Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) specifically addresses a program which funds local indigenous nongovernmental organizations to engage in this protection for women. Can the chairman tell me specifically, and please forgive me for not knowing this, if what U.S. AID is doing has that component to its initiative to stop trafficking of women?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thought it was in keeping with the unanimous consent request, but I will tell you what, Mr. Chairman, heeding what the gentleman is saying there, I will not use the full 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification because I do not know what options are available to us. Certainly if this bill goes to conference, and one never knows around here, if the bill goes to conference, I would certainly and I know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and others Members of the subcommittee would have this as a very high priority, and I know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) can get her own time to speak on this, but I just wanted to know what options were available. Can we be specific in conference? Are we talking about very specific report language? I think this conversation is very important on the floor to talk about the legislative intent, because this is a very important issue, and I really do not have enough time, even if I use my full 5 minutes to tell you how much it means to women.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I look forward to supporting the gentleman in that effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation offered by my colleague from California, Mr. George Miller, to establish a historical park in Richmond, California dedicated to Rosie the Riveter and the World War II home front. I would like to commend the ranking member of the House Resources Committee, Mr. Miller, for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. The Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park is a tribute to the thousands of women during the World War II era, who broke the mold and left the role of homemaker, to enter factories and shipyards to build aircraft and war ships for our troops overseas. Jobs, typically held by white males, were not being done by women and minorities; transforming the face of our Nation's workforce. Not only did these ``Rosies'' bring new recognition to the importance of women as part of the work force, they brought about changes in child care and women's health services. The establishment of a Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park is a fitting tribute to the men and women of the World War II homefront, who labored around the clock building the ships, tanks, and aircraft that were so vital to the war effort. It is our duty to recognize the enormous contribution that these men and women made not only to the war effort but to the sweeping social and cultural changes that were ushered in by the war-time employment needs. Mr. Miller's legislation is supported by women's and veterans groups and by the local communities in and around Richmond, where shipbuilding during World War II was a major activity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4063.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and sadness that I rise to honor the life of Bennie Holmes Jr., who passed away recently at too young an age. Mr. Holmes' leadership in the civil rights movement and as an anti-poverty activist earned him the respect of our entire San Francisco community; his caring heart and kind ways earned him our affection. Bennie's presence in the community can never be replaced, but the work of his life will live on after him. Bennie was born and reared in McComb, Mississippi, and it was there that he learned the values of hard work, community, and his deeply rooted sense of justice. In the late 1950's, he moved to California, and in 1961 be graduated from Monrovia High School in Los Angeles County. He later moved to San Francisco and continued his education at San Francisco State University, where he earned a degree in Political Science. Mr. Holmes worked much of his life for racial equality. He helped to found the N.A.A.C.P. Junior Chapter at Pasadena College in 1961. In 1964 he organized a group from San Francisco which joined the 1964 march for civil rights that went from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. He fought continually for the cause of civil rights with the Congress On Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and with such individuals as Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Farmer. Dedicated to fighting poverty and improving the lives of low-income residents, Bennie worked most of his professional life with the Economic Opportunity Council of San Francisco. For the past thirty- three years, Bennie was employed by this nonprofit group in several different capacities. He organized and raised money for numerous anti- poverty programs in San Francisco and worked to clothe, feed, and find employment for the neediest among us. Known and trusted by everyone, Bennie was regarded as the ``eyes and ears'' of the community because he was always looking out for those in need. Mr. Holmes also organized workshops at which tenants learned their rights when dealing with landlords, worked with youth groups, and chaired the Direct Action Committee and Study Group through which he traveled extensively in Africa, Europe, and the United States. Well-regarded for his tireless community service, Bennie was also admired for his delicious barbecue ribs. At social and political events, he could always be found behind the grill, serving the community in yet another way. Bennie Holmes left us much too soon. He worked his entire life for civil rights, equal opportunity, and economic and social justice. He treated everyone with respect, and he was respected for doing so. His passing is a loss to all of our San Francisco community. My thoughts and prayers are with his mother, Leola Wells Holmes, his children, and his entire family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and sadness that I honor the life of Bennie Holmes Jr., who passed away recently at too young an age. Mr. Holmes' leadership in the civil rights movement and as an anti-poverty activist earned him the respect of our entire San Francisco community; his caring heart and kind ways earned him our affection. Bennie's