Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Harry Bridges, arguably the most significant labor leader of the 20th century. He died on March 30, 1990 at age 88. I am here to celebrate his life and achievements on this day, the 100th anniversary of his birth. After leaving his native Australia at age fifteen he spent several years as a merchant marine, before he settled in San Francisco in 1920. In those days workers wages were ten dollars a week, with seventy-two hour work shifts. Work was dangerous and injuries were not uncommon. Harry Bridges set out to improve the lives of workers everywhere. As leader of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU), the most progressive union of the time, Harry Bridges led the struggle for worker's dignity. He called for the San Francisco General Strike of 1934, which was suppressed with brutality, but Harry Bridges and the ILWU-Ied strike prevailed, and to this day, workers have benefited from safe work conditions, health care benefits, and eight hour work days. Today we can all hold our heads high and be proud of Harry Bridges' legacy. Harry Bridges' passionate support for workers rights made him the enemy of the corporate titans and anti-union government officials. His persecution led to his attempted deportation, but justice prevailed. Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy praised Bridges stating, ``Seldom if ever in the history of this Nation has there been such a concentrated, relentless crusade to deport an individual simply because he dared to exercise the freedoms guaranteed to him by the constitution''. Harry Bridges successfully fought for the integration of segregated unions. In addition, he fought for women's rights and he opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. He later fought against apartheid in South Africa with strikes and boycotts of South African Cargo, and he advocated for divestment of the union pension funds from businesses that trade and operate in South Africa. Harry Bridges and the longshoremen of the 1930's will be memorialized on July 28th when the City of San Francisco dedicates the plaza in front of its historic Ferry building as the Harry Bridges Plaza. He is truly deserving of such a distinguished honor. Harry Bridges is respected by the people of San Francisco, beloved by the workers of this Nation, and recognized as one of the most important labor leaders in the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee-LaFalce amendment. According to HUD, over 10,000 San Franciscans are currently homeless. Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program permanent housing grants are a critical component of our nation's response to this growing crisis. These programs must be preserved, and this amendment provides the necessary funding. Supportive housing programs link employment, substance abuse, mental health, and other supportive services to permanent supportive housing for chronically ill homeless individuals and families. Studies show that these programs are very successful. Tenants of supportive housing use fewer emergency room and inpatient hospital services, increase their earned income and rate of employment, and reduce their dependence on public assistance. The claim that Shelter Plus Care does not need funding in FY 2002, and that such action would constitute ``forward funding'' is untrue. Failure to provide renewal funding will result in a significant shortfall for Shelter Plus Care Programs nationwide, and a loss of approximately 260 units of housing in my district. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee/LaFalce amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes, but I did want to rise to associate myself with the comments of our colleagues who have spoken before on behalf of the Filner amendment to restore health care benefits to Filipino war vets, and I thank my colleague for his leadership in offering this amendment and his leadership over the years on behalf of Filipino vets. He has done more than anyone, and any of us who care about the Filipino vets and the commitment our country has made to them are deeply in his debt. As my colleagues have mentioned, for 4 years during World War II more than 100,000 Filipinos fought alongside the Allied Forces to free the Philippines from Japanese occupation. Drafted into the service in 1941 by order of President Roosevelt, these historic soldiers served under the command of Lieutenant General Douglas MacArthur, fighting valiantly to recapture the Philippines and playing a key role in the allied victory in the Pacific. Our Nation has not given these veterans the honor and respect they deserve at the hands of our country. In 1946, Congress denied benefits to these veterans and to another group of special Filipino Scouts who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945. Although these brave soldiers, and many of their fellow soldiers, gave up their lives for freedom, our country denied them the recognition and benefits accorded to other servicemen and women in the Armed Forces. It took us 50 years to give the Filipino Scouts the promised citizenship. Mr. Chairman, many of us in our communities and all of us in our country are very blessed with a great Filipino-American community. In spite of the fact that we have not honored our commitment to them, they have blessed our country with their commitment to family values, with their commitment to the work ethic, and with their very, very staunch patriotism. This amendment would make $30 million available to provide Filipino veterans with the same health care benefits received by other World War II vets. These World War II Philippine veterans are elderly now, their numbers are dwindling. A number of them are suffering from health problems. We are running out of time. It is time to right this wrong and give the Filipino vets the recognition they deserve in their twilight years. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment on health benefits for Filipino vets. It is the least we can do, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has been in this fight for a long time for this funding for disaster assistance to the people of El Salvador. On any number of occasions in the full committee under the supplemental and on this bill he has been a champion.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and thank him for his leadership in this fight, as well.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to have the debate, because he could have insisted on his point of order at a much earlier time. I am grateful for that so that our colleagues and those who follow Congress can know about this important issue. I do regret, however, that at the end of the day we are not going to have a respectable package of assistance to El Salvador. When the emergency supplemental bill came before our committee, which would have been the vehicle for all of this emergency spending, the representation that was made to us was that we will revisit this in our bill for the fiscal year 2002, and that we did less in the supplemental than we would have liked to have done. Well, we have come down this road from supplemental to subcommittee to full committee to the floor, and what we have is a nice contribution but not a real sign of seriousness of how we take the disaster in El Salvador. I am very sad because the $100 million that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has in the package comes from other disaster assistance, from the child survival account, from economic support funds. Why do those important programs, why do the poorest children in the world have to pay for U.S. assistance to El Salvador? I visited El Salvador in the 1980s. I saw the military assistance, $6 billion worth, going down there because it was said it was in our national interest. Well, if El Salvador is an area of concern to the United States to the tune of $6 billion in the middle 1980s, why can we not be generous to the tune of $250 million to do our share in helping the people of El Salvador in this time of need? Again, I wish the chairman would not insist on his point of order, and I thank my colleagues for this very serious debate.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time, and I commend her and our distinguished chairman and the maker of this motion, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their interest in this micro-lending. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have visited these micro-lending sites throughout the world. We visited in India, Guatemala, and just all over; and we have seen how these small businesses have changed not only the families, but the communities. So it is money well spent. It is a remarkable thing what a difference a few hundred dollars can make. Again, it is all part of the integrity of the bill when we talk about debt forgiveness, alleviation of poverty, raising the standard of living, raising the literacy rates, improving the health of children, child survival; it is all of one piece, because the economic opportunity that is there has a tremendous impact on families and the empowerment of women. So I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his leadership on this. It is a very, very important issue. I cannot think of another place where a small amount of money goes such a very long way.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment will provide $250 million in emergency international disaster assistance for El Salvador. The United States has been a leader and a major contributor to international humanitarian disasters. Last year, the committee provided $135 million in emergency funding for Mozambique and southern Africa, so there is precedent for doing this funding under the emergency funding in this bill. Two years ago, the committee provided approximately $621 million in emergency funding for Hurricane Mitch. The earthquakes in El Salvador this year in January and February, caused more damage in El Salvador than Hurricane Mitch did in the entire area of Central America. This is a terrible, terrible disaster. During Hurricane Mitch, the United States provided approximately 40 percent of the overall international contribution. This amendment for $250 million would increase the overall U.S. contribution to about 40 percent of the overall international contribution. USAID called the El Salvador earthquakes the worst disasters in the region in over 50 years. Estimated costs of rebuilding El Salvador ranged between $1.6 and $2.8 billion. It is important to note that in terms of the disaster and the tragedy there, in terms of housing, 200,000 homes were destroyed by the earthquake, leaving about a half a million people homeless. Roads, bridges, health care and water facilities were either damaged or destroyed and hundreds of people died. On March 7, 2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) led a bipartisan group of 75 Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Bush asking for a significant emergency package for El Salvador. On March 21, 2001, the House passed H. Con. Res. 41 by a vote of 405 to 1 supporting substantially increasing reconstruction and relief assistance for El Salvador in connection with the earthquakes. For many years, Mr. Chairman, the United States took a leading role in the affairs of El Salvador, and it is only right that we remain involved today. This tragedy has left thousands of children, women, and men at risk, and the entire country's future is in serious jeopardy. A compassionate and generous response from the United States is essential to those lives and to the region's stability. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for $250 million in emergency spending for disaster relief in El Salvador. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just like to respond to the distinguished chairman. I know that he is concerned about the people of El Salvador, and I accept as a compliment his statement that my amendment comes from the heart, and maybe it does, but it indeed also comes from the head. A tremendous need is there, and we can express all the compassion in the world that we want, but it is no substitute for real funding to meet the needs of the people of El Salvador. My concern about what the distinguished chairman has said is that the funds that will be used under his plan are coming from other disaster assistance. It is coming out of funding for the Sudan, Afghanistan, the Congo, and even taking money from the child survival and development assistance account. I do not think the poorest children in the world should have to pay for the compassion of the American people to meet the needs of the El Salvadorans at this time of tragedy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who has helped fight this fight in full committee, who has visited El Salvador and speaks with authority on the subject.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Vice-Chair of the Democratic Caucus and a champion on this issue. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern amendment; and I commend the gentleman for his leadership in bringing it to the floor. I want to follow up on some of the remarks made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member, on the need for us to have this debate. We are talking about, between last year and this year, a $2 billion expenditure on this initiative that has seen very little light of day in terms of what it contains and what its effectiveness is. What the McGovern amendment would do is to take $100 million from that funding for the Andean initiative and spend it on child survival and maternal health and to fight infectious diseases, polio tuberculosis and malaria. Where that money would come from is a line in the bill that simply says, ``for necessary expenses to carry out section 480 of the Foreign Assistance Act solely to support counterdrug activities in the Andean region of South America, $676 million, to remain available until expended.'' It does not say anything about economic assistance, human rights, humanitarian assistance, or anything like that. It says, ``$676 million.'' We would have liked for this amendment to be a match for the one I offered in committee, where we could say that the $100 million came from the military assistance, but the Committee on Rules would not have put that in order. So in responding to the comment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) that it takes from these other areas, no, it does not. The goal is to take it from the military assistance. If the administration chooses to take it from humanitarian and economic assistance, that is the choice of the administration. It is not the wish of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) or the cosponsors of his amendment. Why is this important? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said earlier that the Rand organization presented a report that said that treatment on demand in the United States is 23 times more effective than eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin. Think of it. It is estimated to cost about $32 million to reduce demand in the United States 1 percent by treatment on demand. If instead we try to reduce demand 1 percent in the United States by eradication of the coca leaf in Latin America, it will cost over $700 million. Do the math. That is 1 percent for a 1 percent reduction. In our country, there are about 5\1/2\ million substance abusers. About 2 million of them receive treatment, and 3\1/2\ million do not. Why are we not spending the money, which is 23 times more effective, on treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, rather than sending all of this money, to the tune of $2 billion, and it will grow next year, for a policy that has been ineffective? I am very respectful of President Pastrana and his good intentions and hard work and, again, in recognition of the fine work that my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, have done on this bill, but this part of the bill must be debated more fully and the Andean Initiative must be reduced. What does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) spend the money on? He spends it on tuberculosis. Few diseases are as devastating and widespread as TB. TB kills 2 million people each year and is only second to AIDS as the biggest infectious killer of adults in the world. Although there is a very cost-effective cure for this disease, only one in five who are sick receive adequate treatment. The good news is that effective treatment does exist. It is called DOTS, the Directly- Observed Treatment Short course, and it is effective. It costs between $20 to $100 to save a life. According to the international TB experts, a worldwide investment of $1 billion is needed to make DOTS available to all of those ill with TB, and an appropriate U.S. share would be $200 million. The money would go to the foreign operations bill, to increase its funding for polio eradication. While the bill has $25 million in it, Rotary International, which has been a leader in the eradication of polio, says we need a minimum of $30 million for that eradication. We are in a race to reach every last child with polio. We can do it. We need the resources to do so. It seems to me that is money much better spent than in the unknown, slow-to-come, trickling-through-the- pipeline humanitarian or economic assistance that was promised to Colombia but where they have seen more on the military side and hardly anything on the humanitarian and economic side. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and all the other makers in this amendment. I have failed in the subcommittee and in the full committee, but I am more hopeful on the floor of the House that if we want to reduce demand of drugs in the United States, we will do it in a cost-effective way. If the burden of proof of this is, have we helped the Colombian people and reduced drugs in the U.S., we have failed on both counts. Support the McGovern amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just briefly wanted to rise to commend the makers of this motion, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and commend them for their leadership. I also want to acknowledge the great job that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) did in the bill in increasing the funds for HIV/AIDS because the number has increased. As one who has worked on this issue over the years, I can only say that this problem of HIV/AIDS has been exacerbated by poverty in the world. AIDS and poverty are a terrible combination. They exist side by side in the developing world. But it is the poverty of our language that I wanted to address right now. We must have some poverty because we have not been able to convince the Congress of the need for us to have more funds into the global fund for AIDS and other infectious diseases. My colleagues have spoken eloquently to the numbers of people with HIV/AIDS, and I want to repeat one of those numbers. That is, that left at the pace that we are going now, the UNAIDS program reports that, by the year 2005, 100 million people will be infected with HIV/AIDS. How much more staggering would the numbers have to become for us to respond in a way that is commensurate with the leadership of our country, that is commensurate with the need that is out there? The HIV/AIDS issue internationally and at home challenges the conscience of the world. The United States must lead the way in meeting that challenge. I will submit the rest of my statement for the record, but I commend once again the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their leadership on this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Herbert and Marion Sandler for their longstanding at entrepreneurial and philanthropic commitment to the San Francisco community. Today, Thursday, July 19 in my district, Herbert and Marion Sandler will be inducted into the Bay Area Business Hall of Fame. They are most deserving of this honor and I am proud to acknowledge their contributions on this occasion. Herbert and Marion Sandler co-founded Golden West Financial Corporation in Oakland, California in 1963. As Chief Executive Officers and Chairmen of the Board, they have had phenomenal success in building Golden West Financial into a Fortune 500 company. With 420 offices and $57 billion in assets, it is the third largest savings and loan in the country today. Marion Sandler has been recognized by Fortune Magazine as one of the most powerful women in business today. By being one of the first women to break through the Fortune 500 glass ceiling, her accomplishments are an inspiration to businesswomen everywhere. Golden West Financial Corporation has the significant distinction of being one of the very few major companies with more women on its Board of Directors than men. Herbert Sandler serves on numerous advisory boards sharing his expertise with others. He was elected to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. He also serves as a member of the board of directors of the Success for All Foundation and of the Center For Real Estate and Urban Economics of the University of California at Berkeley. The Sandlers are committed to philanthropy and community activism. Through the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, they support nonprofit and community organizations in the Bay Area and nationwide. Among the numerous recipients of their generosity are the Sandler Program for Asthma Research, the Human Rights Center at the University of California at Berkeley, and the National Women's Law Center. They also fund many research grants in the fields of medicine and social work. In addition, Herbert and Marion have donated generously to worthy causes such as Human Rights Watch. It is with personal and civic pride that I celebrate with my dear friends on this festive occasion. The Sandler's dedication to the people of the Bay Area has had a significant, lasting effect on Californians. Their service to our country and our community is indeed a cause for celebration.