, our world turned upside-down. I went in for another ultrasound, which found grave problems that had not been detected before. Ultimately, my son was diagnosed with at least nine major anomalies: these included a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all; compacted, flattened vertebrae; congenital hip dysplasia; skeletal dysplasia; and hypertoloric eyes. He would never have survived outside my womb. Never in our lives had we imagined that a disaster like this could happen to us. We went home to our house in Naperville, to the bedroom prepared for out little boy--tiny clothes folded, crib assembled, walls painted--and we cried. Our options were extremely limited because of my diabetes: I don't heal as well as other people so waiting for normal labor to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would have had potentially severe health consequences for me. The best option was a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed for women with similar difficult conditions called an intact D&E. The procedure was gentle and our baby boy was delivered intact. We held him and said our goodbyes. We named him Anthony. Losing Anthony was the most difficult thing we have gone through. When I was asked to come to Washington to share this personal grief, I agonized over the decision to come forward. This is not an easy story to tell. It's very private and very painful. But I know there will be other women after me who will need this procedure. Contrary to the image that is portrayed by supporters of this bill, we are not mothers who want ``perfect babies'' or mothers who are having third- trimester abortions because of cleft palates and missing fingers. Well, yes, Anthony had a cleft palate. I wish to God that was his only problem! He wasn't just imperfect--his anomalies were incompatible with life. The only thing that was keeping him alive was my body. He could never have survived outside my womb, so I did the kindest thing, the most loving thing I know to do. I took my son off life support. When I went to Washington to tell Congress the truth about this procedure, my oldest daughter asked me why I was going. I told her that I was going because of Anthony. Lindsay who was eleven at the time and very smart for her age, wanted to know why I had to go to Washington because her baby brother died. So I told her the whole story. When I finished she looked up at me with her great big eyes and said, without hesitation, ``Mommy, you did the right thing.'' It's a sad thing when an eleven-year-old is wiser than some Members of Congress. Fortunately President Clinton listened to my story and the stories of families like mine and the tragedies we faced. He took the time to meet with me and hear how important it was for me to have the compassionate procedure. Holding Nicky in his arms, the President understood that that beautiful baby boy would not have been possible if it were not for the safety of the surgical procedure that protected my reproductive health. Please stand with the President and vote to sustain his veto. Sincerely, Vikki Stella, Naperville, Illinois.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in acknowledging the contribution of my good friend, Tom Bevill, our esteemed colleague has provided such great leadership as chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and in this Congress as our distinguished ranking member. He will always be ``Mr. Chairman.'' Mr. Tom Bevill was elected to this body more than 30 years ago and has proudly represented his constituents in Alabama. The Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway is a monument to Chairman Bevill's work. This barge canal stretches from North Alabama to the Gulf of Mexico and a lock and dam on the canal bear the chairman's name. He has fought Presidents in both parties to secure important development projects and has stood with Members from both sides of the aisle to work to move this country toward the 21st century. I am proud to have served with Tom. He is an example for us all. Tom has always advanced a bipartisan agenda, and looked at the merits of water projects regardless of party. As chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Congressman Bevill boasted that he had never brought a bill to the floor without the full consent and support of then ranking member Myers. I am proud to see that his example has extended to this Congress, and I commend him and the example he has set. His bipartisan spirit has created a model for committee efficiency and has crated lasting water projects as its legacy. Chairman Bevill has also been a strong advocate of important water projects in the San Francisco Bay area. His strong support of the San Francisco Bay has provided funds for dredging, erosion control programs and general maintenance. He has supported the Sacramento River Winter- Run Chinook Salmon Program and provided funds for a long-term planning strategy for the San Francisco Bay. His efforts resulted in the important San Francisco breakwater that protects the city shoreline from the ravages of storms. His support will long be remembered by many in San Francisco. The House of Representatives will miss Chairman Bevill. He is a friend, an example and a leader to all of us. I wish him well in his retirement. He will be missed but always remembered for his extraordinary leadership in this House.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Edgar Wayburn, legendary champion of the environment and human health, celebrates his 90th birthday on September 17. His 90 years represent a lifetime of commitment to the causes of protecting the environment and promoting human health throughout the world. Dr. Wayburn is an example to all of us. For more than five decades, Dr. Wayburn was a dedicated physician who worked to improve the human condition, as well as the environmental condition of our planet. His interest in the environment stemmed from his work as a physician who recognized the effects of a degraded environment on human health. In addition to the many public lands issues that Dr. Wayburn has championed, he has also fought for clean air and a curb on cigarette smoking long before the general public became educated about the dangers. The world we live in today is better because of the efforts of Dr. Wayburn. To Peggy Wayburn, our special thanks for her contribution to these many challenges and successes; we appreciate the long hours, hard