Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in bringing this foreign operations bill to the floor. We have debated this extensively in the course of the Congress working its will on the bill in the initial bill and the conference report, and lots of debates surrounding how this bill is coming to the floor. It is indeed a compromise. Yes, there is additional funding, and that was agreed to between the majority and minority parties helping to meet some of the President's initiatives. I am very pleased that, through the process, we were able to bring a very robust Wye River agreement to the floor and know that it will receive overwhelming support from our colleagues. As I said, this bill has been extensively debated. In the interest of time, I just want to say two things. One is that this bill is about threat reduction. It is in the interest of every person in our country and, indeed, in the interest of our great country for us to reduce threat. That is manifested in this legislation in funds to disarm the nuclear weapons in Russia. That reduces threat of those weapons in the world and to our people. Stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is in our interest. Threat reduction, though, applies also to the environment. Funds spent on international environmental issues reduce environmental and pollution threats to people in our own country. Funds spent on child survival for stopping disease and trying to eliminate disease in the world is in the interest, not only of the children of the world, but is a threat reduction to the children of America. I believe that America should have a very strong leadership role in the world. Most people agree, I think. But even if one does not, I think one will agree that it is in the national self-interest and the personal self-interest of every person in our country to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, the threat of environmental pollution, the threat of disease, and other threat that can harm our country and our people. I have had a chart on occasion that shows a very thin sliver of the budget pie, which is this appropriations bill. It looks like a little needle, it is so thin. It is just a little line. I think my colleagues should consider that needle, that portion of the budget that is spent on foreign operations as the needle of inoculation, inoculation against the spread of warfare, the spread of disease, the spread of pollution, as I said. That list goes on. So it is a small price for us to pay to protect our people, to prevent a conflict, and to help America assume its role in the world. In addition to threat reduction, I will talk a moment about debt reduction, which is also in this package, though not as robustly as I would like to see. In terms of debt reduction, this is the jubilee year. I would hope that, in the package which is here, which only addresses bilateral debt reduction, but I am hoping that we will have language in the bill that frees us from the Paris Club minutes that tie that debt reduction to criteria established by the IMF, but instead, tie it to criteria established by this Congress, that we will proceed in the next year to move on to multilateral debt reduction, which is very important. The year 2000 is a jubilee year, a year where interfaith organizations in a very ecumenical movement have come together to call for debt forgiveness. At the end of the century, and even more so at the end of the millennium, it has been a biblical tradition to forgive. Hopefully, we can forgive the debt many of these countries are burdened by by previous corrupt regimes. But now that these democracies have emerged, they cannot be harnessed or hampered by the debts of the previous regimes or even by some inappropriate economic policies of their predecessors. So in the interest of threat reduction and in the interest of debt reduction, I am pleased that we have this compromise package which will help prevent some of the ills that I mentioned earlier and promote democratic values throughout the world, grow our economy through promoting our exports, and have freer and fairer trade in the world as we open markets. But we must help create those markets. Debt reduction will help do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and, in conclusion, I want to again commend the distinguished leadership on the majority and minority side for their cooperation in bringing this compromise to the floor. But I also want to acknowledge the leadership of President Clinton and the members of his cabinet who worked with us on this bill; Secretary Albright, for her important role in the world and her cooperation with our subcommittee and full committee; and Secretary Summers now, and Secretary Rubin before him earlier this year. These distinguished cabinet members provide a real service to our country in the work that they do, not only in Mr. Summers' case domestically but in his international role as well. So I want to commend President Clinton. His priorities are excellent. He fought to have those initiatives funded, and the President is offsetting the spending. The President is offering offsets to the spending in the bill. So this is a very good resolution. We have a compromise, we have the President's initiatives respected to a certain extent, they could be more fully respected and hopefully that will emerge later, but in any case this President's spending is offset. I commend the President for his leadership in the world. As I have said before, in our community our anthem is ``Make me a channel of God's peace,'' the anthem of St. Francis. I think President Clinton's work is allowing our country to be a channel of God's peace, and I commend him for that and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a distinguished member of our subcommittee, who has been a leader in this Congress and in the country on the issue of Middle East peace.