Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the amendment at the desk that I have cuts $51 million of the $185 million in the funds in the DOD account in this supplemental bill. The $51 million cut represents all the money provided for the push into Southern Colombia. Primarily these funds were to pay for training, equipping and deploying the counternarcotics battalions into Southern Colombia. I offer this amendment, once again, to emphasize that our emphasis is wrong. We have an emergency supplemental before us today, because we have an emergency in our country; and that is the issue of substance abuse. As I said earlier and earlier today in the debate on the rule and in general debate, we have an emergency supplemental bill before us today, because, indeed, there is an emergency in our country, and that is the dependence on substance abuse by so many people; indeed, 5\1/2\ million people in the United States. I introduced the amendment to emphasize that in this bill with that emergency in our country, we do not have $1 of emergency spending for reducing substance abuse in our country for treatment on demand and for prevention. In the Rand report, which I quoted earlier, it says that for every dollar spent on treatment or demand in the U.S., we get 23 times more value than on money spent in the country of origin in the coca leaf eradication program, 23 times more effective. This report says that if we want to reduce demand in the United States by 1 percent, if 1 percent would cost $34 million if we spent it on treatment on demand programs. To get that same 1 percent reduction, by the approach taken in the chamber today, coca leaf eradication, you would have to spend 23 times that, or $723 million. We can spend $34 million on treatment in demand in the U.S., or we can spend $723 million in the country of origin, that being Colombia what the discussion is about today. Every indicator in this Rand report that was done in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the office of National Drug Control Policy points to the value of treatment on demand. Even in an OPED in 1998 General McCaffrey wrote, it is a sad time when the number of incarcerated Americans exceeds the active duty strength of the Armed Forces. ``A Rand Corporation,'' this is still General McCaffrey's quote, ``a Rand Corporation study in 1994 found that increasing drug treatment was the single most effective way to reduce domestic drug consumption.'' So how can we have a bill that addresses an emergency in our country where we have 23 times more effectiveness by addressing demand in our country has all of its emphasis on eradication of the coca leaf in another country. Maybe it is important for us to go that route, too. But we have so much uncertainty about the success of the $1.7 billion that we are allocating to Plan Colombia, and so much certainty about the effectiveness of treatment on demand that it is hard to understand this legislation. Let me say that we have a treatment gap in this country, and that is part of the emergency. There are 5\1/2\ million substance abusers in the United States. Of that, 2 million receive treatment; 3\1/2\ million do not. In an amendment that I wanted to offer that I offered in committee for $1.3 billion to be used for prevention, for treatment on demand, for prevention program geared to our youth, we would have been able to meet the needs of 303 substance abusers in this country, 303, only one- tenth of the problem. I was defeated in committee. Trying a more modest approach in the Committee on Rules, I put forth a $600 million treatment-on-demand amendment and was not given the opportunity to bring that amendment to the floor. So I offer this modest cut of $51 million from the funding for the push into southern Colombia and to emphasize, as I say, the improper emphasis of this bill. We all agree that President Pastrana is a great and courageous person and deserves our help. I want to make that point. But I think this is the wrong way to go. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), which will come later, about some other issues in the bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is with great, great reluctance that I rise in opposition to this amendment, because of the high regard that I have for the concern for human rights of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence; and my two champions for human rights, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). Both of them have been leaders in trying to help the people of Colombia, all four of them have been, but especially speaking to the credentials of my colleagues on the Democratic side. As I say, I rise in reluctance. Here is why. It would be great if we could have these conditions that are set forth, very carefully prepared and set forth in this amendment without the waiver. We have lived through the waiver over and over again. Maybe this time it will work, but calling for certification by the President that these conditions have been met and then giving a weak waiver, a low threshold for waiver authority to the President, simply says to the military in Colombia that, really, they do not have to do much. Again, as I said earlier, we all respect and admire the courage of President Pastrana. He has a very difficult task ahead of him. But giving this assistance to the military the way we are in this bill raises some questions. In the last month alone, there were three reports about human rights abuses of the Colombian military. The U.S. State Department, our own State Department country report on Colombia, speaks to the abuses that continue, with collaboration from the military. The U.N. report that was released earlier in March speaks to that same issue, and the Human Rights Watch statement that they put forth was based on information gathered by the Colombian government about the Colombian military. Specifically, it addressed the collusion between the paramilitaries, and some, some in the Colombian military, their collusion in the violations of human rights of Colombians. When we said to the leadership in Colombia on our visit there, when I was there with my distinguished chairman earlier this year, with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), when we said to the leadership of the government, you must do more about the human rights record of the military, we were told, tell them. Tell them that they must do a better job. We told the military. We can speak to them through this amendment, as well. But the very excellent message that our colleague shaped in terms of the conditions under which the assistance, military assistance would be sent, is totally undermined by the presidential waiver that is in this bill. Our president, whoever he or she is, of whatever party, should always have the national security waiver that underlies all of our foreign policy, but to have a watered down, lower threshold waiver completely guts this amendment. I know why some people might want it, because they do not want the strength of the amendment to begin with. I do not think that is the agenda of the makers of this motion, but I do think that it is a cause for opposition to it, as I say, very reluctantly, because up until that waiver I think they were going in the right direction. My view is shared by Amnesty International, the Working Group on Latin America, and other human rights groups. Some do not even want us to go down the path of the military assistance, but certainly they do not want us to do it with a presidential waiver.