Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the amendment eliminating funding for AmeriCorps Presidio Leadership Center. The AmeriCorps Program reaps many benefits for local communities. The leadership center ensures that national service leaders administering national service programs receive quality training, leadership development, and environmental technical assistance to train corps members to provide services in communities such as tutoring and conflict resolution, environmental cleanup, and improving community service and other community services. The Presidio Leadership Center exclusively trains only individuals and program staff associated with the Corporation for National Service, program directors of Learn and Serve America, the National Senior Service Corps, and the AmeriCorps Program. While it may use training techniques developed by corporate trainers, the learning center does not conduct training for any corporate clients. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I may have to put some of my statement in the Record. I did want to say the cost for rental at the Presidio is 26 percent less than the current GSA approved rate for San Francisco. I would like to address the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], the author of the amendment, to say that so much confidence do people have in the Presidio Leadership Center that I would be willing to put on the record language that would say, provided further that the corporation shall submit to the subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations no later than 6 months from the date of enactment of this act a plan to ensure that the corporation will not directly operate the Presidio Leadership Center, that there would be an effort to privatize the funding of the Presidio Leadership Center and the corporation would no longer be operating it. Would the gentleman be receptive to that idea?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join with our colleagues in commending the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and other authors and sponsors of this amendment in bringing this to the floor. I commend them, because this important amendment is to increase by $15 million the funding for the critically important Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS Program. As one of the original authors along with the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] of the legislation establishing the HOPWA Program, I am pleased to note the broad base of support which the program now has on both sides of the aisle. This supports the fact that HOPWA funds are working successfully in communities across the country helping to address the serious unmet housing needs of people with HIV-AIDS. I commend Chairman Lewis for including $171 million for HOPWA in this bill. I believe that we should provide additional funding for HOPWA and I am pleased with the leadership of our colleague from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, and his assistance on this issue, because this program makes a positive difference in the lives of people with HIV-AIDS and for the communities which are struggling to address the AIDS epidemic. The additional $15 million in this amendment is a relatively small amount which will have a large effect. This funding will return HOPWA to the prerescission fiscal year 1996 funding level. I have some more facts and figures which I will place in the Record. In our community in San Francisco, these funds are desperately needed. In fact, Peter Claver House, which was a hospice which took care of people with HIV-AIDS who were homeless or in danger of becoming homeless, was a model for this program. In our city of San Francisco alone there are 3,000 low-income people with HIV disease who are on a waiting list for assistance under this program. Imagine, 3,000 people on a waiting list. Nationwide at any given time one-third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of becoming homeless. Mr. Chairman, when you have HIV-AIDS, the last thing you need is stress to attack your immune system, and homelessness or the threat of homelessness is indeed a very stressful situation. Sixty percent of all people living with AIDS-HIV will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness due to an inability to work and associated loss of income, medical expenses, or illegal discrimination. Homelessness or the threat thereof places extreme stress on the healthiest of individuals. As I mentioned if you have HIV-AIDS, the stress can be life- threatening. I will place the rest of my statement in the Record, but I did want to say to our distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Lewis, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that the $15 million that is taken out of NASA as he knows comes out of a $60 million supplement to that bill which places it $60 million over the fiscal year 1996 funding. So I think that it will not be as missed in the NASA Program as it will be needed in the HOPWA Program. In that spirit, I once again commend the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for their great leadership on this, and would like to recognize the relentless advocacy of Lucy McKinney on behalf of people with HIV-AIDS and their housing needs.

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

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his very sensitive remarks about his caring for people with AIDS and HIV. I strongly support his statement about prevention being very, very important, because, of course, of what it means in the lives of individuals and from a practical standpoint here in what it means in terms of dollars saved not having to provide funding for care. But I do not want the gentleman to give the impression to our viewers when he said that there are some medications, some drugs that are available now that would prevent AIDS. I am sure the gentleman was referring to those protocols which would prolong life and improve the quality of life for people with AIDS-HIV. But, sad to say, our prayers have not been answered as far as a vaccine to prevent AIDS or HIV.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am encouraged in some respects, although I disagree in terms of his position against the increase in the HOPWA funds, but I do find some common ground with him. I hope that the gentleman's remarks are an indication that he will support the ADAP Program which calls for increased funding so that these new protocols and new drugs will be more widely available to people with HIV and AIDS to improve the quality of their life, to prolong life until there is a cure, because these protocols in many cases cost twice as much as the drugs available now and I do not think that the benefit of the research that the American people have spent billions of dollars on should be confined to only those wealthy enough to afford those drugs but would be more widely available to prolong life.