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a very distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I am glad that through all of this that we were able to get, as I said earlier, a very robust figure for the Wye River agreement. It is something that the American people support. It is a very high priority for the President of the United States. It occurs within the context of people in the region working very, very hard for peace. And as my colleagues just saw from the recent meetings in Oslo, people outside the region are taking a very strong interest. Everyone is hopefully doing his or her part on this and it is important for us to do our part as well. And I am very pleased that the Republican majority, our distinguished chairman, has agreed to include the Wye River agreement funding in this legislation. I am still expressing some disappointment that we do not have as much resources applied to the debt reduction, and I would hope by the end of this process, be that next week or whenever, that we will have multilateral debt reduction included in the legislation. Because that is, as I mentioned earlier, central to lifting these countries, these emerging and fragile democracies, from their unfortunate pasts and bringing them, as we go into the new millennium, a more brilliant future, with a small price to pay. It is a very small investment on our part, with the tens of millions of dollars yielding tens of billions of dollars of benefit for the economies of these regions. There are other initiatives in the bill that I wish could have received more attention, but again this is a compromise. This is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations. It is always a pleasure to work with him and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. We have had our differences over this bill. I am pleased that we are able to come together, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, around a compromise. It is one of those bills where, obviously, everybody did not get what he or she wanted; but nonetheless, we have enough to go forward. So I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I want to commend the leadership, also, of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, who has served as chair of this subcommittee for 10 years who knows this brief very well, and we all benefit from that. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the staff, Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Chris Walker, and Lori Maes, for their very hard work on this legislation, as well as the minority staff, Mark Murray and Carolyn Bartholomew, for helping to bring this all to fruition today. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote aye on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my statement in opposition to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill was inadvertently left out of the Record. The following is the statement I had prepared. I have the greatest respect for the Chairman and Ranking Members of this Subcommittee and am, therefore, disappointed in the need to oppose the Conference Report, however it is deficient in several critical ways, particularly in not paying our UN debt, in not including the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and in under funding the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) program. First, this Conference Report does not provide the needed funds to address one of our greatest and most immediate current foreign policy needs. The Conference Report does not provide the funding to pay our United Nations dues. Great nations pay their bills. It is a travesty and a very poor reflection on this institution that the United States has fallen more than $1 billion behind in our payments to the U.N. Today, we could and should be solving this problem. However, the Republican leadership has chosen, instead, to allow this important international obligation to be held hostage to the domestic politics of the far-right by continuing the connection between U.N. dues and the unrelated issue of restrictions on international family planning. There are many consequences to the U.S. not paying its UN bills. Most immediately, if we do not pay a significant portion of our arrears this year, we will automatically lose our vote in the General Assembly. I cannot believe that this Congress could even consider allowing such a step to occur--but, unfortunately, it has done so repeatedly in the past few years and there is a real possibility that it will again this year. In light of the majority's recent rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the Senate, not paying our UN dues marches this Congress further down the path of neo-isolationism. We used to be told by our colleagues who oppose the UN that their objections to UN funding were based on concerns about inefficiencies and bureaucracy at the UN. Those issues have been and continue to be addressed. The UN is reforming. We use our leverage to continue those reforms when we continue as a deadbeat in our dues. Now, of course, our U.N. dues have not been paid because they are being held hostage to a totally unrelated matter--the Mexico City gag rule and the politics of the religious right on the other side of the aisle. It is long past time for this to stop and for the United States to live up to its international obligations. The people of San Francisco, who I am honored to represent here in Congress, understand the importance of the United Nations. Our great City is the birthplace of the UN--the UN's Founding Charter was signed in San Francisco over 50 years ago. San Francisco's interest in the UN goes well beyond our historical connections to the institution. San Franciscans take seriously the principles and the ideals behind the UN, including the belief that a multinational institution can play a valuable role in conflict resolution and the promotion of peace. I believe that the U.S. has a national interest in a reformed United Nations that functions effectively and efficiently. We must provide it with the needed resources. The second major problem with this Conference Report is the removal by the Conference Committee of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. One year ago, many of us spoke on this floor about the tragic and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student. Matthew was courageously willing to be open about who he was. He suffered because of who he was. This is simply wrong. Unfortunately, Matthew is not alone. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, in 1998, 33 Americans were murdered because they were gay or lesbian. In the United States last year, there were at least 2,552 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents. The number of serious assaults in which victims sustained major injuries grew by 12%. Hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of victims. We all remember the horrible murder last year of James Byrd, Jr., an African-American man in Texas. We all remember earlier this year, when a gunmen opened fire at a Jewish Community Center and then singled out an Asian American and shot him. How many more deaths, how many assaults on the personal integrity of people, need to happen before this Congress will see the need for hate crimes legislation? The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would provide law enforcement officials with needed tools to fight these crimes, and would serve as a lasting tribute to the lives of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Jr., and the others who have been victimized by hate crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would not end all violence against people because they are gay, or African-American, or Jewish, or come from another country. Nonetheless, this legislation would allow the federal government to investigate and punish crimes motivated by hate. If this law prevents one hate-driven death, it will be justified. The murder of Matthew Shepard is the manifestation of the enduring bigotry that still prevails in our society. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act should be included in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. I also believe that this Conference Report is deficient because it provides only $325 million for the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) program. This funding level is a cut of $1.1 billion below last year's funding and $950 million below the President's request. This cut is wrong. The COPS program has been successful in adding officers to local law enforcement agencies and has had a real impact on preventing crime and promoting neighborhood and community safety. Because the CJS Conference Report does not pay our UN debt, because it does not contain the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, because it inadequately funds the COPS programs, and for other short-comings in important programs, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Conference agreement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this is a very unfortunate day, because this bill that comes before this body today has been traditionally a bill that brings us together. It says that the strength of our country is measured not only in our military might but in the health, education and well-being of the American people. Mr. Natcher always called it the people's bill. So it is unfortunate that this bill today has become a mockery. It has become a mockery because it is being used by the Republican majority to say that a vote for this bill today is a vote to protect Social Security. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Republicans are spending tens of billions of dollars of Social Security funds in this whole budget process while misrepresenting that to the American people. In this bill, we fund the National Institutes of Health. This funding gives hope to the American people. It is a place where we say the NIH has the biblical power to cure. And while everyone's hopes were raised while there was talk of the increased funding in the bill for the NIH, those hopes were quickly dashed when the budget gimmickry of the Republican Party was demonstrated, that $7 billion, 40 percent of the NIH budget, would be delayed, the spending would be delayed until the end of the fiscal year, the last day or two of the fiscal year. That means 40 percent of the funding, 60 percent of the grants. Every one of us knows people who have written to us about health problems in their families, be it breast cancer, prostate cancer. I have in my own community a woman Meg who has suffered from a disease, a little known one, called EDS. She and thousands of her friends suffer from this disease and the only hope they have is the National Institutes of Health. This is a disorder of the connective system that can lead to premature death, crippling and disfigurement, mostly to women. So they were very hopeful when this bill urged the National Institutes of Health to look into this issue. Biomedical research is the best hope for people with diseases, especially some of these diseases that no one has ever heard of. Our former Speaker Mr. Tip O'Neill, Speaker O'Neill, said all politics is local. But in this bill, all politics is personal. It is as personal as the woman with breast cancer, or the man with prostate cancer, my friend Meg with EDS, or people with AIDS who look to us for hope. And what do they get? Budget gimmickry. It is a very, very sad testimony. Another area in education, this bill cuts 1 million students from after-school programs. In one place after another from the cradle to the rocking chair, this bill is a disservice to the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Clinton signed the HUD- VA appropriations bill