Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago when the reality of the holocaust came to light, people of conscience said never again to ethnic cleansing and to genocide. These abhorrent actions have continued despite this promise. I believe that the world can no longer turn a blind eye to Bosnia and the tragedies that are there. That is why I commend President Clinton for his leadership, support the troops for their courage, and will support the Hamilton amendment. I rise in opposition to the resolution on the floor at this time, because I believe our country can be proud of the leadership in bringing the warring parties to the conflict in Bosnia to the negotiating table and for the successful conclusion of the Bosnian peace talks. Now we should join with other nations in ensuring that the peace agreement can be implemented. Mr. Speaker, the United States does have a national interest in peace in the former Yugoslavia. As the world's lone superpower, we have the obligation to lead. Several hundred thousand innocent children, men and women have died in the conflict in Bosnia. The war must stop. At stake if the United States does not participate in the Bosnian peace process are the role of the United States as a world leader, the future viability of NATO, and the risk of reigniting the conflagration in Bosnia. A continuing Bosnian conflict threatens to spread killing and destruction to other European states. The terrible acts of ethnic cleansing and brutal atrocities challenge the conscience of us all. Is the Bosnian mission without danger and risk? No. With strong leadership, there are always risks. These risks have been minimized, and they are risks for peace, risks for ending years of bloodshed, risks for freedom. We risk far more by failing to act. We risk far more if we allow the tenuous peace to collapse and watch the flames of war ignite again. For this reason I oppose this resolution, urge support of the Hamilton resolution, and commend President Clinton for this leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], because although we differ on the issue of choice, he has been a champion on funding for child survival issues and the like; but as a tactic, I think the way that the chairman has decided to proceed on this will present huge obstacles to getting our family planning money out there when it is needed.

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say, if Members abhor abortion, as we all do, they should support family planning and vote against this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa for his leadership, as well as that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and others who have brought this legislation to the floor today. I commend them all, and am pleased to be a sponsor of the resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, it is most fitting that we consider this bill today, the day before Wei Jingsheng is tried in a Chinese court. Today is also the day on which the U.S. Department of State is celebrating Human Rights Day. On December 5, President Clinton signed a proclamation designating the week of December 10 through 16, 1995 as Human Rights Week. President Clinton said: We live in an era of great advances for freedom and democracy. Yet, sadly, it also remains a time of ongoing suffering and hardship in many countries. As a nation long committed to promoting individual rights and human dignity, let us continue our efforts to ensure that people in all regions of the globe enjoy the same freedoms and basic human rights that have always made America great. Our action today on this legislation demonstrates our congressional commitment to living up to our American values of promoting human rights, basic freedoms and human dignity. Wei Jingsheng is scheduled to be tried tomorrow, I guess it is in a few hours, taking into consideration the time difference, in a Chinese courtroom on charges of attempting to overthrow the Government, a capital offense. The charges against Wei are spurious, the trial is fixed, and the entire event would be farcical if a man's life were not at stake. The case of Wei Jingsheng, a key figure in China's pro-democracy movement, once again exposes to world view the flaws in China's judicial system and the alarming pattern of human rights abuses by China's authoritarian Government. Wei Jingsheng was first imprisoned as a result of his 1979 democracy wall activities. His activities at that time include daring to write and to publicize material critical of Marxist-Leninism and critical of China's Communist Government. For those activities, Wei was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was released after serving 14\1/2\ years of that 15 year sentence and I might add, much of that in solitary confinement. As part of the public relations campaign by China's dictatorial Government to woo the International Olympic Committee into naming Beijing as an Olympics site. Wei Jingsheng was detained again by the Chinese Government in 1994, less than 6 months after obtaining his freedom. His crime? Daring to continue to speak out against China's Communist Government. When Wei met with foreign journalists and officials, including U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck. The Chinese Government did not like what Wei had to say or to whom he was saying it and shortly after his meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Shattuck, Wei was thrown once again into the bowels of the Chinese Government penal system. Wei Jingsheng was held incommunicado for 20 months by China's dictators. During that time, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by an international group of parliamentarians, including 58 Members of the U.S. Congress. During those 20 months, the Chinese Government held Wei without charging him, in violation of their own laws. Two days before the U.S. holiday of Thanksgiving, I mention that because it is clear that the Chinese Government knew this would be at a time when Congress was not in session and able to respond to the charges, the Chinese Government finally acknowledged that they were holding Wei and formally charged him with attempting to overthrow the government. Last Friday, they announced that his trial would be on Wednesday, December 13. The charges are absurd; the verdict predictable and predetermined. Wei's family has hired a talented and dedicated attorney to defend him, the same attorney who defended prominent dissidents Wang Juntao and Chen Ziming. Unfortunately, as of 48 hours before the trial, the attorney had neither been granted access to Wei nor allowed to view the dossier against him. This is but one example of the sham trial which is about to be undertaken. Chinese authorities had originally announced that the trial would be open. The question here is to whom the word open applies--neither foreign journalists nor U.S. Embassy officials who have requested to attend the