Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and for his leadership in presenting this amendment, because I think that if it passes, it will vastly improve H.R. 872. I am very, very concerned about the language contained therein, which would expand NATO membership. We must remember that NATO membership means that our security alliance would be expanded, that we would expand the guarantee of security to many more countries. And this may be appropriate, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] said, we all envision a time when that would happen. But right now, 16 governments are involved in any decision to expand NATO. The United States, we do not make this decision alone. The situation in Eastern Europe and in the New Independent States is a delicate one, the balance of which could be very disturbed by this legislation. The administration's partnership for peace was designed to enhance the security of our allies in this region while providing incentives for reform for the new European democracies. If we move forward with these NATO provisions, we will run the risk of alienating the countries not named and the greater risk of developing a bunker mentality with Russia. I urge my colleagues to support the Torricelli amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 872, which poses a significant threat to our national security. The bill before strategy; it abrogates international treaties; and, it violates the U.S Constitution. The National Security Revitalization Act is fundamentally flawed. It is also dangerous. H.R. 872 is dangerous because it would revive the old star wars project, an ineffective, unnecessary, and costly project which was, after significant public and congressional debate under previous administrations, deemed to be not worthy of funding. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that the system proposed by the Republicans in this bill could cost $29-$30 billion over the next 5 years. Others have estimated that the costs could range as high as $39 billion. In today's budget climate, funding one projects means not funding something else. If star wars goes forward, troop readiness and weapon modernization will be cut. In addition, restarting star wars would actually make the world less safe. The passage of this bill could abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, threaten START II negotiations, and terminate existing Nunn-Lugar agreements to dismantle nuclear warheads with Russia, Ukraine, Byelarus, and Kazakhstan. These actions do not increase our security, they undermine it by threatening the real progress which is being made toward diminishing the threat of nuclear destruction. H.R. 872 is dangerous because it would tie the hands of the President, any President, in international crisis when he or she determines it is in our national interest to place our troops under the operational control of another country, including NATO allies. My Republican colleagues must know that with this law on the books, President Bush would not have been able to deploy the troops he deemed necessary to carry out Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein; President Clinton would not have been able to respond to Hussein's threats by deploying troops to Kuwait in 1994. For that matter, if constrained by this law, President Truman would not have been able to deploy troops to Korea in 1950. This provision is unnecessary. Today, our forces always remain under the command of the President of the United States. We already apply the most rigorous standards when we pass even the most limited responsibility to a competent foreign commander--an action which has been done throughout this great Nation's history from the Revolutionary War through the Persian Gulf war. I frankly do not understand why my Republican colleagues, who have steadfastly defended the President's prerogatives for years, would choose to tie his hands in what is a very dangerous way. H.R. 872 is dangerous because it undermines the very viability of international peacekeeping efforts. Many argue that the United States cannot and should not be the world's policeman. We cannot afford to intervene everywhere; we do not want to put American lives at risk. However, conflicts do not go away and in this post-cold-war world, there seem to be an evergrowing number of global hot spots. If we want to retain our role as the world's only superpower and if we do not want to be the world's policeman, it is critical for us to work to strengthen, not to weaken, multinational institutions. If this bill passes, we are going in the wrong direction. The U.N. peacekeeping provisions contained in this legislation would cripple multinational efforts to address international crises. If we reduce our assessed peacekeeping dues dollar-for-dollar by the costs of peacekeeping operations which we conduct voluntarily and in support of U.S. interests, we would force the cancellation of peacekeeping activities, undermine U.N. peacekeeping efforts, and ultimately devastate the United Nations. If the United States changes the way it funds U.N. peacekeeping, other countries will follow