presence in the community can never be replaced, but the work of his life will live on after him. Bennie was born and reared in McComb, Mississippi, and it was there that he learned the values of hard work, community, and his deeply rooted sense of justice. In the late 1950's, he moved to California, and in 1961 he graduated from Monrovia High School in Los Angeles County. He later moved to San Francisco and continued his education at San Francisco State University, where he earned a degree in Political Science. Mr. Holmes worked much of his life for racial equality. He helped to found the N.A.A.C.P. Junior Chapter at Pasadena College in 1961. In 1964 he organized a group from San Francisco which joined the 1964 march for civil rights that went from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. He fought continually for the cause of civil rights with the Congress On Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and with such individuals as Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Farmer. Dedicated to fighting poverty and improving the lives of low-income residents, Bennie worked most of his professional life with the Economic Opportunity Council of San Francisco. For the past thirty- three years, Bennie was employed by this nonprofit group in several different capacities. He organized and raised money for numerous anti- poverty programs in San Francisco and worked to clothe, feed, and find employment for the neediest among us. Known and trusted by everyone, Bennie was regarded as the ``eyes and ears'' of the community because he was always looking out for those in need. Mr. Holmes also organized workshops at which tenants learned their rights when dealing with landlords, worked with youth groups, and traveled extensively in Africa, Europe, and the United States. Well-regarded for his tireless community service, Bennie was also admired for his delicious barbecue ribs. At social and political events, he could always be found behind the grill, serving the community in yet another way. Bennie Holmes left us much too soon. He worked his entire life for civil rights, equal opportunity, and economic and social justice. He treated everyone with respect, and he was respected for doing so. His passing is a loss to all of our San Francisco community. My thoughts and prayers are with his mother, Leola Wells Holmes, his children, and his entire family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Coburn amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I strongly disagree with this amendment because it would block the Food and Drug Administration from testing, developing, or approving any drug that would induce abortion, including RU-486. The Coburn amendment would limit the development of the next generation of safer, more effective contraceptives and this is wrong. Women in America have a right to choose. We must protect this right. The goal of this Congress should be to reduce the number of abortions, protect the right of women to choose, and to make necessary medical choices safe and legal. It is wrong for Congress to tell the FDA to approve a particular drug or to disapprove one. Instead, it is the FDA's mission to decide whether a drug is ``safe and effective.'' The Coburn amendment would make this decision for the FDA and substitute Congress' judgement over the judgement of medical professionals. We must remember that RU-486 is a product proven to be medically safe. After extensive French and United States clinical trials, the FDA has determined that it is safe and effective for an early medical abortion. For about 20 years RU-486 has been available to Europe's women. The effect of this amendment is to ban RU-486 which can be used for a nonsurgical abortion. For women for whom surgical abortion poses risks or is otherwise inappropriate, the Coburn amendment unconstitutionally restricts the right to choose. For women living far from clinics, it precludes the possibility of receiving RU-486 in their physician's office, again burdening the right to choose. Women have the right to choose and I support the current FDA medical approval process. We should not trample on the FDA's ability to test, research and approve drugs based on sound scientific evidence. We should also remember this amendment is not limited to just this one safe and effective drug. It is not simply about access to RU-486 alone. It would have a dangerous chilling effect on developing other drugs for various other medical purposes. Drugs used to treat other conditions including cancers and ulcers can induce abortion. This proposed ban could limit the FDA's capacity to consider approving these other therapies and could force researchers to reject promising treatment opportunities. I stand with the American Medical Association; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and the American Medical Women's Association to oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment and protect a woman's right to choose. Vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance in opposition to this rule. I say ``reluctance'' because I do support the bill. We need to strengthen the ability of physicians to be effective advocates for the health care needs of their patients. However, by choosing once again to bring legislation to this floor that attempts to limit a woman's right to choose, the Committee on Rules has undermined the spirit of this legislation. This bill seeks to assure patient safety and increase the quality of health care by allowing physicians to collectively have a greater say in negotiations on the terms of a health plan. The intent is to clearly empower physicians in their relationship with HMO administrators, some of whom attempt sometimes to put profits over patient care when making decisions about medical care. Mr. Speaker, reproductive health services are an essential component of primary care for women. To my male colleagues, I say this again, gentlemen, reproductive health services are an essential component of primary care for women. Although this amendment has been framed as a conscience clause for religious health care entities, it does in fact prevent physicians, regardless of their religion, from even mentioning abortion in their negotiations with health plans. I repeat some of the points that have been made earlier. The result is that providers who have a medical and ethical responsibility to promote the well-being of their patients would be unable to advocate with health plans on their patients' behalf for comprehensive reproductive health care. In addition, providers could not negotiate any onerous restrictions that appear in their contracts concerning the provision of abortion services. Such restrictions could include a ban on referring clients for abortion elsewhere, or from even discussing abortion as a medically appropriate and legal option for patients. Mr. Speaker, reproductive health services are an essential component of primary care for women and must be part of all negotiations. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for the time and for his leadership on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate today. Too bad we cannot have the Democratic option before us so that we could have a discussion that this issue deserves. Since the creation of Medicare 35 years ago, the curative power of prescription medicines has increased dramatically. What once required surgeries and hospital care now can be treated with prescription medicines. However, these medicines are often very expensive. Prices for the 50 most prescribed drugs for senior citizens have been going up, on average, at twice the rate of inflation over the past 6 years. As these prices have soared, our Nation's elderly and disabled populations have found it harder and harder to afford the treatments their doctors prescribe. As with so many of the issues that we have recently debated in this Chamber, the debate between the Democratic and Republican prescription drug plans comes down to a question of priorities. Democrats offer a voluntary, affordable, guaranteed prescription drug benefit that is available to all citizens through Medicare, the same program that has provided reliable access to doctor and hospital care for 30 years. But the American people will not have a chance to hear about it, because in the dark of night the Republican majority has foisted a rule on this House that does not give us a chance to present our option to the American people. But America should know that we will be tireless in our efforts to have our proposal of direct benefits prevail. It is no wonder that the Republican's scheme shies away from Medicare. The Republicans have always opposed it. Former Speaker Gingrich once said that Medicare would wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), in 1995, called Medicare ``a program I would have no part of in the free world.'' Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the Democratic plan prevail; that we have a plan that has a guaranteed defined benefit that gives seniors the benefit of being in a purchasing group which is private. We will work tirelessly to that end. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding me the time and rise in strong opposition to the Sanford amendment, which cuts all funding for the Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation, not to be confused with any other foundation dealing with Asia, is domiciled in San Francisco, in my district. I am very well acquainted with the great and excellent work that it does. The work that they do is important for U.S. government officials and shows a critical role that in-country presence plays in understanding local conditions. The Asia Foundation advances U.S. interests through its ability to deliver high-quality programs on the ground through its network of offices in Asia, which some of our colleagues have addressed here. In the short amount of time allocated to me, I would urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment, support the work of the Asia Foundation, it is a way to peacefully resolve some of our issues out there, as well as building a rule of law in many countries that are fragile democracies just emerging who need just the kind of assistance that the Asia Foundation is experienced in providing. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to point out a certain irony here. We were told on our committee that there should be no riders in our appropriations bill this year; and yet the majority is going to great lengths to include this very dangerous rider in this particular bill. The Attorney General has stated that if this rider is there, this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuits is enacted into law, we would have no ability to continue the litigation in the tobacco suits. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have eloquently spoken to the $90 billion cost, both public and private, to our economy and the many diseases that are caused by tobacco. I want to dwell for a half a minute on our children. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. Every day, 3,000 more children become regular smokers. One out of three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing products to young people who can replace those smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health problems and health costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen veterans' health care, and I urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/ Meehan/Stabenow amendment. This amendment will allow the Department of Justice to pursue its lawsuit against the tobacco companies and seek to recover billions of dollars in health care expenditures that tobacco has cost federal taxpayers. The Attorney General has stated that if the rider in this bill that blocks funding for the lawsuit is enacted into law, ``We would have no ability to continue our litigation.'' This vote boils down to a simple choice: Will we vote to protect taxpayers and allow them to have their day in court? Or will we vote to protect Big Tobacco and once again allow the tobacco companies to escape legal responsibility for all the harm they have caused. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States. Over 430,000 premature deaths each year are a result of smoking related illnesses including chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and bladder. This accounts for one out of five deaths, and twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Smoking causes or contributes to a variety of debilitating physical and medical problems. Chronic coughing, emphysema, and bronchitis are products of smoking, and smokers are more susceptible to influenza. Smokers are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease. Smoking can also cause the early onset of menopause among women, incontinence, and reduced fertility, and increases the risk of impotence by 50 percent. Approximately 5 million American children smoke. And each day, another 3,000 children become regular smokers. One out of every three of these children will eventually die from tobacco-related causes. The market for cigarettes is maintained by marketing tobacco products to young people who can replace older smokers who die or quit. As a result of these tactics, the tobacco industry creates a lifetime of health care problems and health care costs for these children, and they should be held accountable. In addition to recovery of costs, this lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to stop the tobacco companies from marketing to children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays $4 billion; the Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion; and the Indian Health Service pays $300 million. In addition, tobacco-related health care costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall, public and private payments for tobacco-related care total approximately $90 billion each year. Any recovery of Medicare costs from this litigation help would be deposited in the Medicare trust fund. If the lawsuit is successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of Medicare or fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Veterans medical care would be strengthened as will. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do for seniors, veterans, kids, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman/Evans/Hansen/Meehan/Stabenow amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bipartisan McGovern/ Johnson/Udall/Bono/Sanders/Morella/Millender-McDonald amendment that would add $4.5 million to programs supporting Women's Entrepreneurship. This amendment would increase $4.1 million for SBA's Women's Business Center Program to its fully authorized $13 million and would increase $405,000 for SBA's National Women's Business Council to President Clinton's requested $1 million. These programs are important to women around the country and in the district I represent. Recently, I heard from Ms. Claudia Viek, who runs the Renaissance Women's Business Center in San Francisco. She was concerned about cuts to SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership and its adverse impact on the Renaissance Center which has sustained a 7 percent funding cut and, without this amendment, would experience deeper cuts. Since 1985, this Center has been successfully fulfilling its mission ``to empower and increase the entrepreneurial capabilities of socially and economically diverse people'' and providing practical training in business planning, financial assistance, and ongoing supportive networks for its graduates. I have also heard from Barbara Johnson and Mercedes Sansores with ``Women's Initiative for Self Employment''. These women were also concerned about funding levels for SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership and urged me to support this amendment. Women's Initiative is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1988 to help low-income women start and manage their own businesses. It makes loans to support its client's entrepreneurship. Women's Initiative offers business training and technical assistance, in English and Spanish, on business planning, marketing, sales, and finance. ALAS is the Initiative's Spanish-language training program that delivers important services to the local community. Together these Centers provide significant resources and training to businesswomen. They are simply two examples of the many Centers around the nation. In fact, as we travel, we could find Women's Business Centers in 46 states and territories. Clearly, this program benefits women around the country. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern amendment and support increased business opportunities for women.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Representative Serrano's amendment to increase funding to enforce and protect the civil rights of all Americans. The Majority bill cuts funding from President Clinton's request for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and would force the Civil Rights Division to reduce its current services. It would also reduce funding for other vital civil rights initiatives. We must take every possible step to ensure that the Civil Rights of all Americans are protected. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and provide the needed civil rights funding. This bill lacks funding for many significant civil rights activities. For example, it lacks funds to investigate law enforcement patterns and practices to address policy brutality. It lacks funds to fight abuse and neglect in nursing homes, juvenile detention facilities, and mental health facilities. It lacks funds to address expected voting rights cases resulting from the Census. It also lacks funds to aggressively investigate and prosecute hate crimes. These initiatives are all very important. Why does the Majority bill ignore these needs? What is more important than investigating abuse in nursing homes of our vulnerable seniors? Given cases like the recent episode in New York City which terrorized and sexually assaulted more than 50 women, why can't we fund investigations of potential hate crimes against these women? We should fund these efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans and ensure our existing laws are enforced. This bill cuts funds to two important Commissions. It cuts the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights below current services and 19 percent below President Clinton's request. It cuts the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission [EEOC] 10 percent below President Clinton's request. These Commissions deserve our support, play a fundamental role, and highlight vital issues in our national debate. The bill lacks funds for new and expanded grant programs under the successful COPS program for activities to prevent community crime related to civil rights. For example, this shortfall underfunds the Police Integrity and Hate Crimes training initiative and underfunds police recruitment of diversified applicants that reflect the communities served. These programs serve America's communities of color and we should support them. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment and support funding to protect and enforce civil rights.