Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. PELOSI. Further to the point of order, there is a lot of money in the supplemental bill, if that ever sees the light of day, for treating the drug abuse problem in our country by sending military assistance to Colombia. We think this is a better way. So I wish that it were in order. But I have to concede that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is correct. The Republicans protect the tax cut, they protect their own spending priorities, but they do not protect that. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a Congresswoman who has worked very hard to fight substance abuse in our country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have very eloquently pointed out what a good investment that treatment on demand and prevention are to our people in need of substance abuse treatment in our country. They have also pointed out that it is a wise investment, that it saves money, that it is 23 times more effective than a source country control that we are proposing that is being proposed in the supplemental bill. But I want to make another point, Mr. Chairman; and that is that this Committee of the Whole could make this $600 million investment and save us a great deal of money in the short and long run. We could follow the lead of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), our distinguished chairman. In this bill, he has reported out of the committee $500 million worth of spending that has been designated emergency, that has not required any offset as long as there is a request of an emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. So this is not going afield. It is following the example. If the Republicans could find this emergency standing for their priorities, why cannot we do it for people who need help in our country on the substance abuse side?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is correct on his point of order. The Republican majority has not allowed us to bring this bill, this amendment, to the floor in the same fashion that other priorities that the gentleman put in the bill coming out of full committee received protection under emergency standing. This $600 million for treatment in demand is at least as important as the priorities that received that emergency status coming out of the full committee. So the idea that this should not apply, we should not be able to bring this here because we do not have an offset we just want to be treated like the Republican priorities. By that, I do not mean the Republican priority of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of our people, giving a $200 billion tax cut to 400 Americans, to 400 Americans when we have 3.5 million people in our country who need substance abuse.

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

Ms. PELOSI. No, I was going to say so much more about the gentleman, but I have another amendment, so I will spend some time then, because we have been very pleased by his leadership on the committee. So great a leader is the gentleman that he was very clever in this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be instructive to the Members of this House to know that in this bill there is money allocated for different programs, that the entire amount is designated to be emergency requirements pursuant to Section 251(b). That says that one must adjust the caps if the President includes designation of the term as an emergency request.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for allowing me to be the designee on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this amendment, which would increase funding $600 million to reduce the demand for drugs here in America. Specifically, it would fund State and local drug treatment and prevention activities. It recognizes that if America's drug controlled policy is to succeed, our policy must not focus only on supply reduction. We must balance our policy by including domestic efforts by including demand reduction services. We must address America's enormous drug treatment and prevention needs. More than 5.7 million Americans are in severe need of substance abuse treatment, and 3.6 million lack needed treatment; 5.7, 3.6, just over 2 million Americans are receiving the substance abuse treatment, have access to treatment. And I am not even saying they have all that they need, but 3.6 have none. Just 2 months ago, I offered a drug treatment amendment during the supplemental appropriations bill consideration. I tried to offer my amendment on the House floor for a straight up and down vote. At the time the chairman of the committee said this amendment should go through the regular process and not be dealt with on the supplemental. It was said to wait for the appropriation subcommittee and the committee markups. They offered to work with me at the time through the appropriate process to fund domestic demand reduction strategies; however, this is the regular process. We had no success at the subcommittee/full committee and now is the time, the amendment is before this committee. I look for your support. Please know that treatment and prevention are more effective than any other drug control options. A Rand Corporation study sponsored by the United States Army and the Office of Drug Control Policy determined that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in drug treatment, drug treatment, were 23 times more effective than source country control. In addition, this is 11 times more effective, drug treatment and prevention, is 11 times more effective than interdiction at the border, and 7 times more effective than even law enforcement. Certainly we want to reduce the supply