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very important statement on this significant subject, which is as personal as our own families and as important to our country as our national security. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, our distinguished chairman, our distinguished ranking member, for the very, very serious debate that we have had on this subject. It is a subject worthy of serious debate. Let us stipulate from the start that we all agree that every person in this body wants to fight the scourge of substance abuse in our country. There is no question about that. Let us also agree that we want to help Colombia, President Pastrana. I think we all agree he is a very courageous person and has a very difficult challenge. The people of Colombia have suffered so many years because of drugs and because of the civil war, whatever they are calling it down there, and so we want to help them. But is this the right way to go? As a Member, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, we know what the need is in SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. We have fought hard, in a bipartisan way, for more funding for substance abuse for treatment on demand for substance abusers. We have a golden opportunity, a golden opportunity in a supplemental bill to do drastically more. So to those who say let us do this in the regular process, we have caps in the regular process. We have no offsets in a supplemental emergency bill. So that is why this is a golden opportunity. If we can spend $1.3 out of a package of $1.7 billion to send to Colombia within an emergency bill, we should be able to do at least that in our own country. Our agencies can absorb it. The absorptive capacity is there and the need is there. The need is this: Five and a half million people in our country are substance abusers. Of that number, 37 percent, or 2 million, have access to treatment. We have a 63 percent treatment gap. So, yes, we are doing something on substance abuse, but we are not doing nearly enough. And it should be our priority to start at home, to begin at home to address the demand side of this. Let us face it. If we eradicated every coca leaf in Colombia, do my colleagues think that that would be the end of the drug problem in our country? No. But we can help Colombia by eliminating the market for that coca leaf in the United States. So my colleagues, as a the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I have seen this ``Plan Colombia'' close up. We are supposed to put up $1.3 billion, $1.7 billion, in the fuller process over $7 billion. We are told that our plan is heavily military because the rest of the $7.5 billion is going to be humanitarian. We have not seen one penny of that other money. We have not seen the elites of Colombia stand up to the occasion and meet the needs of the poor people in that country. The disparity in income and the poverty level there is so oppressive, yet the elites are running off to Florida. So let us be fair to our own people. Let us have treatment on demand in this full committee. And in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I again thank our colleagues for the seriousness of this debate on both sides.

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

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 292--Congratulating the people of Taiwan on their successful presidential elections on March 18. This election serves as a testament to their continuing efforts in sustaining a free society that respects democracy and human rights. The people of Taiwan deserve our praise and support for conducting this election. They showed that true democracy can be successful even in the face of military threats by the Chinese government. This election is a reminder that the threat of a military attack will not be successful in a political system where the people can exercise the right to determine their own future. The people of Taiwan have taken great risks in sticking to their principles. The second free election in Taiwan represents a coming of age for this maturing democracy. This is the first time in 50 years that the Nationalist Party (KMT) will have to give up its political power. The peaceful transfer of power is a key turning point for every successful democracy. In particular, I would like to congratulate the new President of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-bian. Mr. Chen was born in rural Taiwan about the time of the Chinese Communist Revolution. Since then, Mr. Chen has been an outspoken advocate for human rights and has served as a successful mayor of Taipei in recent years. Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Chen has shown prudence in handling the China issue. In his victory speech, he promised to continue economic relations with mainland China and seek a ``permanent peace.'' It is my hope that China and Taiwan will continue to negotiate their differences in a peaceful manner. I would also like to commend Vice-President elect Annette Liu who has advocated for democratic reform in Taiwan on her visits to Washington, D.C. This election proves that the Chinese people, like people all over the world, will choose freedom and democracy when given the opportunity. By contrast, the Chinese government continues to escalate the repression and human rights of its own people--despite the thriving democracy across the strait. The Taiwan elections should serve as an example that the only real hope of eventual reunification rests in the possibility of true freedom and democracy in China.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the efforts of enterprising women in Sonoma County, CA, March is Women's History Month. As we celebrate women's history, we must focus on the future of women. The right to choose and make family planning decisions is central to women's liberty and freedom in that future. Family planning represents an opportunity for women and empowers families to make decisions that impact their quality of life and their future. United States support for international family planning is an integral part of a progressive agenda for women and a foreign policy agenda that saves the lives of women and children and improves life circumstances. Unfortunately, many impoverished women are held hostage to the conservative politics of the right wing of the Republican party and damaging restrictions on international family planning assistance that conservatives forced into law. Last year, conservatives forced President Clinton to accept the undemocratic ``global gag rule'' restrictions that force foreign non- governmental organizations (NGOs) to give up their right to participate in their own democratic process to become eligible for U.S. funds. These restrictions contradict the main objective of U.S. foreign policy, fostering democracy and stability throughout the world. They represent a strong setback for women and democracy. If the U.S. Government tried to impose similar restrictions on U.S.