Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to commend Chairman Gilman, Chairman Smith, and perhaps Harry Wu's best friend in the Congress, Frank Wolf. Harry Wu has friends on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Atlantic, and on both sides of the Pacific. He is a truly internationally recognized champion of freedom and democracy. Who else is Harry Wu? Harry Wu, when 19 or 20 years old, criticized the Soviet invasion of Hungary. He was overheard doing that and sent as a political prisoner to a slave labor camp, where he served for 19 years. Eventually he came out and came to the United States, He is a U.S. citizen, but has not forgotten those who were left behind in these prison labor camps. He has written books describing the plight of those people, and worked tirelessly to try to expose the prison labor system in China. Those of us who know Harry and appreciate the valuable contribution he has already made always discouraged him from going back to China, because this is what we did fear. Because of the international acclaim that he had received and the international attention that he had brought to both the slave labor issue in China and also the organ transplant issue which is associated with the slave labor camps, that the Chinese were not happy, and that he might be in danger should he go there. So we have discouraged him in recent years from returning there, and our worst fears have not been realized. So, with that, I want to say, because I know time is of the essence and we want to get on with the evening, but to Harry Wu's wife Ching Li, we commend her for her courage. She is a source of strength and inspiration to us. She knows that Harry did what he did because he believed in freedom and democracy, and risked his life many times over the years. He did these outstanding things with the support of his friends in the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament and other places, and among those are the people who are here before us tonight, Mr. Gilman. Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wolf. It is one of the joys of my service in Congress to have worked with them on this issue and to support such an exceptional person as Harry Wu. I am grateful to all of our colleagues for allowing us this unanimous consent request this evening.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I revere the flag, I respect the Constitution, and for those reasons, I rise in opposition to the constitutional amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is with the highest regard for the maker of this amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and with the greatest respect for the role that he plays in this Congress and in this country for promoting human rights throughout the world that I reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment and in support of the Meyers amendment. We all certainly share the goal of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] of decreasing the number of abortions performed in this country and throughout the world. The fact is that the Meyers amendment would keep the current prohibition on U.S. funding for abortions. It would allow the United States to continue to fund organizations that effectively reduce the number of abortions by providing access for family planning. It would cut off U.S. funding for the UNFPA unless they pull out of China or China stops coercive abortions. I think that the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has captured some of the concerns of this body and indeed of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in her amendment. I would like to say, though, Mr. Chairman, that 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, the Smith amendment, would restrict effective women's health and family planning organizations and interfere with efforts to provide safe and legal reproductive health care for women in developing countries. That is why I do not support the Smith amendment and prefer the Meyers amendment. I understand that a great deal of concern in this debate has centered on China's coercive policies and that that is a reason why many people would support the Smith amendment. Let me say that all that I have heard the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] say about coercive abortions and coercive family planning procedures in China is absolutely well-documented. We stipulate to that, that the family planning practices there are repulsive to us and we do not want to be a partner to them, and indeed we are not and will not under the Meyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary in that respect, because no United States funds can be used in the U.N. population fund's China program. Current appropriation law already denies foreign aid funding to any organization or program that supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization in any country under the so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment. Further, current appropriation law also ensures that none of the United States contribution to UNFPA may be used in its China program. No U.S. funds may be commingled with any other UNFPA funds and numerous penalties exist in law for any violation of this requirement. UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in China. Anyway, I have not seen any evidence presented of complicity by international agencies, including UNFPA, in China's human rights abuses, and I do follow that issue quite closely. UNFPA does not condone or cover up coercion in China. At the International Conference on Population and Development last year, the world community strongly condemned the use of coercion in national population programs. UNFPA's current 5-year program in China is ending this year. In light of the solid, international consensus that has developed in opposition to the use of any form of coercion, the governing council will review any future country program proposed for UNFPA assistance, including any involvement in China, for compliance with the principles adopted at the ICPD. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be the cruelest act of all of the Chinese Government, in addition to depriving their own people of access to appropriate family planning information, if they were able by their coercive practices to influence decisions that we make here about family planning support throughout the developing world. According to the World Health Organization, 500,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes; 99 percent of them in the developing world. Up to one-third of these deaths can be attributed to septic or incomplete abortion. Restrictions on family planning organizations proposed in this amendment represent a threat to the health and safety of the women's world. I would think if my colleagues hate and abhor abortion, as I do, they would love family planning. And that is what the Meyers amendment presents. I would like to also add that Mr. Smith, the maker of this amendment, is not only a champion for human rights, not only an important and internationally recognized advocate to stop the coercive kinds of programs that exist in China. The gentleman is a man who follows up on his commitment. He is also a champion for child survival funding and programs throughout the world. I want to make that point of my regard for the gentleman in opposing his amendment and urging my colleagues to support the Meyers amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Kennedy amendment and urge our colleagues to support them. First, before speaking about that amendment, I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as well as our ranking members, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], for their leadership in bringing this very strong bipartisan bill to the floor. As a member of the subcommittee, I want to personally thank Mr. Callahan for his exceptional leadership his first time out with this bill. He has consulted individually and personally with members of the subcommittee, listened to our concerns and did the best that he could do under the circumstances of our very limited allocation. That allocation was limited not because our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Livingston, did not work hard to get us a better allocation but just the realities of the budget resolution. It is in that spirit of bipartisanship and admiration for our chairman that I hope that we can pass this not perfect but best possible bill we could get on the floor today. I hope when we do pass it today or tomorrow that it will have the Lowey-Kennedy language in it. To get to the point about Indonesia, because I know time is of the essence, it is a close call on the enhanced and expanded IMET. Many of us have had some very serious concerns about how IMET funds have been used throughout the world. And in some countries, it underwrites the brutality of authoritarian regimes with U.S. taxpayers' dollars. The expanded IMET is supposed to be used to teach human rights training, democratic institutions, the role of a military in a democratic society. And it would be hoped that that is what these purposes would be in Indonesia. And I commend the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for bringing this resolution to the floor because it focuses just on what expanded IMET is and why if we would continue to grant it, if we would grant it to Indonesia, why it should be used specifically for those purposes. The concern of some of us is that funds sent to a country are fungible and if the regime happens to be authoritarian and a violator of human rights, then we are subsidizing that even with our good intentions. Others today have talked about what the situation is in Indonesia in terms of human rights. I will say that I will join with some others in quoting the 1995 State Department human rights country report which calls Indonesia ``strongly authoritarian'' and notes that ``it became markedly more repressive'' during 1994 as the ``government continues to commit serious human rights abuses.'' Last December, a United Nations Special Rapporteur noted, the conditions that allowed the 1991 Santa Cruz killings to occur are still present. In particular, the members of the security forces responsible for the abuses have not been held accountable and continue to enjoy virtual impunity. The Rapporteur ``clearly sensed terror among many East Timorese he had the opportunity to meet.'' The situation has gotten worse during the first half of 1995. That is all to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think that we should have the opportunity to discuss this issue. If the Chair has a point of order that we cannot pass it here today, at least we should be sending a message to the authoritarian regime in Indonesia that if they get this IMET, it is to be for enhanced, that is, training their troops in human rights and training their military in the proper role of the military in a democratic society. With that, Mr. Chairman, I again commend our chairman, Mr. Callahan, and the ranking member, Mr. Wilson, for their great leadership on this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is with great reluctance and in admiration for the maker that I rise to oppose his amendment to strike the additional funds over and above the funds the committee has already struck from the GEF. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for our colleagues to know, and many are very familiar and have worked on the Global Environmental Facility, otherwise known as GEF, that it is a multilateral fund dedicated to the preservation of the global environment. It funds projects that help developing countries deal with environmental problems that affect all countries, including the United States. Indeed, we have heard over and over again that environmental degradation and air pollution and water pollution know no boundaries. Effects of development, such as loss of the forest and wild species, ozone depletion, and pollution of international waters, are obviously not limited to the country where they occur. Mr. Chairman, the Bush and Clinton administrations both supported the GEF because meeting these threats is so important. Projects funded by the GEF help prevent the loss of forests and threatened plant and animal species. They help prevent pollution of international waters, threatening fish species on which the world depends. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note what other countries are contributing to the GEF, because this is an international effort, not just one funded by the U.S. Other donors' pledges are related to ours in a burden-sharing arrangement. For example, Japan recently increased GEF funding over a 4-year period to $500 million, substantially more than the United States [[Page H 6366]] even before the recent reduction. Germany will give $240 million over the same period. Further reducing GEF funding risks unraveling the GEF, and with it our efforts to bring developing countries into the global effort to safeguard our environment. Mr. Chairman, the GEF operates the three implementing agencies. Our colleague has pointed out some concerns that he had about the way the GEF has functioned, but I think he is aware, and if not, I am pleased to inform him that the governance of the GEF has been changed substantially since criticisms were lodged against it. The structure and governance of GEF have been criticized in the past, it is true. In response to an independent evaluation of the GEF pilot phase, which ended in December 1993, the GEF has been completely overhauled and restructured. Under U.S. leadership, a fully independent GEF Secretariat has been set up in Washington under the leadership of a U.S. citizen. A GEF council consisting of major donors, including the United States and developing countries' constituencies, is meeting four times annually to review project proposals, set policy, check implementing agency performance, and overall GEF effectiveness. I go into this detail, Mr. Chairman, to point out that the overall governance of the GEF has been overhauled, very specifically. A comprehensive project monitoring system has been created. In addition, the GEF Secretariat consults biannually, and I think this is very important, because it gives transparency and public participation to it, to a wide range of environmental and indigenous groups. Project development has been streamlined. There is strong U.S. economic interest involved as well. U.S. industries and consumers who have a substantial interest in conservation of biological and genetic diversity, with its myriad commercial application in production of food, fiber, and medicine, support the GEF. One fourth of all pharmaceutical prescriptions in this country contain active ingredients derived from plants, many of which exist only in tropical forest areas whose biodiversity values are facing rapid destruction. By catalyzing technological advances in developing countries, the GEF helps expand export markets for U.S. firms. The GEF's international waters portfolio has potential to prevent marine pollution and to conserve some of the most economically and ecologically valuable species. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just sum up and say whether it is for environmental reasons or economic reasons, or population reasons in terms of avoiding the problem of environmental refugees that could result if we do not stop some of the degradation that is happening in our environment, the GEF is a very good investment. Mr. Chairman, our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], under his leadership, the GEF was cut substantially, in recognition of the budget and fiscal realities that we had to face. However, the value that he placed on it I think is one that is appropriate in these tough fiscal times, and I would hope that the membership of this body would support the chairman's mark and reject the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my personal sense of loss, and the loss of the entire San Francisco community, at the passing of Steve Silver. A master showman, a philanthropist of boundless heart, and creative genius, Steve passed away this Monday. It is difficult to distill the life and journey of Steve Silver in any way that adequately describes his impact upon San Francisco. A San Francisco native, Steve's artistic and creative talents were readily apparent to all who knew him. On a budget of $900 and a cast of 11, on June 7, 1974, the first ``Beach Blanket Babylon''--complete with sand-- opened in San Francisco's famed North Beach. For over 20 years--making it the longest running musical revue in the Nation--``Beach Blanket Babylon'' has packed over 3 million fans in over 7,700 shows. Queen Elizabeth, President Reagan, countless of the famous and not- so-famous, and tourists from every part of the globe have been enchanted and captivated by Silver's magical cabaret at Club Fugazi. Topical, over-the-top, hysterically funny, with puns, campy dialog, double-entendres, outrageous costumes, and even more outrageous, imaginative, and gigantic hats, all thrown around like loose change, ``Beach Blanket'' is a cherished San Francisco institution. Steve's success with ``Beach Blanket'' was poured back into the community of his birth. He was responsible for construction of the main portal at the AIDS Memorial Grove in Golden Gate Park. Even his last birthday this past February--his 51st--Steve used the occasion to celebrate the dedication of the new portal to the Memorial Grove. He gave generously to Project Open Hand, the AIDS Emergency Fund, the High School of the Arts, and California Pacific Medical Center, the main library, and the new Museum of Modern Art. The site that Steve chose for his memorial, Grace Cathedral, has a children's garden he donated. One American theologian wrote that ``Humor is a prelude to faith and Laughter is the beginning of prayer''. For those who knew Steve Silver, his optimism in the goodness of mankind, the role that merriment