Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would like to tell Members why. I think it is very important for us to note, and every opportunity we have we should take advantage of, to reject genocide wherever it occurs. Sadly, more than 80 years after the commencement of the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turkish Government, the present-day Turkish Government, and indeed, it is a separate government, not only denies the occurrence of the genocide, but also has initiated a well-financed campaign to distort and tarnish the American historical record on this subject. Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment will serve to deter the Turkish government from pursuing their unconscionable coverup of this internationally recognized crime against humanity. But do not take my word for it. Let us reference some American Presidents and how they referred to the Armenian genocide. President Reagan, at the remembrance of victims of the Holocaust on April 22, 1981, said: Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it, and like too many other persecutions of too many other people, the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten. In 1990, April 20, President Bush said: Their history, though marked by a number of tragedies, nonetheless reflects their faith and strength and the resilience of their tradition. Those tragedies include, and we are talking about the Armenians now, their tragedies include most prominently the terrible massacre suffered in 1915 to 1923 at the hands of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire. I call upon all peoples to work to prevent future acts of inhumanity against mankind, and my comments of June, 1988, reflect the depth of my feeling for the Armenian people and the suffering they have endured. President Clinton said on April 24, 1996: I join with Armenians around the world on this solemn day in commemorating the senseless deportation and massacres of 1.5 million Armenians that took place from 1915 to 1923 under the Ottoman Empire. Tragically, our century has repeatedly born witness to man's senseless inhumanity to man. Together we mourn the terrible loss of so many innocent lives. There are two issues here, Mr. Chairman. One is the issue of the Armenian genocide. And yes, we should not hold this Government responsible for something that happened 80 years ago. But we can ask this Government not to try to revise history. We can ask this government to stop its campaign to distort the historical record on the Armenian genocide. That is why this amendment is so important. I have heard it characterized a variety of different ways, that it would stop assistance to Turkey, et cetera. That is why I would like to read the amendment, Mr. Chairman. It says: Not more than $22 million of the funds appropriated in this act under the heading ``economic support fund'' may be made available to the government of Turkey, except when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the Government of Turkey has (1) joined the United States in acknowledging the atrocity committed against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923; and (2) has taken all appropriate steps to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. So this is not about eliminating assistance to Turkey. This is about cutting back from $25 million to $22 million. Once gain, I think it is most appropriate for this Congress to follow the lead of a bipartisan list of American Presidents and the bipartisan support that we have had on this issue for a long period of time in making our message clear to the Turkish Government, that while we need them as an ally and we respect the progress they are making in human rights, the fact is that their strategic location or the fact of the Islamic fundamentalism in their country is no license for them to try to revise the history of the Armenian genocide, not to disregard the rights of the people in Armenia for humanitarian assistance by their blockade of Armenia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and to discuss some of the issues surrounding the amendment that is on the floor today. First a little history. The Congress of the United States for the last half a dozen years, or a little bit longer, has move to make the environmental concerns part of the criteria for decisions made by multilateral development banks including the World Bank. In 1992, Congress revised the Eximbank's charter to include a requirement that the bank establish environmental review procedures consistent with the bank's overall export promotion objectives. It authorized the board to grant to withhold financing support after taking into account the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of proposed transactions. Following this congressional directive, Eximbank staff worked with the exporters, other U.S. and multilateral agencies, and nongovernmental agencies to define appropriate guidelines and procedures to be used for transactions requesting bank support. The Eximbank environmental procedures and guidelines have been in effect since February 1, 1995, and indeed, they are a result of congressional action. That is in addition to other actions taken by the Congress, as I mentioned, so that these multilateral developmental banks and export financing agencies cannot contribute to the environmental degradation by supporting major projects which do just that, which are not environmentally sound. I believe that the Eximbank and the Clinton administration are to be commended for their leadership, not their followship of what other countries might do but their leadership on this issue. Indeed, as my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] pointed out, only one other country, Canada, is providing the financing that is referenced in this debate. So it is not as if our companies are at a disadvantage. I want to also point out to Members that there is nothing preventing business from participating. If this is such a good business deal, then businesses should go in and do business as mostly all the other companies throughout the world are doing in the Three Gorges Dam without this assistance of their governments. Mr. Chairman, several U.S. companies have already sold 60 to 100 million dollars' worth of equipment and services to this project without Exim support. The decision of the Eximbank in no way affects their ability to continue doing business privately with this project. I support the Eximbank but I think we have to have a balance. Somehow or other corporate America thinks that they cannot do business unless they have a subsidy from the Government. There is no law against private industry going in and competing without a helpful hand from the Government--the corporate welfare that some have referenced. But I support the Eximbank. I am not an opponent of it. I have been a strong proponent of these international banks being environmentally sound. This is about the environment--it is not about China. The World Bank, has billions of dollars of loans into China. One of the biggest recipients of World Bank loans is China. Even the World Bank is not lending money for the Three Gorges Dam because it does not meet their environmental standards. The Eximbank was very clear in its statement that they have established what their concerns are environmentally. And if the Three Gorges Dam should at some point in the future meet those envrionmental standards, it would then be eligible for Exim participation. So this is not a China issue. This is an environmental issue. The Eximbank voted unanimously against issuing a letter of interest because of the environmental concerns. Again, I reiterate, the Eximbank has supported $3.8 billion in United States exports to China during the last 4 years and currently they have $10 billion in potential financing for transactions in various industries. So as I recognize the gentlemen from Illinois protecting the view of Caterpillar, but that is a special interest. We have the public interest at stake here on the floor and that public interest is nothing short of the environment in which we live. That internationally we have responsibilities to address the protection of that environment and that the taxpayers' dollars should not be used to finance loans that will undermine the environment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement of the Eximbank as follows: Statement of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (By Martin A. Kamarck, President and Chairman for Three Gorges Press Briefing--Thursday, May 30, 1996) The Eximbank's board of directors met this morning to consider requests from several U.S. exporters for the bank to take the preliminary step of issuing letters of interest for the Three Gorges project in China. The board has concluded that Eximbank cannot issue a letter of interest for this project at this time. The information received, though voluminous, fails to establish the projects consistency with the bank's environmental guidelines. If the China Yangtze Three Gorges project