-based organizations, they would, without a doubt, be unconstitutional. They are undemocratic and deny women a fundamental right. Restrictions on family planning assistance will restrict access for poor women, which will result in more unintended pregnancies, more births, more maternal deaths and injuries and more abortions. The World Health Organization estimates that 600,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related causes and more than 150 million married women who want contraceptives have no access to them. Soon, I will introduce legislation, along with Representative Nita Lowey and Representative Chris Shays, to ensure that the current restrictions are never again included in law. This forthcoming legislation, the Global Democracy Promotion Act, will stop foreign NGOs from being forced to relinquish their right to free speech in order to participate in U.S.-supported family planning programs. If we can't impose these restrictions on U.S. organizations, we shouldn't be imposing them on foreign organizations. If passed, our legislation will stop foreign NGOs from being excluded from these programs based solely upon legal health services that they provide with their own, non-U.S. funds. If the services are legal here, and they are legal where the NGO is operating, it would be misguided to deny an NGO the opportunity to carry out its important work. This new bill will assist women around the world by protecting their fundamental rights and enabling women to access important family planning services from NGO's. As we celebrate Women's History Month, we must continue fighting for fundamental rights for women at home and around the globe.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, here we are today debating the budget, which is the most important work that we have to do as Members of Congress. Our national budget should be a statement of our national values. We should spend our money on what is important to us. But it is hard to see how the Republican budget, the risky, irresponsible Republican budget is a statement of the values of the American people. The differences between the two parties have been highlighted for us once again in today's debate on the budget resolution. While the Democrats fight for a budget that protects middle class values, extends the life of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and enables families to meet their responsibilities at home and at work, the Republicans again have sacrificed fiscal responsibility for large and risky tax breaks. Is it a statement of our national values to give a $200 million tax break to the wealthiest over the next 5 years while cutting $114 billion in domestic initiatives for education, health care, and the environment? - This downpayment that Republicans are making on the trillion dollar tax scheme proposed by candidate George W. Bush will result in 750,000 fewer women receiving WIC benefits, and that applies to women, infants, and children; 316,000 fewer Pell Grants; and 1,100 fewer FBI agents. Is it a statement of our national values to give a Republican tax break over the next 10 years which will utilize all of the resources needed to pay down the debt, strengthen the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and fund priority investments like education, child care and law enforcement? We know that trading health care, education, and law enforcement for tax cuts does not match the priorities of many American people. It is not a statement of our national values and should be rejected by this House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of KGO Radio, a renowned San Fransciso media institution. I commend KGO for taking its commitment to our Bay Area Community seriously, both on and off the air. KGO's news team and talk show hosts a trusted source of local information and commentary. The station has an outstanding record in giving back to the community. Perhaps that's why KGO has been Northern California's most listened to station for more than 2 years. In addition to its seven hours of comprehensive news programming, KGO's programming menu also includes extensive local public affairs talk shows that provide the area with invaluable community forums. But I am most pleased by enormous, decades-long commitment that KGO has made to its community off the air--efforts that have gone far beyond lip service to have a positive impact on the Bay Area. In 1999 alone, it sponsored and promoted more than 50 community events. For these events, KGO aired more than 1,800 promotional announcements, worth more than $1,000,000. And, during the same period, it ran more than 3,500 public service announcements worth more than $800,000. Finally, KGO-sponsored community service efforts raised $1,950,000 for charitable causes. Mr. Speaker, let us join in congratulating KGO on its 75th anniversary of serving the Bay Area Community. There is much here to celebrate--whether for the KGO Radio's award-winning news team or its efforts to support its local community; whether for its work in providing important on-air community forums or its willingness to promote local efforts from coastal cleanups to cultural diversity.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, there is much to celebrate. The economic climate is improving significantly. African American businesses are borrowing, investing, and building capital at record levels. For African Americans, median household income is up, the poverty rate is sharply down, and the unemployment rate is down to the lowest level on record (8.1 percent). However, despite our economic progress and electoral gains, we still have not achieved all we can. In addition to the disparity of income in our country, one important area we must address is environmental justice--a significant human rights issue for this century. The issue of environmental justice stems from the concern that impoverished communities, frequently comprised of people of color, suffer larger and disproportionate environmental risks compared to other Americans. The environmental justice movement also concerns inequality, including wealth and income disparities, inadequate schools, gaps in medical services, uneven economic opportunities and investment inequities. In recent years, America has significantly improved its air and water quality and reduced waste disposal and toxic chemicals. However, the improvements have been uneven and the benefits skewed. These factors cause troubling health problems and threaten all our other progress. The fight for a healthy environment has been led by many local grassroots leaders. In San Francisco, Linda Richardson has helped lead the fight to address these problems and achieve environmental justice. Mrs. Richardson founded Southeast Alliance for Environmental Justice, a San Francisco based environmental organization. She also is a member of the San