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Rep. DeGette's pro-choice amendment to strike this bill's language banning the use of federal funds for abortion services for women in federal prisons. Currently, the law prohibits the use of federal funds to perform abortions in health facilities in federal prisons, except in cases of rape or life endangerment. For women who can afford to pay for a private abortion, the Bureau of Prisons must provide transportation to a private facility. However, other women are denied their rights and the opportunity to make vital decisions determining their own health care. Women deserve access to the full range of available reproductive health care services, including abortion. Unfortunately, the anti- choice movement continues to deny coverage for abortion services to women who are dependent on federal resources. This includes women in the military, female government employees, poor women, and incarcerated females. These existing restrictions are draconian and problematic and we must fight them all. The ban on abortion for women in federal prisons is perhaps the most tragic because it denies incarcerated women their fundamental rights and denies them the ability to make their own health care decisions concerning their own medical needs. In federal prisons, federal funds cover inmates' food, shelter, clothing and all health care services. Why do we draw this line in the middle of health care services for women? Existing law punishes impoverished women and marginalized women. It is an unfair and inhumane law. Women in prison lack the ability to borrow and frequently lack an outside support network. We should not punish these women for their poverty. I stand with the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL in support of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment and for the rights of all women.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to increase funding for crime prevention programs. This amendment we are addressing now, as my colleagues know, takes $10 million from the Truth in Sentencing Fund and applies it to the COPS program for DNA testing. Our colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who was a law enforcement veteran, have spoken eloquently about this amendment. I would like to talk about the previous amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in conjunction with this and commend him for his leadership on both of them. The Scott amendment that was already addressed by this House would provide $121 million for crime prevention programs to assist young Americans to stay out of trouble and become responsible adults. This investment would provide $60.8 million to Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the same amount, $60.8 million, to the national Drug Courts program to continue their excellent programs. Those courts have made a tremendous difference. For the last 13 years, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America have worked with at-risk youth living in or near America's public housing and now have more than 300 affiliate clubs. These clubs provide a safe haven, constructive programs, and have proven positive results. An independent analysis by Columbia University demonstrated that these clubs had a significant impact on juvenile criminal activity, which dropped 13 percent, on drug activity which dropped 22 percent, and on the presence of crack cocaine which dropped 25 percent. The 400 Drug Courts throughout America prevent crime effectively. These locally driven Drug Courts employ experienced criminal justice professionals and substance abuse counselors to work individually with Drug Court enrollees. In 1998, Columbia University's independent analysis demonstrated that Drug Courts reduced drug use and criminal behavior substantially. In addition to directly benefiting our youth, the Drug Court system's annual costs are less than $2,500 per person, significantly less than the $20,000 to $50,000 annual cost to incarcerate drug-using offenders. To fund these investments, the Scott amendment provides responsible offsets. Specifically, this one taps half the funds from the Truth in Sentencing program and leaves adequate Truth in Sentencing funds. In 1999, only 30 States were even eligible for these funds. Furthermore, Truth in Sentencing funding is available for only one use, prison construction. This amendment provides an opportunity to shift our juvenile justice policy from incarceration to a policy of prevention, assistance, and rehabilitation. Before we build more prisons, we should invest in youth. We get more value for the dollar spent. For the same amount of money invested in prisons, we do not go very far, and we do not prevent very much crime. For the same amount of money invested in youth, we have very, very positive results. In addition to benefiting our youth, this amendment benefits States with added flexibility. It addresses the problem in current law that limits TIS funding to prison construction only. It eases this restriction by enabling States to invest in proven prevention programs. For example, the State of Virginia, the Truth in Sentencing State, has excess prison capacity and is currently trying to lease 3,200 prison beds to other States. We should not penalize Virginia or other States that do not want more prevention. States with excess prison capacity should be allowed to invest in proven crime prevention programs. We should support State and local decision-making on this issue. At a time today especially very significantly, Mr. Chairman, when we are all engrossed in watching the actions in Texas related to the death penalty case and whether Gary Graham will be executed tonight, the need for us to have more funding for DNA testing is even more important. So this amendment that is before the House right now is a very important one. I urge my colleagues to support it and support the amendment that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has called for a vote on, the previous amendment heard by the House.