development corporation provides Eximbank with additional information with respect to development and mitigation of the environmental issues involved in this project, the board could reconsider support for this project. Although the level of interest surrounding this case makes it somewhat unique for Eximbank, the process used by the bank to reach its conclusion is routine, mandated by our congressional charter and applied to all long-term transactions. American business in general, and Eximbank in particular, have a healthy economic presence in China, and it is our hope that this mutually beneficial trading relationship will continue to grow. In fact, China is Eximbank's largest customer in Asia. And Eximbank has an aggressive outreach effort to support U.S. exporters doing business in China. Many Eximbank staff members have spent months analyzing information, meeting with interested parties and working on the board memorandum, which assisted the board in making its decision. Eximbank is an independent government agency. The bank's board of directors is mandated to make independent decisions about the appropriateness of providing financial support to export transactions which are determined to be financially, technically, and environmentally sound. The mandate to consider the environmental impacts of projects requesting bank support began in 1992 when Congress revised Eximbank's charter to include a requirement that the bank establish environmental review procedures consistent with the bank's overall export promotion objectives. It further authorized the board to grant or withhold financing support after taking into account the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of proposed transactions. Following this congressional directive, Eximbank staff worked with exporters, other U.S. and multilateral agencies and nongovernmental organizations to develop appropriate guidelines and procedures to be used for transactions requesting bank support. These environmental procedures and guidelines have been in effect since February 1, 1995. So, as the bank's charter requires, staff reviewed financial, technical and environmental issues involved in this project. And because of the size and level of interest generated by this project, our staff consulted with other government agencies, including the National Security Council. Our staff also held a series of open meetings with exporters and nongovernmental organizations and Chinese officials; and met with numerous Members of Congress and congressional staff. Eximbank's engineering and environmental division solicited, received and reviewed information from a wide variety of sources, including the Chinese Government, U.S. companies, other U.S. Government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, as well as academic sources. Although any project of this size raises many questions and issues, I will summarize the major (though not only) issues of concern raised by staff which the board concluded have not, to date, been adequately addressed by the projects sponsors. Maintaining adequate water quality in the projects reservoir. Protection of ecological resources and preservation of endangered species potentially affected by the project. The environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed resettlement of 1.3 million people to be displaced by the reservoir. Protection of cultural resources affected by the project. For Eximbank to reconsider its decision, the board would need further evidence that these issues will be adequately addressed, resolved and/or mitigated by the projects sponsors. More specifically, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's environmental guidelines with respect to maintenance of water quality in the reservoir, Eximbank would look for the following information. A plan to construct upstream wastewater treatment facilities needed to reduce the pollution caused by municipal and industrial wastewater discharged into the reservoir. A plan for adequate wastewater and waste management measures for the areas surrounding the reservoir to prevent future pollution and ensure that the water quality is maintained. A plan for clean-up of existing waste sites which will be submerged by the reservoir. A dredging plan to reduce accumulated toxic sediments in the reservoir. Similarly, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's environmental guidelines with respect to ecological issues, Eximbank would look for the following information: A more fully developed plan, including mitigation measures, to reduce the risks to (and to support the propagation of) endangered aquatic and terrestrial species affected by the project. Further information about the ecological impacts and proposed mitigation plans for areas downstream of the reservoir, especially around the lakes and estuary. To meet the objectives of Eximbank's environmental guidelines with regard to resettlement, the bank would look for the following information: A resettlement plan that adequately addresses issues such as, land management, infrastructure improvements, regional planning, population distribution, public health impacts, costs and sources of funding. Such a plan should also clearly demonstrate the administrative responsibilities and accountability for all steps of this process. Adoption of soil conservation measures to control soil erosion in the newly created resettlement and inundated areas. A plan for acceleration of forestation in areas vulnerable to soil erosion and areas slated for deforestation due to resettlement. In addition, given the unique cultural and historical resources at risk, to meet the objectives of Eximbank's environmental guidelines with respect to maintenance of socioeconomic and sociocultural resources, Eximbank would look for the following information: Specific information that adequate measures have been adopted for the protection of the cultural and historical resources of the project area. Additional information has to be forthcoming before there can be a decision on committing U.S. taxpayer money. Staff informed the board that in many circumstances the information has not yet been developed. Before taking your questions, let me make several other important points: First, the decision to construct the Three Gorges hydroelectric project belongs to the People's Republic of China. Today's decision by the Exim board is a recognition that as a U.S. Government agency, Eximbank has rules and requirements that must be met before extending support to projects. And, as a government institution, Exim must apply its operating procedures to all projects--large and small, in all countries where we do business, in a fair and transparent manner. Today's decision means only that the information we have received so far about this project does not in the judgment of the board, satisfy the objectives of Eximbank's environmental guidelines. Second, this decision does not limit U.S. companies from privately participating in the Three Gorges project. Already, several U.S. companies have sold $60-$100 million worth of equipment and services to this project without Eximbank support. And today's decision, in no way, affects their ability to continue doing business privately with this project. Third, with respect to whether other government export credit agencies will be involved with this project, we currently are aware of only one official government-supported financing offer for sales to this project. It comes from EDC, the Canadian export credit agency. In addition, we also understand that requests for financing may have been made to one other export credit agency. We are not aware of any other governments which have made financing offers to this project. Fourth, we have supported $3.8 billion in U.S. exports to China during the last 4 years, and currently have over $10 billion in potential financing for transactions in various industry sectors including power (conventional coal-fired, hydro, nuclear and wind energy), aircraft, airports, telecommunications, chemical plants, project finance and more. In the power sector alone, during the last two years, Eximbank has financed nearly $640 million worth of U.S. exports. Finally, given this long history of Eximbank support for U.S. exports to China, and the fact that China's demand for goods and service will continue to grow as their economy grows, Eximbank looks forward to continuing a strong partnership with our Chinese friends. Now I'd be happy to take your questions.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned earlier by our colleagues, on Saturday, the Children's Defense Fund will hold a Stand for Children event where people from all over the country will be traveling to Washington to participate. I, myself, am proud to say that from San Francisco and from all over California, indeed, we will have a very large contingent participating. That stand for children is one that we must make every day of the year in the Congress of the United States. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health, Human Services and Education, I have been actually bowled over by the size of the cuts in the budget for children's initiatives that had been put forth both last year and which we anticipate because of the budget resolution allocations to come down this year. I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, to talk not just about children, but the families that they live in, because when we talk abut children, we not only talk about their health, education, and well-being, but we also talk about the economic security of their families. We talked about this last week when we made the fight successfully to increase the minimum wage, dragging this House kicking and screaming to a place where we could hold our head up a littler higher to pay fair wages to the American worker. But also part of the economic security of American families are the issues of Medicare and Medicaid, which once again take severe cuts in the budget proposal that passed the House tonight. That is why our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Martin Sabo, put forth a motion to instruct. His motion to instruct was for us to instruct conferees to accept the higher discretionary levels in the Senate bill in order to avoid another government shutdown; to accept the higher levels in the Senate bill. He is talking about the Domenici numbers, Republican numbers in the Senate side. Even the Senate Republicans reject the severe cuts that are being proposed on the House side. Another part of the Sabo motion to instruct was to retain protection for seniors against excess charges by health care providers in Medicare and also to retain Federal standards for nursing homes. Of course, and sadly, our Republican colleagues voted down this motion to instruct to agree to the Republican Senate numbers and, instead, to retain the House severe cuts. The budget resolution allocations have created the same basic conflict that led to two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolutions in the battle over 1996 spending. Why would we want to do that again? In regard to protecting health care for seniors, the House version of the budget resolution retains essentially the same Medicare policies that were vetoed by President Clinton in the reconciliation bill. Further, the House budget resolution does not protect seniors from the draconian Medicaid policies that were passed in the House last year. I would like to review, Mr. Speaker, some of the provisions that we are fighting. The Republican record on senior citizens in the 104th Congress includes eliminating doctor and hospital choice by forcing seniors into Medicare managed-care plans. The GOP plan would allow doctors to charge extra out-of-pocket costs to seniors who remain in Medicare fee-for-service. The GOP plan would severely cut Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, forcing many to close their doors on seniors. And the Republican plan would eliminate coverage guaranteed for over 4 million elderly Americans who need nursing home care. The Republican plan further erodes Medicare solvency by creating wealth- healthy plans, leaving many seniors with higher costs and less care. Does this sound familiar? We fought this fight last year. The Democrats in the Congress and the President of the United States stood firm against this assault on the economic and personal security of America's seniors and, therefore, America's families. The Democrats prevented the Republicans last year from doubling Medicare part B premiums, from attempting to eliminate doctor choice, from cutting Medicare premium assistance for low-income seniors, from repealing Federal nursing home quality standards and putting homes and family farms of elderly couples at risk for nursing home care, and we kept them from forcing adult children to be financially liable for their parents' nursing home bills. This is important because all of the seniors that we talk about have contributed to the strength and the success of our country. How many times have we seen our colleagues come to the floor, including this evening, sing the praises and the contributions that have been made by various senior citizens in their districts and turn right around and cut Medicare and Medicaid to assist those seniors in their older years? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pay close attention and the American people to pay close attention to these cuts which will affect their lives very directly.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Sabo motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution. The motion instructs the conferees to agree to the Senate levels for nondefense discretionary spending. Let me explain why this is important. As we know, the President and the Republican leadership have both proposed plans that the Congressional Budget Office says would reach balance in 2002. Clearly, the President's budget illustrates that a balanced budget does not necessitate extreme and excessive cuts in programs of vital importance to millions of Americans. The House budget resolution is worse than the Senate, making it harder to finance important domestic priorities in education and training, the environment, science and technology, and law enforcement. The allocations to the appropriations subcommittees reflected in the House budget resolution have created the same basic conflict that led to two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolution in the battle over 1996 spending. Why would we knowingly do this again? Specifically, the House allocations are $19 billion less than the President's request for nondefense programs, while at the same time adding nearly $13 billion above the Pentagon's request in funding for defense and military construction programs. For example, the allocation to the Labor-HHS--Education Subcommittee is $6.7 billion below the President's request and $2.5 billion below the levels necessary to sustain the 1996 program level. This allocation would likely result in significant cuts to such programs as Title I Education for the Disadvantaged, Pell Grant college scholarships, and the Summer Youth Employment Program. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body clearly recognized that we were once again engaging in a train wreck scenario. Rather than push this to the brink again this year, he wisely proposed to add $5 billion to the Senate domestic discretionary spending level to make whole the allocation to the appropriations subcommittees necessary to avoid unnecessary vetoes and further gridlock. Although the Sabo motion would not even meet the President half way on priorities, it would allow funding at a freeze level for most program, funding at current services level for some priority programs, and allow modest investments in a very limited number of priority domestic investments such as biomedical research. The Sabo motion does not fully address the fundamental differences between the Republican leadership and the President with regard to budget priorities. For example, the budget resolution would still assume a cut of $61 billion from the President proposed spending level for education and training. Nonetheless, the Sabo motion would allow us to get through the 1997 spending bills with a much higher level of bipartisan support. In the short and long run, this would be a good thing for the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor the almost 9 million Americans of Asian Pacific heritage who make such a magnificent contribution to our society. As the Representative of a district that boasts Asian Pacific Americans as more than 28 percent of its population, I am proud to be able to praise the men and women of Asian Pacific American heritage who have worked both to make our world a better place to live. Yvonne Lee is just one of those people making a difference. A San Franciscan appointed by President Clinton to the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights, she has a long and outstanding record of community service, both in San Francisco and throughout the Nation. Currently a fellow at the Asian Pacific American Leadership Institute, Yvonne previously served as the executive director of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, a national civil rights organization. I join my colleagues in celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and in saluting those in the Asian Pacific American community who have transformed our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for engaging in the colloquy, and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had of the legislative background on this last year. As Members may recall, I worked closely with the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] who is an expert in this field, and has an interest in the waiver of sanctions and the particular limitations that the chairman of the committee has confirmed. I thank the chairman of the committee once again for that confirmation.