trial are being permitted to do so. Wei Jingsheng's sister, Wei Shanshan, is in Washington, DC this week to appeal for help in freeing her brother. The bill before us today bolsters an international campaign on Wei's behalf. The international efforts include a campaign by prominent and distinguished international jurists, represented in the U.S. by former attorneys General Nicholas Katzenbach and Dick Thornburgh, to defend Wei and a campaign by PEN, the international authors organization, to appeal for Wei's release. House Concurrent Resolution 117 puts the strong voice and the moral authority of the United States House of Representatives on record in support of a fighter for freedom and Democratic reform, a man who embodies the values upon which our own great democracy was built. As we commemorate human rights week, I call on the administration to live up to its rhetoric on human rights. President Clinton should communicate directly and in no uncertain terms to the Chinese Government at the highest levels that Wei Jingsheng must be released immediately and unconditionally. The United States and China cannot have a normal relationship while China insists upon violating international law and violating international norms of behavior. I urge my colleagues to support freedom and democracy in China by supporting Wei Jingsheng. Wei is a strong symbol of, to, and for the Chinese dissidents who are risking their lives by bravely speaking out against tyranny. Mr. Speaker, this morning we cheered the remarks of Shimon Peres as he spoke out in support of democracy and how it was important to peace. Hopefully, our colleagues will now join together in sending another strong message in support of democracy by supporting this resolution. Once again, I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] for giving us this opportunity to vote on this important legislation this evening.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the legislation offered by the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and thank them for giving this opportunity to us to honor a great person who served in this Congress, indeed, a great American, Don Edwards. It is appropriate that H.R. 1253 would rename the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge after the dean of the California delegation, the former dean, Don Edwards. Heeding the admonition of the chairman of the committee, I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because indeed as you can see, many of us from California in particular but from all over the country could speak all day about Don Edwards. As I say, he loved the Constitution, he loved this country, both in its ideas and its physical beauty as well. The chairman of the full committee went into detail about what the bill would do and why it was important for that legislation to exist and this renaming to take place. I just want to reiterate one concept, that it is now the largest urban refuge in the United States and is visited by over 250,000 people each year. Renaming the refuge after Congressman Edwards is a fitting token, certainly not enough for the contribution that he has made to this country but a fitting token of appreciation to him for his leadership and the hard work that he did to make this. As our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], said earlier, for generations to come children who visit the refuge will now know who Don Edwards is, for ages to come, and the valuable contribution that he made to our country. In that spirit, I wish to once again commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for their leadership in making this vote possible today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995. This legislation preserves a strong U.S. merchant marine and it is vital to our national defense and economy. In the years immediately following World War II, almost half of the world's commercial fleet sailed under the American flag. Today, while the United States remains the largest trading nation in the world, our merchant marine fleet now ranks 16th in size when compared to other maritime nations. This legislation would begin to reverse this dramatic decline. H.R. 1350, which was reported unanimously by the Committee on National Security, serves several important purposes. The bill creates a Maritime Security Program which will ensure that the United States has a U.S.-flagged and crewed fleet of militarily useful commercial vessels ready at all times. This fleet will serve our country in peace and in war. In addition, the Maritime Security Program would significantly reduce the cost of the Federal maritime operating assistance program from a $225 million annual program to a $100 million annual program. Each ship that participates in the program would receive $2.3 million per year for the first year and $2.1 million per year for the remaining 9 years of the program. When fully operational, the program would result in the retention of approximately 50 U.S.-flag vessels which would otherwise shift their operations to foreign flags of convenience with foreign crews. This is the most sweeping maritime reform program in six decades. It will reduce Federal spending while providing for a modern cost- competitive American maritime fleet which will serve our Nation's economic and military objectives. Furthermore, it will ensure that our American commercial fleet will be crewed by American sailors, the finest crews in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1350.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a bill worth passing and one which should be enacted without further delay. If passed by the House without amendment, the bill would be cleared for the President's signature. If amended however, the legislation [[Page E 2280]] must be returned to the Senate for further consideration. This delay will effectively kill lobby reform legislation for the rest of the 104th Congress. This bill expands the registration requirements for lobbyists and requires more disclosure regarding lobbying activities. Specifically, the bill requires those who lobby congressional staff, senior executive branch officials, and Members of Congress to register as lobbyists. In addition, lobbyists must identify their clients, the general issues on which they lobby, and how much they are paid for their efforts. While we must ensure that the constitutional right of the people to petition their government is protected, we must also make certain that paid lobbying activities are adequately disclosed. This bill protects both of these principles and deserves our support. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2564 without amendment and pass these much-needed lobbying reforms.