Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the results of the elections in Hong Kong on September 12 make two things clear: The people of Hong Kong overwhelmingly support the pro-democracy movement, and the Chinese government has created an electoral system intended to ensure that that support cannot be translated into political control. In the months leading up to the election, the Chinese government engaged in a systematic crackdown to deny the people of Hong Kong the right to choose their own leaders and to suppress freedom of expression. In April, Beijing issued a new ``interpretation'' of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which serves as the territory's constitution, to prevent direct elections of Hong Kong's next leader in 2007 and for all lawmakers in 2008. As H. Res. 667 concludes, that result is inconsistent with international agreement, and the United States should take a strong position in favor of true democracy in Hong Kong. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 codified the understanding of the United States that Hong Kong would have a degree of autonomy from the People's Republic of China. After reversion, it was expected that this autonomy would be a catalyst for the development in Hong Kong of political institutions and procedures that would reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong, regardless of whether they were consistent with the views of government leaders in Beijing. The PRC, however, has thwarted these efforts at every turn. Beijing has created a climate of political fear in Hong Kong through well-documented intimidation of the media and efforts to challenge the patriotism of pro-democracy supporters. In March, three of Hong Kong's leading broadcasters had to resign their positions after receiving death threats and having their businesses vandalized because of their criticism of the Chinese government. Throughout the year, pro-democracy lawmakers and activists have also suffered threats and vandalism. Hong Kong's delegate to Beijing stepped down from his position saying he was powerless to effect change. The Chinese government's campaign to crack down on freedom in Hong Kong will only succeed in shining a spotlight on the courage and leadership of Hong Kong's democratic movement. The United States must stand solidly with the people of Hong Kong and their desire for democracy. Reminding Beijing of its obligations under previously-signed agreements must be our constant message. Tepid remarks by Bush Administration officials are not a sufficient response to protect the nascent democracy in Hong Kong. President Bush should not hesitate to define the U.S.-China relationship in terms of the willingness of the Chinese government to discharge the commitments contained in those agreements. U.S. policy toward Hong Kong should be consistent with the provisions of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that require autonomy and empower the President to halt existing agreements with Hong Kong or take other steps if he determines that Beijing is interfering unduly in Hong Kong's affairs. H. Res. 667 conveys that message in a clear and forceful manner, and deserves the support of this House.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, recently the nation marked the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In addition to mourning the loss of so many lives, it is appropriate to ask: ``Are we as safe as we should be?'' Sadly, two high level inquiries, including the independent 9/11 Commission, have said: ``no.'' Our rail lines, ports, commercial aircraft, power plants, chemical facilities, and other critical infrastructure components are not as secure as they should be. Our first responders are not able to communicate with one another in real time, as they should be. Much of the world's supply of the materials used to build weapons of mass destruction is not secured, as it should be. Initiatives in the Department of Homeland Security are not funded adequately by the President and the Republican Congress, as they should be. The nation's unmet security needs involve more than insufficient resources. The systemic governmental failures that opened the door for the terrorists to strike on 9/11 have been repeatedly identified. But there has been no concerted effort to fix them. Eighteen months ago, a Joint Inquiry by the congressional intelligence committees produced a bipartisan call for change in the structure of the intelligence community. Nothing came of it. Eight weeks ago, the 9/11 Commission issued a unanimous, bipartisan report recommending change--in the intelligence community and elsewhere--to deal with the terrorist threat. The Commission coupled its recommendations with a call for urgent action. What was the response? The congressional recess went on, largely undisturbed, even after the threat level for New York and Washington was raised. There has been too much delay. Congress must commit itself today to using the time left in this session to enact legislation to address the problems identified so clearly by the Commission and others. To focus our efforts, many of my Democratic colleagues have joined me in introducing a bill that translates the Commission's recommendations into legislative language. This bill will give the committees of jurisdiction a framework for considering the proposals on their merits, and reporting them to the House quickly for debate and votes. United together, with an unwavering bipartisan commitment to the security of our country, let us make as much progress as we can so that our words of comfort to the victims' families on September 11 are not diminished by their knowledge of how much critical work remains unfinished.