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment to make public the cumulative number of the intelligence budget. This is not a new issue to the Congress, Mr. Chairman. Over the past several Congresses we have had this debate on the floor about whether this number should be released and whether its release would jeopardize our national security. I believe the answer is yes, that it should be released, and, no, it does not jeopardize our national security. When the issue first arose we had the debate, and it was said that we needed more information. So our chairman at the time, Mr. Glickman, Chairman Glickman, held hearings, very extensive hearings, where experts in the field of intelligence confirmed that our national security would not be jeopardized and indeed it would be healthy to release the number. As early as some of the statements as early as 1991 on the subject have said, former DCI Robert Gates said, ``I don't have any problem with releasing the top-line number of the intelligence community budget.'' That same year former Director of NSA, Bobby Inman, said, ``I am certainly prepared to make unclassified the total amount and defend it to the public, why 10 percent of our total defense efforts spent both for national and tactical intelligence is not a bad goal at all.'' And of course this year the White House statement on this subject said, reflecting the President's determination to promote openness in the intelligence community, he has authorized Congress to make public the total appropriation. Going way back 20 years, the select committee that studied governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities stated intelligence oversight committee should authorize on an annual basis a national intelligence budget, the total amount of which should be made public. So over the years and as recently as the statements of this year, most currently that of DCI John Deutch, the President is persuaded that disclosure of the annual amount appropriated for intelligence purposes will inform the public and not in itself harm intelligence activities. I think that there is a good cross-section of studies and DCI's from both, appointed by Presidents of both parties, who have supported making this number public, and I think it is a healthy thing to do. The defense, the intelligence, community should have to defend the amount of money that is spent on intelligence in relationship to the rest of the budget. It is especially important this year so that we can restore some of the confidence to this process that has been undermined by the recent NRO revelations, and on that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that when people accept the public trust, they and we all have a special responsibility. We must be responsible fiscally for the funds that are in our trust, we must understand the stiff competition for the funds and, therefore, have to be able to justify how they are expended. We need to maintain the public confidence in what we are doing, and so what happened at NRO is most unfortunate because it did undermine all of these, the public confidence and the trust that we all should have in husbanding the public dollars. And most of all, the actions of any one of these agencies should not undermine the strength, the perceived strength, of our country. We have to look like we know what we are doing and can account for the responsibilities of both fiscal and otherwise in our charge, and so I would say that with all of the testimony that we have had over the years, with the cooperation now of the executive branch, with the definite need that has been demonstrated for in one instance by the NRO situation, it behooves this Congress to move to support the Conyers amendment to make this number public, to open the intelligence process to the extent of saying this is a number that can, that should have to, be defended within the total budget process and that it should be done in a manner that is not harmful to our intelligence activities nor jeopardize the national security of our country. I am satisfied by the statements of such a wide-ranging, as I said, bipartisan group of people who have testified in hearings of the House of Representatives and on the Senate side over a long period of time, that there is no doubt that we should make this number public. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy concerning section 304 of the bill. I would say to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the committee, as he knows, this provision extends the laws allowing the President to delay the imposition of a sanction upon a determination that to proceed with the sanction would risk a compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. My question, Mr. Chairman, is whether the legislative history developed during the debate on this provision last year would still be applicable to the extension of the authority for 1 year? My further question is that can we expect that this provision will be narrowly construed, and only used in the most serious of circumstances, not to protect routine intelligence activities?

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I just was in a markup, so I walked onto the floor and was not able to get my chart up here. But if I had it, it would be a picture that I bring to the floor every time we have this debate on the minimum wage. It is a split screen cartoon. At the top it says, ``How long does it take to make $8,440?'' And on one side it has a full-time minimum-wage worker and it says under there, ``One year''. On the other side it has an executive, and it says, ``The average executive CEO of a large corporation in America, one-half a day.'' Think of the immorality of it all. It is fine for somebody to be successful and to make that kind of money, as long as it is not at the exploitation of others at the low end. We have to respect work. We have to raise the morale of the worker in America by saying, ``Your full- time employment should be a decent, living wage for you and your family.'' Consider, two minimum-wage earners are still below the poverty line in a family of four. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to support the minimum wage.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Clinton announced that he was going to request a special waiver from Congress to grant unconditional most-favored-nation status to China. As Members know, Mr. Speaker, in the Congress of the United States there is concern about the United States-China relationship in regard to human rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and trade. The President said yesterday that renewing MFN was about our economic future. On the basis of trade alone, I would like to address some conclusions that the President drew. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if for a moment we can put aside, which is difficult to do, our concerns about human rights and proliferation and Taiwan and Hong Kong and Tibet, major issues of concern to this Congress, and just talk about trade, I do not believe that the renewal of unconditional MFN status is justified. So while people say to us that we are sacrificing U.S. jobs to promote human rights, that is simply not the case. First, I would like to present some of the basic facts of the United States-China trade relationship. The emphasis of supporters of unconditional renewal of MFN status for China is not unexpectedly focused on our exports to China, it is important also to focus on China's exports to the United States. While overall United States exports to China have tripled in the last 10 years, United States imports from China have grown by 11 times, resulting in a trade deficit with China that has grown from $10 million in 1985 to $35 billion in 1995. $35 billion. Another alarming feature of this trade pattern is the 4-to-1 ratio of what we buy from China to what they buy from us. The United States is China's largest export market, with over a third of their exports coming into our market with preferential trade treatment. Our products, by and large, are not allowed into the Chinese market. These barriers to market access contribute to the trade deficit. And lest we think that the nearly $12 billion of exports that we send to China is a big number, consider this China, with 1.28 billion people, buys just under $12 billion. Taiwan, with 23 million people, buys nearly $20 billion from the United States. So the access to the Chinese markets is a major obstacle in our trade relationship. I know we also hear people who propose unconditional MFN status and talk about the 180,000 to 200,000 jobs that are connected with exports to China. These are important jobs and we must respect that fact, but let me just briefly go into why we cannot allow that couple hundred thousand jobs, however significant, to be a barrier to many more jobs that should spring from our trade relationship. We should all be concerned about the harm to our economy of the ongoing practice of the Chinese of violating our intellectual property rights. The trade deficit I referred to before of $35 billion does not include the billions of dollars that the Chinese have pirated in