Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as one who celebrated her 37th wedding anniversary last week, I certainly do not support marriage penalty, but I do support the Democratic alternative and urge my colleagues to sustain the veto and congratulate the distinguished ranking member for his extraordinary leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that couples should not be penalized by the tax code when they decide to marry. That is not the issue. The problem with the Republican marriage penalty bill is that its tax cuts go well beyond marriage penalty relief by widening the tax brackets of higher income tax payers. Half of the relief in the Republican proposal goes to people who do not pay any marriage penalty today. As a result, their proposal costs an astounding $182 billion over the next ten years, consuming nearly one-fourth of the surplus. Such substantial costs will leave less money to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, pay down the national debt, and provide other essential government services. I support President Clinton's veto of this fiscally irresponsible Republican proposal because enacting a tax cut that reduces our ability to address these important priorities will harm families, businesses and communities across the country. Democrats have a sensible alternative that costs almost half as much as the Republican bill, while still providing marriage penalty tax relief to a majority of Americans. The Administration has indicated that President Clinton would sign the Democratic alternative if it came to his desk. Marriage penalty relief could be signed into law right now if the Republican leadership would support this alternative. Despite what Republicans claim, Democrats do not oppose tax cuts, and we have not opposed marriage penalty relief. However, we do emphasize the importance of both fairness and fiscal responsibility when providing tax relief. Fairness that ensures family security and fiscal responsibility that protects our nation's priorities. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the override of President Clinton's veto.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3632 to expand the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I would like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Don Young, Subcommittee Chairman Jim Hansen, and Ranking Member George Miller, for their support of this bill and for ensuring its consideration on the floor today. As a cosponsor with Representatives Lantos and Woolsey, I would like my colleagues to know that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a vital part of the community and culture in the Bay Area. Not only is it the home of the Presidio, Muir Woods, the Marin Headlands and Alcatraz Island, the GGNRA is the largest urban national park in the world hosting over 19 million visitors a year, the largest visitation of any national park. The park offers visitors a variety of activities from hiking, camping, biking to educational and cultural programs. H.R. 3632 is modeled after recommendations from a study by the National Park Service to evaluate the desirability of adding lands in Pacifica to the GGNRA. In addition, H.R. 3632 would expand the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include 1,300 acres adjacent to the existing, including three areas in Marin County, one area in San Mateo County, and a coastline area in San Francisco. The boundary expansion will allow visitors better access to the existing areas of the park and will insure more efficient management of the natural resources in the park. This legislation has gained large support from the local communities in the Bay Area, the State of California, the National Park Service and has the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional delegation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3632.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Scott amendment and the motion to recommit in opposition to the Charitable Choice provisions in The Child Support Distribution Act, H.R. 4678. These provisions would weaken important anti-discrimination civil rights protections; violate the constitutional separation of church and state; and entangle religious institutions in the reach of government. These provisions explicitly enable faith-based organizations to proselytize to those receiving public services; to discriminate in employment decisions with public funds; and provide that faith organizations need not alter their religious character causing adverse consequences. While the underlying child support provisions in this bill are important to help families raising their children and that they are endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and CLASP, my opposition is focused solely on the Charitable Choice provisions. Also, opposing these Charitable Choice provisions is The Work Group for Religious Freedom in Social Services, a coalition of more than 40 national religious, civil rights, civil liberties, and education organizations, including the ACLU, American Baptist Churches, USA, American Jewish Committee, and Americans United for Separation of church and State. The Scott amendment is essential because it would strengthen prohibitions against proselytizing and prevent discrimination against beneficiaries. It also would clarify that beneficiaries who received direct grants or beneficiaries who receive indirect assistance are both in receipt of federal financial assistance. The amendment has three main components. First, although the bill would prohibit federal funds provided directly to recipient institutions from being expended for sectarian workshop, instruction, or proselytizing, the bill does not extended the prohibition to privately funded staff pursuing these activities toward individuals receiving