suit. As much as some would like to believe this country can survive in isolation, it cannot. If we pass this bill, we will be forced either to be the world's sole policeman or to ignore conflicts which could threaten our national security. I do not believe this choice is what the American people really want. H.R. 872 is also dangerous because it unilaterally designates certain candidates for NATO membership. Sixteen governments are involved in any decision to expand NATO; the United States does not make this decision alone. The situation in Eastern Europe and the New Independent States is a delicate one, the balance of which can be disturbed by H.R. 872. The Administration's Partnership for Peace was designed to enhance the security of our allies in the region while providing incentives for reform for the new European democracies. If we move forward with these NATO provisions, we run the real risk of alienating the countries not named by the Republicans for NATO membership and destabilizing an already precarious region. These NATO provisions are imprudent also because it sends the wrong message to Russia. The last thing we need is for Russia to adopt a bunker mentality as the security guarantee is extended to all of their neighbors. Against what country. H.R. 872 contains a number of other objectionable provisions, some of which are dangerous and some of which are just plain silly. One of the themes of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has been that government should be downsized, reduced, and eliminated. It is therefore with some perplexity that I note the inclusion in this bill of an unnecessary and duplicative commission to review national security. Why do people who claim to be opponents of government agencies, bureaucracies, and departments, propose to establish a brand new one, one which would duplicate services which are already being provided by the Secretary of Defense and Members of Congress? American taxpayers already pay the salaries of people to review U.S. security needs. We have a Department of Defense and defense specialists in other Government agencies and here in Congress. But, this bill would spend an additional $1.5 million of American workers' hard-earned dollars to copy what people in Government are already doing. This Commission does not make sense. Mr. Chairman, for all of the above reasons and others, I believe that the National Security Revitalization Act should be defeated. If it passes, U.S. national security will be weakened significantly.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once said, ``Fish and visitors smell after three days.'' He might also have added the National Security Revitalization Act which comes to the House today. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the Republican leadership does not want this bill lying around too long, and do not want it debated and are ramming it through, because it is a real stinkeroo. Assembled by pollsters, this bill is malodorous in many respects, and I say to my colleagues, ``It really takes your breath away when it calls for spending billions of dollars on star wars.'' I understand that the Republican Caucus gave Dr. Edward Teller, the father of star wars, a standing ovation when he recently addressed the group, a standing ovation for star wars in this bill at the expense of readiness for American troops, a standing O for star wars which jeopardizes START, ABM, and other treaties, including chemical weapons treaties. Let us get serious, Mr. Speaker, and reject the ghost of star wars past. Support the Edwards amendment, and reject H.R. 7. It is ill- conceived, ill-constructed, and probably unconstitutional. I say to my colleagues, ``Let's get serious about our national defense.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Chargers and my colleague, all of my colleagues, from San Diego. We are very proud in California of two great teams. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is a good sport. I waited awhile for him to pay off on this debt. His ``the chips are on their way'' became like ``the check is in the mail.'' You know, the Super Bowl has been over awhile, and I thought that as to this concession he was waiting for Michael Huffington to concede before he conceded the Super Bowl loss. In any event, he is a great Californian, a great sport. I thank him for that. I also will have to say how proud I am of the San Francisco 49ers, owner Eddie DeBartolo, president Carmen Policy, you know, quarterback Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Rickey Waters, and the list goes on and on. It was a great Super Bowl. We are very proud. Five trips to the Super Bowl for the 49ers, five championships, five world championships. Go '9ers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for the great, great teams to the Super Bowl, and I thank the gentleman for his salsa, chips, and guacamole, and give him a T-shirt.

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

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Watt amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. PELOSI. And if someone made a confession to the crime?