and joy played in his life, and his good works on behalf of the community all stemmed from his unshakable belief in the power of humor and laughter to transform the world. And the biggest recipient of his faith were the people of his beloved city, San Francisco. At Steve's memorial service, a poem written by Glenn Rifkin was part of the program. At the request of Jo Schuman Silver, Steve's wife and best friend, I have enclosed its text, which beautifully captures Steve's legacy. Mr. Speaker, Steve Silver's life was an enormous gift to the people of San Francisco and this Nation. As San Francisco mourns him, let us join in sending condolences to his wife, Jo, his brother Roger, his nieces Leigh and Gillian, nephew Nicholas, and his sister-in-law, Kate Silver. Let us also join the San Francisco community in paying tribute to this master showman, philanthropist, a purveyor of life and laughter, Steve Silver. For Steve--June 13, 1995 They called to say Steve Silver died, The stage was dark, the city cried. And laughter faded to the Bay, a stillness cast upon the day. The gentle soul of evenings spun, had passed as if he'd just begun. And decade songs that echo still, Across the space of ever will. For what he'd touched was deep and strong, a chance to hear a different song. A chance to dance upon a cloud, to know it and to say it loud. The gift he gave will long survive, the music stands as if alive, the laughter rolling like a quake, the deal he knew he had to make. He leaves but never shuts the door, he leaves us wanting all the more, And to the shores of Babylon, his dreams will flourish ever on.--Glenn Rifkin, New York Times.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment. I commend the gentlewoman for offering it and urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise to add my voice to those in support of the DeLauro amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, to strike a provision which is a clear threat to the health of women military personnel and their families, as well as a threat to the constitutional rights of all American women. Women stationed overseas in service to their country depend on base hospitals for medical care. These women are citizens ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. Under the bill as it currently stands, however, these women are treated as second class citizens. Under this bill, these brave women would be denied access to safe medical care. These women are expected to serve without being served. The issue here is not taxpayer funding. Women in the military currently must use their own funds to obtain abortion services at military hospitals. The issue here is not forcing medical providers to perform abortion services. The DeLauro amendment maintains the conscience clauses already in effect. The restrictive language in the defense authorization bill is obvious in its intent to deny women the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to have concern for the needs and safety of American women serving abroad and to support the DeLauro amendment striking the provision.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, with great reluctance I oppose the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would throw into turmoil collaborative planning processes for base reuse throughout the country. Last year the Congress modified existing the application of the McKinney Act to base closures to ensure balance in the planning process. Last year's amendment gave local reuse authorities substantially more authority over base property than before, and ensured that homeless providers were partners, rather than organizations receiving priority over local reuse authorities. This amendment would undermine the collaborative process in San Francisco, where homeless providers have worked with the citizens' reuse committee on all planning issues with respect to Treasure Island. This amendment would eliminate the ability of San Francisco to effectively incorporate [[Page H5972]] homeless services into its reuse plan by terminating the no-cost McKinney conveyance powers. Now, for San Francisco to consider inclusion of homeless services in its reuse plan, it would be forced to pay market value for any buildings contemplated for homeless reuse. I know that if the author of this amendment truly respected the needs and desires of local communities with respect to reuse, therefore they should either extend the application of the amended McKinney provisions to all bases not yet closed; or, they could give local reuse authorities approval power over all McKinney applications. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, in its current form, goes too far, and I urge all Members to vote against the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding time to me. As I was saying before my time expired, Mr. Chairman, under the FMF program Congress can assume additional credit risk when it is in our national interest to make the loan. For fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $47.9 million to underwrite 619 million dollars' worth of loans for Turkey and Greece. This new loan program skirts the congressional oversight inherent in the FMF program, and that is one additional reason why I support the Berman amendment. For good reason, Congress has not permitted the Export-Import Bank to finance arms exports except for certain counternarcotics purposes or in specific situations for nonlethal military loans and services, if the primary end use is for nonmilitary activities. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the administration opposes the loan program and believes that it is unnecessary, given the availability of existing authority for transactions of this type and the substantial American presence in international markets for military equipment. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for this very, very important amendment. We know that the administration supports his position. The President already has the authority to make loan guarantees. This new program simply moves more jurisdiction for making such guarantees away from the Committee on Foreign Affairs and recreates a program that has remained unused for the last 10 years because it has been proven to be too costly. For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is the appropriate course of action for us to take. I believe that it will make the world a safer place, and I thank him very much for making the motion and the ranking member of the committee for yielding time to me. I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Berman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, which is to amend the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. I wanted to put on the record once again that the administration opposes the loan program and believes that it is unnecessary given the availability of existing authority for transactions of this type and the substantial American presence in international markets for military equipment. I think it is very important that we remember that Congress already has the tools to make grants and loans for the purchase of military weapons when it is in our national interest to do so. I rise as a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations which funds the FMF. It is called the Foreign Military Financing Program. We appropriated $3.15 billion in grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Under the FMF program Congress can assume additional credit risks when it is in our national interest to do so.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo amendment because it would restrict the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense in making the best decisions possible about the making of defense contracts. As you all know, the funds we make available for any Federal program are precious. Each dollar needs to be spent to maximum advantage. We should not insist that political ideology interfere with decisions which should be made on merit. Defense contracts should not be made as a reward for having ROTC programs but should be awarded based on a finding that the institution has the best ability to deliver the needed product at the lowest cost and highest possible advancement of the goal of the contract. To start making these decisions based on perceived support or opposition to ROTC programs is a disservice to the Department of Defense and the American people. I urge a no vote on the Pombo amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the month of May as we observe Mother's Day, I rise in memory of my mother, Nancy D'Alesandro, who died April 3, 1995. My brothers and I, of course, remember her as a wonderful mother. However, the outpouring of love and respect that followed her death clearly indicates that she was also a respected leader, dear friend and an activist First Lady of Baltimore when my father was mayor. Mommy was also a remarkable Congressional spouse when my father, Thomas D'Alesandro, served in Congress. Our Mother was a woman of faith, and her devotion inspired her in her personal and political life. She treated every person with the respect worthy of children of God. The stories of her kindness are legend in Baltimore. It was a daily ritual that lines of people would form outside our home seeking public assistance of one kind or another, or even a meal. She worked on the side of the angels and now she is with them. I was very proud that in her obituary, the Baltimore Sun quoted a speech she made in 1951 in support of low-cost public housing: ``How can we expect parents to teach their children love, faith and tolerance when they have no homes? When the home fails, the community fails, the nation fails''. In that same obituary, Governor Schaefer said of her, ``She was a very fiery woman, loved her kids, and was superb to old Tommy. She was a Democrat through and through''. One of her friends said: ``She had an almost unerring insight and common sense judgment in the arcane world of politics, which over the years proved of immense value to the political practitioners of her family''. She was a political force in her own right, but took great pride in being wife of a Mayor and mother of a Mayor of Baltimore, and wife of a Member of Congress and mother of a [[Page E1149]] Member of Congress. A tribute she would love to hear was that of Cardinal Keeler, who referred to her as Regina, a queen, at her funeral Mass. She was active in the Red Cross, the YWCA, the Salvation Army, and of course the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party. But most of all she was a darling Mommy. My brothers, former Mayor Thomas III, Nicholas, Hector, Joseph and Franklin Roosevelt D'Alesandro and I all cherished her every day of her life. She took great joy in her family and her treasures were her children, her 16 grandchildren and her eight great grandchildren. The role of mother was what she considered most important. She assembled the following tribute to her mother in 1952: mother--dedicated to my mother and all mothers, living and dead Mother, I think of you, Guardian Angel of my childhood. Who can fathom the real meaning of the word Mother? Whose hearts are not filled with the memory of her, who has not stopped loving us from the first moment of our existence, when like a ray of sunshine she beamed down into our cradles! When the fingers of care and worry had not yet touched our hearts, it was Mother who was always around preventing their entrance into the holy island of Childhood. Motherhood cannot be understood. It has its overtones in all languages; like magic it weaves a pattern full of joys, tears, patience, love--each exalting like the music of golden bells. Even when the word is spoken by an old man it sounds as if it comes from the lips of a child. To try to explain we must listen to our hearts as well as our minds. Mother teaches us to walk and play; to talk and pray. She knows the joys of happiness, she knows the sorrows of worry, care, and heartache. Mother is a beautiful