Francisco Planning Commission and an expert on the impact of environmental pollutants on poor communities. Her work has demonstrated the importance of implementing safe, healthy, and equitable environmental policies to bring about environmental justice. Thanks to this grassroots work, Americans now realize that it is no longer tolerable for pollution and environmental toxins to prey heavily on our Nation's vulnerable population, including impoverished Americans; minorities; and our children. Despite this realization, too many still take our Nation's environmental health for granted. For example, each year, more than 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used on crops, lawns, and public spaces. Consumers Union reports that many children are eating fruits and vegetables with unsafe levels of pesticide residues. This residue is dangerous and plagues our children at every meal. Our children are our most important resource. Mrs. Richardson is committed to ensuring that our civil rights include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. I commend her work and believe that a nation that preserves its environmental health establishes the foundation for a healthy, stable, and prosperous society. To complement the work of grassroots leaders, my colleagues joined me to request an increased budget for the Environmental Protection Agency to employ trained staff with a civil rights background. Our vision cannot be achieved without the combined force of private and public sector work toward the same goals. To commemorate Black History Month, we should join together to organize, educate, and fight for better environmental, health, education, and economic outcomes for all Americans. While we work to adequately fund enforcement activities and implement safe environmental policies, we must also demand funding initiatives in infant mortality, heart disease, AIDS, immunizations, cancer screening and management to eliminate racial health disparities. Let's follow Linda's success and work to implement a more progressive vision that eliminates environmental injustice.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, sadly I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues the passing of two of San Francisco's finest police officers--Inspector Kirk ``Bush'' Brookbush and Officer James ``J.D.'' Dougherty. On Wednesday, January 19 thousands of police officers from throughout California and the nation gave their final farewell salute to their two San Francisco comrades who had died on January 11 when their helicopter crashed returning from a routine maintenance session. ``The Air Marshall and his Sidekick'' as they called themselves are remembered as dedicated police officers who went above and beyond the call of duty. For nearly 30 years they were devoted, reliable and hard-working street cops. They were highly respected, trusted and loved by their colleagues, family and friends. Both were Vietnam vets, loving husbands and fathers who were trained airline pilots recently given the opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming police pilots. They were passionate about their work and were making a positive impact on the San Francisco Police Department's air unit. Indeed, the San Francisco Bay Area deeply mourns the loss of Kirk and J.D. Their colleagues will continue to look up to them with respect and admiration for as described by their boss, Commander Heather Fong, they will continue to be ``two angels looking over the shoulders'' of San Francisco's police officers. They were men of courage and inspiration. I would like to express my personal condolences and prayers to their friends and loved ones, especially to Kirk Brookbush's wife, Suzanne and their son, Andrew and to James Dougherty's wife, Sun Kang and his stepsons, Chon and Paul and his children, Brigid, Jeff and Chris.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his great work on this Democratic alternative. I urge support of it and rise in opposition to this so-called valentine for married couples in America, which is more like a Halloween trick masking yet again another tax break for the high end. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the alternative and no on the Republican proposal. The timing of this bill is a political stunt for Valentine's Day. It forces Members to vote on a bill without knowing its relationship to the overall budget. The bill is too expensive. Without gimmicks, the true cost would be in excess of $250 billion. It is a flawed attempt to resurrect the failed $800 billion tax cut strategy of last session. The bill will drain projected surpluses that should be used to extend the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare systems, provide a prescription drug benefit to the elderly, a Patients Bill of Rights, education initiatives and an increase in the minimum wage. It is entirely unclear how the measure's whopping cost will fit into the budget picture, since the bill is being advanced before consideration of the FY 2001 budget resolution. A family with one child and an income of $50,000 would receive at most $218 in annual tax relief because their taxable income is at the 15% tax rate. If they own their own home and itemize their mortgage interest deduction they would receive no benefit from the Republican bill. Many middle-income families with children will not get any tax relief because the Republicans ignored the alternative minimum tax (AMT) when writing their bill. Once fully phased in, 70% of the benefit of the tax cut goes to the top quarter of income earners and will cost about $20 billion a year. Half of the relief goes to those who do not pay any marriage penalty today. I support the Democratic Substitute because (1) it protects Social Security and Medicare first, (2) provides more relief to lower income working couples, and (3) costs less than half as much as the Republican bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I rise to strongly oppose this anti-labor legislation that undermines the rights of hard working Americans. The ``Workplace Goods Job Growth Competitiveness Act'', H.R. 2005, sets an arbitrary cutoff date limiting injured workers from holding manufacturers accountable for defective products that harm workers. This bill discriminates against workers injured and killed on the job by preventing them and their survivors from recovering damages from a manufacturer or seller of durable goods more than 18 years after the durable good was first purchased or leased. Workers should not be limited by this arbitrary 18 year cutoff on manufactured products when many of America's industrial plants, machinery, and regularly used products, like elevators, are far older than 18 years. Many manufactured goods are clearly produced to have longer life spans and many manufacturers distribute marketing materials publicizing this fact in their sales pitch. This anti-labor bill would adversely affect injured workers who are covered by workers' compensation and drastically limits their potential recovery. Most state workers' compensation laws only compensate workers for medical costs and limited