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished, accomplished man who by devoting his life to public service has become a champion for social justice, a leader in his community, and an example of courage for us all. Today, Thursday, July 19 in my district in San Francisco, the American Civil Liberties Union will honor Ambassador James C. Hormet with the 2001 On The Frontline Award. He is most deserving of this award and I am proud to acknowledge his contributions on this occasion. Ambassador Hormel graduated from Swarthmore College and received his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School where he later served as the Dean of Students. He also established the James C. Hormel Public Service Program at the University, which encourages law students to venture into public service. Ambassador Hormel has spent a lifetime fighting sexual orientation discrimination. He helped originate the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay and lesbian political organization. For the last two decades, Mr. Hormet has assisted many local and national AIDS organizations, including San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Project Open Hand, AIDS Emergency Fund and Shanti Project. In 1996, the San Francisco Public Library opened the James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center. Mr. Hormel's generous donation kicked off a major fundraising campaign and created an endowment to ensure the center's continuing development. Ambassador Hormel was nominated to serve as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel lived in the glare of the spotlight but he did not shy away from the intense inspection of his personal life. He remained graceful, poised and courageous. On June 29, 1999 James Hormel was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, thus becoming the first and only openly gay Ambassador in United States history. He served his term with great distinction. Mr. Hormel is an inspiration to us all. I join Jim's partner, Timothy Wu, and his five children, Alison, Anne, Diz, Sarah, and James Jr. in recognizing the achievements of my constituent and dear friend, Ambassador James C. Hormel, and acknowledging his contributions and on-going commitment to human rights, social justice and the betterment of our nation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a business pioneer, a philanthropist, and a long time friend, Bill Hambrecht. Bill is being inducted into the Bay Area Business Hall of Fame today, Thursday, July 19. I can think of no worthier gentleman to receive such a distinct honor. William R. Hambrecht is Founder, Chairman, and CEO of WR Hambrecht & Co., an investment banking, entrepreneurial investment firm headquartered in San Francisco. In 1968, he co-founded Hambrecht & Quist which he headed until the late 1990s. William Hambrecht is a legendary trailblazer in investment banking. Through his ``West Coast-style'' investing, he has engineered major success stories such as Genentech, Apple Computers, and Amazon.com. By bringing fresh ideas to the financial world such as its innovative auction-style OpenIPOs, WR Hambrecht & Co. has been recognized as a groundbreaking investing company. His philanthropic work demonstrates his concern for the community and the environment. He serves as a Director of Beacon Education Management, an education management company. He also sits on the board of KQED, San Francisco's public television and radio station and is a trustee of the Sierra Club. William Hambrecht is dedicated to education and business growth. He serves on the Advisory Board of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. As a member and former Chairman of the Council on Competitiveness, he is committed to improving U.S. economic competitiveness and leadership in world markets. The Council, composed of corporate CEOs, university presidents, and labor leaders, focuses on strengthening U.S. competitiveness through innovation and technology. William Hambrecht is an inspiration and a friend to many. His brilliant leadership has changed the face of California business and philanthropy. It is my honor to recognize the achievements of my constituent, and to join with his wife Sally and the Bay Area Council in acknowledging his contributions and on-going dedication to social justice and the advancement of the Bay Area's wellbeing. I applaud his commitment to his community and cherish his friendship.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my husband, my children and I have among us 100 years of Catholic education. That education has taught us our responsibilities to the poor and the mission of the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is the living embodiment of the gospel of Matthew to minister to the needs of the hungry, the homeless, and others in need. That Catholic education has also taught us to oppose discrimination in every place in our country. That is why I have to oppose this legislation, H.R. 7, that is before us today. I am very proud that Catholic charities is the largest private network of social service agencies in the country, but in order to receive Federal funds, which they do now, Catholic charities and other religious affiliated nonprofits must agree to abide by all applicable antidiscrimination laws and to provide services without religious proselytizing. H.R. 7 would remove those important protections. So as a Catholic and one driven by the Gospel of Matthew and proud of the work that our nonprofits and all denominations do, what is the problem with this bill? The problem is that today, this House will vote to legalize discrimination as we minister to the needs of the poor. I hope that course of action will not be taken, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair rule and to oppose H.R. 7.