our intellectual property. We are told regularly by economists and we, in turn, tell our labor force that while manufacturing jobs go offshore, our intellectual property is our international comparative advantage. It is the genius of America that arises from the great democratic tradition of freedom of expression and freedom of thought. In a very real way, with the Chinese continuing practices and patterns of theft of our intellectual property, the Chinese are stealing our economic future. I disagree with the President that China is our economic future. The Chinese regime is under the present practices, stealing our economic future. In China it is possible to buy $12,000 worth of pirated United States software on a CD-ROM for $10. Pirated versions of Windows 95 were available in China before the real thing was released in the United States. More importantly, the production of stolen intellectual property in China is not only for domestic consumption; it is used for export. The domestic capacity is about 7 million units and the production capacity is about 150 million units per year. So the Chinese are in the business of stealing our intellectual property not only for domestic consumption but for export. And the piracy does not stop at software. There are reports of pirated raw materials, like integrated circuits from China, showing up in Paraguay for distribution throughout the Americas. I do not have time to go into more detail on that. I want to commend the administration for issuing a list of sanctions and, hopefully, they will follow through with that. The last point I have time to make is the issue of technology and production transfer. Many people know that production is going offshore. What we must recognize is that the Chinese insist on the technological transfer as well. So we will have, for example, Boeing closing a factory in Wichita, KS, for the manufacture of the tail section of a 737, and that production going to Chinese workers making $50 a month. And the Chinese have the technology transfer. So it is the barriers to our products, the ripping off of our intellectual property, and the transfer of our technology that rob our economy of jobs. Our economic future is at risk in this relationship. I urge our colleagues to focus on these numbers. More to come.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to support the gentleman's very strong statement about human rights in China. Unfortunately, in the President's speech today, he made a statement which I think, while his statement about most-favored-nation status for China was no surprise, it surprised me that he would go to the length of saying, ``Where we differ with China, and we will have our differences, we will continue to defend our interests. We will keep faith with those who stand for greater freedom and pluralism in China.'' I have not seen that happen, but the President declared that. But this is the discouraging part: ``As we did last month, in cosponsoring the U.S. resolution condemning China's human rights practices.'' Something else you did not hear in the President's speech was that the administration's resolution was a total failure; that the administration failed to rally the vote to even get the resolution to be heard; that the Chinese succeeded in using, with their economic leverage, other countries to join them in tabling that resolution. That is something else we did not hear in the President's speech. Frankly, with all the respect that I have for the President, and I think he is a great president, I was embarrassed for him, that he would even bring that up and think that that would be something that he could boast of as promoting human rights in China. It would be interesting to see, where he says they are going to stand with those who stand for greater freedom and pluralism in China, that simply has not happened yet. That is probably what this debate is about, is to say to the administration, let us see what you are going to do. We know that it is almost impossible to override a Presidential veto on most-favored-nation status, so China will have most-favored-nation status. So this debate is not about isolating China and cutting off MFN, as others will characterize it. It is about who we are as a people. Mr. Speaker, if we say, as this President does, that he should have an embargo on Cuba, which I do not agree with, that we should have an embargo on Cuba and that is going to create democracy in Cuba, how can he then say that we cannot even raise tariffs on certain products coming in from China in order to use our leverage? As the gentleman knows, over one-third of the products for export made in China come into the United States, so China needs our marketplace. They need the preferential treatment MFN, most-favored- nation status, gives them, and the President could use that considerable leverage as a way of shining a light on pluralism and democratic reform in China. It is not up to us to decide what form of government China has, but it is a universal tenet that we believe that people are worthy of respect and have a right to practice their religion. I want to get back to your point about religious repression in China, which is rampant, and Tibet, which is rampant. Actually, the most recent report that I saw was in yesterday's paper about the Chinese Government cracking down on the Tibetan monastery right outside of Llasa. The Chinese Government decided it will choose the Panchen Lama and intervene in the succession in a religion. Imagine if the government of Italy decided they were going to choose who the next Pope was, the uproar that would go up around the world. But the Chinese Government is trying to intervene in the succession within the Buddhist religion. Of course, as we all know, they have a full-fledged, full-blown public relations campaign to undermine His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. So for issues of what is going on in Tibet and what is going on in China, it is clear that we must, as a country, be true to our values and speak out on these issues, and demand in the course of a debate on whether China will have most-favored-nation status what our Government is tangibly going to do to advance freedom throughout the world, including China and Tibet. The other point is that freedom does exist in parts of China now. if you believe in the one-China policy, then Taiwan has a thriving democracy. And just today, but yesterday in terms of the international clock, the Chinese on Taiwan inaugurated their first democratically elected President in the history of China. Hong Kong, as we know, is going through a transition. Democratic freedoms exist there. In 1 year China will take over the governance of Hong Kong. It will be incorporated back into China. Let us see what this administration and this Congress is willing to do to preserve democratic freedoms where they exist now, in Hong Kong and in Taiwan, and what kind of leverage we are willing to step up to the bat and use in order to preserve those freedoms, and in doing so, validate the whole idea of freedom in China. From my own personal observation, I know that the most discouraging part of the President's announcement today was that he was ill-advised by his advisers or somehow thought that it was OK to say that our commitment to pluralism and democratic reform in China was served by our offering a resolution which we did not get behind sufficiently, which we allowed the Chinese to use economic leverage against, which was tabled, which was a humiliation for the United States and for the Western allies in the United Nations. It calls into question the very need for a U.N. Commission on Human Rights, if the Chinese can exploit the situation to that extent, that there is not even a resolution that can be heard there. Mr. Speaker, in terms of human rights, even the President's own country report of the State Department this year has stated very clearly that economic reform has not led to political reform; that the repression continues, and my reading of that is that this policy has not worked in terms of promoting human rights in China. But we are going to have a month or so, I say to the gentleman from Virginia, where we can put the facts on the table for the American people and this Congress to see. People will have the opportunity to vote. It does not mean if you vote for MFN or against it that you are for or against human rights in China, but it does say how far you would be willing to go on that issue. As I say, fundamentally, if we just argued this on the trade issues, China should not have most-favored-nation status, because they do not give it to the United States, because they have barriers against our products, they pirate our technology and intellectual property, they insist on the transfer of technology, in the course of trade they insist on a plan for export on anybody manufacturing in China in joint ventures, and they export products made by slave labor to the United States. All of this undermines our international competitiveness. So this administration can no