disability assistance and most do not compensate for non-financial damages, including loss of a limb; loss of fertility, permanent disfigurement; and related pain and suffering. When hard working Americans are injured by defective products, they deserve compensation for their injuries and suffering. In addition, this bill takes away the business community's right for compensation from defective manufacturers for related property damage to the business' owned property. The bill denies also businesses recovery of their costs for workers compensation payments paid to injured workers. By limiting employee and employer rights to recover damages, this bill increases costs and unfairly subsidizes the manufacturers of defective products at the expense of employers and the workers' compensation system. H.R. 2005 unfairly targets workers and treats them differently from other Americans. Suppose a 25 year old elevator were to malfunction and crash, severely injuring an elevator operator and a tourist. This bill would allow the tourist to sue for compensation and deny the elevator operator this same right. This provision is inequitable, unjust, and must be opposed. In addition to difficulties this bill inflicts on America's workforce and businesses, the bill also triggers Constitutional concerns. The Justice Department is concerned that this legislation violates the Commerce Clause which limits congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce and violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all unenumerated powers to the states. For all these reasons, the President is expected to veto this bill. I urge my colleagues to join with the AFL-CIO; the Machinists; the Teamsters; Communications Workers of America; and Public Citizen in opposing H.R. 2005. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2005.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 1838 the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I believe this bipartisan legislation will send a clear message that the U.S. will stand firm for democracy and human rights. We must support the right of the Taiwanese people to determine their future without outside military pressure. We have good reason to be concerned about the rapid military buildup just across the Taiwan Strait. In 1995 and 1996, the Taiwanese people were making history by holding their first democratic presidential election. At the same time, the Chinese government conducted missile tests as a reminder of their true intentions. This was no coincidence. According to a recent Pentagon report, China has continued to build ballistic missiles just off the coast of Taiwan. As we approach the next presidential election this March, we must be aware of the imminent threat to the new democracy in Taiwan. I believe this legislation would be successful in strengthening our commitment to the Taiwanese people. First, it would enhance Taiwan's self-defense capabilities. Second, this bill affirms that the status of Taiwan must have the consent of the people of Taiwan. Our goals of securing peace and human rights in China are fully consistent with the goals of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness to pay tribute to the passing of Victor Van Bourg, one of the nation's most respected and legendary labor union lawyers and senior partner of the nation's biggest labor law firm. He was 68 years old. Raised by parents who were union organizers, Victor entered the University of California at Berkeley and graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1956. He began his noted career working in the general counsel's office of the California Federation of Labor where he met Cesar Chavez and began working for Chavez' National Farm Workers Union prior to opening his San Francisco law office. In 1966 he represented Cesar Chavez' union--known then as the National Farm Workers Union--in its merger with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee. One of Victor's most recent victories included a unanimous California Supreme Court decision that upholds a labor agreement under the authority of the San Francisco Airport's Commission to contract exclusively with union labor on the airport's multi-billion dollar expansion project. Throughout his 44-year law career, he argued four times before the U.S. Supreme Court and made numerous appearances before the California Supreme Court. His labor law firm became the largest labor law firm representing over 400 unions in the United States including the Service Employees International Union. Victor fought unrelentingly for working men and women of America and improved the living standards of untold numbers of people. He will be truly missed by his family, friends, and colleagues in the San Francisco Bay and national communities. I sadly extend the condolences of my constituents and my colleagues to the Van Bourg family. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13, 1999] Labor's Farewell to a Friend: 1,000 at Palace of Fine Arts Remember Victor Van Bourg (By Steve Rubenstein) Victor Van Bourg, the legendary labor lawyer who sometimes worked out of his big blue car and wore a miniature meat cleaver for a tie tack, was remembered for four decades of sticking up for the little guy. The little guys of the Bay Area and their union leaders and lawyers showed up at the Palace of Fine Arts theater to say farewell to the larger-than-life union man who helped raise their salaries and their morale. ``He was hirsute, 50 to 100 pounds overweight, noisy, literate, vulgar and profane,'' said University of San Francisco English professor Alan Heineman, whose union Van Bourg helped organize in the 1970s. ``He was often wrong but never in doubt. ``He was a great, shaggy, menacing bear who became a ballerina at the bargaining table.'' Van Bourg, 68, whose Oakland law firm represented 400 unions, collapsed and died October 26 at San Francisco International Airport. He was rushing back from Washington, D.C., to be with his gravely ill daughter, who died the same day. Nearly 1,000 labor leaders, lawyers and other friends of Van Bourg filled the hall, hummed along to ``Solidarity Forever,'' told each other the earthy stories that Van Bourg was fond of and trooped to the stage to deliver encomiums. Sal Rosselli, the president of Local 250 of the Service Employees International Union, praised his friend's ``spirit of defiance and in-your-face unionism. . . . He was afraid of no one.'' Everything about Van Bourg was big--his waist, stamp collection, ego, client list, appetite and the sound of his voice across a courtroom or a bargaining table. ``He had an irreverence for judges, particularly federal judges,'' recalled a former law partner. ``He used to tell me, `When you appear before them, remember what class they represent.' '' His secretary recalled that most employees in the office had been fired by Van Bourg a couple of times but ``generally had the presence of mind to come to work anyway.'' When they did, she said, they would often find Van Bourg conducting business not from his desk but from the front seat of his car, which was parked in front of the office. ``Bicycle messengers would make deliveries to the car,'' she said. An ironworker thanked Van Bourg for ``keeping my a-- out of trouble.'' An engineer thanked him for ``being on my side.'' A janitor thanks him for ``caring about immigrants and the most disempowered members of society that no one else would care about.'' A native of New York and a graduate of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Van Bourg was a former socialist, painter, musician, raconteur and patron of Russian restaurants. The memorial which lasted more than two hours, at times resembled nothing so much as a marathon bargaining session. Heineman speculated that Van Bourg was probably hard at work filing a grievance over his death, calling it an ``arbitrary and capricious act by Management,'' and no one in the hall was betting against the grievance being upheld.