person; when everything else in the world may change, she alone remains the same. Others may love us; but she knows us, understands us, and will forgive us whatever we may do. Mother is truly the living example of Child's sublime Sermon on the Mount, for she has Fed the Hungry, Given Drink to the Thirsty, Clothed the Poor, Visited the Sick, Buried the Dead, Taught the Ignorant, and has given Solace to the Sorrowful. In a few words Mother is God's Co-helper, and a radiant beam from that Mother of all Mercy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Morella amendment and, regretfully, in opposition to the Smith amendment. It is with the highest regard for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and others who support his amendment that I beg to differ. I share the gentleman's concern about the number of abortions that occur in our country, and I believe that if some strong language has been used in this debate already, and I will use a couple strong words too, one being hate, which I do not like to use, but if you hate abortion, as we all do, I think you should love family planning, because this is the way that we can reach the goals that I believe we all share, which is to decrease the number of abortions that occur in our country and in the world. The Morella amendment reasserts the restriction against any U.S. funds being used to fund abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered. No taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortion, nor would they be. The amendment also reasserts the restriction against U.S. funds being used for lobbying on the abortion issue. The Morella amendment further reasserts our strong opposition to the coercive population practices in China. On the Smith amendment, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is inappropriate to pass this amendment because there are some general setbacks that we would suffer should it become the law. Stabilizing population growth is vital to U.S. national interests. Rapid population expansion is a major source of political instability in developing countries as well as a drain on the global environment. That does not mean that we perform abortions in order to control population growth. It means that we should instead be educating people in methods of family planning so that we, again, can control population growth and reduce the number of abortions. Rapid population growth makes successful development and democratization much less likely. It reduces the quality and availability of health services, limits employment opportunities, and undermines economic and social progress. There has been tremendous progress already achieved in stabilizing world population, but we can do better and indeed we must. The new international consensus in support of population planning provides an opportunity to achieve global population stabilization within the next generation. Existing law already prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. For 20 years there has been a protection in law and policy against using U.S. funds to pay for or advocate abortion. U.S. population programs focus on providing quality voluntary family planning services. They are directed toward improving maternal and child care of health, slowing the spread of AIDS and HIV and enhancing access to basic education. Population programs work. Since the 1960's, births for women in developing countries have dropped by 37 percent, child mortality by 50 percent, and primary school enrollment is up by 38 percent. U.S. assistance has played an important role in these achievements. As I said before, there are already strict prohibitions in U.S. funding for abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion. Also, there are strict prohibitions against funding for organizations that support and participate in the management of coercive abortion or in voluntary sterilization. There are existing provisions in the law that prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying on abortion. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that, similar to that, indigenous women's organizations that receive U.S. aid to improve the status of women or to promote female literacy would also be defunded if they engage with their non-U.S. funds, with their non-U.S. funds, in efforts to influence their own country's abortion laws, either for or against. Those are some of the reasons I urge my colleagues to support the Morella amendment and oppose the Smith amendment. On the subject of China, I am adamantly, as all of our colleagues have declared, adamantly opposed to forced abortion and sterilization and to policies of the Chinese Government on these issues. Neither the UNFPA nor other multilateral or multigovernment organizations working in China fund abortion or support coercive family planning practices. But because forced abortion and sterilization may be taking place in China, and indeed I believe they are, the Congress has mandated that no United States money provided to UNFPA may be used in China. I support this approach. This amendment, the Smith amendment, has far reaching implications for all U.S.-supported health and family planning activities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Morella amendment and reluctantly to oppose the Smith amendment. The real purpose of this amendment is to cut off U.S. funding for UNFPA. UNFPA is the leading multilateral organization providing voluntary family planning services in the developing world. In this bill, we already repeat existing law (the Kemp-Kasten language) which ensures [[Page H5497]] that no United States money directly or indirectly supports the Chinese program. This language allows us to take a forceful stand concerning China, without undermining overall multilateral efforts in population planning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. No, I do not.

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman is saying the savings in the bill will not go for deficit reduction?