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish community this time of year is marked by reflection thanksgiving, consecration, and celebration. It is a time to reflect on the events of the past year and be thankful for family and friends whose love and support guide and inspire us each day. And it is a time to rededicate ourselves to our commitment to tikkun olam, repairing our world, both at home and abroad. It is also a time to remember our commitment to our democratic ally and friend, the state of Israel. Israel stands as a symbol of Jewish prosperity and survival that dates back more than 5,000 years. This strong tradition is why we must continue to work and pray for peace. Over the past year we have again witnessed continued violence in the Middle East, but steps have also been taken to reinvigorate a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. We must continue to support these efforts and remain optimistic that they will result in a lasting peace for all in the region. It is time for all parties to the Roadmap to use the opportunities presented by the Sharon plan to bring an end to the violence and achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. As we begin the year 5765, we are also celebrating 350 Years of Jewish Life in America and American Jewish History Month. Last year, the Congress recognized and marked this anniversary by passing a resolution noting the important contributions of the American Jewish community to our nation's civic, social, economic, and cultural life. Indeed, as my colleagues observed, the American Jewish community has ``sought to actualize the broad principles of liberty and justice that are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.'' In Congress, my Democratic colleagues and I are fighting to bring prosperity, opportunity and security to every corner of America. We are committed to growing the economy; to expanding access to quality affordable health care; to keeping our promise to our children for safe schools with well-paid teachers; to honoring our historic commitment to seniors so they can retire with security and dignity; to sustaining a healthy environment; to upholding the separation of church and state; to protecting civil rights; and to fighting discrimination in all forms. I pray that we all experience peace, prosperity, opportunity, and security in the New Year. L'Shana Tova Tikatevu.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 40 years, and I cannot for the life of me think how this legislation that is on the floor today, the so-called Marriage Protection Act, is any protection for my marriage. In fact, I think it is not a protection of the rights of Americans. Every Member of this body has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our oath of office. All Members should consider that this bill has far-reaching consequences for the separation of powers that has been the hallmark of our Constitution, our government, and our rights as American citizens. We must today honor our oath of office and oppose this legislation. This court-stripping bill is not about reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act or even about gay marriage. The fundamental issue in this bill is whether we want to undermine the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary and our system of checks and balances. This bill will impact the very foundation of our government. It impedes the uniformity of Federal law. It sets a dangerous precedent, and it does grave damage to the separation of powers. When former Senator Barry Goldwater spoke against a court-stripping bill in 1982, he warned his colleagues in the other body that it was a frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts and it is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society. We must heed that warning today. This bill would prohibit Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, from hearing cases related to the interpretation and the validity under the Constitution of the full faith and credit provision of the Defense of Marriage Act as well as this court-stripping bill. If passed, it would constitute the first time in the over 200 years of our country's history that Congress has enacted legislation totally eliminating any Federal court from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. Only State courts would be able to decide questions related to this provision of a Federal statute. The irony of that is that if one's State passed a law that allowed gay marriages and they wanted to challenge it in Federal court, they would only be confined in challenging it in a State court in their State. So even those who would oppose gay marriage would not have recourse to the Federal courts. I know that the gay marriage issue is a difficult issue for many people, and I respect that. But do not let that bait take them down a path that would have them dishonor their oath of office that they took to become a Member of this House. Attempting by statute to remove the Supreme Court's and the entire Federal judiciary's power to hear a class of cases and to even determine the constitutional validity of a statute is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to amend the Constitution by simple majority. It would effectively end the Supreme Court's role as a separate and independent branch of government. It would eliminate all means of reconciling conflicting State court interpretations of the Constitution. Think about that. If passed, it would prevent the Supreme Court from being the guardian of our rights. It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which has been oft quoted here today. Marbury v. Madison stated that ``It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' Subsequent decisions and the Court's role as an equal branch strongly suggest that Congress cannot prohibit the Court from determining the validity of a law in the first place. Indeed, the author of this legislation here today stated that he believed that the part of Marbury v. Madison that established judicial review was ``wrongly decided.'' Over 200 years of precedent was ``wrongly decided,'' a view that can only be characterized as radical. Just 2 months ago we all celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. The Board of Education. If the precedent established by this bill had been in force in 1954, there may have been no Brown decision. Imagine what would have happened to all of the advances in civil rights without that ruling. Imagine how little we would have had to celebrate. Numerous legal experts, including from the other party, indicate that this bill will likely be found unconstitutional. The court-stripping issue is not a new one. Numerous proposals have been made since the Civil War but have never been adopted