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important issue. I just want to pick up where my colleague from California left off, and, that is, he said ending trade with China. Speaking that way is a grave disservice to this debate. Nobody here is talking about ending trade with China. What we are saying is that our trade with any country should promote our values, promote our economy through promoting our exports and make the people freer. Our trade relationship with China fails on all three points. I had hoped that this debate would not even be necessary. Last year when PNTR was passed, it was said it was necessary for us to do our part of the bargain so that China would come into the WTO and start complying with international trade rules. Here we are again, 1 year later. Frankly, I think you should all be very embarrassed. You promised if we did that, they would be in. But, then again, you have been saying since 1989, when we first started this debate, that if we gave China most-favored-nation status, now had its name changed to protect the guilty, if we gave them PNTR, or NTR, or whatever you want to call it, that human rights, that the trade advantage would improve for us, and that they would stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, three areas of concern. Well, bad news again. The news is bad on every score. When we first started this debate in 1989, the trade deficit with China was $2 billion a year. My, my, my, we thought that gave us leverage, $2 billion a year. The annual renewal, this policy that is in place that was going to improve our trade relationship, that deficit is projected to be $100 billion for this year. Not $2 billion a year, but $2 billion a week. On the basis of trade alone, this is a bad deal for the U.S. Intellectual property is supposed to be our competitive advantage. The International Intellectual Property Alliance reports that piracy rates in China continue to hover at the 90 percent level, an alarming increase in the production of pirate optical media products, including DVDs by licensed, as well as underground, CD plants. I will submit the full report in the record. Growing Internet piracy, growing production of higher-quality counterfeit products, and respective uses of unauthorized copies of software in government enterprises and ministries. The Bush administration report on agriculture is very bad. It says that the anticipated access for agricultural products has not been seen. So that was the big thing we held out last year. If you vote for this, our products will get into China. The access is just not there. On proliferation, China continues to proliferate weapons of mass destruction to rogue states, which we have now changed the name to ``countries of concern,'' and to unsafe guarded states like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, making the world a less safe place. On the question of human rights, we were told if we gave China most- favored-nation status, human rights would improve. The brutal occupation of Tibet continues. The human rights violations continue and are worsened. If you are a political dissident in China, you are either in jail or in exile. So I say to my colleagues, if we are standing here again next year, shame on us. I think we should finesse this issue. Next year we have to examine this policy closer.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, our distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time, and commend her for her tremendous leadership as ranking member, and really over time on the issues that are in this bill and so many more. I also want to join in commending our distinguished chairman, who, as has been acknowledged, is a very agreeable chairman to work with, in the tradition of bipartisanship of this subcommittee. I think they did a great job with what they had to work with. The priorities are good. And of course the gentlewoman from New York Mrs. Lowey) has been our champion on so many of the issues in the bill, and I want to associate myself with the remarks she made in her opening statement because I think it was a fine presentation, as always, on her part. I do have some areas of disagreement with the general bill, not with the gentlewoman from New York but with the general bill, so I wanted to take a few moments to express those. I will have an amendment, which is not going to be in order, but at least I want to talk about it for a moment. I do not think that the bill gives sufficient resources, sufficient to match the compassion of the American people or the needs of the people of El Salvador in response to the earthquakes in El Salvador. It is hard to imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the earthquakes in El Salvador caused more damage in El Salvador than all of Hurricane Mitch did, combined, in Central America. First, there was one earthquake, where hundreds of people were killed and hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed and people made homeless in January. And then, as fate would have it, in February another earthquake struck, compounding the tragedy enormously. Traditionally, we, the United States, have provided 40 percent of the outside international assistance to meet these needs. We do not come anywhere near that in this bill. In any event, I am hopeful that at the end of the legislative process, the appropriating process, that there will be more funds, because there certainly is tremendous need. Another area of disagreement I have in the bill is with, what are we calling it now, Plan Colombia? The Andean Drug Initiative, I believe is what it is called now. I opposed it when President Clinton proposed it in his supplemental bill when he was in office, and I have opposed it in supplemental this time, in subcommittee, full committee, and I will on the floor as well when now the McGovern amendment will be presented next week. But let me just say this briefly. For us to say that we need