public services within the publicly funded program. The Scott amendment recognizes that it is inappropriate for publicly funded institutions and programs to include a component of proselytization and would prevent this. Second, the Scott amendment would close a loophole enabling discrimination against beneficiaries when another existing local, state, or federal law permits it. Third, the Scott amendment makes it clear to our court system that when federal funds are involved federal civil rights apply and they can be enforces under the Civil Rights Act Title VI or other applying laws. This would apply even if federal financial assistance is provided via a voucher, certificate, or other indirect methods. Scott's motion to recommit addresses employment discrimination and would strike the bill's provision allowing religious organizations to use public funds to discriminate in hiring. All of these needed protections are very important to ensure that the religious rights and the civil rights of Americans can be exercised and where they overlap, there is an appropriate balance. They also would serve to protect the separation of church and state. I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment and motion to recommit.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the federal government must not impose an excessive tax burden on working families, and I support targeted tax cuts to help families meet their needs and save for the future. However, the Republican bill to eliminate the estate tax (H.R. 8) would cut nearly $50 billion from the federal budget per year once fully phased in. Such substantial cuts would harm our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, pay down the national debt, and provide our essential government services. I am very concerned about the impact these cuts would have on families, businesses and communities across the country. In addition, the benefits of this cut favor the wealthiest 2% of Americans. When we prioritize tax cuts over health, education, and labor, we make sacrifices that impact all Americans. We saw this in the House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill where the proposed $175 billion Republican tax cut translated into significant cuts in these important programs. Working families are being asked to make these sacrifices in exchange for a tax cut that would give $300 billion to the 400 richest Americans. $300 billion would pay for a prescription drug benefit for seniors for 10 years! President Clinton has stated that he would support estate tax relief that is targeted to farm and small business estates. I agree that we should target estate tax cuts to the small businesses and farmers in greatest need. Democrats have offered a substitute that raises the special exclusion for farm and small business estates from $675,000 to $2 million per person. Any unused portion of the exclusion can be transferred to the surviving spouse, meaning that the total exclusion for farm and small business owning couples would become $4 million. The substitute also increases the general exclusion to $1 million by 2006 and lowers the top marginal estate tax rate from 55% to 44%. The cost of our bill is approximately $22 billion over ten years. Not only is the Democratic approach more fiscally responsible, I believe that it is a much better alternative for small business owners and farmers because it will benefit nearly all of their families, and it provides immediate relief rather than the 10 year phase in that is included in the Republican bill. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has not allowed us to bring this proposal to a vote. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the override of the President's veto.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, over the past few month, it has become increasingly clear that the Republicans' only real agenda is tax breaks. I am not against cutting taxes. However, the Democratic approach of targeted tax cuts that go to those who need them most is better for our country. The reduction of taxes for our nation's seniors is certainly a worthy goal, but we must not reach that goal by placing Medicare in jeopardy. The problem with the tax cut in the Republican bill is that it eliminates a dedicated tax source for the Medicare Trust Fund and replaces it with an IOU from the general fund. As a result, we will have $100 billion less over the next 10 years to use to extend Medicare solvency, offset Medicare reductions made in 1997, and provide all seniors a true Medicare prescription drug benefit. These are vitally important goals and they should not be sacrificed for tax cuts. The Democratic alternative targets this tax cut to low and middle- income seniors by raising the income threshold at which Social Security benefits are subject to taxation from $34,000 to $80,000. This provides tax relief while protecting the Medicare Trust Fund from losses. Protecting Medicare and Social Security must be a priority for this Congress. We must avoid losses to Medicare that will force seniors to pay higher out-of-pocket payments for the health care that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Norton's Amendment because I am concerned about several of the provisions in the ``General Provisions'' section of this bill. Specifically, I object to discriminatory riders targeting the District's lesbian and gay people, and people living with HIV/AIDS. Approximately half of all new HIV infections are linked to injection drug use, and three-quarters of new HIV infections in children are the result of injection drug use by a parent. Why would we pass up the opportunity to save a child's life by shutting down programs that work? Although AIDs deaths have declined in recent years as a result of new treatments and improved access to