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

Ms. PELOSI. I wanted to make sure I heard the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations correctly. He said that was not an agreement; it was an oral agreement. Are we to conclude from that that an agreement, an oral agreement with the Republicans is not worth the paper it is written on?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I recall very vividly that when we started the markup in our appropriations subcommittees on this rescission bill the first question that was asked of the chairman of the committee was why are we making these cuts, why do we have to make billions of dollars of cuts in nutrition, education, housing, mass transit, clean air enforcement, and the list goes on and on. The response we received was that we needed the funds to provide a tax cut. There was some embarrassment with that answer after a while and it shifted to well, we need the funds for deficit reduction. Why then, if these funds are supposed to go to deficit reduction, did not the Republican majority accept the Brewster Minge language for the lockbox to save the money that is in this bill for deficit reduction? It is very clear, and that is that the funds that are cut from education, nutrition, transportation, housing, et cetera, are once again to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Earlier today we saw Members on the other side of the aisle show us beautiful pictures of their children, and they are lovely. Indeed, we are all so very proud of our children, and it is hard to understand how we can treasure our own children while at the same time we come to this floor to cut education for the children of America and they are our children, too. How can we value our children and make all of the cuts that this legislation does in funding for safe and drug-free schools, for Goals 2000, and then down the line to vocational and adult education and student financial aid. This on the same day as the budget bill cut so much funding from the student aid programs for college education. In addition to that, in addition to that, there are millions of dollars cut in funding for displaced workers' programs to assist those who have lost their jobs due to imports, plant closings, and other economic reasons. There are many, many reasons to oppose this legislation, Mr. Speaker, but the education part of the bill and adult education and job training part of the bill and the summer youth programs part of the bill are enough reason for the President to veto the bill, and I am so pleased that he is. As a California member of the Committee on Appropriations I want to make another point, and it is that no person in any disaster in any part of this country will be deprived of their assistance if the President vetoes this bill. Indeed, I voted against this bill in committee and on this floor because I object to a bill that would say to the children of California you had a disaster, now in order to get assistance you are going to have to pay for it with your education and your nutrition and your housing. So I think that the Clinton administration response to this legislation is appropriate. administration. They deserve a great deal of credit for the excellent response they have given to disasters that have occurred in this country. Jamie Lee Whitten deserves our gratitude and the President our commendation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to note that a number of our colleagues on the children during the course of the debate on budget priorities. These children are beautiful; they have bright futures; and, I am sure they are the pride and joy of their lucky parents. I know; I am the lucky mother of five wonderful children. With all due respect to my colleagues however, I would note that we are here in Congress to represent all of the children of our districts and, in fact, our Nation, not just our own children. Our children are the lucky ones--they are covered by their parents' congressional health benefits; and, with the benefit of their parents' congressional salaries, they have decent housing and will be able to afford higher education. It is not enough to gauge the brilliance of the future of this great Nation by its impact on our own children. We, as Federal legislators, have an obligation to all of this Nation's children. Our children are not only the ones in our families. They are also the children down the street, in low income housing, and tragically, sometimes not in housing at all but out on the street. Unless we meet their needs too, the future of our children is not as bright. The Republican budget before us today is not for America's children, it is only for the children of the privileged few.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget declares war on biomedical research. The Budget Committee recommends that NIH be cut by $566 million and frozen there for the next 5 years to produce a savings of $2.5 billion. Because biomedical research inflation rate is 4.2 percent, the freeze would require drastic reductions of 30 percent in medical research over 7 years. NIH Director Harold Varmus has testified that this proposal would be a devastating blow to biomedical research. The success rate of research grants would plummet from 24 percent this year to 15 percent or lower in future years. These ill-advised cuts would have a ripple effect on the Nation's science infrastructure. We will lose laboratories, and long-term investments in biomedical research. We stand the risk of losing a generation of new biomedical researchers. What young person would go into a field with such a low probability of success? America's health and economic competitiveness depend on an adequate level of funding for biomedical research at the NIH. The Republican devastation of NIH will cost us money in the long run. NIH has played a critical role in innovations that have saved 2-3 dollars for each dollar invested in research. Why would we want to reduce our investment by 30 percent? Mr. Chairman, it is not only the future of NIH that is a stake in this budget, it is the future of most American families. What family in this country has not been touched by heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, mental illness, or substance abuse? What family feels totally safe from AIDS, breast cancer, or genetic diseases? Why would the Republicans propose to take away hope from so many American families? Apparently to fund huge tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthiest of Americans. This is a bad budget. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very important statement on what this budget debate is about. I think it is important to return to your point about the cut in Social Security, because while the cuts in Medicare are clear and obvious, it is also important for seniors to understand that with the increased copayment that they are going to have to pay and other out-of-pocket expenses, their Social Security benefits and any cost of living adjustment in their Social Security benefits will be eaten up by the increase in the Medicare out-of-pocket they will have to pay. As you know, Mr. Whip, the Urban Institute projects that about 21 percent of seniors' income is spent on health care.