work, and special role Peggy has played on the Wayburn family team. Dr. Wayburn and his wife Peggy were captured by the unique beauty of the Alaska landscape on their first visit almost 30 years ago. That first visit was followed by hundreds more and the successful campaign to create the Alaska Lands Act, the largest public lands bill in the history of the Congress. Today, 104 million acres remain wild largely because of that first visit made to Alaska by the Wayburns. In California, Dr. Wayburn fought to preserve one of America's premier ancient forests, Redwood National Park. He fought alongside Congressman Phillip Burton to achieve this important goal which resulted in the addition of 58,000 acres to the park in 1978. Today, these redwood giants have a permanent home in their coastal preserve which has also become a world heritage site and biosphere reserve. Closer to home, in San Francisco, Dr. Wayburn demonstrated the same outstanding leadership in the effort to preserve at the national level that we now call the Golden Gate National Recreation Area [GGNRA]. These early and insightful efforts led to the now-famous collaboration with Amy Meyer and Phillip Burton in establishing the almost-continuous greenbelt from Point Reyes National Seashore south along the Pacific coast to Sweeney Ridge. The notion of an urban national park was an unfamiliar concept to the National Park Service and to the Congress in the late 1960's. Through Dr. Wayburn's endeavors and the lasting partnership with Amy, along with the commitment of the local community, environmentalists and Phillip Burton, the GGNRA found a protected home as a unit of the national park system in 1972. Today, the GGNRA is the most visited park in the national system, with over 22 million visitors each year. The efforts of Dr. Wayburn, Amy Meyer, and many others in the San Francisco community, have also contributed to the success of the Presidio and the Presidio Trust legislation in Congress. The GGNRA stands as a monument, in the National Park System and in our community, to the important work and tenacity of citizen leaders who dream, who struggle and who see their dreams come true. It took only a small spark, but the flame will burn forever. Throughout the world, Dr. Wayburn has initiated environmental missions on behalf of protecting forests, lands and waters in the name of preservation and in the name of Earth's future inhabitants. Our grandchildren will not know Dr. Wayburn, but his work will be known through the magnificent landscapes that abound because of his monumental efforts. Dr. Wayburn's selfless and tireless efforts, seen wherever he touched our Earth, will stand as a lasting monument to his vision and to his achievement. Dr. Wayburn has been the recipient of several awards to honor his accomplishments in the fields of environment and health: the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism from Johns Hopkins University, election to Global 500 of the U.N. Environmental Program, the Starker Leopold Award by the Nature Conservancy, and the John Muir Award by the Sierra Club. Thank you, Dr. Wayburn and Peggy, for giving your lives to the important causes that have made this a better world for so many people. You will always be remembered by your friends in San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Mr. Stokes for presenting this motion to instruct conferees on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. As Members know, and others have attested to, the motion instructs the conferees to agree to three meritorious Senate provisions. The first is the Daschle amendment, which would authorize the VA to provide benefits to children born with spina bifida if one of the parents was exposed to agent orange during the Vietnam war. Spina bifida is a debilitating birth defect resulting when the fetus's spine fails to form properly. Fortunately, we can help improve the lives of the children involved, with the benefits. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important provision. The second provision is the Domenici-Wellstone amendment to begin the important process of increasing coverage for treatment of mental illnesses. This limited provision simply requires any group health insurance that covers mental illness to provide the same amounts on annual and lifetime coverage that the plan provides for physical illness. Much more needs to be done to ensure equity for coverage for mental illness, but this is a good beginning. Anyone who has had mental illness in their families can attest to the importance of moving toward a more equitable insurance coverage. The pain caused by mental illness is immense. The loss to productivity is staggering. We need to do more, and we need to do it now. Next, I come to the third area, where Congress by this motion to instruct has the opportunity to end the shameful practice of drive- through deliveries. I feel most comfortable talking about this issue, I say proudly to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], as the mother of five children, and soon to be grandmother. I see the difference in how mothers were treated when they went to the hospital to have babies when I had my children, and what my daughter faces now, and many other young women face now. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen that we are privileged to serve with in this body should all listen to the women on this issue. When it comes to delivering babies, we know of what we speak. We have been there. We have done that. Twenty-four hours simply may not be enough in many cases. I have received a great deal of mail from my constituents on this subject, so I do not speak only from personal experience, but from the pleas of new mothers for more coverage. The Bradley amendment would require insurance companies to cover at least 48 hours of hospitalization for a conventional delivery and at least 96 hours for a cesarean section. In California 1 out of every 6 births are covered by insurers limiting coverage to 24 hours. This attempt to limit coverage is associated with increased complications requiring women to have to return to the hospital, so they are not saving any money. I will submit for the record an example which I have received from my constituent, as I urge my colleagues to give our babies a healthy start and our mothers a good start, too, on that wonderful adventure of motherhood and support the Stokes motion to instruct.