and we want to interdict at the border and we must have a balance between treatment and incarceration, but this Rand Commission study says that treatment is 23 times more effective. In other words, if you wanted to reduce demand in the U.S. by 1 percent, you could spend $24 million by having treatment on demand in the U.S., or you could spend over $700 million in the source country in order to reduce demand by 1 percent in the U.S. My amendment increases funding $600 million for the substance abuse block grant and community treatment services, it invests $400 million for the block grants and $200 million for local treatment services via competitive grants. It provides treatment for an additional 150,000 addicted individuals and proven prevention services to an estimated 690,000 youths. It expands existing service infrastructure. This investment leverages additional local and State funds, it strengthens State and local coordination and helps integrate service delivery. The amendment focuses on youth, while allowing communities to invest these funds according to local priorities. It helps our youth avoid a life of drugs and helps current drug users to turn their lives around. We must reduce domestic drug use and increase funding for drug treatment and prevention. In September of 1999, America's drug czar, General McCaffrey, wrote an op-ed stating, ``It is a sad time when the number of incarcerated Americans exceeds the active duty strength of the Armed Forces. A Rand Corporation study,'' the one I referenced, and this is the McCaffrey quote, ``found that increasing drug treatment was the single-most cost- effective way to reduce domestic drug consumption.'' We know treatment and prevention are more effective than any other options. How cost effective is this? Each $1 invested in drug abuse prevention saves $15 in reduced health, justice and other societal costs. Each $1 invested in drug prevention will save communities $4 to $5 in costs for drug abuse counseling and treatment. The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study evaluated SAMSHA's substantive abuse treatment services and found significant and lasting benefits, including 50 percent decrease in drug and alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment, 43 percent decrease in homelessness, and 19 percent increase in employment. Mr. Chairman, I contend this is a dollar well spent, and certainly an investment we should make. It is a small step. We still will have millions of people in our country not receiving the substance abuse treatment that they need, but it is a step in the right direction, and, as we consider giving all kinds of military assistance to Colombia in order to reduce drug consumption in the U.S., we must consider that $1 is worth $23 spent that way, $1 spent on treatment in the United States. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. This is an emergency request.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 11.

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a very valued member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we began debate on a bad Labor/ HHS/Education Appropriations bill, a bill that cuts $2.9 billion from education services; cuts $1.7 billion from labor with cuts to workforce development and safety investments; and cuts more than $1 billion from critical health programs. And next week we will be forced to vote on this bill that undermines so many of our nation's priorities. Why? Because the Republican House leadership passed a bad Budget Resolution that puts tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans above investments to promote America's education, workforce, and health services. Their $175 billion tax cut exceeds the projected budget surplus and requires deep cuts in non-defense discretionary appropriations. And here we are again, voting on a measure that would provide over $50 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. How much is enough? When will Republicans be satisfied with the amount of money they have given to the wealthy, and turn their attention to the majority of Americans who want a good education, a strong work force, and a healthy future? This bill will cost $50 billion per year when fully phased in. This monstrous hole in the federal budget will undoubtedly translate into cuts from areas that the American people care about, just as the proposed $175 billion Republican tax cut translated into cuts in yesterday's proposed Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill. When we prioritize tax cuts over health, education, and labor, we make sacrifices, and these sacrifices affect everybody. The repeal of the estate tax does nothing for working families. Most American families would not receive a single dollar of tax relief from this bill. So I want the American people to know what they are sacrificing in order to provide a tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of their fellow citizens. Republicans have proposed cutting $1 billion from targeted investments in education to improve teacher quality and recruit new teachers, denying afterschool services to 1.6 million kids, and eliminating HeadStart assistance to 50,000 kids. They have also proposed cutting NIH $439 million below current services and cutting $16 million from Clinton's request for battered women's shelters. These are the kinds of sacrifices that Americans are being asked to make in exchange for a tax cut that would give $300 billion to the 400 richest Americans. $300 billion is enough to pay for a prescription drug benefit for seniors for 10 years! The Republican majority placed the needs of big business over working people yesterday by voting to once again delay the implementation of new ergonomics regulations which protect working people from repetitive motion injuries. And here they are again asking working families to make sacrifices so that the wealthy can reap benefits. Slowing our progress in health, education, and labor in order to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy does not fit with our national priorities. Democrats have proposed a fiscally responsible substitute that targets tax relief to farmers and small business. I urge my colleagues to support this alternative.