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I rise to oppose the conference report for H.R. 2126, Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1996. On September 29, this House defeated the DOD conference report by a vote of 151 to 267. Since that vote, there have been only minor changes to the contents of this conference report and it should be rejected. Like the first conference agreement, this conference agreement appropriates a total of $243.4 billion for defense programs--nearly $7 billion more that the administration's request. When combined with the defense-related provisions of other appropriations bills, this Congress will have appropriated nearly $265 billion for defense-related programs during this fiscal year. My colleagues, these enormous expenditures represent a much greater threat to the security of this country than the former Soviet Union ever did. In order to fund unnecessary weapons systems like the B-2 and the Seawolf submarine, we have slashed funding for health care insurance programs, decent and affordable housing, and many higher education opportunities for young Americans. We should support a level of defense spending necessary to meet our legitimate security needs. We should not support a conference agreement that is filled with corporate pork and wasteful expenditures. Vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for both H.R. 2525, the Charitable Gift Annuity Relief Act, and H.R. 2519, the Philanthropy Protection Act. These bills offer much-needed clarity to our securities and antitrust laws and will encourage continued charitable giving by our Nation's non-profit organizations. Charitable gift annuities and charitable trusts make it possible for donors to make contributions while still retaining some income from the gift. This legislation encourages this flexible arrangement and should be supported. Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States are the most generous in the world. In 1995 alone, contributions to charity totaled $120 billion. These bills will ensure that this level of generosity continues. Vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 2519 and H.R. 2525.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this House of Representatives has for a long time now been a bulwark of support for pro-Democratic reform in China. So it is very sad for me today to rise and call upon my colleagues to join in calling upon the Chinese Government to immediately release Wei Jing Shing. As many Members know, Wei Jing Shing is the father of the prodemocracy movement in China. He was arrested at the time of the prodemocracy wall activities and served mostly in solitary confinement for about 15 years. He was released when China wanted to get the Olympics. He was rearrested 6 months later for giving interviews to the press as well as meeting with the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck. After 20 months he was held incommunicado. Last week he was charged with trying to overthrow the government, a capital offense punishable by death. It is very important that the United States of America, the Clinton administration, and this Congress speak out loudly and clearly to the Chinese Government and join with the 15 dissidents who risked their own personal safety to call for Wei's release, a commutation of the charges brought against him and, if he goes to trial, a fair and open trial for Wei Jing Shing.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I thank her for the opportunity to join in paying tribute to our colleague, Pat Schroeder. It cannot be said better than you have done commending Representative Schroeder for her leadership. It is a sad day for us in the House of Representatives on the day that she announced she would not be seeking reelection. Whether they know it or not, women across America, and, as you say, indeed men too, owe Pat Schroeder a great debt of gratitude. Through her leadership on issues relating to families and children, she has changed the public policy in that regard. It is our most important issue in fact that we deal with here, the issue of children. But on this day in this House of Representatives, when on the one hand we are talking about the possibility of sending our young people to keep the peace in Bosnia, and at the same time we are talking about human rights throughout the world and talking about family and children, there is a person who served us here with great leadership, an articulate spokesperson for children, for human rights, for peace, and, at the same time, a strong, strong voice on the Committee on National Security, now called I think the Committee on National Security. So her expertise and her voice was heard across the spectrum of issues in our budget priorities. She has led us well. I hope she will continue to outside of Congress. I know she has plenty of wonderful options open to her, but, nonetheless, as happy as we are for her on her decision, it is a sad day. I speak for myself and my constituents when I say that her presence in this Congress for this country will be sorely missed.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. While the measure before us is slightly better than the one passed by the House, it has a long way to go before it is acceptable. I am particularly concerned about the 26 percent cut in housing programs, the 27 percent cut in homeless programs, and the 21 percent cut in the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee and the conferees for continuing to fund the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS [HOPWA] program as a separate program. The $171 million provide for HOPWA, the same level as the post-rescission funding in fiscal year 1995, will help communities across the Nation as they develop local solutions to problems confronting people with HIV/AIDS. Because new communities qualify for HOPWA funds this year, the level of funding to communities already receiving HOPWA grants will be reduced. This problem could have been resolved by providing a higher level of funding. However, I am pleased that HOPWA is being maintained as a separate program and will, therefore, not have to compete with housing for the disabled and the elderly. I would also like to commend the conferees for their efforts to address the continuing threat to the affordable housing stock posed by prepayment. This conference report provides $624 million for a modified preservation/prepayment program. Although I am concerned that the funds are insufficient to meet the needs, I am pleased that the conferees recognized that there is a serious problem and are interested in developing a solution to it. Despite these provisions, I oppose this bill because it reneges on our Federal commitment to help this Nation's families. Strong families make our communities strong and strong communities make our Nation strong. For families to be strong, they must have access to the basics--employment, education, healthcare, and housing. This bill dramatically decreases the ability of local communities to provide access to decent, safe, and affordable housing for America's families. The costs