Ms. PELOSI. I would like to talk about what this means in California in terms of giving these tax breaks to the wealthiest, cutting Medicare benefits to our seniors in California $3.6 million. Medicare beneficiaries will lose in the year 2002 alone, in that year alone $11.8 billion, in that 1 year alone. And between now and then the figure is $37.8 billion over 7 years. That is devastating. That means they are paying more out of pocket for fewer services. This whole thing is about values. Who do we tax, what do we spend it on? That is the budget debate, and I do not think it is a statement of our country's values, and most people in the country's values to say we would rather give more tax breaks to people who have so much on the backs of our poorest folks. I want to say something before you yield to Congresswoman DeLauro. She and Congressman David Obey have been the two champions, and there are others who work with you on protecting LIHEAP funding. Rosa, I do not want to get in Rosa DeLauro's way when somebody goes after LIHEAP. It is important to seniors and people in her State and she has been an incredible champion on that issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Anyone who has been to the hospital knows that. Then they say ``expand managed care options currently available. Increase beneficiaries' out of pocket.'' Increasing beneficiaries out of pocket is in every option, so people have to know that. ``In nonmanaged care settings, limit providers' benefits and enforce spending limits.'' AARP has said that seniors are being asked to: ``Seniors are being asked to pay a 50 percent increase in Medicare part B.'' That was not AARP. AARP was saying that the Republican budget will mean an increase of $3,000 over the next 7 years for a Medicare beneficiary, $3,000 over the next 7 years. Where are these people going to get it, and why? To give a tax break to the corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield on that point, Ms. Maxwell works with inner city youth, that is just on this point, and some of us got together, Ms. DeLauro, the women Members of Congress, and we had a press conference last week right before Mother's Day on this very point, Medicare and student loans, saying that his was the anti-family Mother's Day gift of the Republicans to America's mothers, because if you are in your forties and fifties, and many of us in this body are, and many of the people in America are, you are worried about the health of your parents and you are worried about the education of your children, so these two issues are such anti-family initiatives on the part of Republicans, sandwiching in----

Ms. PELOSI. I talked earlier about her on the floor debate. This is Enola Maxwell. She is 75 years old. For 20 years she has been the executive director of the Petrillo Hill, serving meals to senior citizens, meeting the needs of inner city youths and helping with community services in that way. Enola had a heart attack recently, and I read her statement earlier about what a comfort Medicare was in every possible way, the confidence that her benefits would be there. She asked the question: ``Why would the Republicans want to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans and America's corporations, and have that tax break be paid for by reducing the Medicare benefits to America's senior citizens? That is breaking a promise to America's citizens.'' Further to that point, I think it is important to focus on what it is they are proposing. In their restructuring options, they are talking about restructuring the traditional fee-for-service plan. The option lists 35 recommendations, which include increasing beneficiaries' out of pocket expenses, copayments, premiums, deductibles, and cutting payments to providers, hospitals, and doctors. It is interesting on that point, because their own Members, the gentleman from Kentucky, Jim Bunning on the Committee on Ways and Means, has said ``Of course I think everybody, if they tell the truth, realizes we cannot keep cutting the reimbursement for doctors and hospitals without destroying the quality of health care. The savings aren't real anyway. The costs are just shifted out of the Government's budget into the private sector.'' Then, in addition to that, their other options include ``replace the current benefits with a voucher.'' Listen to this [[Page H5183]] one. ``Instead of receiving approved services, as needed, seniors would receive a fixed voucher amount to purchase their health insurance. Federal costs are limited by the amount of the voucher, although a catastrophic cap of $10,000 per beneficiary is recommended.'' Imagine that.