to send billions of dollars, billions of dollars, to Colombia in order to reduce demand on drugs in the United States just simply does not make sense. Now, if we have another agenda in Colombia and we want to help the Colombian people, then I think we can find a better way than sending military assistance to Colombia. But getting back to the justification, which was to reduce demand in the United States, I want to remind my colleagues that the RAND report tells us that to reduce demand by 1 percent in the U.S. by using treatment on demand, it costs about $32 million. To do so by eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin, it costs 23 times more than that, over $700 million, to reduce demand by 1 percent. There are 5\1/2\ million addicts in the country. Two million have treatment; 3\1/2\ million do not. The money we send to El Salvador would take care of about 10 percent only of those addicts to reduce demand. However, we are not even matching domestically what we are sending to El Salvador. We will talk, when the McGovern amendment comes up, about particulars as far as the military is concerned. I seem to have dwelled on areas of disagreement; yet I wish to commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for the increase in international AIDS funding both on a bilateral basis and through the trust fund. I would like to see more money in for infectious diseases, which the McGovern amendment strives to do, but I do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member once again for the spirit of cooperation that they brought to this very important bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue. Before I speak in support of the Waters-Kucinich-Crowley amendment I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his unsurpassed leadership on helping to meet the needs of people throughout the world, people who are suffering. I know that many of us travel as CODELs and visit countries and do not really see the real suffering, as my colleague so correctly pointed out. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is not in that category. In fact, he is known to visit very quietly by himself, whether it is those who are hungry in the Sudan or wherever suffering exists in our country. I want to recognize the compassion and leadership he has always demonstrated. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise. I do not know if you are supporting this amendment. I assume not from your comments. I do rise in support of the amendment to prevent our government from challenging the ability of developing countries to pass laws that make HIV/AIDS drugs available to their citizens. Some have expressed concerns about the extent to which this bill goes. We all know what the heart of matter is, what we are trying to achieve. International trade law allows countries to take action during a public health emergency. It would be absurd to claim that the AIDS crisis in the developed world is not a public health crisis. We have heard the staggering statistics: 36 million people infected with HIV, 22 million deaths from AIDS, and nearly 14 million children orphaned, over 95 percent of these cases found in the developing world. AIDS is the number one cause of death in Africa. Not only is this a public health emergency, it is the worst public health crisis since the Middle Ages. As the world's wealthiest, most powerful country, the United States must be a leader in this fight, not a barrier to progress. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said, ``AIDS in Africa is a plague of biblical proportions. It is holy war we must win.'' It is indeed, and the battles in this war occur on many fronts. Brazil is waging one of those battles, and it is winning. Despite prices that are well out of reach for most of its citizens, nearly every AIDS patient in Brazil in need of AIDS drugs receives treatment. This unprecedented access to therapy has been achieved through a government program that makes copies of brand name drugs. Compulsory licensing provisions in international trade law allow this practice, and the result for Brazil has been a 50 percent reduction in the AIDS death rate, fewer HIV transmissions, the prevention of hundreds of thousands of hospital admissions, and significant savings to its healthcare system. This amazing success was threatened when the U.S. brought a WTO case against Brazil for its HIV/AIDS policies. Earlier this year, this case was withdrawn in response to public pressure. If this effort had been successful, Brazil would have faced punitive economic sanctions, countless lives would have been lost unnecessarily and other poor nations would have been deterred from replicating Brazil's success. AIDS can be treated in the developing world. U.S. Trade Representatives should not be standing in the way. I know we will be hearing from the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who is an expert on copyright and international property laws, as to how we can all meet our goals and in a very, very productive way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the meantime to support the Waters-Kucinich-Crowley amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the Congress. I appreciate the work that is behind the gentleman's effort to stop the unlawful organ transplant without consent in China. I say ``unlawful,'' because even under Chinese law, as the gentleman pointed out, this practice is not allowed. I thank the distinguished chairman for his very thoughtful remarks as well, and I have every confidence that he will be effective in what he is trying to do here. I just want to read from the Year 