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in mourning the passing Bill Emerson, the gentleman from Missouri, truly the gentleman from Missouri. We all talk about when we first got to know Bill, and I did in his work with Mickey LeLand on the Committee On Hunger. I was not a member. I wanted to be. The two of them were so enthusiastic, and is it not sad that we have lost both of them. Others have reminisced about when Mickey's plane went down and how Bill reacted to that and redoubled his already boundless efforts to end world hunger. We had a few chuckles over the fact that we were working together on disaster relief when of course everyone knows that we are earthquake prone in California and San Francisco, but when Missouri was identified as a potential site, again with all the gusto in the world, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] mentioned he launched into the disaster relief issue. I want to extend my sympathy to Jo Ann and the Emerson family. I hope it is a comfort to them that Bill is mourned by every single one of his colleagues, that this House that he dearly loved and served so well is diminished by our loss of Bill, and that all who know him pray for the family at this very difficult time. As has been mentioned, Bill was very concerned about his staff and we all are, too Bill. But I want to say that as has been mentioned, Bill was a person of faith. He was a man of faith. With that faith, he helped all of us here reinforce our own faith and be kinder to each other. In his work to end world hunger, Bill Emerson worked on the side of the angels, and now he is with them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Forest Service Salvage Timber Sale Program that was enacted in the rescissions bill. The timber rider has placed a for sale sign in front of our forest resources. The rider was an ill-conceived, destructive logging plan that has caused devastation to healthy timber and, in some cases, entire forests. The rider was not about selective logging, but logging that often affects a wide landscape of rivers, fish, and wildlife dependent on a forest for survival. Representative Furse is to be commended for her fight against this controversial, antienvironment rider. She has been steadfast in the battle and has successfully engaged the attention of over 100 Members in the House to cosponsor her rider-repeal bill. The indiscriminate scarring of our Nation's forests, some of them old growth, in the Northwest cannot be sustained. This is the same short- term thinking that brought us the clear-cutting solution years ago where entire mountains of forests were obliterated. We must approach forest management with a view of sustainability and longevity. Anything less than this will only result in further destruction of lands and habitats that, once lost, cannot be restored.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, soon we will be voting on the President's special request for a waiver for most-favored-nation status for China. I am here today to talk about one of the myths that has been circulated, and that is that most of the jobs that we are losing to China are low-technology jobs. Indeed, one of the greatest assaults on the American worker is being made right now with the transfer of technology to China. For example, Boeing used to make all of its tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, KS. Now, in the last couple of years, they have transferred the production of half of those tail sections to Xi'an, China, where workers make $50 a month on these high-technology jobs, thereby taking jobs from the American worker that are high- technology. In addition to that, if you wish to sell into the Chinese market, you must build a factory there and then turn over your technology plans to some institute there which then passes it around among the Chinese where you have now created your competitors. This is a very important issue, Mr. Speaker. If intellectual property is a $2 to $3 billion loss, this is over a $100 billion loss. It does harm to the American worker and steals America's economic future.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, as I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. In the interests of the gentleman's admonition for us to move on, I will eliminate some of my statement, but I do wish, in deleting my statement, that we will delete the Riggs rider in the Interior appropriations bill. The Headwaters Forest is very important, Mr. Chairman. It is home to the largest private growth of giant redwoods anywhere in the world, as well as home to the endangered marbled murrelet, as we have discussed. The critical habitat of the murrelet in the headwaters is an essential link between Redwood National Park and Humboldt Redwood State Park, where the murrelet also depends on old growth forest for survival. A few points on this. The great redwoods are a symbol of California's, indeed America's, magnificent natural wonders. Many of the trees are thousands of years old. They existed when Hannibal crossed the Alps. People come from all over the world to view these giant redwoods, and some of the trees would require many people to completely encircle them. They are truly natural wonders of the world. Mr. Chairman, I think this is important to the point that has been made earlier. Once, 2.1 million acres of dense coastal redwoods covered the coast from the Oregon border to Big Sur in California. Today, original redwood occupies only 3.9 percent, of this former range, and the 48,000 acres we are talking about today is a large part of that 3.9 percent. The ancient groves are interdependent and support numerous species. The Riggs amendment is a giant step forward in undoing the Endangered Species Act. The Riggs rider reduces protection of the marbled murrelet in northern California, and amounts to an outright assault on the Endangered Species Act, with the exclusive goal of protecting a major special interest that will gain financially from this rider. It sets a dangerous precedent for other species and for the Endangered Species Act by opening up areas once protected. As the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has stated, adequate recourse currently exists for private landowners to have their grievances about the Endangered Species Act and critical habitats addressed. The appropriate place for an endangered species amendment is in the authorizing process as the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has suggested he is pursuing. We have done enough damage to our old-growth and ancient forests without contributing further to their destruction. The Riggs rider would put the murrelet firmly on the road to extinction. If every Member of Congress sought to restrict coverage of the Endangered Species Act or circumvent its intent on a piecemeal basis, the ark would sink. The Dicks amendment places the public interest over individual economic gain. The marbled murrelet and the Headwaters Forest contribute greatly to the richness of our world and the natural heritage we will to future generations of Earth's inhabitants. Vote for the Dicks amendment to strike the Riggs rider from the bill. A vote against the Riggs rider is a vote for jobs, environmentally sound jobs. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to delete the Riggs rider in the Interior appropriations bill. The Headwaters Forest is home to the largest private grove of giant redwoods anywhere in the world as well as home to the endangered marbled murrelet. The critical habitat of the murrelet in headwaters is an essential link between Redwood National Park and Humboldt Redwood State Park where the murrelet also depends on old-growth forests for its survival. These great redwoods are a symbol of California's indeed America's magnificent natural wonders--many of the trees are thousands of years old. These trees existed when Hannibal crossed the Alps. People come from all over the world to view these great redwood giants; some of the trees would require many people to completely encircle them. They are truly natural wonders of the world. Once, 2.1 million acres of dense coastal redwoods covered the coast from the Oregon border to Big Sur in California. Today, original redwood occupies only 3.9 percent of this former range, according to field work and satellite mapping. And the 48,000 acres, last remaining redwoods make up a large part of that small percentage. The ancient groves are interdependent and support numerous species, many of which are endangered. It is the collective nature of species and their habitat that determine their preservation and survival. Endangered species, once listed as endangered, should not be victims of actions that restrict their environment and further endanger their status in nature. The marbled murrelet once numbered 60,000 in California and has been reduced to between 2,000 to 5,000 birds. The reduction in numbers is directly linked to intense commercial logging which has destroyed over 95 percent of the marbled murrelet's nesting areas. The Riggs rider is a giant step toward undoing the Endangered Species Act. The Riggs rider reduces protection of the marbled murrelet in northern California and amounts to an outright assault on the Endangered Species Act with the exclusive goal of protecting a major special interest that will gain financially from this rider. It sets a dangerous precedent for other species and for the Endangered Species Act by opening up areas, once protected, for timber harvesting. Under the bill, only 3,000 acres would be protected--the headwaters grove. As Mr. Dicks has stated, adequate recourse currently exists for private landowners to have their grievances about endangered species in critical habitats addressed. Section 10 of the act allows landowners to enter into long-term agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through habitat conservation plans. These plans allow landowners to secure some certainty on the use of their private property over a long- term, for as much as 100 years ahead. Critical habitat primarily seeks to protect enough area for the species to expand its range and recover to healthy population levels. Critical habitat designation and enforcement are crucial to the recovery of every listed species. The appropriate place for an endangered species amendment is in the authorizing process, not the appropriations process. We have done enough damage to our old-growth and ancient forests without contributing further to their destruction. The Riggs rider would put the murrelet firmly on the road to extinction. If every Member of Congress sought to restrict coverage of the Endangered Species Act or circumvent its intent on a piecemeal basis, the ark would sink. The Dicks amendment places the public interest over individual economic interest. The marbled murrelet and the Headwaters Forest contribute greatly to the richness of our world and the natural heritage we will to future generations of Earth's inhabitants. The world is a poorer place for the loss of a species. Vote for the Dicks amendment to strike the Riggs rider from the bill. A vote against the Riggs rider is a vote for jobs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman's original amendment was even more destructive than the way it was amended in committee because indeed he did not exempt the Headwaters Forest, these 3,000 acres. This perfecting amendment from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in his good intention to protect some of the acreage simply did not go far enough. The 3,000 acres does not begin to cover the area that needs to be protected. But I am pleased the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is pointing out that his original amendment was even more drastic.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation. These hate crimes against places of worship are simply intolerable and we in Congress must take quick and decisive action against these horrible acts of terrorism. While we are saddened by these tragedies we can take heart on the words of one of the ministers who said they have burned the building, but they haven't destroyed the church. I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hyde, its ranking member, Mr. Conyers, and all of my colleagues who are working together so effectively to see that this legislation is speedily passed in the hopes that the hatred that is rearing its ugly head will be stamped out. Yesterday, two more churches burned to the ground. Institutions of worship represent America's faith. Congress must give the Department of Justice the tools necessary to investigate, apprehend and prosecute those who destroy or desecrate religious property. Our religious liberty is at stake and people's lives are in danger. I join with my colleagues to act now to put out these fires of hatred and ignorance and to help with the healing of those in the communities affected.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of June the President asked for a special waiver in order to grant most-favored-nation status to China. The House will soon be taking up this vote. In the past, since the Tiananmen Square massacre, I have worked with our colleagues to try to shape a compromise measure. The actions on the part of the Chinese Government in terms of violation of trade proliferation and human rights have been so extreme that this year I am forced to vote no on MFN for China. In terms of trade, the Chinese want favorable trade treatment for their products coming into the United States while having huge barriers to United States products going to China, to the tune of one-third of their exports coming to the United States and only 2 percent of United States exports being allowed into China. In terms of proliferation, the Chinese are proliferating chemical, nuclear, and missile technologies to unsafe guarded countries like Iran and Pakistan, and all this money they earn from their missile sales and trade consolidates their power to allow them to continue to repress their people. Some will say that economic reform will lead to political reform. This has not been the case, even according to the Clinton administration's own country report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on June 3 President Clinton requested a special waiver to grant most-favored-nation trade status for China. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, I have worked with my colleagues to provide alternatives to denial of most-favored-nation status, including conditional renewal or targeting revocation. However, this year I will be voting to deny MFN to China and to deny the President's special request, because of the increased violations of our bilateral trade agreements, because of the increased repression in China and Tibet, and because of China's proliferation of weapons, chemical, nuclear, and advanced missile technology, to unsafeguarded countries including Pakistan and Iran. Mr. Speaker, while I know there is not a large enough vote in the Congress to override a Presidential veto, and the President would veto a motion to deny MFN, I do believe that a vote to support the status quo in United States-China relations is difficult to defend for several reasons. In the area of trade, China does not play by the rules. Despite the fact that over one-third of China's exports come into the United States and are sold in the United States markets, Chinese high-tariff and nontariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market for United States goods and services and hold our exports to only 2 percent of our exports into China--a third of China's exports allowed into the United States, only 2 percent of ours allowed into China. On a strictly trade-by-trade basis, China does not reciprocate the trade benefits we grant to them under MFN status. The result is a $34 billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. As we can see from this chart, only 10 years ago we were reasonably in balance with a $10 million trade deficit with China, and over the past 10 years the trade deficit has increased to just about $34 billion. Mr. Speaker, supporters of MFN will say that U.S. exports have tripled in the course of that time. They have, but Chinese exports to the United States have increased elevenfold, therefore resulting in this very extreme imbalance. The deficit is expected to exceed $41 billion in 1996, and does not include the economic loss of Chinese piracy of our intellectual property, which costs the United States economy over $2.5 billion each year. It does not include the loss to our economy on Chinese insistence on offsets, production and technology transfer, which hurt American workers and rob our economic future, and it does not include money gained by China in the illegal smuggling of AK-47s and other weapons into the United States by the Chinese military. Members will hear that trade with China is important for United States jobs. When President Clinton made his statement accompanying his request to renew MFN, he claimed new exports to China supported 170,000 American jobs. These jobs are very important. However, they must be seen in the larger context. Other trade relationships of comparable size, of, say, a $56 billion trade relationship, produce many, many more jobs because our trade relationship is more in balance. More of our exports are allowed into other countries' markets. Other trade relationships of comparable size to the China-United States trade relationship support at least twice as many jobs. For example, the United States-United Kingdom trade relationship totaling $2 billion less than the United States-China relationship supports 432,000 jobs. The trade is less but the number of jobs is well over 2 times. The United States-South Korea relationship is $8 billion less than the United States-China trade relationship. It supports 381,000 jobs, well over double the Chinese trade relationship. Why? Because of lack of market access for United States products into the Chinese marketplace. We must also be concerned about the harm to our economy of the technology transfer and production transfer which is accompanying United States investment in China and United States sales to China. The Chinese Government demands that companies wishing to obtain access to the Chinese market not only build factories there, so that the products are made in China, not in the United States, but that they also transfer state-of-the-art technology to do so. The Government then takes that technology, misappropriates it, the companies have little choice, because they want to access the market. We are helping the Chinese Government build our own competitors, using our state-of-the- art technology. Time does not permit me to go further, but more will come.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, Christopher Smith, held a hearing on most-favored-nation status for China and human rights in China. The purpose of the hearing was to take a measure of whatever progress might have occurred in China since our last review of most-favored-nation status. Today, many distinguished witnesses testified to who will give you documentation on the worsening state of human rights in China and Tibet. I commend them for their ongoing efforts to shine the public light on a terrible situation, for their continuing fight to assist those who promote freedom and basic human rights. Their expertise and in some cases their willingness to expose themselves, their friends, and families to danger in order to document the continuing egregious violations of human rights in China and Tibet is inspiring and I look forward to their presentations. It is important to note for the record that according to the State Department's own Annual Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995, as well as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Campaign for Tibet and other reputable independent human rights organizations, repression in China and Tibet continues. The State Department's own report documents the failure of constructive engagement to improve human rights in China, and notes that, The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade, and social mobility create an improved standard of living, they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms. It is clear that as the Beijing regime consolidates its power by increasing its foreign reserves through trade and the sale of weapons, China's authoritarian rulers are tightening their grip on freedom of speech, religion, press, and thought in China and Tibet. Today we hear comparatively little about those fighting for freedom in China not because they are all busy making money, but because they have been exiled, imprisoned, or otherwise silenced by China's Communist leaders. According to the State Department's report, ``by year's end almost all public dissent against the central authorities was silenced.'' We cannot allow this to continue. If they are not allowed to speak out for themselves, we must speak out on their behalf. We cannot forget the indomitable spirits of Wei Jingsheng, Bao Tong, Chen Ziming, Tong Yi, and the hundreds of thousands of others, known and unknown, who suffer under China's repressive regime. Our great country is ignoring the plight of China's pro-democracy activists. In the process, we are not only undermining freedom in China, but we are also losing our ability to speak out for freedom and human rights throughout the world. There is some reason for hope. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues here today an event held in San Francisco over the past weekend. Over 20 rock groups and other musical artists participated in a 2 day Tibetan Freedom concert to bring attention to the plight of the people of Tibet. Organized by the Milarepa Fund and the Beastie Boys, this concert was attended by over 100,000 young people who can take the message about Tibet to communities across this Nation. The energy and enthusiasm of the concert participants was inspiring and demonstrates that the fight for basic human rights is being taken up by the younger generation. The participants in the concert, like the pro-democracy activists in China, are the future. Our cause will utlimately prevail, but we must keep up the fight. The past few months have seen China act to intimidate the people of Taiwan in their democratic elections, diminish democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, crack down on freedom of religion by Christians in China and Buddhists in Tibet, and smuggle AK-47s into the United States via its state-run companies. The MFN vote provides us with the only opportunity to demonstrate our concern about United States-China relations and our determination to make trade fairer, the political climate freer and the world safer. I urge our colleagues not to turn their backs on these important principles.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I commend him and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as well as the leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means and everyone else who had anything to do with bringing this to the floor. I think it is a very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we must have zero tolerance for terrorism. I think this bill sends a very strong message that we are serious about that. I support the bill, as I said, and I am particularly pleased about the requirement in the bill called Presidential reports. It says: The bill requires the President to report periodically to Congress on efforts to persuade other countries to pressure Iran to cease weapons of mass destruction programs, support of international terrorism, and on attempts to urge Iran's and it goes on for some other consideration about diplomats. It also only grants the President a waiver if the President certifies to Congress that Iran has ceased its efforts to develop and acquire a nuclear explosive device, chemical or biological weapons, or ballistic missiles or missile technology, and has been removed from the countries determined under the Export Administration Act of having supported international terrorism. I call this to the attention of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me this is a very important step to take. This requirement on the President is an important one. At the same time, though, as we are putting out these requirements, indeed even the same day, the Committee on Ways and Means is moving on China MFN. These two issues are not connected, except in one way: China is one of the leading suppliers of technology for nuclear, chemical, and missile weaponry, weapons of mass destruction. So if our purpose in this legislation is to reduce terrorism, if our purpose in this legislation is to say that the President may only waive this bill when Iran stops developing nuclear and chemical, biological, and the list goes on, ballistic and other explosive devices, then why do we not get to the source and take action against those countries, China being leading among them, that are supplying Iran with that technology? The sanctions should be at the source as well as with Iran, who deserves them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues an important event which is taking place in San Francisco this weekend. The Tibetan Freedom Concert, a 2-day music festival for a free Tibet, begins this Saturday in Golden Gate Park. More than 20 well-known popular music artists, from the Beastie Boys and the Smashing Pumpkins to bay area natives Pavement, have donated their time and their talent to draw attention to the plight of the Tibetan people. Leading the way to inspire our youth is a San Francisco-based organization called the Milarepa fund which publicizes and supports the Tibetan peoples' nonviolent struggle for freedom. The Milarepa fund's diligent efforts to promote human rights in China are making an important contribution to furthering public awareness of the Tibetan tragedy, and they are reaching out to the next generation to help them develop an understanding of human rights violations throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to follow the example being set by the thousands of young women and men who will be attending the Freedom Concert. They have taken it upon themselves to learn more about the terrible human rights violations that the Chinese Government inflicts daily upon the citizens of Tibet. They are concerned about the deforestation of the Tibetan Plateau. They are outraged by the ongoing pattern of forced abortions and sterilization of Tibetan women. And they are mobilizing to stop the continuing genocide of the Tibetan people. Among the actions being suggested is a boycott of Chinese goods in order to send a clear message to the government in Beijing that their actions are reprehensible. Household items marked ``Made in China'' are often manufactured in forced labor camps by political prisoners who have been jailed for doing nothing more than expressing their opinions or practicing their religious beliefs. The boycott is helping consumers learn about the interdependence of economics, politics, and their everyday actions. The sooner we understand this interdependence, the sooner we can ensure basic human and environmental rights throughout the world. I comment the organizers of this concert, the artists who are performing and the activists who labor every day to advance the cause of human rights around the globe. They are not alone.