into law providing housing assistance to many impoverished Americans. Unfortunately, while this bill is an improvement over the initial House passed spending levels, it does not go far enough to address the needs of homeless individuals, tenants living in expiring Section 8 properties or distressed public housing, and impoverished communities. To ensure that our government has the political will to invest adequately in housing assistance, we need to raise public consciousness about the unmet housing and community development needs and educate the public about the existing and proven programmatic and policy solutions that address these needs. One recent step to educate, organize, and mobilize Americans in this direction took place last Saturday, October 16th, when more than 10,000 volunteers in 150 cities joined together for the first ever National Raise the Roof Day. Under Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo's leadership, they spent the day repairing and building homes. But they were also building something much bigger--a national awareness of one of the most pressing problems facing our nation, the need for safe, decent and affordable housing. I would like to commend everyone who participated in this landmark event. In Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, actress Sarah Jessica Parker, home improvement expert Bob Vila, and community volunteers joined Secretary Cuomo to repair homes in the Columbia Heights community. In my home state of California, more than 1,800 volunteers repaired or built new homes for families in fifteen cities and counties. Similar events took place throughout the nation--led by the nation's mayors, national non-profits, local community and faith based organizations, businesses, and impoverished Americans--themselves in need of affordable housing. Secretary Cuomo convened this Raise the Roof Day for three simple but important reasons. First, while we live at a time of record economic strength, a record number of people are facing an affordable housing or home ownership crisis. There are still a record 5.3 million households with worst case housing needs, and two million units in need of major repairs. Despite a record home ownership rate, home ownership for minorities and in cities still lags behind. Raise the Roof Day also showed us that there is something that we can do about this crisis. We are not helpless. We are not powerless, either as a nation, or as a community in confronting this challenge. Don't listen to those who say that nothing works. There are many programs that are making a difference. HUD's FHA is expanding home ownership with a record 1.3 million loans insured this year. HOPE VI grants are replacing the worst public housing with livable communities. Americans can take action to organize and mobilize for adequate investments in affordable housing. And last year, in partnership with Congress, HUD won its best budget in a decade. And this year we've done it again--a significant budget increase for HUD, that includes 60,000 new affordable housing vouchers, more money for the homeless, and increases in funds for Fair Housing and public housing. Finally, Raise the Roof Day celebrates the spirit of voluntarism--the spirit of community--that we need as a nation to tackle our toughest challenges. Government must provide the funds and the resources, but that's only part of the solution. It's when people come together to help their neighbors that we can really make a difference. That's how this country was built, and that's how we must take on this challenge as well. Mr. Speaker, Raise the Roof Day was a rousing success. Americans need to become more involved in these events. This is an issue where we can really make a difference--and a cause that truly deserves our time and our energy. I look forward to similar events in the future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I commend the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Napolitano) for her excellent statement on this subject, and I thank her for yielding to me. Madam Chairman, it is very interesting to review why we are here tonight. Twenty-five years ago, under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), our great colleague, the Congress of the United States passed legislation, the WEEA; and it has served as a resource to parents, administrators, and educators to guarantee academic equity in their educational institutions. Here we are 25 years later, and Women's Educational Equity Act is being debated on the floor again. Why? It is really a remarkable tale, almost unbelievable if we had not been conditioned by events of the past years, few years. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has chosen to remove the gender equity language from this bill, H.R. 2, which in itself is a bill worthy of our support and which I intend to vote for, and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership on the bill. But why would the Republican leadership in this House decide that, after 25 years of effectiveness in helping young girls receive equity in their education, that the Republican leadership would take this language out of the bill? This is not a positive initiative being advanced on the floor today by the Democrats and for education for young girls. This is an attempt to remedy the elimination of this important language from this bill which has served our country well for 25 years. This is about helping young girls who fall under Title I, the most disadvantaged young people in our country. We want them to have the opportunity to study math and science. We need to do this. We still need to do this. For example, only 17 percent of the students who take computer science advanced placement tests are female. While women comprise 50 percent of the population, indeed, over 50 percent of the population, they are only 8 percent of the engineering force. The technology gap will exacerbate as time goes by, and the glass ceiling will be affected by that. We know that by the year 2010, 65 percent of all jobs will require advanced technology skills in order to work in them. So as technology becomes more important in the work force, this technology gender gap, if it is not addressed, women will fall behind further. So, again, I commend the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and all of those who worked to put this amendment together to correct and to restore what the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) worked for so hard those 25 years ago.