longer say they are shining the bright light of freedom on China, instead of using MFN. They can no longer say this is about jobs, because the figures simply do not lie in that direction. America has been losing jobs on the basis of its policy with China. Then on the issue of proliferation, that is just really a sad one, because in any given day the most serious thing that could happen is that there will be proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The Chinese Government has not been taken to task on this. This administration has taken a sort of a silent, tacit agreement that they will not proliferate nuclear technology to unsafeguarded countries, and called that a great diplomatic victory. That is the reason they said they did not put sanctions on the Chinese national nuclear corporation, which is the company that transferred the magnet rings. The administration wants to believe that the Chinese Government did not know about the transfer of the magnet rings. Let us agree with them for a moment. Maybe they did not. I believe they did, but let us take the administration's position for a moment. There is no question, and it is an undisputed fact, that the Chinese national nuclear corporation knew exactly what it was doing when it sold the ring magnets for centrifuge to enrich uranium to Pakistan for their nuclear program, making the world a less safe place. In doing so, the administration called the Eximbank and said to the Eximbank, ``You are now free to provide loan financing with American companies doing business with the Chinese national nuclear corporation.'' A deal was in the pipeline that went forward. Imagine, it was well known that they had transferred the nuclear technology, and right now, today, American taxpayer dollars are subsidizing a deal with that very corporation because the administration did not want to sanction them. Then of course the list goes on about Iran. Our country has an embargo on Iran, yet looks the other way as China, undisputed fact, has transferred missile technology to Iran and chemical technology, making the Middle East a much more dangerous place. As we spend billions and billions of dollars to promote and preserve the Middle East peace, we are looking the other way and not taking China to task. It is always a special case. I do not think China should be treated any better or any worse than any other country, but I do think it is important for us to understand how they are being treated and how dangerous it is to the world. Over and over we have said on this floor that our policy with any country should be to make trade fairer, people freer and the world safer. On none of those scores has this Clinton administration and the Bush administration policy before it met that test. So I would say that as we go into this time, we have been given a free ride, almost. Because Senator Dole and President Clinton, the two candidates, the leaders of the parties going into that race, both agree on the same policy, that frees us up not to be taking sides within the Presidential race on China MFN, for Members to follow their conscience, follow the facts. As I have said before, the President has the power, the businesses have the money, we have the floor and we must use it to shed the light of our great democracy on the repression in China, to shed the light on the unfair trade practices, and to shed the light on the proliferation issues making this world a much more dangerous place. With that, I thank the gentleman for his great leadership. Those who aspire to practice their religion in China have no greater friend than my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Wolf. I am pleased to participate in his special order, and yield back to the gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today President Clinton announced that he was going to ask Congress to renew most-favored-nation status with China unconditionally for the coming year. Unconditionally. As you know, Mr. Speaker, under the law the President must request a special waiver for China in order for China to have most-favored-nation status. That request comes to the Congress, and then Members have the discretion to have a motion to deny. The President in his statement today talked about trade with China leading to democratization. There he talked about why it was important for us to have most-favored-nation status with China, because of American benefits to American business, because of China's potential cooperation over Korea and China's potential cooperation on the proliferation of weapons. Indeed, if China is a responsible country, and let us hope that it is, it should be working to keep the Korean peninsula nonnuclear, and it should be working to stop the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. But I want to focus today on the trade deficit itself because when others say why should we use trade as a lever to improve human rights in China, I think it is very important for all of us to understand just what that trade situation is. I have here, Mr. Speaker, and I call to our colleagues' attention, a chart of the trade with China in the past 10 years. In 1995, the United States trade deficit with China was $10 million. In 1995, the trade deficit was just under $34 billion. This is all at a time during mostly the Bush and Clinton policies which said that this was going to be good for American jobs. Indeed it is not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, the United States is doing, by its policy is exporting jobs to China. In this trade deficit we are not even including the piracy of American intellectual property. The genius of America, as our colleague, Congresswoman Eshoo said, a product made in a free system, a freedom of expression and entrepreneurial spirit. The Chinese have been pirating flagrantly our intellectual property to epidemic proportions. That is not even counted in this trade deficit. In addition to that, when American businesses enter into agreements with China to produce goods there, they also must agree to a program for exporting back to the United States and internationally as well as a transfer of our technology, and that is again exporting jobs. One example of that is that a few years ago Boeing closed a plant in Wichita, KS, which made the tail section of the 737. That plant was closed, and a plant in China where 20,000 Chinese workers worked for $50 a month, they now produce the tail section which was formerly made in Wichita, KS, and this is just in the last few years. So over the next month or so as we debate this issue, I think it is important for us to have the real facts about United States-China trade. Indeed why should we give preferential trade treatment to China when they for the most part do not even allow United States products into China; barriers to market access, piracy of intellectual property, transfer of technology as a term for doing business with the Chinese, export of prison goods made by prison labor to the United States and unfair competition to the American worker as an addition to being a violation of human rights. Why should the American worker have to compete with slave labor? It just is not fair trade; it is not free trade. So as we go forward, many of my colleagues and I will be laying on the table what the trade picture is. It is not a rosy one. It is about profits for certain elitist companies which are allowed to export to China. Most products made in America are not allowed into China. The President says that economic reform will lead to political reform. I reject that kind of trickle-down liberty just as I reject other trickle-down policies in our country. But the fact is that you cannot in one breath say that promoting democracy in Asia is a principle and a pillar of our foreign policy there and that we are going to shed the light of democracy on what goes on in China and then not do it at all. And then I know that my time is drawing to a close. I just want to say this is an opener. The President made his statement today. They will have, the President has, the power, the business community has the dollars, but we in Congress have the floor, and we are going to try to educate the American people and our colleagues as to the real extent in terms of jobs for the American workers. I urge our colleagues to listen carefully to this debate and to keep an open mind.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. President Clinton's budget is. It protects and invests in the health, education, and well-being of the American people, protects the environment, as well as protecting Medicare and Medicaid. I have many problems with the Republication budget. However, the most extreme and shortsighted part of the GOP budget plan is the severe cuts to education and job training. Essentially these vital programs to prepare the American people for the challenge of a new global economy are cut by 25 percent from this year's funding and then frozen for 6 years. Many scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. This renewed attack on education places the Republican budget on a collision course with the Clinton administration, which has proposed $61 billion more in investments for education and job training. For health programs, the Republican plan calls for drastic cuts in programs like community health centers, family planning and biomedical research. Is this a statement of our national values? The plan to cut purchasing power for the National Institutes of Health by 16 percent is extreme and is lacking in an understanding of the importance of investment in biomedical research. Over and over again the Republican budget makes cuts where we should be making investments. I do not believe it is a statement of our national values. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the GOP plan and be proud to vote ``aye'' on the Clinton proposal. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 1997 Republican 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 produced Federal deficits which have gone down 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 Republican 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 $168 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. The Republican plan for Medicaid is even more extreme. A cut of $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 the drastic approach and proposed a reasonable plan to cap individual benefits resulting in comparable savings without millions of Americans losing health coverage. Likewise, the Republican budget 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 Republican plan is once again extreme. Funding for defense programs is increased greatly over the Pentagon's request. On the other hand, nondefense spending falls dramatically; a 25-percent reduction in purchasing power for domestic programs. For health programs, the Republican 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] by 16 percent is extreme and lacking in an understanding of the important of investment in biomedical research. Again this year, the Republican budget plan proposes to cut important worker protection programs, including the Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA] by more than 20 percent while terminating important research on workplace safety. The budget plan also calls for the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act thus threatening other important worker income security protections. Nonetheless, the most extreme and short-sighted part of the GOP budget plan is the severe cuts to education and job training programs. Essentially, these vital programs to prepare the American people for the challenges of a new global economy are cut by 25 percent from this year's funding and then frozen for 6 years. Important education reforms are terminated and funding for bilingual education is eliminated. Many scholarship and student loan programs are eliminated. The successful direct Student Loan Program is also eliminated. This renewed attack on education places the Republican budget on a collision course with the Clinton administration which has proposed $61 billion more in investments for education and job training. Meanwhile, this plan would phase-out funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as well as eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Again, these proposals are short-sighted and extreme. Again, the Republican plan fails to adequately protect the environment. The plan would cut purchasing power for natural resources and environmental protection by 26 percent. It also focuses cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency based on flawed risk-based regulation reforms. The American people want the environment protected. They want clean water, clean air, and access to well-kept national parks. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is deja vu from 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 Republican budget 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ed Ueber, a steadfast steward of the gulf of the Farallones. Ed received his master's degree in resource economics and fisheries from the University of Rhode Island, and conducted post-graduate work in maritime history at the Munson Institute. Serving for the last 6 years as sanctuary manager of the gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries, Ed has spent his career in the marine field. Ed served aboard submarines and merchant ships in the U.S. Navy and the Merchant Marine. He has worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service and published peer-review papers on fish biology, fishing techniques, global warming, fishery economics, fish trade, fishery management, wood boat building, wooden ship reconstruction, oceanography and marina operations. He has chaired over 20 national and four international conferences on marine fisheries, fishery valuation and management of marine protected areas. As a sanctuary manager, Ed has been dedicated and tireless. He has worked to build support and public enthusiasm for the national marine sanctuary operations. Ed's important work as a respected sanctuary manager has been critical for much needed support for the establishment of the Nation's three newest marine sactuaries: Stillwagen Bank, Washington Coast, and Monterey Bay. Ed and his small staff have been vigilant stewards of the sanctuary waters and their resources. The sanctuary staff has worked diligently to initiate new and innovative programs, many of which call upon a cadre of dedicated volunteers, such as the Beach Watch Program. These efforts to engage the public interest have also led to the creation of the Nation's first sanctuary support organization--the Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the people of the bay area thank Ed Ueber for his extraordinary work on its behalf, and wish him many more years of success in protecting and preserving our Nation's marine life.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an increase in the minimum wage, and in doing so I want to call attention of our colleagues to this cartoon, which is neither funny nor fair. As I call my colleagues' attention to it, Mr. Speaker, I want them to think about it. ``How long does it take to earn $8,440,'' it says. On one side it says, ``If you are full-time minimum-wage worker, it takes 1 year. If you are an average CEO of a large U.S. corporation, it takes one-half a day.'' Think about it. God bless everyone who can make that kind of money at the high end. But why, in a great country as decent as ours, should we not reward work and for us to have a disparity this great? It is a matter of conscience and decency and a sign of a great country that we reward work. This is an increase for necessities. Please honor American workers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Department of Defense [DOD] a authorization bill for 1997. I oppose the bill because the legislation authorizes $12.4 billion more in defense spending than requested by the Pentagon. Later, this week we will vote on a budget resolution which proposes to spend $19 billion less than the President's request for priority domestic programs. The priorities being proposed are not consistent with the realities of challenges facing the United States. One of the worst provisions in this bill would lead to the immediate discharge of 1,049 services members infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The Department of Defense opposes this provision and does not believe that these service members present a deployment problem. Clearly, members with HIV should be treated as any other service member with chronic, possibly fatal, medical conditions and remain on active duty until such time as they cannot perform their duties. This provision is discriminatory because it treats people with HIV differently from any other people with other chronic diseases are treated. Thankfully, a bipartisan coalition was successful in removing this provision from last year's bill and hopefully, this same coalition will prevail before this legislation is completed. In addition, this bill would undo the current compromise and put in statute a complete ban on lesbians and gay men from serving in the military. Clearly, lesbians and gay men have served their country with distinction as members of the armed service from the very beginning of our country. This provision is unnecessary and is part of a disturbing pattern of promoting hostility toward lesbian and gay Americans. Mr. Chairman, for budget reasons in general, and this provision in particular, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman suggesting? I believe in this body we all respect each other's opinions, and we all respect our rights to have differing opinions. Is the gentleman questioning the morality of Members of Congress?