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference agreement on the 1997 budget resolution. Like last year's budget, the plan is out of touch with the American people and should be rejected by the House. In 1993, President Clinton, working with Congress, began a process of deficit reduction that has reduced Federal deficits for 4 years in a row. In fact, the Federal budget deficit has been cut in half since the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. We need a continuation of the moderate proposals which have been working. We do not need another extreme budget plan to foster bitter confrontation between the Congress and the administration. The American people reject this tactic; they want bipartisan cooperation in solving problems. The Republican plan proposes to cut Medicare by $158 billion over the next 6 years. Even worse, the plan proposes to end 30 years of universal coverage for senior citizens and allow the healthy and wealthy to opt out of the program causing disruption and placing the entire Medicare Program at risk. Medicare cuts are still used to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. The budget plan for Medicaid is even more extreme. Cutting $72 billion over 6 years, and allowing the States to cut even more in State payments, would be severely destructive to the program. The plan also would eliminate the current guarantees of health coverage for low- income children, pregnant women, disabled people, and senior citizens. Thankfully, the President has already rejected this drastic approach and proposed a reasonable plan to cap individual benefits resulting in comparable savings without millions of Americans losing health coverage. Likewise, the budget resolution includes much of the Republican welfare plan which was vetoed by the President because it was too extreme and did little to move people from welfare to work. There appears to be little to recommend proceeding with the same plan encouraging a race to the bottom for State welfare programs. With regard to discretionary spending, the budget plan is once again extreme. For 1997, funding for defense programs is increased more than $11 billion over the Pentagon's request. On the other hand, nondefense spending falls dramatically--a decrease of $15 below the President's request for 1997. Over the 6 years, the budget resolution would cut purchasing power for domestic programs by 25 percent. For health programs, the budget plan calls for drastic cuts to programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical research. The plan to cut purchasing power for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] is extreme and lacking in an understanding of the importance of investment in biomedical research. The most extreme and short-sighted part of the budget plan is the limitation on funding for education and job training programs. Essentially, these vital programs to prepare the American people for the challenges of a new global economy are frozen for 6 years. The successful direct student loan program is capped, forcing 700,000 students out of the program in 1997 alone. This renewed attack on education places the Congress on a collision course with the Clinton administration, which has proposed $61 billion more in investments for education and job training. Again, the budget plan fails to adequately protect the environment. The plan would cut purchasing power for natural resources and environmental. The American people want the environment protected. They want clean water, clean air, and access to well-kept national parks. Mr. Speaker, this budget agreement is essentially the same as last year's Gingrich budget. This budget sets in motion the same failed tactic of confrontation that resulted in the longest and most destructive Government shutdowns in our Nation's history. I fear that not enough was learned by the Republican leadership from last year's failures. I urge my colleagues to reject this fundamentally flawed budget resolution and insist that a bipartisan budget proposal be adopted to move us on an orderly course to complete the important budget work of this Congress.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I commend Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Wilson for their successful efforts for the second year in a row in putting together a foreign aid bill which has bipartisan support. As a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I know the work that has gone into this bill and the efforts that have been made to bridge many differences on the purpose, the priorities, and the funding level of our foreign aid programs. I would like to thank the subcommittee staff, Charlie Flickner, Bill Inglee, John Shank, and Lori Maes, and our Democratic staffpersons Mark Murray and Kathleen Murphy for their hard work on this bill. In the current fiscal climate, we have to make many difficult choices cutting funding for many worthy programs. Our decisions must be based on fact, not myth. We have before us today one of the most misunderstood and maligned bills the Congress is regularly privileged to consider. The misperceptions surrounding foreign aid are legion and we, as leaders, have an obligation to set the record straight. We will hear today from some of our colleagues that the American people do not support foreign aid. That is not true. The American people's overwhelming humanitarian response to crisis, to famine, to tragedy overseas, is evidence of their concern. According to recent surveys, Americans believe we should spend 15 percent of our budget on foreign aid--they think we spend 40 percent on foreign aid--and do not know that we spend less than 1 percent on foreign aid. Today's bill continues the recent downward trend in spending on foreign aid, providing $1 billion less than the President's request for fiscal year 1997 , and $458 million less than the fiscal year 1996 level. Foreign aid is a good investment in a number of ways. Our limited foreign aid dollars provide returns to our country many times over through assisting our allies and increasing our national security, providing much-needed humanitarian relief and easing human suffering. In addition, we get numerous economic benefits from our foreign aid investments. Eighty percent of our development assistance is spent here in the United States, providing jobs for American workers, and expanding markets abroad. I support a number of this bill's provisions and thank Chairman Callahan, in particular, for his continued leadership in providing funding for global AIDS programs and for his assistance in addressing my concerns about some reporting requirements related to Hong Kong. That said, I cannot ignore the parts of this bill which I believe should be changed. I am particularly concerned about the impact of funding cuts on programs to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor around the world, including IDA and the IADB's Fund for Special Operations. I am also concerned about the reduced ability of our foreign aid programs to meet the development challenges on the continent of Africa. I believe we should