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership on establishing budget priorities for our country which are in keeping with our national values. Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this bill that is before us today, I am reminded of the story of someone who said how come so many good mathaticians come out of MIT, and the answer is, because so many good mathematicians go into MIT. Why is this a very bad bill? Because very bad budget considerations went into this bill. This is a bad bill. Compared to the President's budget, it would cut $2.9 billion from education services, cut $1.7 billion from labor with cuts to workforce development and safety investments, and cut more than $1 billion from critical health programs. This is a bad bill also because it eliminates and cuts services for America's senior citizens and their families. And why? Why are we forced to vote on this bad bill? We are forced to vote on this bad bill because Republican House leadership passed a bad budget resolution that puts tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans above investments to promote America's education, workforce and health services. Their $175 billion tax cut exceeds the projected budget surplus and requires deep cuts in nondefense discretionary appropriations. The result was a Republican-designed budget resolution that was so bad that even the Republican chairman of this subcommittee opposed it. And soon we will be voting on a measure to repeal the estate tax. Within 24 hours, we will be cutting education and we will be repealing the estate tax. How could that be a proper statement of our national priorities? Repealing the estate tax will provide over $50 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. How much is enough? When will Republicans be satisfied with the amount of money they have given to the wealthy and turn their attention to the majority of Americans who want a good education, a strong workforce, and a healthy future? I do not know if we will have an opportunity to offer amendments today. That is why I had hoped that the rule would go down because it did not protect the rights of the minority to offer amendments to this bill. One that I had in the full committee which failed would have added $1.7 billion to the National Institutes of Health which we cannot afford because the Republicans insist on giving a tax cut to 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would safeguard America's working women and America's working family. That is whose side we are on in this debate. Mr. Chairman, this is a $60 billion national problem that affects 650,000 workers each year. Ergonomic health disorders afflict female occupations, including nursing aides, orderlies, attendants, registered nurses, cashiers, and maids. Women suffer disproportionately. While ergonomic hazards produce 34 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses, they cause nearly one- half of these among women. Although women comprise 46 percent of the work force and 33 percent of the injured workers, women represent 63 percent of repetitive motion syndrome, including 69 percent of lost work time cases resulting from carpal tunnel syndrome. Congress' fight to protect workers' health and safety has been a long one. In 1996, I had an amendment on the floor which we won in a Republican Congress, which we won almost unanimous support from the Democratic side, a few votes on the Republican side. What this language in the legislation before us does, this is an obstruction to the implementation of that 1996 amendment. What the amendment of the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon and Mr. Traficant, would do is to strike that language. This is very constructive. I hope our colleagues will support the Department of Labor's ergonomic standards and oppose all delaying amendments, including the language in this bill, and support Weldon- Traficant. Mr. Chairman, the scientific evidence supports OSHA's standard. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the American Public Health Association, and many other scientific and public health organizations have already concluded that workplace risk factors contribute to health problems, and ergonomics programs reduce this risk. That is whose side we are on, the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences 1998 study on ergonomics reported that risk factors at work cause musculoskeletal disorders and these are preventable. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 1997 peer review analysis of more than 600 prior reported reliable evidence that job-related heavy physical work contributes to workplace injuries and illnesses. Employer ergonomic programs are effective. Many very responsible businesses, large, medium, and small, in this country have decreased their recordable cases in worker compensation costs because they have invested in ergonomic programs and they have recouped the costs of implementing their program. This evidence is available from companies as diverse as Minnesota-based 3M with nearly 40,000 employees, to North Carolina's Charleston Forge with only 150 workers. OSHA's ergonomic standard is sensible, limited in scope, and based on success. Prior Congresses have voted in support of it. In 1996, as I mentioned, 1997, and 1998 Congress specifically agreed not to delay OSHA from finalizing an ergonomic standard. This language in the bill before us today would violate these standards. And as I said earlier, women are disproportionately affected by ergonomic injuries, and I talked about their percentage in the workforce, and the disproportionate impact on women and days lost. I do want to say, because the question was asked whose side are we on. We are on the side of America's working families. We are on the side of the National Academy of Sciences. We are on the sides of responsible business large, small, and moderate-size businesses in our counties who have taken the initiative. I stand here with the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the prior GOP Labor Secretaries, in support of OSHA's effort to finalize its ergonomic standard. Nearly 20 years ago, in April, 1979, OSHA hired its first ergonomist. Nearly a decade ago, in 1990, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole said, by reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety and the productivity of America's workforce. Secretary Dole said, I have no higher priority than accomplishing just that. And so 10 years ago, Elizabeth Dole was right. Let us not wait another day to protect America's working women, America's working families. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Reverend John P. Schlegel, S.J., for his 9 remarkable years as President of the University of San Francisco. Father Schlegel has been honored with the position of President of Creighton University. His many friends in the San Francisco Bay Area bid him farewell with mixed emotions--happy for his personal success, sad that he is leaving, and forever grateful for his many accomplishments as President of the University of San Francisco. Father Schlegel brought with him to San Francisco strong academic credentials. He holds B.A. and M.A. degrees from Saint Louis University, a B.D. degree in Theology from the University of London, and a Doctorate in International Relations from Oxford University. He entered the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus in 1963 and was ordained in 1973. He also brought a record of strong leadership. John began his academic career as a lecturer at Creighton University in 1969. He joined Creighton's faculty in the Political Science department in 1976 and also served as Assistant Academic Vice President from 1978-1982. John went on to serve as Academic Dean and Dean of Arts and Sciences at Rockhurst College, as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Marquette University, and as the Executive and Academic Vice-President at John Carrol University in Cleveland. Father Schlegel continued that record of service and leadership while in San Francisco. John serves on the Boards of Trustees of Loyola University in Chicago and of Xavier University in Cincinnati. He is the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Club of California, a director of the American International School of Hong Kong, and a member of the Advisory Council at the California Academy of Sciences. John also serves on the Board of Directors of the Coro Foundation and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, and on the Executive Committees of the Western College Association and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. At the University of San Francisco, John has had remarkable success. Thanks to his leadership, the caliber of the faculty and students has risen, the facilities have been upgraded, and the endowment has grown enormously. At the same time, the Jesuit mission of the University has been advanced. We are grateful to Father John Schlegel for all that he has done for the University of San Francisco and for the entire Bay Area. We will miss him greatly but know that it is Creighton University's turn to benefit from his wisdom and vision. As we glory in his triumphant return home, we hope that he will visit San Francisco often. I join my constituents in wishing him the very best.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who is a pillar of the San Francisco community. John A. ``Jack'' Ertola is receiving an award as ``San Franciscan of the Year'' from the San Francisco Forum, and it is an honor that he richly deserves. Born in San Francisco's North Beach area, Jack learned the value of community service at home. His mother, Marie, was active in community groups, and his father, Charlie, became a member of the board of supervisors. Jack absorbed these lessons well and has been a longtime servant to his country and community. As a young man, Jack answered the call of duty and served in the U.S. Army during World War II. After attending the College of Marin, he graduated from Stanford University in 1951. He continued his education at the University of San Francisco Law School and earned his juris doctor degree in 1954. Jack went into the private practice of law. In 1964, he was appointed to the San Francisco board of Supervisors. He became president of the board of supervisors in 1968. When he left the board of supervisors in 1970, he became a Superior Court Judge. In this capacity he served the people of San Francisco honorably for 20 years. In 1987, he was selected as Judge of the Year by the San Francisco Trial Attorneys. Jack has been a member of the California Veterans' Board and was counsel to the board president of the San Francisco Fire Commission. He has also served on the University of San Francisco Law School Board and the Lawyers' Club Board of