2000 State Department Human Rights Report: ``In recent years, credible reports have alleged that organs from some executed prisoners were removed, sold, and transplanted. Officials have confirmed that executed prisoners are among the sources of organs for transplants but maintain the consent is required from prisoners or their relatives before the organs are removed.'' Indeed, that would be under the law of China, if the prisoners' body is not claimed, with the consent of the prisoner, or with the prior consent of the prisoner's family. But the fact is, as our own Deputy Secretary for Democracy, Secretary Parmly, has stated before Congress, ``Bodies are also routinely cremated immediately after a sentence is carried out, making it impossible even for those families who are able to claim a family member's remains to determine whether or not the body has been used for medical purposes.'' Then further to that point, execution is often not announced in advance until within hours of the execution. With China's vast geography, such short notices often make it impossible for families to travel to claim the body on such short notice. This is a very smart amendment. This is a very smart amendment because so many of the people doing these organ transplants get their training under good intentions in the United States, but then go use it in China for a bad reason. This is a very targeted way to address the problem. I commend the gentleman for his very smart, targeted, focused amendment, and hope the distinguished chairman will make it part of the bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and commend him for his courage in bringing this amendment to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment to prevent Federal interference with State laws that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, medicinal purposes only. Mr. Chairman, I know this is a very difficult issue for Members to understand, and that is why I commended the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for his courage. Over the past 2 decades in my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 19,000 people to AIDS, about 10,000 people a decade. I have seen the suffering that accompanies the advanced stages of this disease far too many times. I could name the names of people that I have ministered the needs of in their dying days. Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include alleviation of some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea. These benefits also improve the quality of life for patients with cancer, with MS, and other severe medical conditions. Mr. Chairman, opponents of medical marijuana argue there are other ways to ingest the active ingredient of marijuana, including the use of synthetic THC. However, we know that the drug containing THC does not work for all people. There is no logic in the assertion that a very ill person should be sent to jail for using the smokeable form of a drug whose active ingredient is currently licensed for oral use. Mr. Chairman, 56 percent of the voters in my home State of California passed an initiative authorizing seriously ill patients to take marijuana upon the recommendation of a licensed physician. Proposition 215 has provided thousands of Californians suffering from debilitating diseases safe and legal access to a drug that makes life a little more bearable. As the California Medical Association stated when expressing its support for medical marijuana, and I quote, ``Statement of the California Medical Association: Patients should not suffer unnecessarily when other options fail.'' The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) would prevent the Justice Department from using any funds to interfere with the rights of California and the eight other States that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, for medicinal purposes only, to alleviate the suffering of their citizens. Mr. Chairman, to effectively fight the war on drug abuse, 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. I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, every person in this body takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy to our Constitution, indeed to our democracy, than the role of money in the political process today. Those of us who take this oath of office to serve in Congress serve in Washington, D.C., a city that was built on a swamp. Two centuries later, it is back to being a swamp, a political swamp. Today, we have the opportunity to drain the swamp and change the political landscape of political fund-raising in our country. We have an opportunity to empower the people. How many people have been turned off by the political process because of the role of big money? How many people fear that the Speaker's gavel is an auctioneer's gavel, not the gavel of the people? How many people decide not to run for office because of the role money plays? Today, we have an opportunity to send a message to the American people that their role in the political process is important, in supporting candidates or in being candidates. We have an opportunity to clean up our act. And indeed we have a responsibility to do so. I have great confidence that if we pass the Shays-Meehan bill and when we pass the Shays-Meehan bill, we will clear the way for a new way in America in terms of political involvement. We have the creativity, we have the experience, we have the issues, we have the interest on the part of the American people which will be reawakened to involve them more fully in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this historic opportunity and support Shays-Meehan.