Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to address another point in the bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) referenced, and, that is section 504, relating to official immunity for employees and agents of the United States and foreign countries engaged in the interdiction of aircraft used in illicit drug trafficking. This springs from the unfortunate, and that is a very mild word to use, shooting down of the aircraft in Peru. Under this section, the President must make an annual certification to Congress concerning both the existence of a drug threat in the country at issue and the existence in that country of appropriate procedures to protect against innocent loss of life. An annual report to Congress by the President concerning United States government assistance to such interdiction programs is also required by this section. I call that to the attention of our colleagues, because many Members had concerns about that incident. And doing so gives another reason to acknowledge the cooperation of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida, for including this language. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan's leadership in this because his constituent was directly affected by it. I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I did want to make a couple of remarks in closing here. This bill contains an independent review of the events leading up to September 11. I believe that as we proceed to talk about anything regarding September 11, we are walking on sacred ground. We have to proceed with great dignity to honor, and out of respect for, the losses suffered by so many. Our entire country wants us to do everything possible to stop terrorism in our country, terrorism against our interests worldwide, and, indeed, terrorism against any target, and to stamp out terrorism wherever it exists. I do believe that it is important in light of the horrific acts of September 11 that there be an independent assessment of the performance of the agencies and departments of the federal government responsible for dealing with terrorism. That assessment must be broad in scope and conducted by individuals as free as possible of the interests of the organizations they will review. Section 306 as approved by the committee would produce those results. I will offer an amendment to address some of the concerns expressed by some of our colleagues about the breadth of jurisdiction of the commission under the amendment time. But I think it is a mistake to just proceed without an independent review of the events that happened. For that reason I thank the chairman for his support in making the commission a part of the bill, and I appreciate the Republican majority support on that. Sensitive to the concerns raised by some on both sides of the aisle about the scope of that commission I intend to offer an amendment as a compromise. I wanted to acknowledge and join my distinguished chairman in acknowledging the great work of the staff on both sides of the aisle, headed up by Tim Sample as the majority chief of staff and Mike Sheehy, our staff chief on the Democratic side. We are all very well served by all the staff on both sides of the aisle. We do not think of it in a partisan way. I also want to again thank our distinguished chairman for the manner in which he conducted the markup, indeed, the business of our committee, and for his receptivity to the concerns presented by the minority side. I want to particularly commend my minority members for the valuable contributions they have made to the debate and, again, of course, the work of every member of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of H.R. 2883. At the outset I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our distinguished chairman, for the manner in which he conducted the committee's business. His willingness to be sensitive to the views of committee Democrats and to ensure they are reflected in the work of the committee is much appreciated. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the bill was prepared in the aftermath of the horrific events of September 11, but it is not a comprehensive response to them. Some additional resources in areas where these events demonstrated an obvious need are provided, but it will take more time and more facts before we can, or should, go further. At this point one thing is clear. We did not know about the plans of the terrorists who attacked our country with sufficient specificity to prevent those attacks. What is not clear is why. In the weeks ahead much time will be devoted in the intelligence community and elsewhere in trying to determine why we did not know, but, more especially, to prevent anything like this from happening again. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for the men and women who serve in our national security agencies, whether they be diplomats, military personnel, intelligence officers, law enforcement officials or those who protect our borders and our skies. They perform with great courage and dedication under conditions which are routinely challenging and frequently dangerous, and they have had much successes combatting terrorism. They just cannot talk about their successes. As the events of September 11 demonstrate, however, more needs to be done. Determining the best steps to take to lessen the chances that last month's events could be repeated will require critical and innovative thinking. I am hopeful that the independent commission established by Section 306 of the bill will play a constructive role in that regard. For intelligence needs generally the bill provides several billion dollars more than appropriated last year and several hundred million dollars more than requested by the President for fiscal year 2002. It continues several initiatives begun earlier, among them an effort to ensure that the technologically complex and expensive information collection systems that have been developed are paired with effective systems to process, exploit and disseminate intelligence to those who need it to make decisions or to take actions. There is currently an imbalance between collection and processing, exploitation and dissemination that, if not addressed, will greatly lessen the value of some extremely capable collection systems. To be effective, our human intelligence officers need to have a better grounding in the languages and cultures of the regions where difficult targets, like terrorists, are most comfortable. A much greater emphasis needs to be placed on recruiting and maintaining a workforce with diverse skills, backgrounds and ethnicity. This is an area in which the intelligence community as not been as aggressive as I would like. I hope for measurable improvement in the future with the encouragement and