Directors. Outside of his government and professional activities, Jack has been an active member of the community. He served on the board of directors of the Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Association and as president of the Golden Gate Neighborhood and Settlement House Association. He won the Jane Addams Award for community service on the 50th anniversity of the Settlement House movement. He has been a member of the North Beach Lions, the Columbus Civic Club, Easter Seals, and the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association. He also served as chair of the California Boys State Program. Jack is married to Shirley Clark Ertola and has a son, Chad, and a daughter, Jill. His children are both married and have given him four delightful grandchildren. Jack Ertola is an upstanding citizen of San Francisco, and his life of civic engagement is an example to us all. I commend him on his distinguished career and congratulate him on this award.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time so generously. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is poised to take a vote which will define us as a Nation. We will decide whether we will uphold the principles upon which our great country was founded. We will decide if we will support the pillars of our foreign policy, promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad, or if we will squander our leverage to please some in the business community who do not share our responsibility to the public interest. In the public interest, I am pleased to join in opposition to this PNTR resolution. I am pleased to join the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, the International Campaign for Tibet, the China Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, and many other organizations committed to promoting human rights, fair trade, and protecting our environment. In the course of the debate preceding today's vote, some have said that the annual review of China's trade status has not been useful. They failed to mention that conditioning MFN on improvements in China's trade, human rights and proliferation behavior has never become law. It is the Bush-Clinton policy which has prevailed every year and produced record deficits. This year it will be over $85 billion in trade deficit with China, more people in prison for their political and religious beliefs than at any time since the cultural revolution, and an expansion in China's proliferation activities, from Pakistan, making South Asia a more dangerous place, to Iran, making the Persian Gulf a more dangerous place, to Libya, threatening stability in the Middle East, as well as threatening the security of Taiwan. Most recently, this Libyan sale was in March of the year 2000; this is current and ongoing. And despite the failure of this policy of turning back or conditioning MFN, now called NTR, on improvement in these areas, despite the Bush/Clinton failure, they are asking us to make it permanent. On top of all of that, there is little reason to believe that the Chinese will comply with this trade agreement. They have violated every bilateral agreement with the U.S. that they have signed on trade. We must not let the Beijing regime dictate the terms of surrender of our annual review of the U.S./China relationship. Mr. Speaker, China's trade surplus of $85 billion for this year enables the Chinese Government to buy products, to buy political support and to buy silence from countries throughout the world. But we must not be silent, we must speak out for freedom, because it is in our national security interests to do so. Democratic countries do not invade their neighbors. Democratic countries respect the rule of law, facilitating, for one thing, trade. We must speak out for freedom, because it is the right thing to do and honors the sacrifice of our country's founders. Before I close, I want to say, I think that this has been a very constructive debate. The Members have been very courteous to listen and to exchange ideas in a very, shall we say, spirited way. And I want to thank all of my colleagues for listening and to those who have listened, as we ponder our vote today, I want my colleagues to think of two questions. First of all, what credibility do we have as a country that is the leader of the free world to speak about freedom? Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to ponder two questions; what credibility do we have as the leader of the free world to speak out against human rights abuses anywhere in the world if we will put deals ahead of ideals in China? Finally, what does it profit a country if it gains the whole world and suffers the loss of its soul? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, every now and then this Congress has the opportunity to associate our country with the aspirations of people who sacrifice their lives and their livelihood for freedom. The PNTR vote that we are debating today gives us that challenge. It challenges the Congress to stand with the man before the tank, who courageously, courageously, stood his ground for freedom. It challenges us to speak out against the brutal occupation of Tibet and against the serious repression in China. We have been told over the last decade that human rights in China would improve if we had unconditional trade benefits for China. Not so. More people are imprisoned for their beliefs in China today than at any time since the cultural revolution. We were told that unconditional trade benefits for China would stop China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. Again, not so. Not only does China continue to proliferate chemical, biological, and nuclear technology, and the