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Serrano-Delahunt-Ramstad amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill. With great respect for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and for the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that they have put into this bill, I must respectfully disagree with the chairman and commend the ranking member for this very important amendment. As reported, the bill provides the Legal Services Corporation with a very low $141 million. Indeed, it has been the same figure over the past 6 years that the Republican majority has put into the bill. The bill cuts $164 million from last year's funding level and $199 million from President Clinton's request. It is a pitifully small number. These cuts are more than 50 percent and severely imperil our legal system. Mr. Chairman, we have a magnificent Constitution making us the freest country in the world, with liberty and justice for all. But all Americans do not have the same rights of some that can afford those rights and access to them, and others cannot. The cut in funding for the Legal Services Corporation is a diminution of justice in our great country. A person's income should not determine whether or not Americans have access to the civil justice system. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance for low-income women who are victims of domestic violence. Indeed, I say to my colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services Corporation's clients are women, most of them mothers with children. The Legal Services Corporation was established to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income individuals; and these clients include veterans, as has been said, family farmers, women, most of them, again, mothers with children, victims of natural disasters, et cetera. Often, the clients of Legal Services Corporation represent the elderly when they are victims of consumer fraud. I would like to share a few examples with our colleagues to demonstrate how very, very important the work of the Legal Services Corporation is. My colleagues have referenced some other stories, and if these are duplicative, then they bear repetition, because they are very, very important. When Mrs. Martinez decided to leave her abusive husband, she had no funds of her own to support her children. Her husband, who controlled all of the family's money, retained his own attorney to help him keep the family home and gain custody of the children, both under the age of 10. Despite a history of mental illness and domestic violence, and again, domestic violence, he had a good chance of winning in court. A friend urged Mrs. Martinez to contact legal aid for assistance. A lawyer was assigned to represent her. The various hearings and legal proceedings were confusing and seemed very drawn out, but her legal aid attorney went with her to all of the court appearances and kept her informed every step of the way. When Mrs. Martinez's trial date came, her lawyer was prepared with witnesses and documents to demonstrate that the children would be better off in her care. As a result, she was granted child support from her husband, kept possession of the family home, and, of course, won custody of the children. Her children are much happier knowing that their mother is safe and they can remain together. Since this is a story about domestic violence, I would just like to urge the subcommittee and the full committee, and indeed, the House of Representatives, when considering Legal Services Corporation and access to those services, that we do not consider the income of the abusive spouse when testing the means of the woman applying for these services. Very often, the abuser has the income and because of that income, a woman, if that is attributed to her as well, she would not be able to meet the means test of getting legal services. So this is a very important point which we have debated in the past, and I hope that will be part of any Legal Services Corporation funding in the future. But right now, we have a long way to go to even come up to the 1996 levels, the 1995 levels, which were too low then. We wanted more funding. There was greater need than we were matching with resources. There was more need for justice in the country than we were matching with funds at the Federal level, and now we are at 50 percent of that level over 6 years later. So I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important amendment, which makes a very important difference in the lives of the American people, and a very important delivery of justice in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Nadler/Shays/ Crowley/Horn amendment to increase HOPWA funding by $18 million in the FY 2001 VA/HUD appropriations bill. This additional funding will increase the ability of the HOPWA program to meet current needs while bringing additional newly eligible communities into this effective program. The need for housing assistance among those living with HIV/AIDS is greater now than ever. As new treatments and greater access to HIV/AIDS care through the Ryan White CARE Act allow infected individuals to live longer, new HIV infections are continuing at a steady rate. This means that the overall number of people living with HIV/AIDS has grown to its highest level ever. In addition, the new treatments that are extending so many lives involve a complicated regimen of medications, requiring certain medications to be taken at certain times, certain medications to be taken after eating, and still others on an empty stomach. This makes adherence very difficult, and nearly impossible without stable housing. As the number of people living with HIV/AIDS increases, so do the number of cities and states qualifying for HOPWA formula grants. At the same time, the rising costs of housing across the country, particularly in urban areas where a large proportion of people living with HIV/AIDS live, make it difficult for HOPWA to maintain current services without funding increases. Despite this increased need HOPWA funding has remained relatively flat over the past 5 years. Increases in the number of eligible jurisdictions means that flat funding is in reality a funding cut for all HOPWA jurisdictions. More than 200,000 people with HIV/AIDS are currently in need of houing assistance, and 60 percent of those living with this disease will need housing assistance at some point during their illness. HIV prevalence with the homeless population is estimated to be 10 times greater than infection rates in the general population. In addition, homeless individuals are much less likely to have regular access to health care than the general population and are therefore less likely to be tested for HIV than are people with stable housing. One San Francisco study showed that up to 33 percent of homeless individuals who were living with HIV were unaware of being HIV positive. HIV/AIDS community policy experts have estimated that unless HOPWA funding is substantially increased, jurisdictions will face decreased service levels and could suffer decreased funding. To avoid these reductions, we must pass this amendment and provide HOPWA with additional funding to ensure that people living with HIV and AIDS have access to the stable housing that is necessary for their medical care.