because Congress wisely exercised restraint and respected the separation of powers and our constitutional framework. More recently, in 1981 and 1982, more than 30 court-stripping proposals were introduced, primarily by former Senator Jesse Helms, to remove such issues as school prayer, reproductive rights, school busing from Federal courts' jurisdiction. They all failed, thanks to the principled opposition on a bipartisan basis, principally that of, as quoted earlier, Senator Barry Goldwater and then Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, Attorney General William French Smith. Mr. Speaker, now as then, full jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is fundamental under our system of government for a uniform and consistent interpretation of the law even when we do not agree with the Court's decision. The impact of this legislation goes far beyond the subject matter that the proponents claim to be concerned with. Our Founders carefully constructed our system of checks and balances, which we tamper with at our peril. It is unwise and politically motivated, I believe. It is designed simply to distract attention from the real issues that we should be dealing with. Today, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are looking for work. Millions more Americans do not have access to quality health care since President Bush took office. Our children are not receiving the quality of education that they deserve to have, the opportunity that is the promise of our country. We are driving ourselves deeply in debt with the irresponsible reckless economic policies of the Republicans here, giving our children obligations instead of opportunity. We have our men and women in uniform in harm's way without the proper equipment, training, and intelligence to get the job done, and we want them to be second to none, and we will make sure they have what they need, but we must take the time to do that. And instead, what are we doing? Instead, we are gathering here to talk about discrimination, to talk about undermining the Constitution of the United States, to talk about dishonoring the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. I agree with those who say ``this bill is as wrong as wrong can be.'' In short, this bill is bad law, bad policy. That is why it will not have my support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, Donald Payne, and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership in bringing H. Con. Res. 467 to the floor so quickly. The resolution, which I am proud to co-sponsor, accurately labels the situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan as genocide, and calls upon the United Nations to take action to prevent it. Mr. Speaker, millions of people in Darfur face a life-threatening crisis. Through actions of militias supported by the Sudanese government, villages have been burned, crops destroyed, and people uprooted. Tens of thousands of people have already died. Without prompt and effective international action, the death toll will soon go much higher. The Bush Administration has appropriately increased public awareness, in the United States and throughout the world, about what is at stake in Darfur, and this resolution acknowledges that. But it calls upon the Administration to do more. A decade ago, the international community did not act quickly enough to prevent the horror of Rwanda. We must not see a repeat of that tragedy in Darfur. Sustained and effective leadership by the United States will be necessary to achieve that goal. The rainy season has arrived in Darfur, and the level of misery is increasing. The Sudanese are not acting quickly enough to implement promises they made to control the militias and facilitate the delivery of relief supplies. Passage of this resolution should heighten the sense of urgency and sharpen the understanding of the Sudanese government of the resolve of the United States on this urgent and critical matter. I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) be permitted to take the oath of office. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest; and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this very important issue. In the very short time allotted to me, I want to commend my colleagues for being so vocal on this issue at this time and, frankly, for a very long time. I have said before when we had another resolution, an earlier resolution, on the floor that there is no Member of Congress that I hold in higher esteem than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his work on human rights throughout the world. And he has been a leader on this issue, visiting over the years, warning America, warning the world of the impending disaster that was there in one form or another over time. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has taken the lead in the Committee on International Relations on this important issue, and it has not been because Members of Congress, especially the Congressional Black Caucus in the Congress, have not blown the whistle, have not sounded the alarm, have not called the public's attention to what is happening there. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), of course, as the cochair of the Human Rights Caucus, has been singing this song for a very long time. Why do people not listen? When the tragedy occurred in Rwanda, everyone was embarrassed, sad, and contrite and said that it was not going to happen again. Never again could we ignore all of God's children being destroyed by each other and sit back and watch it happen to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people. We have now been told that 30,000 people will die in the Sudan, and if we do not act, then hundreds of thousands more will die. How can we tolerate this? How can we call ourselves persons who care about every person living on the face of the Earth and not care about each and every one of these children and their parents and their families in the Sudan? The issue today is one that we have discussed before. Is it ethnic cleansing or is it genocide? And if it is genocide, then it should provoke a reaction from all of the countries of the world who consider themselves civilized and respectful of human rights and, quite