resources provided by the bill. There have been suggestions in recent years that an insufficient emphasis has been placed on human intelligence. That has certainly not been true with respect to the work of this committee. Funds have been consistently provided above those requested for this intelligence discipline, and the committee has sought to ensure that the added funds were used exclusively to enhance the performance of clandestine collectors in the field. Human intelligence was once again the focus of our work this year, and that would have been true even if the events of September 11 had not occurred. There have been concerns that case officers have been discouraged from taking the risks necessary to recruit assets with access to important information, particularly in areas like narcotics trafficking, weapons proliferation and terrorism. Attention has centered on guidelines promulgated in the CIA in 1995 which require headquarters-level approval before an individual with a record of human rights abuses or violations of U.S. criminal law may be recruited. These guidelines were intended to protect officers in the field from charges that they had committed the United States to a relationship with unsavory individuals without adequate consideration. Despite repeated assurances from senior CIA officials that these guidelines had not had a negative impact on the quality or quantity of assets, it has become clear that the perception that the opposite was true has taken root. Section 403 of the bill deals with that perception by directing the guidelines be rescinded. It is very important, however, that there be some rules in this area, not because anyone is so naive as to believe that we can get more information about the plans of drug traffickers or terrorists without associating with individuals involved in those activities, but because decisions about committing the United States to those kinds of associations are too important to be made exclusively by relatively junior officers in the field. They should be made, instead, by senior managers better able by virtue of their experience and their access to reporting from a wide variety of sources, to weigh the potential value of the information to be provided by a possible recruit against the potential harm to the United States should the fact of our association with that person become known. That kind of risk versus gain analysis is essential if human intelligence activities are to be seen as consistent, rather than at odds with, U.S. policy and values. Section 402, besides rescinding the current guidelines, directs that new guidelines be established. It is my expectation these new guidelines will streamline the approval process without weakening the protections that process is meant to provide. I especially want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership in this area and his willingness to reach consensus with us on it. I think the language of this bill is an improvement on the past and I thank him for his leadership and his cooperation. Mr. Chairman, intelligence is a risky, dangerous and expensive undertaking. It is also crucial to our security as a Nation. I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to comment that the amendment focuses the attention of the commission to be established by section 306 on U.S. border security. Although I believe that important issue would receive appropriate attention under the charge to the commission either as approved by the committee or as amended by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the increased emphasis provided by the Traficant language may be helpful. We are prepared to accept the Traficant amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the rule. We have worked together to put together a bill which had consensus under the leadership of our chairman, our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I think we should just move on to that debate about the bill and about the commission and other considerations; but the rule is a rule that is appropriate for this intelligence bill. It is in keeping with past rules on the intelligence bills which were designed to protect classified information, but to give every Member an opportunity to see the classified part of the bill, although that is not part of the rule, but to have their amendments printed in the Record in advance to protect classified information. I do not want to take any more time. It is Friday. We want to move on to a full discussion of the bill and to general debate. I urge our colleagues to support the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment, and I thank my colleague from California for her leadership on this important issue. Even as we speak, servicewomen are leaving the United States to take up their posts on ships and military bases around the world, prepared to join the battle against terrorism. They are joining the many servicewomen who are already stationed outside our country's borders. Madam Chairman, this amendment would allow these brave servicewomen the same constitutional right enjoyed by women here at home--the right to choose. Every servicewoman should have the option to spend her own funds to safely, legally terminate a pregnancy at a U.S. military facility overseas. The President has called upon all Americans to stand up for our rights and freedoms. It is time to give military women who are abroad the same rights as women here at home. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sanchez amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise to defend the committee position and this very excellent bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, are presenting to the floor. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules decided to put a very unfortunate amendment in, and I was very pleased to join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, in opposing that rule in a recorded vote. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor on this issue as one with some family involvement. My father was Chair of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations in the 1940s. How proud he would be of the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). He was a great advocate for home rule, and that was part of his legacy as a Member of Congress and later as the Mayor of Baltimore, the pride he took in that, and the recognition that we must respect the opinions of localities. The Congress should be supporting the decisions that local communities make about their health care. We respect the importance of local control, and interference with the District of Columbia is contradictory to that goal. No citizen should be denied the right to care for an ailing partner or visit them in the hospital. No citizen should be prevented from taking the bereavement leave necessary to make funeral arrangements when his or her partner has passed away. All citizens should have access to quality health care. Over 4,200 employers across the country, including one-third of the Fortune 500, have recognized this by establishing domestic partnership health programs. Many of these programs go much, much farther than this law. Cities as diverse as Atlanta, Albany, Chicago, New Orleans, and Scottsdale all have domestic partnership benefits in place that are much more comprehensive than the D.C. law. Would any of the Members who represent those districts or the States that they are in like funds withheld from their appropriations their States would receive? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment when it comes up, and I again thank the ranking member for this good bill; and I urge my colleagues to support the committee position and oppose the Weldon amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. At a time when the American people expect, more than ever expect and truly deserve a full discussion of our response to our national tragedy, the Committee on Rules has presented us with a closed rule. At a time when the collateral damage to workers associated with the airline industry can run up to 100,000 layoffs, we are not even allowed to discuss amendments to help them. At a time when the airline industry has placed the burden of safety on the travelers with 3-hour waits before scheduled takeoffs, and present us with a bill which barely mentions safety, a bailout of the airline industry will only be a temporary fix if we do not get passengers back on the flights. The airlines must do a better job of facilitating travel, and this Congress must do a better job for the thousands who are losing their jobs. To do anything less while we are considering a $15 billion bailout is a national disgrace. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and commend the leadership and all those who participated in bringing this bill to the floor today. I want to associate myself with the concern expressed by our distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about having some idea of how this money will be spent before it is. Then I would like to, of course, express my deep condolences to the people of New York and of our military for the tragedy that has befallen our country this week. Our great President said it was a day that will live in infamy, of another tragic day in our history, and the distinguished chairman mentioned, he also said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It is on that point I would like to just say that fear is the goal of terrorists. They have succeeded when they can frighten a country or frighten a people into the panic that would ensue. They have never met the New Yorkers, who are a fearless lot. The indomitable spirit of New York, I know, will lead the country to the recovery that we must and will have. But make no mistake, make no mistake, they place no value on human life, these terrorists, so the number of people dead is no victory to them. The structures coming down mean nothing to them. Instilling fear is their goal. We must join with New York in its effort to, like the Phoenix, rise from the ashes and give them the defeat, the terrorists the defeat, that they deserve.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Tonight we are walking on holy ground. We are prayerfully mourning the loss of thousands of Americans who have lost their lives. We are trying a way to comfort their families and give them peace. At the same time, we are discussing a resolution on the use of force to bring the cowardly terrorists to justice and to make sure that we never have to suffer this horror again. To this end, I support this resolution because it clearly states that nothing in this resolution supersedes the requirements of the War Powers Act. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have quoted President Roosevelt of another horrible day in our country's life, that this day will live in infamy. I want to also quote his wisdom when he said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' because that is the goal of the terrorist, to instill fear in the American people. That would be their greatest victory. But the spirit of the American people and the unity that we will show them tonight should give them a clue that they will not have that success. Yes, we are walking on holy ground, and as we proceed in discussing the use of force, we must proceed in a manner that will bring honor to those who have died. We must bring honor to their memory. May they rest in peace.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a day from hell, a tragedy that was perpetrated by people with a demonic view, who do not value human life. Words have never been less adequate than to meet the challenge of giving sympathy to the families of those affected. On behalf of my constituents, I want to extend sympathy to those families of the victims, to make special note of those who were courageously there, the public safety people in New York who also lost their lives. We do not know the extent of the casualties yet, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot let one of the casualties be the freedom that is the foundation of our country. We stand united behind our President and behind our congressional leaders as we try to inspire confidence in the American people and restore calm. Panic, of course, is the best thing we could give the terrorists. It would be a victory for them. I hope that also in terms of calm and confidence, that we will have an emergency supplemental which will fully fund FEMA to meet the needs of the people affected in New York and also to meet the needs to restore the Pentagon. We always pray for God to bless America. In the spirit of our people, God has blessed America. The people of Oklahoma gave us an example. New York will rise from the ashes like the great Phoenix that it will be.