to our society of homelessness are significant and they are long-term. At the simplest level, the costs are financial. It costs more to return homeless people to the mainstream of society than it costs to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place. But, the costs to society of homelessness go far beyond financial ones. Children growing up homeless in the streets today will carry the scars of their childhood experiences and the memories of society's indifference to them into their adulthood. We are being willfully blind if we refuse to see that society's indifference today will cost us tomorrow. The conference report to H.R. 2099, like so many of the pieces of the agenda of this Republican-controlled Congress, targets its hardest hits at the most vulnerable. In the case of housing, those hit the hardest are the poorest residents in public and assisted housing and poor working families, too many of whom live on the streets. The median income of households receiving Federal housing assistance is $8,000. These households simply have no additional resources with which to pay for increases in housing costs. Currently, more than 5.6 million very-low-income households in this country pay half or more of their incomes for rent or live in substandard housing. Between 1989 and 1993, this group grew by 600,000 households--a growth rate which will be dwarfed by the one ahead of us if this bill becomes law. More than 8 percent of our Nation's children--our future--live in these households. In this Nation, we already have at least 4.7 million fewer affordable rental units than we need, and more than 1.5 million households are on waiting lists for public or assisted housing. This number will increase dramatically and quickly if this bill becomes law. Under the funding levels contained in this bill, no additional families will receive Federal housing assistance, and for those families who have been on waiting lists, sometimes for years, their hopes for decent housing grow even dimmer. These cuts would be bad enough if they were being done on their own. They are not. Coupled with the dismantling of the Federal safety net and draconian cuts in Federal programs contained in other legislation passed by Congress--including cuts in welfare, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, education and job training--the cuts in housing and homelessness programs in this bill add up to disaster. These cuts create insurmountable odds for America's struggling working lower income families and increased demand for local community assistance, with no hope of Federal assistance. The needs do not go away because Congress has taken the money away. In many cases, the needs will grow. This bill is cruel and cold-hearted. It does not reflect American values. I also oppose the provisions in this conference report which would cut the funding levels for the Environmental Protection Agency by 21 percent. These provisions not only severely limit the agency's ability to protect our lands, air, and water; but they also continue the full- scale assault on the environment that began on the first day of the 104th Congress. Poll after poll has indicated that the American people favor strong environmental laws. We should not be willing to sacrifice the health and safety of our children. For the families, children, and citizens of America, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the House of Representatives and indeed further attention of our country to a recent event that happened in China. Last week, the Chinese Government formally charged Wei Jingsheng with trying to overthrow the Government of China. This is a source of very serious concern to all of us who care about human rights in China. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, Wei Jingsheng is China's foremost democracy advocate. He has been called the Sakharov of China. Many years ago, over 15 or 16 years ago, he was arrested by the Chinese Government for his pro-Democracy Wall activities. Early on he spoke out for democracy, the need for democracy in China. He had been a soldier and an electrician and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He served most of that sentence, and about 6 months ago, the Chinese released him when they were trying to put on a good face in order to attract the Olympics to China. You may recall that campaign. [[Page H 13796]] Six months later, he was quickly rearrested after speaking openly for democracy and human rights, granting interviews to foreign reporters, meeting, indeed, with our own Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, John Shattuck, and writing essays for overseas publications, including the New York Times. He was taken into custody on April 1, 1994, and has not been seen or heard from since. His family has not been allowed to see him, and requests from foreign governments and international rights groups for information on his case have gone unanswered. After repeated inquires by his family, the Public Security Bureau acknowledged in April that Wei was under a form of house arrest. Since then the Chinese officials have merely referred to him as a criminal and have said that, without elaborating, he was under investigation. Now the Chinese Government has acted. They have officially charged him with a capital offense, trying to overthrow the Government. This is, of course, ridiculous. However, the charge is of such seriousness and the nature of the Chinese judicial system of such concern that I call this to our attention. Trials in China are usually swift, in secret, and behind closed doors. The verdict is usually predetermined and severe. Attempting to overthrow the Government, as Wei Jingsheng is mistakenly charged with, is considered a political crime which can be punished by death. Many of our colleagues in this body and in the Senate, indeed parliamentarians throughout the world, nominated Wei Jingsheng earlier this year for the Nobel prize. We were proud to do so. I am calling this to the attention of the House of Representatives because I hope that we will have a resolution out of this body condemning the charges against Wei Jingsheng and calling for his immediate and unconditional release and demanding that if indeed he does go to trial, that foreign media and diplomatic observers be allowed to attend. I mentioned that Wei Jingsheng had met with Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck in April, and since then he has been, as I say, detained, and now charged. This is very serious for the United States, because our Government has said that we will not use certain methods to improve human rights in China, we would not use economic sanctions, but we would do other things, and right now this administration has not spoken out strongly enough against the charging of Wei. I recently wrote to the Vice President, Vice President Gore, asking him for a strong statement from the Clinton administration. Only strong public expressions of concern and interest at our highest levels will be read by the Chinese leadership as a true indicator of American policy regarding Wei and other democracy advocates. If we do not raise the issue of Wei's charges, it could be read as tacit consent by the United States of whatever fate China has chosen for Wei Jingsheng. The public intervention of the Clinton administration is most important in establishing United States policy regarding the treatment of Wei Jingsheng, clearly and unequivocally. The need for public and strong statement at the highest levels, I repeat, of the Clinton administration is critical given China's foreign ministry statement last week that the United States stop its confrontation with China at the U.N. Commission at Human Rights in Geneva. Such a statement, coupled with Wei's charge, is a challenge to the United States we must answer. Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that the Clinton administration will indeed speak out. They were very, very strong in sending a message to the Chinese about Harry Wu. I commend them for their actions. That was responsible for Harry Wu's release. I hope they will do the same thing in the case of Wei Jingsheng and look forward to working with them and the Members of this body to free Wei Jingsheng.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for the gift ban legislation before the House, House Resolution 250. Twice during the 103d Congress, this House approved similar gift ban legislation by solid bipartisan majorities only to see these measures stalled by filibusters in the other body. I am pleased that the Leadership has seen fit to allow us to consider this important bipartisan [[Page E 2251]] legislation offered by Representatives Shays, Meehan, and Barrett. H. Res. 250 would limit the total value of gifts that a Member or staff member could receive to $100 from any one source; only gifts costing more than $10 would count toward this limit. Furthermore, no Member or staff member could accept an individual gift, including meals or entertainment, that costs more than $50. These provisions would cover all employees of the House, including employees of Members, committees, joint committees, and Leadership offices. By contrast, the substitute offered by Representative Burton is a washed-out version of congressional gift reform. Under the Burton substitute, Members could still accept lobbyist trips, go to golf tournaments free of charge, and accept gifts up to $250. My colleagues, let's take a stand in favor of real gift reform. Vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 250 and ``no'' on the Burton substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding time to me and thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of the parties to the agreement that brings us here today to vote on this continuing resolution. I am particularly grateful to President Clinton for holding firm to his commitment to protect Medicare, the environment, and education and to scale back the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country. I believe that the reconciliation bill the Republicans are proposing is not balanced at all; indeed, it is imbalanced in terms of its tax unfairness in addition to the priorities which I do not agree with. For example, in that imbalance a $16-billion tax break will be given to America's corporations while there will be a $32-billion tax increase for America's families to pay for that corporate tax break. In terms of capital gains, our colleagues are strong supporters of the capital gains cut. The capital gains cut in this bill, in the reconciliation bill is retroactive until January 1, while the much heralded $500 family tax credit is only effective October 1, thereby making it a $125 tax credit. How could it be that the capital gains tax is more important to be retroactive than the family tax credit? In light of these and other unfair aspects of this bill, including the fact that taxes will go up for working families making under $28,000 a year, it is easy to see why when our Republican colleagues look in the mirror and say, mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all, the mirror cracks, because of the unfairness contained in their reconciliation bill. The mirror and the American people know that it is not fair to raise taxes on working families in America in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. That is why I am so pleased the CR establishes the framework for debate. What are our priorities. It will be a statement of our values, this budget should be. How we spend our money says what is important to us. Medicare, protect the environment, invest in children and how we pay for it should not be on the backs of the working poor families in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very pleased that we now have a framework within which to debate the issue of the budget. Who we tax and how we spend that money is what we will be seeing debated in the next 3 weeks. I am very proud and pleased that President Clinton held firm in saying, yes, we want a balanced budget, we want to balance it financially, but we must balance it in terms of values as well. I oppose the Republican proposal that is on the floor now for two reasons. First, because of its priorities; and second, because of the unfairness in the tax situation in it. This morning, however, Mr. Speaker, in this morning hour is usually the time when we try to convey some information to our colleagues, in addition to our point of view. I want to say why I find the Republican- Gingrich proposal to be so harmful to my home State of California. I point out the harm to California because that is the State I represent, but other Members must look to their own States to see the impact that this budget will have on individuals, on the State budgets, and on the economies of their own States. I have this chart which indicates, Mr. Speaker, that in California, we will have, at a minimum, at a minimum, a $72 billion cut in funds that go to California, to individuals, and I will explain in what proportion. By comparison, our State budget is around $55 billion a year. The cuts that this budget will give to California are more than, by almost a half again, the budget of California; over $36 billion in Medicare cuts, affecting 3.6 million beneficiaries; 16, almost $17 billion in Medicaid cuts. In California, 26 percent of the children of California depend on Medicaid for their guaranteed health services. Two point three million of those children will be drastically affected, severely affected by this. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, in addition to that, 2 million people will suffer because of the $3.5 billion cut in the earned income tax credit. I urge my colleagues, look to your own States, see the severe impact that this will have on your people, on your budget, and on your economy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers on the Republican side asked the question, I think rhetorically, at the end of his remarks, ``What more could we do to stimulate the economy of our country than to give a capital gains tax break?'' I think the answer to that is educate our children, invest in our children. That is one of the complaints I have with the Gingrich Republican reconciliation bill. In it, they give a capital gains tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. But listen to this: It is retroactive until last January 1. The much-heralded $500 family tax credit? That is only effective October 1. So, effectively, the tax credit for American families, the $500 tax credit is $125 for 1995, while the capital gains reduction for the wealthiest people in our country goes back retroactively to January 1995.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, I rise to join our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], in opposition to the Hefley amendment. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the intentions of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], but in all opposition to the timing of the gentleman's resolution. Mr. Speaker, it has taken too many years and cost too many lives to get the warring parties of the Bosnian conflict to the peace talks. They are finally there. They are talking, not shooting. Voting today to prohibit a possible deployment tomorrow gives impetus to the parties to lay aside their voices, to take up their arms, and renew a genocidal conflict that is a blot on the world's conscience. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this body wants to be responsbile for the collapse of the peace process. My problem, I have said again, is in the timing of the Hefley resolution. I believe that this legislation at this time before us today risks the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago when the reality of the Holocaust came to light, people said, ``Never again'' to ethnic cleansing and genocide. These abhorrent actions continue, despite this promise. I believe the world can no longer turn a blind eye to Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Hefley anendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget plan, which is an assault on American families. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Gingrich budget bill. This bill does not reflect the values of the American people. A budget is a statement of values; the way we spend our money demonstrates our priorities. This Gingrich budget cuts Medicare by $270 billion to finance a $245 billion tax break for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. The budget bill coupled with the Republican appropriations bills slashes funding for education, guts environmental protect and declares war on the American worker. These are not American values. California families would be hard hit by $72 billion in cuts over the next 7 years in Medicare, Medicaid, earned income tax credit, food assistance, and student loans. The magnitude of these cuts can be grasped by comparing the reductions to the budget of the State of California which is $57 billion this year. These extreme cuts are equivalent to wiping out all State spending for the next 15 months. The Gingrich budget slashes Medicare funds to California by $36 billion over 7 years. Such dramatic cutbacks in Medicare funding would inflict excessive new premiums on 3.6 million California beneficiaries, and force low-income seniors into managed care. The cut of over $8 billion to California hospitals would decimate vital safety-net and teaching hospitals. The Gingrich budget repeals the Medicaid program which provides health security to low-income Americans, 5 million of whom live in California. Half of the beneficiaries are children, 15 percent are people with disabilities, and 12 percent are elderly. Medicaid currently covers 26 percent of children in California and pays for more than half of all nursing home care. The Medicaid program is replaced by a block grant program where States would determine eligibility requirements and the types of benefits to be provided. Federal payments to States would be cut by $170 billion or 30 percent from projected spending under current law. Consumers Union estimates that the Medicaid provisions in this budget will result in 12 million Americans losing health insurance coverage. Because public hospitals and trauma centers are dependent on the Medicaid program, all Americans would suffer a loss of essential health care when they need it most, while experiencing a serious, medical emergency. The last Congress engaged in an intensive debate on how to provide universal health care coverage. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the issue and the partisan nature of much of the opposition, no legislation was adopted. Nonetheless, there was a shared goal by most Members of Congress to expand health care coverage. Now, the Gingrich budget is about to take the most dramatic step backwards for guaranteed health coverage in American history. In California, over 2 million low-income, working taxpayers will have their taxes raised by the Republican budget through cuts in the earned income tax credit. Let me emphasize that these are working families. In fact, under this budget, taxes go up for families with incomes below $30,000. It is wrong to raise taxes on working families to finance tax breaks for businesses and the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. This budget has a devastating impact on children. Indeed, nearly 2 million children in California will have food stamp benefits cut. Over half of the disabled children in the State will lose Supplemental Security Income [SSI] benefits. Funds for foster care and adoption services are also slashed. These cuts are mean-spirited and cheat children out of good health, good nutrition, and a bright future. Student loans for higher education are also threatened by the Gingrich budget. The highly successful direct lending program would be severely limited. In fact, only 6 of California's 183 colleges and universities would be allowed to participate in this important program. Higher education for thousands of young people will no longer be affordable. This budget threatens the health, welfare, and education of California's working families. These cuts simply go too far. Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget is a statement of our national values. This Gingrich budget is extreme and does not meet the test of fairness demanded by the American people. It reaffirms the Republican Party as the party of wealth, power, and privilege. I urge my colleagues to reject this Gingrich budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report. This conference report rolls back decades of responsible stewardship of our natural resources through shortsighted funding cuts, overturning of existing laws, and abdication of our responsibility to preserve our natural lands for future generations. Mr. Speaker, since 1872, the mining law has allowed more than 278 billion dollars' worth of gold, silver, and other metals to be taken from public lands in return for minuscule payments, according to the Mineral Policy Center. This conference report allows new patents, now blocked by the moratorium, worth more than $15.5 billion to follow the same giveaway trail. This past September, the House voted 277 to 147 to reject this brazen example of corporate welfare and insist on maintaining a true patenting moratorium. The mining provisions contained in this conference report ignore the clear will of the House. In addition to mining industry giveaways, this conference report contains numerous legislative policy riders which attempt to weaken existing environmental laws. The conference report encourages increased logging in the Tongass National Forest, places a moratorium on listing of endangered species, suspends grazing regulations, and cripples the National Biological Service. In California, the conference report overturns the establishment of the new Mojave National Park Preserve by denying funding for its transfer to the National Park Service. Just 1 year ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly to establish the Mojave as one of the largest natural preserves. This capped 8 years of debate and compromise and was a significant victory for our natural lands. Since passage, the Park Service has improved visitor services, resource protection, and law enforcement in the Mojave. Visitation to the California desert has increased significantly and has generated additional revenue in the surrounding communities. By contrast, the conference report rider would transfer management of the Mojave to the Bureau of Land Management thereby eliminating or jeopardizing visitor services and safety, the processing of hunting, grazing, and mining permits, and the maintenance and protection of valuable park resources. Mr. Speaker, taken as a whole, this conference report constitutes a massive assault on our natural heritage. It offers unprecedented levels of corporate welfare to the mining industry, encourages clearcutting of our ancient forests, and ignores the future health of both threatened and endangered species and their habitats. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. He referenced the hearings that he had, and indeed, the gentleman is to be commended for his leadership on this issue of the inhumane treatment of women in China. We all agree, we all agree. We stipulate to the fact that the program that is being conducted in China is not one that we want to be associated with. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], under his leadership, held hearings. We shuddered to hear the testimony of these women who were brought into the hearing room in handcuffs. The gentleman is absolutely right on this subject about the coercion of abortion in China. The gentleman is absolutely right about how these women are treated. However, what is happening here today is not about that. What is happening here today is that this amendment will curtail the activities of organizations that are engaged in family planning throughout the world. A poor family in Africa should not be held hostage to the coercive programs in China, and that is what this proposal will do. I urge our colleagues to respect the attitude of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] but vote against his proposal.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, with the highest regard for the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Callahan and for the maker of this original amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, I rise in opposition to this motion today. I heard our colleagues on the other side talk about this. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our chairman, and it reminded me of the many weeks our chairman with his leadership took us through with this bill. We resolved every point except this one. Indeed, 3 weeks ago we were gathered here and we voted on this very issue and here we are back again. Mr. Speaker, it is, yes indeed, one example of why our appropriations bills are not finished, and why we are in the difficult situation we are in today with the closing down the Government. If we could get our appropriations bills passed we would not have to be waiting for a continuing resolution. Having said that, in terms of procedure, I oppose the technique that is being used, to go back and forth and back and forth to the Senate on this language. The Republican Senators agree with many people in this House of Representatives that the language in the Smith legislation is not appropriate to this legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support that position, which is to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before as I have said. The conference report has gone back and forth. This legislation contains the same restrictive anti-choice language which the Senate has already rejected. Negotiations require each side to compromise. Sending back the exact same language already rejected by the other body is not a compromise. When the bill was before us 3 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] proposed language that would remove the legislative language referred to as the Mexico City policy that should be debated on an authorizing bill. Mr. Obey proposed restrictions that are in current law on coercive abortion. The gentleman included a provision limiting funds for UNFPA unless they stop their program in China. It was tougher than I wanted, but, nonetheless, it was a compromise. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the House language in disagreement. According to the World Health Organization, 500,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes, 99 percent of them in the developing world. Restrictions on family planning organizations proposed in this provision represent a threat to the health and safety of the world's women. We all share the goal of decreasing the number of abortions performed throughout the world, and, indeed, even in our own country. However, it is not at all likely that the Smith language would succeed in that regard. Indeed, during the time the Mexico City policy was in effect there was no decrease in the number of abortions performed worldwide, but there was a decrease in the safety of that procedure. The provision in disagreement is not about cutting abortion funding, because there is no funding to cut. Existing law, as has been said over and over again, existing law already prevents the use of U.S. funds for abortion activities abroad, and has done so under the Foreign Assistance Act since 1973. This amendment would restrict effective women's health care in family planning organizations and interfere with the efforts to provide safe and legal reproductive health care for women in developing countries. Mr. Speaker, this is about improving health for women throughout the world, and especially in the developing countries. It is a big environmental issue. A vote for this amendment is a vote against family planning. It is not a vote for cutting abortion funding. There is no abortion funding in this bill to be cut. So on the basis of procedure, Mr. Speaker, and on the basis of substance, I urge our colleagues to vote against this proposal.