care, HIV/AIDS remains the leading cause of death among African-Americans aged 25-44 in the District. In spite of these statistics Republicans have singled out the District and attempted to shut down programs that the local community has established to reduce new HIV infections. This Congress should be supporting the decisions that local communities make about their health care. Giving local control back to the American people has been a major theme of the current Congress, and interfering with District self- government is contradictory to that goal. Numerous health organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors have concluded that needle exchange programs are effective. In addition, at my request the Surgeon General's office has prepared a review of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies of needle exchange programs over the past two years and they also conclusively found that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission and do not increase drug use. I also object to the provision in this bill that prevents the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act from being implemented. The District passed this legislation eight years ago to allow District employees to purchase health insurance for a domestic partner, take family and medical leave to care for a partner, and visit a hospitalized partner. This legislation provides basic, fundamental health care rights that all Americans should enjoy regardless of sexual orientation. Over 3,000 employers around the country, including hundreds of cities, municipalities, private and public college and universities, have established domestic partnership health programs. A list of these firms includes almost a hundred Fortune 500 companies, including some of the biggest, like AT&T, Citigroup, and IBM. These companies understand the benefits of offering these programs in today's competitive work environment. Cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York all have domestic partnership benefits in place. Congress has taken no action to block any of the domestic partnership benefits provided by hundreds of municipalities throughout the nation. Gay and Lesbian Americans in the District of Columbia and across the country make significant contributions to our society and their relationships, in the community and in the workplace, should be treated with respect. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton Amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time, and thank him for mentioning me in the same breath as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) on the issue of HIV and AIDS. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), in his remarks, pointed to the provisions of this Ryan White reauthorization bill. The distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, talked about the need for it. I wish to associate myself with their remarks. Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) in their pointing out, regretfully, the hold harmless clause that will not be contained in this bill. I want to point out a few things, because my City of San Francisco, which I represent, has been mentioned here this evening. Yes, we have suffered a great deal over the years from HIV/AIDS. When I came to Washington 13 years ago from California, 13,000 people had died in my district at that point from HIV/AIDS. We have suffered over the years greatly. We do not want any other places to bear that pain. Working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in a community-based way, the Ryan White authorization bill was developed with community-based input. Now, and at the time of the reauthorization a number of years ago, it was not taken into consideration that there would be protease inhibitors which would prolong life. What this bill does is penalizes San Francisco for two reasons. First of all, it does not give value to the work which we do with people who are HIV infected to prevent them from getting full-blown AIDS. Only at that time when they have full- blown AIDS would they be counted in this formula. Secondly, it again does not take into consideration protease inhibitors, because if they would, then they would recognize that people do live longer and they are not predictably dead as they would have been if we looked back 10 years and project out with the life expectancy. So what I am saying to my colleagues is support the bill. We must move it along. Please agree with the Senate language. The health director of New York State has said that this bill, the Senate bill, is better for New York than that bill which will do harm to New York and to California.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me. What I would say is what the gentleman is saying is not accurate. The fact is that we will see a decline. What is a mystery to me is that, while the gentleman is participating in this reauthorization of this very important legislation, maybe the top bill we will do this year, and I commend him all for the emphasis on prevention, because that is very, very important, but why we would not be wanting to help people throughout the country, without penalizing those who are fighting this, at the HIV level instead of waiting until people have a full-blown case of AIDS.