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a day from hell, a day when terrorists who do not value human life engaged in a demonic act which has touched everyone in America; indeed, in the world. Today, over and over again, in contrast, we hear our colleagues express the exhortation ``God bless America.'' And indeed, in the spirit of the American people, God has blessed America. God blessed us with the courage of the public safety workers, including hundreds of firemen who plunged into a burning, crumbling building to help people escape, risking their own lives; indeed, sacrificing them. God blessed America with the compassion of the American people across our country, giving blood and offering to help in so many ways. God blessed America with the determination of our public servants in this building, our Capitol Police, the military, and so many others who are helping this government go forth, foiling, foiling the plot of these terrorists who want to create panic in our country and stop our government. The magnificent city of New York, which has led our country in so many ways, will rise from the ashes like the great Phoenix and will be stronger than ever. People across the country all have a special fondness for New York. It is the center of commerce and the arts, and its beautiful and magnificent diversity is a source of strength to our great country. The energy of New York will not be deterred. That will be our message: New York rising from the Phoenix, leading the recovery of our entire country from this terrible tragedy. That is the message to the cruel, cowardly terrorists: God has blessed America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Judge James R. Browning, formerly Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the federal courthouse building at 7th and Mission Streets in San Francisco the ``James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building.'' Appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, Judge Browning served for 40 years, including 12 years as chief judge. He assumed leadership in 1976 at a time when appeals courts faced a large backlog of cases. Under his leadership, the Ninth Circuit expanded in size, eliminated its backlog, and cut in half the time needed to decide appeals. Since 1961, he has participated in almost 1,000 published appellate decisions and authored many other unsigned per curiam opinions on behalf of the panel as a whole. As the head of the largest circuit court in the country, Judge Browning acted as a tireless and effective advocate for maintaining the unity of the Ninth Circuit. An extraordinary administrator, he implemented numerous innovations that reshaped the structures and procedures of the circuit. Many of his ideas were subsequently adopted in other circuits. He also emphasized the importance of collegiality and civility among the judges and the Ninth Circuit bar. He was instrumental in establishing the Western Justice Center Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the legal system by encouraging collaborative work and research. Judge Browning earned his law degree from the University of Montana Law School in 1941, joining the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice upon graduation. A U.S. Army Infantry private, he served in Military Intelligence in the Pacific Theater for three years, attaining the rank of First Lieutenant and winning a Bronze Star. Subsequently, he served again in the Antitrust Division, then the Civil Division, becoming Executive Assistant to the U.S. Attorney General in 1952. From 1953 to 1958, he practiced law as a partner at Perlman, Lyons & Browning, leaving private practice again to become Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, prior to his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit includes all the federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The courthouse at 7th and Mission was designed by James Knox Taylor, who also designed the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., and built between 1897 and 1905. It is my hope that in the near future, in addition to serving as a courthouse, this building can stand as a monument to the tremendous achievements of Judge James R. Browning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Johnson amendment to prevent drilling for oil and gas in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently today of the windswept coastal plain, the wide variety of wildlife found there, and the people there who continue to practice the traditional ways of their ancestors. This area was first protected in 1960 by the Eisenhower administration. Today the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains the last 5% of Alaska's northern shore that is closed to exploration for oil and gas. This ecological jewel should be preserved for posterity. Our nation should continue to develop our oil and gas resources, to the extent that is compatible with environmental protection. But we must be realistic. The United States contains less than 3% of the world's proven oil reserves. Even if we extracted every drop of oil to be found in the U.S. and off our shores, we would still remain dependent on foreign oil. It is time to take advantage of the abundance of renewable energy resources in our country, and greatly accelerate our development of clean energy technologies powered by wind, solar, and biomass. Equally important are our energy conservation resources. By using energy more wisely--in transportation, buildings, and industry--we can save money, prevent pollution, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create new jobs. By adopting a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, we could lower energy use in the U.S. by as much as 18% in 2010 and 33% in 2020. Mr. Chairman, we truly do not need to drill in ANWR, the crown jewel among our national wildlife refuges. We have many, many other options for powering our homes, businesses, and transportation systems. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and commend him for his leadership on this and so many other issues. I rise in support of the Waxman amendment to establish cost-of- service rates for electricity sold at wholesale in the Western region. As has been mentioned here, Mr. Chairman, in June, the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, imposed a soft cap based on the least efficient generators selling into the California markets. The FERC was established to ensure that consumers were charged fair and reasonable costs for their electricity. It has not neglected that mandate; it came through with this June 19 action, but not only was it too little too late, but it was the wrong way to go. As I said, it put a soft cap based on the least efficient generators selling into California's markets. For that reason, energy suppliers still have incentives to withhold power in order to drive up electricity prices, still gouging consumers. In fact, a new study shows that electricity suppliers are still trying to sell electricity at prices up to five times higher than the Federal caps. Last week, the Vice President passed his electricity bill on to the Navy. Instead of doing that, this body should be passing a bill to help America's consumers. I urge support of the Waxman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute and commend them for bringing this alternative to the floor. During the debate on stem cell research 5 years ago, I made it clear that opponents of stem cell research who claim that it requires the creation of embryos were mistaken, and I agreed