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Filner. I commend my colleague for his tenacious efforts to restore benefits for Filipino veterans and for his steadfast support. The sacrifices of all veterans during World War II deserve our recognition and respect, and this amendment addresses a group of veterans who fought alongside American soldiers in the Philippines. For almost four years, in the fight to retake the Philippine Islands from Japan, 100,000 Filipino soldiers fought alongside our armed forces. Despite the integral role Filipino soldiers played in the Allied Victory in the Pacific Theater, they were denied benefits under the 79th Congress Rescissions Act of 1946. Mr. Filner's amendment would attempt to address this egregious mistake by providing the necessary and deserved reparations to demonstrate the depth of our gratitude and respect for the service of these men in war. The age of the veterans and our country's late acknowledgment of their dedicated service make it imperative that these trusted veterans receive the requested emergency funding. I support this amendment to add $35 million to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, H.R. 4635, so that Filipino Veterans have unrestricted access to Veterans facilities in both the Philippines and the United States, and increase the exchange rate for service-connected disability compensation. It is time we honored these servicemen and provided the benefits and compensation they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Filner, for your work on behalf of Filipino veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan Amendment to increase funding for important housing programs. A shortage of affordable housing plagues America's cities and rural communities. Nonetheless, this bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing needs. Even worse, this bill cuts several billion dollars from last year's budget for many important affordable housing programs. The majority's bill denies housing assistance to low-income Americans living in federally subsidized affordable housing. On average, residents of Section 8 housing and public housing and public housing earn only $7,800. This bill denies housing assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose between housing, health care, food, and other basic needs. Compared to President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it reduces housing assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and denies affordable Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco families. It denies housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are homeless or are living with HIV/AIDS. Representative Mollohan's amendment would invest additional funding to provide assistance across the country. At the Appropriations Committee, the Republicans rejected Mollohan's amendment. This amendment would have increased investments to build new affordable housing; provide new affordable housing vouchers; provide housing to the homeless; operate, build and modernize public housing; promote community economic development; provide housing and services to seniors, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with HIV/AIDS. Americans need this assistance and this bill falls short. I urge my colleagues to support Representative Mollohan's amendment and increase housing assistance to low-income Americans.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take my time, this 1 minute, to commend the gentlewoman from New York for her extraordinary leadership and her extraordinary courage. She has become the personification in this country of gun safety, and to the mothers and families of America she is a leader and a source of hope and inspiration. It seems the least we can do here, out of respect for the concerns that parents in America have about gun safety, is to defeat the Hostettler amendment. This amendment, and the one that preceded it earlier regarding the coalition, are really unnecessary and they fly in the face of incremental and reasonable and common sense attempts to protect our children from guns. This code of conduct really should be serving as a model; and, instead, this House of Representatives is considering eliminating it, taking a step backward. Who can oppose the idea of HUD engaging in an agreement for a code of conduct for gun safety? HUD should be commended, the gentlewoman from New York should be commended, and we should defeat the Hostettler amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise very enthusiastically to support the Nadler-DeGette amendment to increase funding for incremental Section 8 housing vouchers. President Clinton requested 120,000 new or incremental Section 8 housing vouchers to alleviate America's housing crisis. The majority's 2001 appropriations bill provides zero funding for new this-year vouchers. Given America's shortage of affordable housing, this bill should provide funding to expand the amount of Section 8 housing assistance available to America's families. I know that the gentleman from New York and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have both spoken against this amendment because the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) did the best he could with what he had. However, sadly, the budget figures that went into this produced a bad result. As I have said over and over again in this appropriations process, the reason so many great mathematicians come out of MIT is that so many great mathematicians go into MIT. If we have a bad budget allocation that goes into the bill, we can only come out with a bad appropriations bill. That is just most unfortunate. What is the need for this? This amendment adds 60,000 incremental Section 8 housing vouchers, half of what the President requested, for a total of $344 million. HUD estimates the need as being more than 4.4 million