delivery systems for them to rogue states, they have added Libya as one of their customers, as recently as this March 2000. But even if we could ignore the serious repression and the dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, there is serious reason to reject this proposal on the basis of trade alone. Mr. Chairman, China has never honored any of its trade agreements with the United States, including its agreements for market access over the last 20 years; over and over again agreements on stopping the violation of intellectual property, and the piracy continues; and stopping prison labor exports from coming into the United States. Indeed, the U.S. International Trade Commission said in their own analysis, projecting the China deal will result in the loss of 872,000 American jobs over the next decade. On the basis of trade alone, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I thank him for his courage and his leadership in offering it here. He is a very serious member of the committee, as has been noted, and all of us on the committee take our responsibilities very seriously. When a Member of the House receives the honor of serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we assume a greater responsibility for our national security in that we have to be trusted with a great deal of information. We also take a responsibility to protect the sources and methods by which we obtain that information. That responsibility is a grave one for us, because lives are at stake. We also want our President and the administration to have the best possible information in the interest of our national security and to make the decisions and judgments that a President must make, regardless of what party he belongs to, or what opinions he has. We want him to have the best possible information. So we need to have, and again, as we are in a new world where it is not bipolar, but it is many serpents, as DCI Woolsey described it at one time, we need to have intelligence, but we ought to be careful enough to move in that direction with fiscal responsibility as well as responsibility for intelligence. We are a very special country. The confidence that people have in our government is our strength. So it is hard to understand why, in this body, the House of the people, we would want to deprive the public of knowing what proportion of our budget is spent on intelligence. I happen to think that we are good enough at that, that the intelligence community is good enough at releasing that figure and at the same time having our adversaries not have access to what that figure is spent on or what any increase in spending would be spent on. I am certain that our intelligence community can meet that challenge. The accountability that the intelligence community must have is one of the main reasons that I am supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). Some have said if we go through releasing this aggregate number, it starts us down a road to releasing other information. No, no, it does not have to be that way. We can say it is the aggregate number and that is that. We can make a decision, Congress can act, and that can be what the decision is. It does not mean we are starting down the road to anything, except better accountability to the American people, again for how this fits into our total budget. Our budget is what we spend most of our time working on here, whether it is in the authorizing committees to prepare the policy or the Committee on the Budget to do the allocations or the Committee on Appropriations to do the final appropriating. So it is what we spend most of our time on, and this amount of money, whatever it is, is a large percentage of that discretionary spending, a very large percentage of it. So as we have to make decisions about cuts here and there, I think it is perfectly appropriate that the public knows how this intelligence budget fits into the entire budget. It is difficult to believe that the aggregate budget figure for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 could be made public by DCI Tenet with no impact on national security and the figure for fiscal year 1999 could not be because national security would be harmed if it were disclosed. It is so sad, it is almost ludicrous, it is almost ludicrous, when what we are trying to do is to protect the community so that there is respect for the job that they do, but what we are trying to do is protect their sources and methods. By the way, I want to add here that there is much else that should be declassified that is in the realm of classified now, and that is a whole other subject and one that hopefully we will go into in a more serious way as declassification is taking place, but this one simple matter, which says to the American people we are not afraid for them to know the aggregate number that we spend on intelligence. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is doing a service to our country and to this Congress by proposing this amendment. Again, I commend him for his courage, his leadership and urge our colleagues to support his amendment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate that, but that is not what I said. I am talking about information, and the gentleman knows I am respectful of his position.

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

Ms. PELOSI. I just want to make sure it is clear that I completely agree with everything the gentleman said except for the aggregate number.

Ms. PELOSI. I understand that. The gentleman said I said there should be more things. What I am talking about is the Hinchey amendment, which talked about our U.S. involvement in Chile and Guatemala and those things.