reinstate the Development Fund for Africa as a separate account and provide funding for the African Development Bank and African Development Foundation, for example. And, I am particularly concerned about the consequences for the global environment of cuts in funding for global environment programs and of cuts in funding and restrictions on population assistance funds. Overpopulation is a threat to us all. The world is already experiencing a serious strain on its natural resources; increased population growth at current rates will only increase environmental degradation. We cannot be close-minded or short-sighted on this issue. What happens in other countries must be of interest here at home. Pollution does not stop at our borders. Diseases also do not stop at our borders. Stabilizing population growth is critical to us all. In addition, I am very concerned that the population provisions contained in this bill will have the opposite impact of what our well- meaning colleagues intend. The 35-percent cut in population assistance funding contained in this bill can be expected to result in 7 million couples in developing countries left without access to modern, safe contraceptive methods; 4 million women experiencing unintended pregnancies; 1.6 million more abortions; 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions; and 134,000 infant deaths. These are not abstract arguments. These are real people whose suffering and whose deaths that we have the power to prevent. U.S. foreign assistance has been at the forefront in saving lives, building democracy and achieving economic growth in the developing world. While failures associated with foreign aid programs have been well publicized, the success stories receive little attention. We can be proud that hundreds of millions of people around the world have achieved substantial improvements in their living standards around the world. We can be proud of the millions of children in developing countries whose lives have been saved by the immunization programs which we have funded. Yes, improvements can still be made. Everything can always be improved. The administration should be commended for the progress it has made in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our development programs. We should make every effort to fund these programs at adequate and appropriate levels. This bill is a step in that direction.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank-Kennedy-Reed amendment to prohibit IMET for Indonesia. I appreciate Chairman Callahan's initiative last year and again this year to limit IMET for Indonesia to expanded-IMET only. Nonetheless, in light of continuing human rights abuses and Indonesia's economic strength I do not believe that the Indonesian military should be trained with United States taxpayers' dollars. According to the U.S. State Department's country reports on human rights practices for 1995, human rights in Indonesia continued to be a problem. The report notes that--in Indonesia ``there continued to be numerous, credible reports of human rights abuses by the military and police * * *.'' The human rights problems in Indonesia noted by the State Department report include: The (Indonesian) Government continued to commit serious human rights abuses. The most serious abuses included harsh repression of dissidents in East Timor, Aceh, and Irian Jaya. Reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture of those in custody by security forces increased. Reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions and the use of excessive violence (including deadly force) in dealing with suspected criminals or perceived troublemakers continued. The State Department's report also states: Elements of the armed forces continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights abuses. Military leaders in some cases showed willingness to admit publicly abuses by military personnel and take action against them, including in a brutal incident in East Timor. Punishment, however, rarely matched the severity of the abuse. Some of our colleagues will argue that IMET benefits the United States by increasing the professionalism of the armed forces of other nations. That may, in some cases, be true. Unfortunately, history is now littered with cases of egregious human rights abuses being perpetrated by people who received U.S. military training. In some countries, IMET training endows those who receive it with a mantle of prestige and privilege. IMET provides a seal of approval of sorts for military people who receive it and therefore bestows a seal of approval on their military practices. The United States should not be in a position of supporting repressive or abusive practices either in an explicit or implicit way. It is clear, to those who are willing to look, that the human rights situation in East Timor is terrible. The State Department's report provides documentation of some of last year's atrocities, many of which were perpetrated by the military. These practices have not ended. I have in my possession a list provided by a reputable human rights organization of 17 East Timorese people who have been arrested, beaten and tortured by the Indonesian armed forces at various locations around East Timor since January 1996. This list is incomplete, but it is representative of the ongoing practices of the Indonesian military. The repressive activities of the Indonesian armed forces are by no means limited to East Timor, which Indonesia occupies illegally. They also occur in many other places in Indonesia, including Irian Jaya, where NGO and church sources provided eyewitness accounts of over 40 victims of torture by the Indonesian military in late 1994 and early 1995. I urge my colleagues to express their concern about human rights abuses in Indonesia by supporting the Frank-Kennedy-Reed amendment to prohibit IMET for Indonesia.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds that I have allocated to me I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our chairman, for his excellent leadership of our subcommittee and for his shepherding us through these different issues. While I do not agree with all that is in the bill, I do commend the gentleman. In addition to commending our excellent chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], for his magnificent shepherding of this legislation through subcommittee, full committee and to the floor, I want to join with him in acknowledging the fine work of our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. While he will be on the floor when we take up the conference report, I am certain, this is the last bill that he brings to the floor from the committee, and I know that all the members of the subcommittee join our colleagues in commending him and thanking him for his leadership on the committee, his good humor in the face of strong opposition on some issues in the committee and his leadership to rally us around some of the issues of agreement. With that, I want to once again commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I do not think our colleagues have any idea how difficult it is for this bill, to reach consensus on it, and we are all deeply in the debt of the gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kleczka-Obey- Barrett substitute calling for a 30-day comment period and administration certification for the Wisconsin welfare plan. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Wisconsin Works Welfare Program may result in greater poverty for children and families. I am concerned that Wisconsin Works eliminates the safety net for the State's working poor families. It is possible that it would eliminate child-care guarantees and Medicaid coverage. I am concerned that parents who cannot find jobs despite sincere efforts will be left destitute. These questions remain because this legislation was never considered by a committee and was rushed to the floor with little notice. The Kleczka-Obey-Barrett substitute would provide a public comment period and require the President to certify that this system can work and the plan meets the standards defined by the Governor. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the previous rollcall No. 214, I did not make it to the Chamber in time. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 214. amendment offered by mr. obey

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Skaggs motion to strike the cap on funding for international population assistance. This bill singles out population assistance activities for a disproportionate 35 percent cut, more than other development and humanitarian assistance programs. This cut will have a direct and severe impact on the lives of women and their families in developing countries. It would be expected to result in 7 million couples in developing countries left without access to modern, safe contraceptive methods, 4 million women experiencing unintended pregnancies, 1.6 million more abortions, 8,000 more women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, including those from unsafe abortions, and 134,000 infant deaths. These are not theoretical arguments. These are numbers of real people--numbers of deaths that we have the power to prevent. Can your conscience allow these poor people to pay the price for reducing costs with their lives and the lives of their children? I respect that there are competing priorities at odds in this bill. But how can there be a greater priority in this bill than preventing deaths and suffering of impoverished women and families in developing countries? We cannot address foreign aid without being serious about our responsibility to promote health and survival in countries of need. Without a proper commitment to these programs, we have the health and lives of poor women and children hanging over our heads. I urge my colleagues to support the Skaggs amendment and retain proper funding for these life-saving family planning programs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Visclosky amendment and thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing it to the floor today. But frankly, I am very disappointed that this amendment is even necessary. As we know, Mr. Chairman, last year Congress passed a Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in order to discourage nations which receive U.S. aid from blockading other nations which also receive United States aid such as, in this case, Armenia. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration chose to waive the act as it applied to Turkey, a nation which continues to illegally blockade Armenia. That is what brings us here today. Many of our colleagues have talked about the relationship that the United States has with Turkey, going back to the end of World War II in terms of strategic importance, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union at that time and the oil embargo during the Persian Gulf war. And, now they are talking about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Being an ally of the United States or being next to the Soviet Union or having Islamic fundamentalists in one's country is not a license to block humanitarian assistance. The fact is that you can list all kinds of pros and cons in our relationship, but it does not take away from the fact that there is an immoral action going on in the blockade of Armenia. Congress spoke very clearly last year to this point. It is unfortunate that the Clinton administration did not understand Congress' intent. Turkey is continuing to illegally blockade Armenia by preventing trade, transport and transshipment of United States and international humanitarian assistance to Armenia. This blockade is not sanctioned by the United Nations or any other international organization. Mr. Chairman, Turkey began its blockade of Armenia in April 1993, when it refused to allow land or air passage of international Red Cross relief workers bound for Armenia with medical supplies to be used for disaster relief assistance. Since that time, Turkey has refused to allow the passage of any international Red Cross relief workers into Turkey. Turkey has not been promoting peace in the region. It has recently declared that its border with Armenia is a militarized zone. That brings us back to why we need the Visclosky amendment. It would strengthen the Humanitarian Corridor Act and increase pressure on Turkey to lift the 3-year blockade of United States relief supplies to Armenia. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which was signed into law earlier this year, prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to states which obstruct our efforts for humanitarian relief to needy populations. The pressing need for the Visclosky amendment was made clear when, as I say again, the President, disregarding the will of Congress, and I might state the bipartisan expression of support in this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, coming together to support the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The President chose to disregard the intent of Congress and cleared the way for continued military and economic aid to Turkey. Neither the American people nor the United States Congress should tolerate, much less subsidize, the Turkish Government's illegal and immoral blockade of Armenia. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to commend once again the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] for his leadership on this subject, proclaim once again the bipartisan nature of the support for his amendment. I again reiterate that the bill, the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, was passed in a bipartisan fashion and signed into law. The intent of Congress should be respected. Since it has not been, it is important for Members to support the Visclosky amendment.