with them that Federal funds should not be used for that purpose. Today we debating a much broader ban on therapeutic cloning. The context is much different. We have learned a great deal about the promise of stem cell research and gene therapy over the past 5 years, and I am opposed to any ban on therapeutic cloning. I just wanted to make the record clear because some quotes were taken out of context about where some of us who had participated in that debate were on this subject. It is true that embryonic stem cell research can go forward without therapeutic cloning. However, the ability of patients to benefit from stem cell research would be negatively impacted if such a ban were enacted. Once we learn how to make embryonic stem cells differentiate, for example, into brain tissue for people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, we must be sure that the body will not reject these stem cells when they are implanted. We are empowering the body to clone itself, to heal itself. It is a very real concern because transplanted organs or tissues are rejected when the body identifies them as foreign. We all know that. In a report on stem cell research released by the National Institutes of Health last month, the NIH describes therapeutic cloning's potential to create stem cell tissue with an immunological profile that exactly matches the patient. This customized therapy would dramatically reduce the risk of rejection. I am opposed to cloning of humans. How many of us have said that today over and over again? Many of my colleagues have already mentioned the chilling possibilities created by the idea of designer children with genetically engineered traits. That is ridiculous. That is not what this debate is about. Both the Weldon-Stupak bill and the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute agree on this point. The cloning of humans is not the issue at hand. Therapeutic cloning does not and cannot create a child. Mr. Speaker, the National Institutes of Health and Science hold the biblical power of a cure for us. Where we see scientific opportunity and based on high ethical standards, I believe we have a moral responsibility to have the science proceed, again under the highest ethical standards. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute because it prohibits human cloning, but maintains the opportunity for patients to benefit from therapeutic cloning that could lead to cures for Parkinson's disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries and diabetes. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman for his statement and for agreeing to this amendment. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman regarding EPA's program to register new, reduced-risk pesticides. It is my understanding that there are negotiations underway to provide an additional $6 million in funding for assessing reduced-risk pesticides and strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on exposure of farm workers and exposure in drinking water. We would like to continue discussions on these issues with the intention of addressing them in conference on the fiscal year 2002 bill. We would also ask that the chairman consider providing his support for funding of these programs for 5 years, but we are addressing the fiscal year 2002 bill now.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency's program for registering pesticides and reassessing pesticide tolerances are funded at the same level in fiscal year 2002 as in the current year. These programs are important to ensure that pesticides used in our crops, on our pets, and in our homes and businesses are thoroughly reviewed, and tolerances are set at safe levels. At this point, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with further discussion of the amendment, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his extraordinary leadership in taking what might have been a controversial amendment and having us come to some peace on this issue among all the various equities that must weigh in this. I certainly wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership and cooperation, and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the original author of the Food Quality Protection Act for their leadership. Certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his representing the balances between the environment and ag concerns, which are now in harmony, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his participation and leadership. And before I go on, I would like to say that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) took the time to do this while playing a very active leadership role as a named sponsor of the legislation that is very important to all of us, the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I particularly wanted to acknowledge his leadership. Mr. Chairman, it is especially important that we protect the health of infants and children by ensuring that pesticide exposure levels safeguard their health. The Food Quality Protection Act was designed with special protections for children in mind. We support this funding to ensure that EPA has adequate resources to review chemicals and ensure that they meet new safety standards set by the FQPA, the Food Quality Protection Act. This amendment would ensure that the EPA has an additional $3 million to ensure that pesticides are adequately assessed for safety. I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on this amendment and believe that any controversy has been resolved, as I mentioned earlier. It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. And I want to once again acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Food Quality Protection Act; the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his leadership; the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); and others, who have worked to resolve some of the controversy in this. It is our anticipation that if we have this full funding, the $20 million for this year, that the EPA will be able to meet its statutory requirement. We, of course, want the additional $6 million and look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to get that in conference with the support that I mentioned here in a bipartisan way, and hope that the EPA can, over the course of the next year, demonstrate that these were sufficient funds to meet their statutory requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman for his support of this amendment and for agreeing to work together to ensure that EPA can proceed with these programs that are so important to our farmers and to the safety of our food supply. I wonder if our distinguished ranking member wishes to weigh in on this subject. Does the gentleman have any objection to the colloquy?