Ms. PELOSI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and in opposition to H.R. 729, the Effective Death Penalty Act. I do not believe that this debate is whether we should have a death penalty under circumstances under which it should be imposed. Rather it is about whether a person who is innocent can be spared from having a capital punishment exacted upon them. The amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is more necessary now than before, because this crime bill, the series of bills being put together now continues what I consider to be the unfortunate trend of last year's crime bill which made more crimes punishable by the death penalty. One would think that if one were a strong advocate for capital punishment counsel, as the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposed, or the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to make sure that an innocent person did not receive the death penalty. A majority of the people in this House clearly believe that procedures governing habeas corpus may need reform, Mr. Chairman, but this bill goes too far in limiting the fundamental right of appeal which is to protect innocent people from being executed and that is why it is so very important that the Watt amendment be given every consideration by this body, hopefully favorable. What it says, and I think it is very important for our colleagues to understand, as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has explained what it says, and that it is very important for all of the people of our country to understand what it says, because it affects each and every one of them, every person sitting at home watching this debate has to know that if he or she or any member of their families is ever convicted unjustly and incorrectly of a crime, especially a crime that calls for capital punishment, that he or she would not be able to have recourse should a witness come forward, or DNA evidence prove, or a confession come forward to prove that person's innocence. The Watt amendment says, and it relates to credible, newly discovered evidence, which had it been presented to the trier of fact or sentencing authority at trial would probably have resulted in the acquittal of the offense for which the death sentence was imposed. So, my friends, if you are sitting at home on your sofa and one of your children is accused and convicted of a crime and sentenced to the death penalty and has exhausted his habeas corpus procedures, and someone confesses to that crime, tough luck. That is not the American way. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] in a colloquy to ask him precisely these questions. if someone is convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death, and a witness comes forward who can prove, who can give credible evidence that the person is probably innocent, would that person not have that opportunity for that witness to come forward?

Ms. PELOSI. I do have something else I want to say because I contend what the gentleman is putting forth here today in this rush for 100 days, in your 100-day agenda, is trampling on over 200 years of the rule of law in our country, protecting the rights of the innocent, and people can get up here all day and talk about anecdotes that are devastating and terrible and we all have those stories to tell about people who are guilty, and who abuse the process. This is not what the Watt amendment is about. The Watt amendment is about protecting the innocent, and the overwhelming number of people in our country I believe want to protect the innocent.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], would he answer those same questions? If this bill passes would a person not be able to use DNA evidence or new evidence, new technology?

Ms. PELOSI. The same thing for any advances in technology; for example, what is happening with DNA, et cetera, that kind of evidence and that opportunity would not be available to the person convicted?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. While its supporters would have us believe that this bill will simply broaden a previously existing exception to the fourth amendment, it will, in reality, seriously damage a constitutional amendment that has protected Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures for over 200 years. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment places a check on the ability of the Government to arbitrarily search a person's home or person by requiring that a search warrant be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search must be excluded at trial. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 666 removes this important constitutional safeguard by virtually eliminating the warrant requirement that the American Colonists demanded of the Constitution's Framers following their occupation by British soldiers. In spite of these origins, the fourth amendment has, in no way, lost its historical or legal relevancy. We need only look at the documented abuses from law enforcement jurisdictions all over the country to reaffirm the inherent protective value of the fourth amendment. If by congressional mandate, the courts begin to admit evidence gathered in good faith but without a search warrant, there would be much less incentive for the police to obtain search warrants at all-- thereby undermining the fundamental protection of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule is what protects all Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures and the invasion of privacy by law enforcement officers. It does not undermine the ability of the police to enforce the law; indeed, it has been part of the training given to all Federal law enforcement agents since 1914. The Directors of the FBI have endorsed the exclusionary rule and have stated that the rule does not hinder the FBI's work. Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule works because it creates an incentive for law enforcement officers to know legal search and seizure standards. By passing this bill, law enforcement will actually have an incentive not to know the law. In the rush to pass their legislative agenda in the first 100 days, the authors of this bill are asking us to sacrifice the constitutional safeguards that have protected all Americans for 207 years. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this attack on the fourth amendment and vote ``no'' on H.R. 666.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the Speaker for his directing our debate in this way. I appreciate the remarks the gentleman has made because indeed the Chinese Government has not only been ripping off our intellectual property, they also have been exporting this intellectual property which they have pirated to other countries in Asia, again hurting United States jobs here at home. So I commend the administration for finally placing sanctions on China. I think it is important that our colleagues know because many of us who voted together on this issue that the sanctions that were placed on the Chinese Government are the self-same sanctions we were recommending that the administration at that time said were unworkable when we were proposing them for promoting human rights in China and Tibet. I would like to make a further point that since the President made his MFN decision, human rights violations in China have increased. The crackdown has intensified in China and Tibet. That can be documented when we have more time. The trade deficit has increased to $30 billion in 1994 and is growing. The proliferation issue is still not resolved in China. Indeed, the evidence is that they are still exporting dangerous technology to unsafeguarded countries. Having said that, I still commend the administration for finally standing tall and taking the action that they did.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1989, 135 Republicans voted with the Democrats in passing a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage. The vote of this body was 382 to 37. On that day, Democrats and Republicans joined together in raising the standard of living for nearly 5 million American workers. On that day our former Republican colleague, Tom Ridge, now the Governor of Pennsylvania, spoke very eloquently when he said, ``Republicans and Democrats today must make a joint statement that we, as elective Representatives, appreciate the contribution that these working men and women are making to our country, and once we peel away the political debate,'' Governor Ridge said, ``what Republicans and Democrats should join together in saying is that there is considerable value to their work.'' Governor Ridge had it right, Mr. Speaker. This proposal that we have before us now, another 90-cent increase, is a modest increase that working people need and deserve. It is a tribute to their labor. An increase in the minimum wage will primarily benefit adult workers, many of whom rely on their minimum wage to support their households.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for the Clinton administration's decision on Saturday to impose sanctions on Chinese products because of China's failure to protect and enforce intellectual property rights of United States companies and its failure to provide market access for intellectual property-based products and industries. software and other intellectual properties costs the United States Economy at least $1 billion a year. This means lost American jobs. The administration's actions, after prolonged negotiations, are long overdue. Indeed, many of us had encouraged President Bush to take this action instead of giving credence to the United States-China memorandum of understanding on intellectual property a few years ago. Indeed, this action is the same one many of us had urged the administration to take on behalf of promoting human rights in China. While I am pleased the Clinton administration has taken this step, it is ironic that such an action is being taken to protect products, but that it was not taken to protect human life and human rights. The United States business community is now seeing that human rights and economic certainty are connected as they face problems with a lack of rule of law and respect for contracts in China. There are other ironies in this decision, Mr. Speaker. Last year, when the President granted MFN to China unconditionally, the argument was made that the approach targeting sanctions on State enterprises including products made by the People's Liberation Army advanced by then Senator majority leader Mitchell, then House majority leader Gephardt, majority whip, Bonior, and me, was not implementable. And in an August 5 letter to Members the Commissioner of Customs stated that our approach would not work because there are no longer clear distinctions between companies that are State-owned enterprises and those that are not. It is important to note therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the sanctions scheduled to go into effect February 26 if the Chinese do not come around and hopefully they will, specifically target some of China's State-owned enterprises including some run by the People's Liberation Army. In fact at its February 4 conference announcing the imposition of sanctions Ambassador Kantor while listing criteria for picking the products for sanctions listed said No. 2, we picked products that were more involved with China's state enterprises than other enterprises. Indeed I also want to call to the attention of our colleagues that last year when we were having this same debate about sanctions on products made especially by State-run industries and the People's Liberation Army that some of our colleagues in fighting our legislation sent a ``Dear Colleague'' which says: Imposing sanctions against products produced by the Chinese Army defense-related companies and State-owned enterprises will be unworkable and unenforceable. It would be a logistical nightmare for the U.S. Customs Service to try to manage. Not only is it almost impossible to identify Chinese Army ownership of Chinese companies but in a mixed economy like China's, it is also virtually impossible to draw clear lines between State and nonState activity. Well I guess a lot has happened in the past 6 months because we have all of a sudden now, the proposal we are making is indeed one that is being proposed by the administration. I say that once again in support of the action that was taken because those of us who are concerned about human rights in China are also concerned about violations of our trade relationship and also about the proliferation issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher.]