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment and commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for her leadership and courage in bringing this amendment to the floor. I am pleased to join a long line of women Members of Congress for this amendment to strike the prohibition prohibiting the honorable women serving overseas from using their own funds, I repeat, their own funds to obtain full reproductive rights at military medical facilities, full reproductive services. Mr. Chairman, addressing the concern expressed by our colleague about the morale in the armed services, what about the morale of the women in the armed services? There was no lessening of morale from 1973 to 1988, when this very policy was in effect. There was no lessening of morale, lowering of morale from 1993 to 1996, when this same policy was in effect. Mr. Chairman, when a woman chooses to serve her country, she volunteers to risk her life for her country. Her bravery should not be met by a danger to her health and a violation of her constitutional rights. I urge our colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Is the gentleman questioning the morality of those who disagree with him?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of our colleagues legislation which I plan to introduce this week to impose sanctions against China for violations of our intellectual property rights. Mr. Speaker, regardless of where Members are in this body over the annual debate on most-favored-nation status for China, an issue separate from that but clearly about America's competitive advantage internationally, our intellectual property, is one where I think we will have agreement. Mr. Speaker, over the last 7 years, the United States trade deficit with China has increased by over 1,000 percent. In 1988, the deficit was $3 million. In 1995, the deficit was $35 billion. It is projected to grow to well over $40 billion for this year, and shortly will surpass Japan as the country with our largest trade deficit. Mr. Speaker, much of this is due to lack of market access for United States products which are not allowed into China, products made in America. But today, I want to call to my colleagues' attention to the intellectual property violations and piracy. That figure of $2.5 billion lost in 1995 alone is over and above the trade deficit. The deficit figure of $35 billion for last year does not include the loss to our economy from China's violations of United States intellectual property rights, including the piracy of compact discs, videos, and software, which cost the United States economy $2.3 billion in 1995, by industry figures. My bill would impose increased tariffs on Chinese products to compensate for the loss to the United States economy resulting from China's intellectual property rights violations. It would leave the discretion to the President of the United States to determine the figure and the criteria for what the sanctions would be. Since 1991, the United States Government has repeatedly tried to encourage the Chinese Government to halt the piracy and to provide market access for United States products. The efforts, which I will outline briefly, have not been successful. In 1991, and 1992, the Bush administration initiated a special 301 investigation of China's intellectual property rights practices and published a list of Chinese products for possible sanction. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese Government, as a response to that, agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding designed to address piracy concerns. Mr. Speaker, under the MOU they agreed to strengthen their patent, property rights and trade secret laws and to improve protection of U.S. intellectual property. None of this happened, and the piracy of U.S. IPR continued. In 1994, the Clinton administration's United States Trade Representative initiated another special 301 investigation, noting that while China had implemented several new laws, they were not enforcing the laws. The United States Trade Representative added to his list of concerns trade barriers restricting access to China's markets for United States movies, videos, and sound recordings. In 1995, the USTR issued a list of products once again which would be subject to increased tariffs as a result of China's lack of action on IPR and piracy. Mr. Speaker, despite all of these efforts by United States officials, the Chinese Government is not abiding by the agreement, piracy is increasing, and market access to United States products is being denied. In addition, the Chinese Government today has castigated the United States for considering protecting its own intellectual property. Mr. Speaker, this comes at a time that we are telling the workers of America that we live in a global economy, that many products which are labor intensive must be made in areas where labor is less costly, but that the comparative advantage of the United States is our intellectual property, our ideas, information, our software. If this is so, then all the more reason for this Congress and this administration, the Clinton administration, to call a halt to the theft of our intellectual property by China. Mr. Speaker, we have tried year in and year out with memoranda of understanding and with agreements. Enough is enough. The theft of intellectual property hurts American workers, costs American jobs, and undermines our global economic competitiveness. I hope that my colleagues will agree to cosponsor my bill to implement sanctions against China for its intellectual property violations. I hope Members will call my office to say they would like to be original cosponsors, before the bill is introduced this week for American workers, for American competitiveness.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ryan White Care Act reauthorization conference report. This legislation is needed to continue the vital services provided under the Ryan White Program. I commend the conferees for their hard work in reaching agreements on many difficult issues. The final agreement revises formulas for distribution of funds for the emergency assistance program for cities and for the grants to States for AIDS-related health care. The conferees have balanced their approach to maximize fairness to all involved. With regard to the newborn testing issues, the conferees have endorsed the CDC guidelines which emphasize voluntary testing and provided authorization for an outreach program to encourage voluntary testing of pregnant women. This would allow these women to take advantage of the latest treatments available to prevent the transmission of HIV to their babies. I am pleased that the conferees have managed to avoid approaches which may have driven many pregnant women away from medical care. This authorization bill also allows for an orderly distribution of funds to States for new drugs recently approved by the FDA to improve longevity and quality of life for people with AIDS. Last week, Congress approved President Clinton's request for an emergency supplemental appropriation of $52 million for this important AIDS Drug Assistance Program [ADAP]. Now these funds can be more fairly distributed to the States. Again, I commend Chairman Bilirakis and Mr. Waxman, as well as the other conferees, for their hard work in reaching agreement on these important provisions. The bill--and the 17-percent increase in funding provided in the appropriations bill--bring hope to people with AIDS, their caregivers, and their loved ones.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Gibbons. The unwavering determination and fighting spirit of this war hero and political hero will be sorely missed when he leaves this body. Appointed to the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee in the 103d Congress, his tenure was much too brief. Congressman Gibbons currently serves as the ranking Democratic Member. First elected to Congress in 1962, which makes him a Member of this House for more than three decades, Mr. Gibbons is never far from the action--in fact, we usually can find him right in the middle of it. This Congress he has been a noted and passionate defender of Medicare and Medicaid, school lunches and a welfare system that creates long- term solutions to the cycle of poverty. The Member from Tampa has a long history of shepherding domestic programs through the House. In the 1960's, President Johnson entrusted Sam to manage on the floor much of his Great Society Program, which included the very successful Head Start and Job Corps Programs. Congressman Gibbons has served his country for all of his adult life, beginning with his valiant service in World War II, when he parachuted into France the night before the Normandy invasion and received a Bronze Star for his heroic efforts. Congressman Gibbon's contributions to this House are legion. We will miss particularly his spirit, his tenacity, his humor, and his commitment to improving our country. I join with all of my colleagues in wishing our friend well as he moves on to his next challenge.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne] for yielding, and since he only has 2 minutes I will not take much of this time except to join my colleagues in commending Sam Gibbons, a great leader in the Congress of the United States; a leader on the issues; and, a gentleman at all times.