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his great leadership on this issue. I listened intently to the debate as we have had this debate over and over again; and I come to the floor in a little bit of a different approach and, that is, the Congress has spoken, the House has spoken on this issue. The House has placed the ball in China's court to comply with our bilateral agreement. The House has spoken to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Bereuter) commission as the way to go to sort of calibrate the relationship between trade and human rights. So I think what choice do I have but to see this as an opportunity. For 10 years many of us, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for some of that and others, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), have fought this fight about how do we improve trade, improve human rights and stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China. Again, the PNTR vote has been taken and a choice has been made. So in my optimistic spirit, I think that maybe putting that aside now, we can really focus on the human rights, proliferation and some of the trade issues in a way that does not menace, for some, the passage of PNTR. So with the air cleared and that decision made, hopefully we will all join together when we hear of some of the things that are happening in China that are not in furtherance of our national security, that is, promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, growing our economy by promoting exports abroad. The reason, Mr. Speaker, we are having this vote today is because when we took the PNTR vote, and I am sure this was explained earlier, but I think it bears repeating, when we took the PNTR vote earlier in the year, it was to be effective when China became a member of the WTO. China has not met all of the requirements, and indeed today there is a wire story that says that China's bid for admission to WTO still faces major hurdles and more time is needed before it gets the green light. They said compilation of key documents essential to the process were running into problems, with the United States and the European Union sensing that China was trying to water down parts of the agreement it has made with them. At the same time, some developing countries, including India, were insisting despite China's objections that their domestic interests should have the same protection against floods of China's imports, especially textiles, as the big powers had won. It is far from over yet, said one key official. There is a lot more work still to do and a lot of problems to resolve. Let us hope they do resolve them. Then they would get PNTR, but only then would they get PNTR. And some of the concerns that many of us had on the vote, we were not saying they should not get it, we were saying if and when they meet the criteria that is established, the standards in our bilateral, then we should give them PNTR. Let us give them a chance to take the initial steps. Well, they have not yet, but again the Congress has spoken. I just want to make a couple of points. Since our vote, China, in terms of human rights, the day after the congressional vote on PNTR, China continued to persecute individuals for their religious beliefs. Reuters reported that a Chinese court sentenced a Roman Catholic priest to 6 years in jail only for printing Bibles. The arrests are part of a nationwide repression campaign on authorized religious activities. Then on June 8, Chinese authorities arrested an operator of an Internet Web site because it posted news about dissidents and the government's 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square. The Web site is a U.S.-based Internet service provider. In response to this, many people in the Internet world, which I come from, have said, well, wait until the Internet democratizes China. When this happened, they said, what can we say? If we say something, we will only endanger these people further. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) commission is going to be very important in addressing some of these issues. Then on June 13, the Chinese police arrested members of the China Democracy Party which they have outlawed who were sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp for only asking for the release of a fellow dissident. Imagine that. Sentenced to 3 years for requesting the release of a fellow dissident. Many members of the China Democracy Party already serving long terms in labor camps throughout China. Yesterday China's middle school teachers were beaten and seriously injured by police for protesting a plan to force them to resign and take tests to get their jobs back. Mr. Speaker, Congress has spoken but our work is not done. Hopefully we can work together to improve human rights, trade and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in marking the 26th year of Turkey's illegal invasion and partition of the Republic of Cyprus. I commend Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman Bilirakis for their leadership on this issue and thank them for calling this special order. This anniversary is not a happy occasion, but it is one which serves to remind us of the continuing strife that the people of Cyprus have faced everyday for over two decades. In 1974, using United States military equipment, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus, killing 4,000 Greek Cypriots and capturing over 1,600 others, including 5 United States citizens. Though the Turkish Government has been condemned by this Congress and the international community time and time again, it has not halted its unjustified occupation. Today, Cyprus remains cruelly divided. A barbed-wire fence known as the green line cuts across the island separating thousands of Greek Cypriots from the towns and communities in which they and their families had previously lived for generations. The human rights violations by the Turkish Government on the people of Cyprus also continue. The freedoms of religion and assembly are frequently stifled, and intimidation by the military is ongoing and ever present. On July 5, 2000, U.N. sponsored Cyprus talks resumed in Geneva with the full support of the United States and all members of the U.N. security council. Now is the key time to resolve the Cyprus problem and the only way forward is through a