frankly, those of us and I know the motivation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and some of our other colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this regard springs from our belief that all of these people are God's children, worthy of respect. The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship; to ignore God's creation, which are these children, is to dishonor the God who made them. Right now, the world is dishonoring God. We are not committing acts of worship; we are committing acts of negligence. It is genocide, and the perpetrators of this genocide sit with impunity in Khartoum and say they are engaged in all of this as a matter of self-defense. Is it self-defense to rape women five, six times over again so that they cannot even go home to their husbands in a society which finds that unforgiveable on the part of the woman? Is it self-defense to have children starve because food cannot get through? Seeing the pictures of those children challenges the conscience of the world, and yet we are having a debate on semantics in the world. But not in this House. In this House we know it, we call it for what it is. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, a calculated, focused, intended elimination of these people; and that very clearly spells out what the definition of genocide is and how what is happening in the Sudan meets that standard and therefore should invoke certain actions by the rest of the world. We all believe very strongly that something has to be done. But in light of what we said after Rwanda, we are considered hypocritical or inconsistent or just with very poor memory if we do not act upon this now. We must all answer for the genocide that is happening in the Sudan. So I commend my colleagues for their tremendous leadership. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the Black Caucus, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others have worked so hard on this for such a long time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) was just there last weekend and brings back personal stories of what he saw. So I thank them. Any one of us who wants something to happen there is deeply in their debt, as are the people of the Sudan. We must make a difference on this. I thank them for taking these steps to do so.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership on this very important subject. The situation in the Sudan challenges the conscience of the world, certainly of our country; and I am happy that this Congress is responding. I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is not in opposition to this motion to instruct the conferees to support the highest level of funding to respond to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for offering the motion. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for his leadership in including $95 million in funding for the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Darfur is truly an emergency; it is a crisis. Without immediate and effective international intervention, hundreds of thousands of people will die. That is for sure. It is so sad. The Sudanese government has mobilized militias to carry out a scorched-earth policy of indiscriminate attacks on African civilians. As many as 30,000 civilians may have already been murdered, and more than 1 million driven off their land into unprotected camps in the Sudan and neighboring Chad. Both USAID and the United Nations have described these atrocities as ``ethnic cleansing,'' and the Committee on Conscience of our own Holocaust Museum has issued a genocide warning for Darfur. Ethnic cleansing, genocide. We must act. A genocide in the making demands the immediate attention of our government. I call upon the Bush administration to keep the pressure on the Sudanese government. Sudanese officials must know that the United States and the international community will not tolerate the continuation of the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur. Both the House and Senate Defense Appropriations bills contain $95 million for emergency humanitarian relief in Darfur. As critical as these funds are, however, they can only help those whose lives are in danger if the Sudanese government cooperates. The Sudanese government must fulfill its promises to restrain the militias it controls and to remove the bureaucratic barriers that make delivery of relief supplies so difficult. That includes facilitating visas for providers to enter the country. The evidence to date does not suggest that the Sudanese are serious about helping to end the misery in Darfur. The recent visits of Secretary Powell and U.N. Secretary General Annan to Darfur were helpful in focusing attention on this crisis, and I commend both of them for the priority they have given to the Sudan, but much more needs to be done if we are to avert a catastrophe. We spoke so much about the situation in Rwanda and we did not act soon enough, and it was horrible. If we ever had the opportunity again, we would certainly rise to the occasion. Well, it is happening again; and we must rise to the occasion. The Sudanese government is not. President Bush must not hesitate to impose sanctions as necessary to encourage a much higher degree of cooperation by the Sudanese government. Our response to the daily misery in Darfur must not be half-measured and delayed. We must act now while there is time to stop further slaughter, or our country will look back at lives lost in Darfur with the same regret and shame that we feel for other events in other parts of Africa, as I mentioned, Rwanda. My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), pointed out that even if we acted now, still about 300,000 people will die. We can hopefully lower that number, but it certainly will be higher if we do not act. How many times have we heard the public outcry, Why did we not stop the killings? This is a crisis. This is an emergency. We must act now to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. Mr. Speaker, I commend once again the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), our colleague; and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to get additional funding in that bill, in addition to the $95 million.