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman would allow, now $30 billion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, nothing speaks more clearly to the need for an increase in the minimum wage than the plight of poor children in America. Earlier this week, the National Center for Children in Poverty released a study that should trouble all of us. The study shows that one in every four children under the age of 6 in our country was living in poverty in 1992. That number is twice what it was in 1972 and includes an increase of 1 million children in the 5 years between 1987 and 1992. Three of every five of these children have working parents, but they make the minimum wage. And it is not a living wage. Working parents are trying to provide a decent life for their children. We have heard our colleagues talk about the fact that if someone works full-time minimum wage, they make $8,400 a year, nearly 50 percent below the poverty line. We have a moral responsibility to give those working parents and their children a fighting chance by giving them a living wage. The American people agree. In December, the Wall Street Journal-NCB poll showed 75 to 20 the American people favored an increase in the minimum wage. In January the L.A. Times reported 72 percent. In 1989, when we took up this vote, 382 Members of this House, including 135 Republicans, voted for the increase in the minimum wage. Let us do it again.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr.Chairman, that would say, then, that the understanding of this legislation of the chairman of the committee, with the passage of this amendment, is that the President does not have the power to remove prohibitions or limitations on funds?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which states that no special message submitted by the President under this section may change any prohibition or limitation of discretionary budget authority set forth in any appropriation act. That is what the amendment says. Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment as one who rises in opposition to the line-item veto legislation. I oppose the legislation strenuously because I think that it does damage to the balance of power and separations of power set forth by our forefathers in the Constitution. In fact, I believe that in order for us to truly have a line-item veto as is contained in this legislation, that it should require a constitutional amendment and change in our Constitution, so disruptive do I believe it to be of the balance of power. Others have referenced in the previous amendment, in fact, and then I know my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], will have one addressing the judiciary, but it would enable a President to even be able to affect not only the actions of Congress, but also affect the activities of the judicial branch, the third branch of Government, so it is from that perspective, the perspective that says that our forefathers did not want the executive branch to have this much authority. Indeed, the Presidency of the United States is a very strong position, but our forefathers did not want a king. Hence, they wrote a Constitution which gave the executive branch powers which were appropriate to a system where we had a balance of power, and not a monarchy. Again, I say, Mr. Chairman, it is from that perspective that I offer this amendment, not in support of the legislation that is on the floor, but in clarification and mitigation of the powers that this legislation gives to the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, frequently in legislating appropriation bills Congress retains power to prohibit spending through clauses such as ``no such funds appropriated under the act may be used for,'' and then the list,; for example, years ago that was how funds were withheld from funding the Vietnam war; or to limit spending through such provisions as ``no more than x number of dollars shall be used for,'' and then you fill in the blank for what that limitation may be. So the purposes of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to clarify that under this legislation the President does not have the authority to use the line item veto to strike congressional prohibitions or limitations on spending in any appropriations bill. While I believe this language is consistent with what was reported from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I believe that this amendment is necessary to make it very clear that this is the congressional intent. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger], in a colloquy.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] which would exempt spending for the judicial branch from the scope of the line-item veto legislation. In the debate on another amendment, I rose in opposition to this legislation, the line-item veto legislation, because I believe it gives too much power to the executive branch. And the tradeoff, in turn, to reduce deficit spending is not enough to justify that exchange. But whether we agree or disagree on what form the line-item veto should take, whether it is two-thirds to override a President's veto or whether we agree or disagree on whether there should be enhanced rescission with a simple majority to get a particular project back into the appropriations bill, I think we should remove all doubt in everyone's mind that we all do agree that the separation of power is important to us, that we are true to the commitment of our Founding Fathers of separation of power. I think this is a sad day when we are abdicating to the executive branch what our Founding Fathers did not give them. My only hope and encouragement I received is from the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I think it is completely appropriate that he is presenting this amendment, that he has worked so hard on it, and it is in the spirit of our Founding Fathers from Virginia that he carries on their legacy. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].