sustained process of negotiations and a solution which can unite Cyprus and its people. President Clinton has emphasized that we must ``work for an end to the tragic conflict on Cyprus, which is dividing too many people in too many ways.'' After 26 years of division, it is urgent that all the necessary steps are taken to actively support a just and lasting solution to the island's armed conflict. A peaceful resolution of this conflict is long overdue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Appropriations process, the Republicans have attempted to portray Democrats and Democratic priorities in the areas of health, education, and other important federal initiatives as fiscally irresponsible. However, priorities such as health research, school construction, and teacher training are underfunded in the appropriations bills because the Republicans insisted on including massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the budget resolution. Which is the more accurate definition of fiscal responsibility--massive tax cuts that do not benefit most Americans or targeted tax cuts that leave room for health and education for all Americans? Today's debate raises that same question. The Republican Marriage Reconciliation Act will cost an astounding $182 billion over the next ten years, consuming nearly one-fourth of the on-budget surplus. Democrats have a sensible alternative that costs almost half as much as the Republican bill, while still providing marriage penalty tax relief to a majority of Americans. The fact is that most married couples are subject to tax at the 15% marginal rate. The only marriage penalty faced by most of these couples is due to the fact that the standard deduction for a joint return is less than twice the standard deduction for single taxpayers. The Democratic substitute would eliminate this marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction for joint returns so that it is equal to twice the standard allowed to single taxpayers. In addition, low-income married couples also face a marriage penalty in the earned income tax credit. The Democratic substitute would reduce those penalties by increasing the income level at which the EITC begins to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002 and thereafter. The Republicans portray themselves as the party of tax cuts and Democrats as the opponents of tax relief, but the reality has always been quite different. The reality of the bill being debated today is that the bulk of the tax cuts they propose are not marriage penalty relief, but rather a widening of tax brackets that benefit higher income taxpayers. As a result, half of the tax cuts in the Republican bill go to those who do not currently pay any marriage penalty. What Democrats have emphasized, today and always, is the importance of fairness in providing tax relief--fairness that ensures family security and protects our nation's priorities. The Democratic substitute would benefit the vast majority of married couples, and provide greater tax relief for low-income taxpayers than would the Republican bill. We should provide fiscally responsible tax relief to those Americans who need it most. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Marriage Penalty Reconciliation Act and yes on the Democratic substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of San Francisco's best- known and best-loved radio personalities as he assumes new responsibilities at the station which has been his home since 1963. Jim Dunbar is leaving the morning show at KGO Radio after 25 years of being San Francisco's favorite way to start the day. Jim Dunbar's career in radio began in 1952 in East Lansing, MI, where Dunbar worked for WKAR providing commentary for Michigan State football games. Over the next eight years, Dunbar worked as a disc jockey, a newscaster, and a program director, and his work took him from Kansas to Detroit to New Orleans. By 1960, he was working as assistant program director and on-air talent for WLS in Chicago. During the three years he was there, WLS flourished and Dunbar attracted the attention of KGO in San Francisco. By 1963, KGO had tried a variety of formats, but it always ended up last in the ratings. Dunbar was hired as program director and given the charge of turning around the station's fortunes. By any measure, he has had enormous success. Dunbar began many creative segments, including ``The Man on the Street,'' but his most lasting innovation was the ``Newstalk'' format. It combined news coverage, commentary, and call-in talk radio in a way that no other station at the time had done. By 1978 ``KGO Newstalk AM 810'' had become the most popular station in the market. It has never relinquished that position. Although Dunbar intended to work solely as the program director, he soon found himself on the air as the afternoon talk show host implementing the Newstalk format. In 1974, he switched from the afternoon show to become the co-anchor of the KGO Radio Morning News. On this program, for the past 26 years, Dunbar has informed and entertained San Francisco as host of the most popular morning show. Dunbar also hosted KGO Television's morning talk show AM San Francisco from 1965-1979 and anchored the 5 p.m. news from 1974-1976. He not only reported the news on AM San Francisco but became the news when the ``Zodiac'' serial killer, still at-large, agreed to call Dunbar on the air. The program was so dramatic that rival television stations encouraged their viewers to watch Dunbar's program instead. In recognition of his leadership and excellence in the field of broadcasting, Dunbar was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1999. He is currently the only San Francisco radio personality with that distinction. He has also received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Northwestern University's School of Journalism and was part of the Associated Press Television and Radio Association of California- Nevada's ``Best Anchor Team'' in 1994, along with Ted Wygant. Though he is leaving the morning show, Jim is not retiring quite yet. He will continue his work at KGO with topical essays and, when called upon, news reports. I join with his wife, Beth, his children, Brooke and Jim Jr., and all of his loyal listeners in congratulating Jim on a wonderful career thus far and wishing him many more creative years.