Americans who suffer worse-case housing needs, pay more than half their income for rent, or are living in substandard housing. This amendment will assist only a small percentage of those in worst- case households. We should do more. Nonetheless, this amendment is very important and would help low-income renters afford rental housing. According to HUD's most recent 2000 State of the Cities report, California is experiencing an inequitable economic growth and an inequitable distribution of wealth. As the gentlewoman from Colorado pointed out, we are having problems with our success. As our economy flourishes, our housing costs rise, making problems for those who need affordable housing. This amendment would go a long way to help them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Resolution 90, and, in doing so, associate myself with those who support the resolution. Indeed, the WTO is in need of significant reform. Workers' rights and environmental protection are competitiveness issues and should play a stronger role in the WTO. However, I do believe we need a rules-based approach to international trade which can create a more stable climate for U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses who seek to export their products abroad. The global economy is here to stay. Nowhere is that more evident than in my district in San Francisco, Mr. Speaker, which was built on trade in the days when the clipper ships sailed the oceans and today is one of the gateways to Asia. This debate today provides an opportunity for us to get beyond the outdated, outmoded, free traders versus protectionist characterization, which I believe does a disservice to the trade issue. A new vision is needed of a more democratic way to deal with the new challenges posed by the global economy. The old way of the WTO, of conducting trade negotiations behind closed doors, must end, and the people must be allowed to participate. We must demand transparency in the WTO. We must insist that the administration gives as much weight to workers and the environment as it does to corporate America. We must enforce all of these concerns with equal vigor. We must see anyone who does not see the connection between commerce and the environment is on the wrong side of the future. We must all work together to have a WTO organization that is an agent for progress and not of exploitation. We must make it work for the American workers. President Clinton himself has said, ``If the global market is to survive, it must work for working families.'' We must apply that standard to the WTO. In terms of transparency, very specifically, Mr. Speaker, we must insist that the WTO bring trade advisory committees to broader public concerns, notify the public before challenging other countries' environmental or health and labor standards, and give the EPA a stronger role in settling trade and environmental policy. Mr. Speaker, I myself am voting against this, but I understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by those who support it. We must all work together to change the WTO.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Naomi Gray's contributions to the Citizens' Advisory Commission to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore as she steps down after nearly six years of service. Ms. Gray has been a consistent leader in the fight to make our National Parks a treasure for all of our citizens. Throughout her entire illustrious career, she has sought to make our world more just, and it is my honor to commend this dedicated San Franciscan. Naomi Gray served as one of the original members of the Board of Directors of the Fort Mason Foundation, which oversees one of the first urban National Parks in the country. On the Board, Naomi consistently worked to ensure that the Center offered programs and services of interest to persons from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. Because of her outstanding service at the Forest Mason Foundation and her years of dedicated community activism, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt selected Naomi in 1994 to sit on the Citizens' Advisory Commission to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore. On this commission, she served as chair of the Diversity Committee and as a member of the Presidio Committee. She brought to the Commission a concern for how our National Parks are perceived and how they can be made more welcoming to minority communities. Her work helped to open the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to all of our citizens. Naomi's work on the Citizens' Advisory Commission is just one of her many activities in public service. She has worked much of her life to advance the cause of public health. After serving as the Director of Field Services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, she became the first women Vice-President of the organization. With Planned Parenthood, she coordinated the work of more than 250 family planning affiliates in the United States and consulted with many international family planning programs. In 1985, San Francisco established its first Health Commission, and Naomi was selected as a founding member. Naomi became a Vice-President of the Commission, chaired its Budget Committee, and worked to strengthen and improve the Department of Public Health's Affirmative Action programs. Her service was so exemplary that, upon her retirement from the Commission, Mayor Frank Jordan was moved to declare October 8, 1992, as ``Naomi Gray Day'' in San Francisco. Ms. Gray has also dedicated her significant talent and energy to working on issues of importance to the African-American community. In 1991 she helped establish the Sojourner Truth Foster Family Service Agency to care for African-American foster children and later founded the Urban Institute for African-American Affairs. She is the founder of the Black Coalition on AIDS, a member of the Black Chamber of Commerce, a member and past President of the San Francisco Black Leadership Forum, and has served on San Francisco's African-American Child Task Force. Mr. Speaker, Naomi Gray's thoughtful contributions to the Citizens' Advisory Commission will be sorely missed. Undoubtedly, however, she will continue her work on behalf of the people of San Francisco in a new forum and with renewed energy. She is a tireless fighter, and our City is fortunate to have her. I wish her all of the best.