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a previous response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated the vote would remain open as long as there were Members in the well wishing to vote. That case does not exist at this time, so when will the Chair be gaveling this vote down? Mr. Chairman, apparently the basis for the Chair's response before is no longer true. Members are not in the well wishing to vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how long has the vote been open?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Manzullo- Velazquez amendment to the Commerce, Justice bill. But before I speak to that amendment, I want to commend the very distinguished chair of the committee and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. As one who served many years ago, in my earlier time with the Committee on Appropriations, on this subcommittee, I have an appreciation for the many difficult decisions that you have to make and the great opportunity there is for the American people in this particular appropriations bill. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf). He knows this, but I want to take a public opportunity to say that there is no person in this House that I admire more than I do the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He is a champion for human rights throughout the world, and as one who has spoken out, as with many of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on the situation in the Sudan, I want to recognize his exceptional leadership in that regard and say how much we all appreciate your visit, your trip there, and your relentless, persistent advocacy for the underprivileged throughout this world, in this case in particular, in Darfur. I know many of us are eager to hear a report of the gentleman's trip there. Once again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for being the great challenge to the conscience that he has been in his service in Congress. I would like to now address the amendment that is being proposed to improve the small business access to 7(a) loans. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the SBA 7(a) loan program is the most commonly used Small Business Administration loan, and backs approximately $11 billion in loans to small businesses each year. And yet it has faced shutdown caps and restrictions this year and received no funding under the latest Bush budget and Republican appropriations bill. The President's budget proposes to run the program solely through fee increases, substantially raising the costs for small businesses to use the program and taking billions of dollars out of the economy. Democrats, and in this case in a bipartisan way with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), are fighting to adequately fund the 7(a) loan program and make more loans available to small businesses. We know that small businesses, Mr. Chairman, are the engine of our economy. They account for 95 percent of employers in our country, create half of our gross domestic product and create three out of four new jobs nationwide. We have a chance today to save the 7(a) program, and I hope that our colleagues will join the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) in supporting the bipartisan amendment. It will provide fuel to our small businesses which run our economic engine. I would like to again recognize the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), our ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for cosponsorship of this amendment. We are very proud of the service and leadership of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). She is making history in her role as the ranking member on a full committee in the House; and in her service on that committee and in this body she has been a champion for small businesses. I know she will be joined by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and others from the committee who have worked very hard. When we had our small business summit in June, small businessowners came from around the country, and access to capital was one of their top priorities. Passing this amendment will go a long way to addressing the need for capital. Capital attracts talent, talent attracts capital, the dynamic goes on and on. And while we want to promote the growth of many, many more jobs in our country, it is important that we do so by creating much more equity for potential businessowners and for current businessowners. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I will not be using that full amount, but I did want to rise once again to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) for their excellent leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I again want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the full committee, for his great leadership in bringing a very important appropriations bill to the floor; and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) also for moving this section 7(a) provision in full committee. Although he was not successful, his leadership was important to the momentum that we have today. I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying this one thing: I always say that the only thing more optimistic than starting a new business is getting married. In order to take on the responsibilities of a marriage or a business, a person has to be very entrepreneurial, very optimistic, very confident. There are so many risks involved in starting a small business. At the very least, we should have access to capital so that we can increase the equity, the ownership that the American people have in businesses that do create jobs, that do create capital in our country, which in turn attracts the talent that we need to be internationally competitive. This is a very important amendment today. It is not to say that the decisions that have to be made to fund it are not difficult; and as I said earlier, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, for the difficult decisions they had to make to bring this Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to the floor. But we have to choose in favor of small businesses in our country if we are going to grow the economy. Small businesses are the engine of the economy. We cannot just talk about supporting small business. We have to put our resources there and give them access to the capital they need to succeed to accompany the great optimistic spirit and entrepreneurial spirit that they bring to the endeavor of starting a new business. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this bipartisan Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleagues Sam Farr, Dana Rohrabacher, Maurice Hinchey, and Ron Paul, and I salute their courage in bringing it to the House floor. This amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate the suffering of their citizens. Eleven states, including my home state of California, have adopted medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. More than 70 percent of Americans support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medical marijuana, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Bar Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council. Religious denominations supporting legal access to medical marijuana or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church. Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patient with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions. In my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering that accompanies this awful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana ``would be advantageous'' in the treatment of some diseases, and is ``potentially effective in treatment pain, nausea, and anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.'' To fight the war on drug abuse effectively, we must get our priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step toward controlling America's drug problem. Again, I commend Mr. Farr, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Paul for their leadership on this issue, which affects the health and well- being of so many Americans.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary life and accomplishments of Michi Oka Onuma, a native San Franciscan who died peacefully at the age of 96 on May 15, 2004. Michi Onuma represented the best of San Francisco. She was a talented leader with a generous heart. She will be greatly missed. Michi Onuma overcame many obstacles in her life. Graduating from the University of California at Berkeley in 1931, she was one of the few women college graduates of her generation of Japanese Americans. She managed as a single parent at a time when divorce was taboo. She overcame the prejudice that came with being Japanese American, including suffering interment, along with 120,000 fellow Japanese Americans, during World War 11. During her long life, Michi Onuma had various careers, including as a social worker and a community newspaper reporter and editor. She never fully retired, working well into her eighties before cancer slowed her down. Fortunately, she recovered and remained vital and engaged until the end. In the process of raising a family and having a career, Michi helped build and sustain community institutions that continue to flourish today. Michi Onuma persuaded the inaugural board of directors of the Japanese Community and Cultural Center of Northern California to build a community center. Michi Onuma was on the YWCA board in its early days when foresighted first generation Japanese American women raised funds to purchase a building for community use in perpetuity. Since these women were not allowed to own property outright, they left the property in trust with the YWCA organization with the understanding that the YWCA would follow their wishes. When the YWCA went back on its promise, Michi Onuma provided the historical documentation needed to negotiate the return of the YWCA into community hands. Nihonmachi Little Friends, a child care center serving the Japanese American community, is now the proud owner of the building. Other recipients of Michi Onuma's leadership included organizations that she founded such as the Red Dots, a community golf club; the Japanese Women's Alumnae Association at UC Berkeley; and Satsuki Kai, a Japanese wives group. Michi received a star on the Walk of Fame on Gene E. Suttle Plaza in 2003 for her work in the Western Addition of San Francisco, especially during the upheaval that redevelopment caused in the Japanese and African American communities in the late 1950s. She was also honored as a women warrior by the Pacific Asian American Women Bay Area Coalition as a symbol of what strong women can accomplish. Michi Onuma was a visionary, a pioneer, and a strong leader who had a lasting impact on San Francisco. We are grateful to have had her with us for so long.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Will the gentleman concede that the amendment that is going to be accepted by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and we appreciate the great leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), is not the same amendment that the Committee on Rules did not allow to come to the floor this morning?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry to the point of addressing what our distinguished chairman said. Is it not appropriate under the Rules of the House that the Committee on Rules could have made the Eshoo amendment, as submitted to the Committee on Rules last night, in order for debate on this floor today, with waivers?