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Joe Serna was a good man and an outstanding Mayor. I was honored to join my colleagues this week and support House Resolution 363, recognizing and honoring Sacramento, California, Mayor Joe Serna, Jr., and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family and the people of Sacramento on his death. As a son of an immigrant farm worker, he learned the values of hard work which exemplified his career. Eager to help others, Joe entered the Peace Corps in 1966. When he returned to California, he joined the faculty at California State University, Sacramento, in 1969 becoming a professor of Government. He was so good at energizing and inspiring his students that in 1991 he received the Distinguished Faculty Award. Joe Serna decided to continue serving his community by being first elected to the Sacramento City Council in 1981 and reelected in 1985 and 1989. He was then elected mayor of Sacramento in 1992 and again in 1996. Joe Botz of Sacramento wrote a Letter-to-Editor in the Sacramento Bee last week, which I believe embodies Joe Serna's legacy as a political role model and as a leader. Botz wrote, ``Most citizens look at the day when citizen- politicians governed us. Serna was a living and working embodiment of those days. He was brash and arrogant as he looked after Sacramento and its citizens' best interests in the larger political level. But on an interpersonal level, he expressed deep concern and intense compassion of all River City citizens, particularly the poor and disadvantaged.'' Joe Serna possessed an unparalleled commitment to helping others. He fought for the underdog and befriended those who needed him the most. For that Mr. Speaker, I will always look up to Joe Serna.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this rule because I believe that it is not fair and it is not in keeping with the great tradition of this House for us to have an open debate and for Congress to work its will on important matters that affect our country. There are at least nine bills rolled into this bill that this rule is for, five appropriations bills. I do not like to spend a good deal of time talking about process, but when the rule for a bill for at least nine pieces of legislation allows for 1 hour of debate, one-half an hour on each side, that is not serving the American people well. One of the issues that I wish we could debate more fully if our bill on foreign operations were brought up separately, which it should have been, is the issue of international family planning. I think it is very instructive to the American people to see that the Republican majority in this House was willing to hold hostage the United States international role in the world. The Republican majority was willing to hold hostage the poorest women in the world and their access to family planning. They were willing to hold hostage our position at the United Nations at a time when we are calling out for multilateralism and not the U.S. carrying the full burden. I think it points to the extremism of the Republican Party that this is, and I point out, my colleagues, this is not about abortion; it is about family planning, that a majority of the Republicans have voted to oppose all funding for all international family planning, that they would take that position and use it against the administration and force the administration's hand to agree to their position in order for us to maintain our vote at the U.N. while we paid our dues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in the hopes that we could bring back the substantive matters before this House in a fair and open and democratic way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 7 the Mayor of Sacramento, and my good friend Joe Serna, lost his courageous battle with kidney cancer. Joe grew up the son of an immigrant farm worker, where he was taught the honorable values and hard work ethic that exemplified his career. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in social science/government from Sacramento State College in 1966 and attended graduate school at UC, Davis, majoring in political science. Always wanting to serve others, in 1966 Mayor Serna entered the Peace Corps, working in Guatemala as a Community Development volunteer specializing in cooperatives and credit unions. Upon his return to the States, he continued his service by pursuing one of the most noble of all professiions--he became a teacher. He joined the faculty at CSU, Sacramento, in 1969 becoming a professor of Government. Of course the energy he brought to life was readily transferred to his students in the classroom, and in 1991 he received the Distinguished Faculty Award. Continuing his lifelong calling to public service, Joe Serna was first elected to the Sacramento City Council in 1981 and reelected in 1985 and 1989. He was then elected mayor of Sacramento in 1992 and again in 1996. As Mayor, Joe Serna left a proud legacy of leadership and accomplishments. He worked throughout his career to revitalize Sacramento's downtown which included initiating the Sacramento Downtown Partnership Association, the ``Art in Public Places'' program, and the Thursday Night Market. In 1995, Mayor Serna was selected by the National Council of Urban Economic Development to receive their annual Economic Development Leadership Award. He also established the Mayor's Commission on Our Children's Health and the Mayor's Commission on Education and the City's Future, which led to a new Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Trustees. As part of his active role in improving the Sacramento City School District, he founded the Mayor's Summer Reading Camp, a literacy program for below average scoring second and third grade students. Over the past three decades Mayor Serna was a member of numerous organizations including the Regional Transit Board of Directors and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission. He was the Co-trustee of the Crocker Art Museum Association and an Advisory Board Member of Senior Gleaners, Inc. He was a former Chair of the Sacramento City/ County Sports Commission, member of the Board of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, member of the Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission and Sacramento Air Quality Management Board. From 1970 to 1975, Joe Serna was the Director of the United Farmworkers of America's Support Committee in Sacramento County. Mayor Serna also served as a two-time presidential appointed member of the Board of Directors of ``Freddie Mac.'' Mayor Serna was known as an elected official with profound vision for the future and the energy to implement that vision. He knew how to build coalitions, ignite community involvement, and succeed in achieving his goals. Because of this vision, he leaves a proud legacy in Sacramento of downtown revitalization and growth, a stronger public school system, more jobs, more community police, and a higher quality of life. What made Mayor Serna such a remarkable leader was his ability and willingness to listen to the community and make himself available to all voices that wanted to be heard. In an era when following the politically expedient route is commonplace, Mayor Serna was never afraid to fight for what he believed in if he knew it was the right thing to do. He never compromised his values and always brought a sense of honor and dignity to the Sacramento community. On behalf of my family and my constituents, I offer my condolences to Joe's wife Isabel, his son Philip and his daughter Lisa. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1999] Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna Jr., who rose from his roots as a farmworker to become Sacramento's first Latino mayor in modern history, died yesterday of kidney cancer and complications from diabetes. Serna, 60 had briefly slipped into a diabetic coma Wednesday and asked to return home from the hospital Friday. He died at 3:47 a.m. surrounded by his family, said Chuck Dalldorf, a spokesman for the mayor. Serna was a city councilman for 18 years and became mayor in 1992. He may best be remembered for helping reinvigorate downtown Sacramento and reforming his city's public schools by campaigning on behalf of new school leadership and a $191 million school bond. ``Joe led a movement to recall a large number of school board members, elect a reform slate, adopt a reform program and upgrade standards,'' said Phil Isenberg, a former Sacramento mayor and state assemblyman. Serna was a loyal friend of the late Cesar Chavez, and the United Farm Workers Union since the 1960s, when he organized one of the state's first food caravans to feed striking grape pickers. ``He continued in every way he could to fight for the low- income (people), for the farmworkers, for the people that, for whatever reasons, were not being provided the respect and dignity they deserved,'' said United Farm Workers Union President Arturo S. Rodriguez. Serna also transcended ethnic politics, according to close friend and political adviser Richie Ross. ``He was never thought of in Sacramento as anything other than Mayor Joe, everybody's mayor,'' said Ross.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I especially thank him for his leadership on this issue. He has been a great defender of the Constitution in this House. We take that oath when we become Members of Congress, and he has fulfilled it so admirably. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I rise in support of his amendment which will maintain the constitutional separation of church and State while protecting religious institutions from the entangling reach of government. His amendment is necessary because the charitable choice provision of the Fathers Count Act is, I believe, unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, my husband, my five children and I have among us over 100 years of Catholic education. Catholic religious organizations are an integral part of our lives. I think it is very important in understanding the importance of the gentleman from Texas' amendment to understand the difference between religious organizations and the nonsectarian aspect of their activities. These groups are called religious affiliates. For example, in our community and across the country, local Catholic charities and Jewish social service groups are nonsectarian groups. We should be able to support them. The gentleman from Texas' amendment allows us to do so. We should support his amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act,'' H.R. 2442. This legislation addresses and attempts to redress America's mistaken discriminatory policies during World War II that harmed Italian Americans. This bill would require the Government to prepare a report detailing the injustices suffered by Italian Americans during World War II, and have the President formally acknowledge such injustices. Throughout America, more than ten thousand Italian Americans were forcibly evacuated from their houses and taken away from military installations and coastal areas. In addition, approximately 600,000 Italian nationals, many whom had spent years in America, were mislabeled ``enemy aliens'' and forced to endure strict travel restrictions, curfews, and seizures of personal property. Some of these Italian Americans were excluded from California and the district I represent, San Francisco. As with many Japanese Americans, the U.S. government deprived these Italian Americans of their civil liberties. The government prevented them from traveling far from their homes and confiscated their shortwave radios, cameras, and firearms. Historians estimate that in California, 52,000 Italian Americans were subjected to a curfew. In Boston harbor and other ports, Italian American fishermen were denied their livelihood. Despite this mistreatment, more than 500,000 Italian Americans were allowed to serve and fight in the U.S. armed forces. To straighten the official historical record, The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act would have the Department of Justice prepare and publish a comprehensive report detailing the government's unjust policies and practices during this time period. Looking ahead, this bill would require the Department to analyze how it will protect U.S. civil liberties during future national emergencies. The bill also requires the President to formally acknowledge America's failure to protect the civil liberties of Italian Americans, who were then America's largest foreign-born ethnic group. We can never undo the injustices that were done to Italian Americans, including thousands of long term residents. We can never adequately compensate those individuals or the Italian American community. We can take steps to remember and publicize this shameful chapter of American history. We can work to ensure that every American has equal protections and equal opportunities. Too frequently in our history, our society and individuals have sought to mislabel those different from us and override the rights of these ``others.'' This bill reminds us of our obligation to prevent the government and individuals from mislabeling and then discriminating against the ``other.