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on November 10, Nigeria's military junta, under the leadership of Gen. Sani Abacha, hanged eight human rights activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, president of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni people, and seven other human rights activists. Mr. Speaker, this was an insult to humanity, and this behavior was outside the circle of civilized human behavior. ``Nigeria is one of Africa's most richly endowed countries,'' the New York Times wrote in a recent article, ``but a succession of military dictators has looted it and left its people impoverished. Since he seized power in 1993, General Abacha's tolerance for corruption and international drug dealing and his gross abuse of human rights have made matters considerably worse. ``Mr. Saro-Wiwa was targeted because he had been an effective leader of the Ogoni people who inhabit Nigeria's main oil-producing region. He mobilized campaigns to win compensation for environmental damage caused by the oil industry and pressed for a modest share of oil revenues to be diverted from the pockets of the military toward the needs of the Ogoni people.'' The editorial goes on to say, ``This popular movement has brought military repression to Ogoniland.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Saro-Wiwa was executed, and he did nothing wrong. He did nothing wrong except speak out for the Ogoni people, for environmental protection, and for the end of the degradation of the environment of those people. I think this Congress should call on Shell Oil Co. to use its leverage to encourage democracy and freedom of expression in Nigeria. I am pleased to say that the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank has decided not to make a $100 million loan to Nigeria. I hope that this Congress, this House of Representatives, will speak out forcefully against the Nigerian Government and its repression of the Nigerian people, and that we should remember Mr. Saro-Wiwa for the hero that he is. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the full article which appeared in the New York Times. The article referred to is as follows: [From the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1995] A Death Sentence in Nigeria Gen. Sani Abacha's military dictatorship is moving quickly to execute Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of Nigeria's leading environmentalists and minority-rights leaders, after convicting him on trumped-up charges in a military court. Yesterday Nigeria's ruling council confirmed Mr. Saro-Wiwa's sentence. Only outside intervention, especially by the United States and the international oil companies whose business keeps the Abacha regime afloat, can now save his life. President Clinton should speak out on Mr. Saro-Wiwa's behalf without delay. Nigeria is one of Africa's most richly endowed countries, but a succession of military dictators have looted it and left its people impoverished. Since he seized power in 1993, General Abacha's tolerance for corruption and international drug dealing and his gross abuses of human rights have made matters considerably worse. Mr. Saro-Wiwa was targeted because he has been an effective leader of the Ogoni people who inhabit Nigeria's main oil- producing region. He mobilized campaigns to win compensation for environmental damage caused by the oil industry and pressed for a modest share of oil revenues to be diverted from the pockets of the military toward the needs of the Ogoni people. This popular movement has brought military repression to Ogoniland. The alleged crime for which Mr. Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni leaders have been sentenced to death, the killing of four moderate Ogoni chiefs, occurred during clashes between moderates and a militant young faction. Mr. Saro-Wiwa was not even in the vicinity when these clashes occurred. The United States State Department has protested the lack of due process, and the British Foreign Office has strongly deplored both the trial and the death sentences. But more is needed, and fast. International businesses should normally try to stay clear of domestic politics. But the direct connection of this case to the oil industry, the reliance of the Abacha regime on oil revenues and the looming threat of international sanctions make this an exception. Oil companies, especially Shell, historically the main producer in Ogoniland, as well as two American-based companies, Chevron and Mobil, should use their influence with Nigeria's Government in Mr. Saro-Wiwa's behalf. TransAfrica, the African-American lobbying group that led the economic boycott campaign against apartheid in South Africa, has been urging an oil embargo against the Nigerian dictatorship. That is a drastic step, but it begins to look like the only way to slow General Abacha's ruinous course. By executing Mr. Saro-Wiwa, the general would powerfully strengthen TransAfrica's case. Justice demands not only the commutation of Mr. Saro-Wiwa's sentence but his immediate release.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the legislation before us and to support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. H.R. 956 is an undisguised attack on the safety of the American people that will result in more unsafe products, more injuries, and less compensation for those who are injured by corporate misconduct and negligence. The motion offered by Representative Conyers would instruct the conferees not to agree to any provision that would limit total damages for injuries to women, children, or elderly individuals to an amount less than that recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially similar injuries. Mr. Speaker, during the debate earlier this year on H.R. 956, it was demonstrated that our current State-based products liability system works well. It allows our citizens to seek redress when they have been injured by corporate negligence and it provides ample incentives to correct defective products when they cause harm. My colleagues, this bill favors powerful corporations at the expense of women, the elderly, and all working Americans by limiting damages for noneconomic losses which represent a larger proportion of damages for these groups. I urge a ``no'' vote on the ill-advised reforms contained in H.R. 956 and a ``yes'' vote on the Conyers motion to instruct conferees.