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment and support the amendment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I say to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I understand the technicality of the point of order. I just wondered if the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) had any objection substantively or if it was just on the point of order.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) to reconsider his point of order. I know that the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is in the unanimous consent request of last night as is the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I think that it is not in violation of the spirit of the unanimous consent request as I see it, and if it is in the view of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), I would hope that he would reconsider because we worked very late into the night, as he knows. We are trying to accommodate Members' schedules so that we can leave here today in a timely fashion. I would hope not to cast any doubt on the credibility of the unanimous consent request when the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) are clearly listed among those amendments that would be in order. So I, as the ranking member on the committee, would hope that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) would remove his objection to the unanimous consent request that is being posed here. Perhaps the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) could repeat his request to give the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) another chance to have a clearer view of what it is. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) understands, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is offset from MIGA, which is contingent upon the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) being heard.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is it the understanding of the gentleman from Alabama that the amendment is printed in the Record and is in the unanimous consent, but, just for point of clarification, would the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) be able to propose his amendment regarding the African Development Bank with the offset from MIGA?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, and recognizing the request of the distinguished chairman of the committee, I have some concerns about this motion. As the gentleman knows, no funds would be appropriated to establish the Working Capital Fund, but the creation of the fund would result in overall savings to the Federal Government. In several overseas locations other agencies have requested USAID to provide various types of administrative support to other agencies, because USAID can provide the support at the lowest cost to the Federal Government. So I hope that the gentleman is aware that this language in the bill is a savings for the Federal Government. Without a Working Capital Fund, USAID has difficulty becoming a service provider, because we cannot separately account for funds received from other agencies and cannot carry the funds from one year to the next. The fund would also enable an agency to use rebates from prompt payment. This would be an incentive for greater use of credit cards and again save money.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and for her great leadership on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood-Lowey amendment. I call upon our colleagues to vote for the motion to strike the restrictions in the bill because they erect barriers to the promotion of civil society abroad, the enhancement of women's participation in the political process, and the credibility of the U.S. in the international arena. International family planning enables women and families throughout the world to make key choices affecting the quality of their lives and their future. Each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes, more than one woman every minute every day. So I support the move to strike those restrictions. Mr. Chairman, I want to use the rest of my time to say what is not stricken in the bill, because I think it is very important for Members to know that what is still in the bill, which is law, states ``Provided further that none of the funds made available under this heading may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion, and that in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects which offer, either directly or through referral to or information about, access to a broad range of family planning methods and services, and that any such voluntary family planning shall meet the following requirements:'' It goes on to reiterate that no Federal dollars may ever be used for the performance of abortion abroad. These prohibitions are still contained in the bill. The motion to strike is strictly about the gag rule which, as I mentioned, erects barriers to women's full participation in the political process and the promotion of civil society abroad. I offer that language because we have had questions about how far this strike was. It certainly does not strike the basic law. I urge our colleagues to support this very important amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.