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership, as well as for the leadership of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). One of the provisions of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 which I have been most interested in is an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) during floor consideration of this bill. The Hinchey amendment required the Director of Central Intelligence to produce a report on the activities of the officers, covert agents, and employees of the intelligence community with respect to the Pinochet regime in Chile. The Hinchey amendment was somewhat controversial. It was very controversial in fact. It was argued that the search for documents related to human rights violations in Chile directed by the National Security Council was sufficient and nothing further was needed. The issue of cost was also raised, as was the question of how much time should be allotted for the DCI to produce an adequate report on the subject. Others of us argued that a report was needed on U.S. intelligence activities in Chile with respect to the assassination of President Allende, the accession of General Pinochet, and the violations of human rights committed by officers and agents of Pinochet. Indeed, such a report is long overdue. An authoritative report from the DCI submitted to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Appropriations on the role of the CIA and other elements of the intelligence community will put into context the information that is now being reviewed, declassified, and released under the direction of the National Security Council. I believe this report should make clear exactly what, if anything, the CIA was doing in concert with General Pinochet and his supporters before and during the Pinochet regime. Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to have had a report produced within 4 or 6 months of enactment of this bill, but I am grateful to the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), for their leadership. We were able to agree that the report be produced in no later than 270 days after enactment and not a year from now, as some would have preferred. I commend the gentlemen for including this in the legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for calling this special order. It gives us an opportunity to say a good-bye to George Brown, which is heartfelt, nonetheless very sad. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we mark the passing of our dear friend. But this is a very special special order because it brings some closure. I do not think a day goes by that most of us do not come to this floor to vote when we expect to see George sitting in his regular seat. As we are accustomed to saying here in the House, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues who have spoken before, because I think they have spoken very, very eloquently, and it is a compliment to be associated with their remarks because this man was very special. But I think that our colleagues have captured him. As I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, I will just say a few personal remarks. George was an inspiration. We all know that. He was a leader, as has been acknowledged. He was an intellectual, and we all benefit from that. He was also a politician, a political leader. In California, he is a legend and has been, really, for a very long time. When he, representing the district that he did, took the stands that he did, it was with great courage. It would be easy for someone from my district to speak out against the Vietnam War and to vote against the military spending at the time. It was not easy for George Brown. But he did it anyway. We all benefited from the fact that he was a student of nuclear engineering. When I say ``we all'', I mean every person in this country, because we had the benefit of his thinking. We continue to have the benefit of his thinking because of the legacy that he has left. Not a day, again, goes by when we do not miss him, do not think we are going to see him in the Chamber, but we do have the benefit of the ideas that he has put forth and the leadership that he has provided and the way he has translated all of the ideas that he has in his knowledge of science and engineering into public policy, into a better future for our country. He was genuinely interested and curious about all complex issues and the debates that swirled around the development of modern science and technology. So he was a very fascinating man. I want to say that we will miss his sense of humor, his civility, his deep commitment to public service. I, and the constituents of my district join me, extend our deepest sympathy to Marta, to the Brown family, to his constituents, to his staff, to his friends, all of whose lives he touched, enriched, and changed for the better. With that and with great love, George Brown, we will miss you every single day we serve here, and we will always be grateful for the memory you have provided for us. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we mark the passing of a dear friend and a long-time Member of this Chamber, George E. Brown, Jr. George was an inspiration. I know the constituents of his San Bernardino district remember him with great fondness and respect. He was a distinguished and dedicated public servant who served in this House with great dignity for 35 years. In my opinion, George should be remembered, above all, as a man of high principle. He was first elected in 1962 and frequently spoke out against excessive military spending and America's involvement in the Vietnam War. He maintained his principles and, during the tumult and shouting of the 1960s, routinely voted against military spending for a war that was, in his careful and considered analysis, an unjust intervention. Since his days as a student of nuclear engineering and, later, as a working physicist, George took a strong and focused interest in modern technology, the advancement of the sciences, and, of course, space exploration. As Chairman and ranking Democrat of the House Science Committee, he helped shape and define the evolution of the National Science Foundation, NASA's International Space Station, and other significant endeavors that engaged the best minds in American science and technology. George was genuinely interested in, and curious about, all of the complex issues and debates that have swirled around the development of modern science and technology. His palpable excitement belied his position as the oldest Member of the House in the 106th Congress. For many years, he served ably as Dean of the California Congressional delegation, and George leaves us with the distinction of representing California longer than any other member of Congress. His influence and legacy will continue to define the work of this body. We will miss George, his principled ways, his sense of humor, his civility, and his deep commitment to public service. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to his widow, Marta Macias Brown, to the Brown family, his constituents, and his friends and colleagues, all of whose lives he touched, enriched, and changed.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. No, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, but I claim the opposition time in support of the amendment.