Ms. PELOSI. So if I may just clarify, then it would have been possible and not outside the regular order for the Committee on Rules to have put the Eshoo amendment, as presented in the Committee on Rules, with the waiver.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this time. I am pleased to rise in support of the Eshoo, DeFazio, Inslee amendment to the energy and water bill. Before I speak to it, though, I want to sing the praises of the very distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for the leadership that he brings to this committee and the understanding that he has of the issues before it. He is a long-standing and respected member of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for his service and leadership. I also recognize the contribution to all of this and leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member on the Democratic side of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I commend them both for this excellent product that they have brought to the floor today. Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly to the amendment on the floor, I want to put it in context. Last night, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) went to the Committee on Rules to request a waiver to offer an amendment that would help Western families to get the refunds they deserve after they were ripped off by Enron and others. The Eshoo amendment as advanced last night would have also allowed States to participate in claims at FERC on behalf of consumers and provided more time for the public to file complaints. The amendment would have put this Congress on record recognizing the misconduct of Enron and other energy companies, and it would have required perspective to disclose the evidence of manipulation that it has accumulated over the past 4 years. It was a very wise amendment. It was exactly what the consumers of the Western States needed to remedy the energies against them. Unfortunately, and it is hard to understand why, the Committee on Rules, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), did not allow the amendment to be offered today. We are told this is an open rule with open debate, but the Committee on Rules ruled against Western consumers when it did not allow the original Eshoo amendment to come to the floor. It did not give the consumers the measure they deserve. That is why I am very pleased that we were able at least to bring a partial amendment and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as I understand, will perhaps be accepting this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). This much more limited amendment would ensure public access to documents on the 2000 and 2001 electricity crisis in California and other western States held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This amendment is a crucial first step, not as good as what last night would have been, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) last night, but it is a critical first step in bringing justice to consumers who were gouged by Enron and other energy companies; but it is not enough. Mr. Chairman, the constituents of those of us who represent the western States were victims of an enormous scam. Yes, the electricity deregulation signed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson was fatally flawed; but when the flaws became clear, when the electricity crisis began to spike, when the blackouts began to roll across California, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have been our safety net. Instead, month after month as electricity prices went sky high, FERC refused to act. Time and time again, my Western colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and so many others stood together to call on FERC and President Bush to stop the looting of the western States by rapacious energy companies. We wrote to FERC. We wrote to the FERC. We stood up in the Committee on Appropriations. We stood up on the floor of the House, but time and time again FERC failed to stop the rampant abuse of consumers by Enron and other energy companies. Finally, as Western consumers had lost billions of dollars and the worst of the damage was done, FERC stepped in and brought the Western electricity markets under control. We knew all along that Enron and the energy companies were gaming the system. The tapes, the now notorious tapes that every Member of this body has an obligation to observe, the tapes of the Enron traders confirm what we knew all along, that Enron and the other energy companies were laughing all the way to the bank as they stole from families and businesses of California. Enron and its kind lied, cheated and stole; and it is long past time for Enron to pay consumers and the States back, as the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) that she offered last night, but was turned down by the Committee on Rules, would have required. Even after adoption of this amendment that we are considering today, settlements will still be made by FERC behind closed doors without representatives of the States present. We wish we were voting today on the original Eshoo amendment that we wanted so that the House could address the larger problems; but at least with the cooperation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), we are taking this first step toward justice for consumers. I think that the handwriting was on the wall. I think it was a wise move by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), because I do not think he wanted to subject his Members to voting against this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I will yield in a minute. We wish that we were voting today on the amendment that we wanted so that the House could address the larger problem, but at least we are taking this first step toward justice for consumers. Today the House has unanimously agreed that FERC release its evidence of corporate misconduct to the public. That is what the Committee on Rules should have allowed us to do in a broader way last night, but they rejected it. I call on the Republicans to join us in ensuring that FERC live up to this bipartisan decision and that it release this information. Mr. Chairman, I will yield a few seconds to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman can get time from his distinguished chairman to go to that length.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am sure his distinguished chairman will yield him time. My point is because the gentleman was not in the room and I want to reiterate it while he is in the room, I would have hoped he would have been here, because this is an issue of such major concern to our great State of California. What I said was that the consumers of California were rejected last night in the Committee on Rules, because the chairman of the Committee on Rules would not allow the Eshoo amendment, which would have been the right way to go in order to get refunds for California.

Ms. PELOSI. I think that you are going to have to get time from your own chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, for 10 seconds, and I yielded more time to you at this time.