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since my speaker has not returned to the floor, I will use his time and my time in closing. It affords me the luxury of commending my distinguished chairman for the work that we did together to bring this bill to the floor originally. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill but only with the idea that when we came back from conference, it could only be supported if there was a higher allocation to this foreign operations bill. So it is not with a criticism of the process with which the distinguished chairman moved the bill through. We worked together on that. What it is a criticism of is the lack of funding in the bill for us to live up to our leadership role in the world. The distinguished majority leader said that the percentage of funding for foreign aid is going down because other spending is going up, he said in reference to my remarks. I did not say that. I said that, in real dollars, our foreign aid spending is being reduced since Reagan's years by, what, one-quarter to one-half in real dollars, not in percentages. This debate about Social Security that our colleagues have drummed up really does a disservice to the whole debate on the budget and the appropriations process. This debate that our colleagues have drummed up, this illusion that they have tried to convey on the floor today is an insult to the intelligence of the Social Security recipients, to the Social Security donors, and their families. Yes, President Clinton said he was going to save Social Security first, and we all subscribed to that. That is not the only thing we do. Now, if the gentleman thinks that is the only thing we do, maybe we should have a zero foreign operations budget. Maybe we should spend no money on any trade assistance for the Ex-Im Bank for us to promote U.S. products abroad or the Trade Development Administration for the same purpose or OPIC, which enables our products to find markets abroad. Maybe we should do none of that. Maybe we should abandon everything we do with the religious community to reach out to poor children throughout the world and to help them stave off disease and starvation. What is in this bill, as I said earlier, is 6.3 percent of a percentage, less than 1 percent, of the Federal budget. With President Clinton's funds, it would be .8 percent. So it would be still less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, a small percentage and a small price to pay for what the President enumerated in his veto message about promoting democracies and free economies throughout the world, about promoting markets for our products, about honoring our commitments internationally, about living up to our leadership role in the world. This century that we are coming to an end as we do fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills is a terrible century in many respects. Nazism, communism, authoritarianism were rampant throughout this century and they are coming to an end now. One of the brightest stars of this century was the founding of the State of Israel. How sad it is that this body, representing the American people who have fully supported that brave, courageous state all these 51 years of its existence, that we, coming to the end of this century, will not take yes for an answer in the peace process by funding the Wye River agreement. Leaders in that region gave their lives, their health, and all of their future for this peace agreement; and we in this body are rejecting all of that sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support the President's veto when the time comes.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I just borrowed the Constitution from the parliamentarian. I did not really need it because I am sure everyone in this room has memorized the preamble to it. ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' All of those goals stated in the preamble to the Constitution about insuring the safety of our country and the security of it and its future for our children are undermined by this foreign operations bill, and I salute President Clinton for his veto. Although the Clerk has already read the veto message in its entirety, I want to call some specifics to the attention of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, this foreign operations bill undermines the goals of our preamble to the constitution. President Clinton said it so well in his veto statement when he said, ``The central lesson we have learned in this century is that we cannot protect American interests at home without active engagement abroad. Common sense tells us, and hard experience has confirmed, that we must lead in the world, working with other nations to defuse crises, repel danger, promote more open economic and political systems, and strengthen the rule of law. These have been the guiding principles of American foreign policy for generations. They have served the American people well, and greatly helped to advance the cause of peace and freedom around the world. ``This bill rejects all of those principles. ``It implies that we are too small and too insecure to meet our share of international responsibilities, too shortsighted to see that doing so is in our national interest. It is another sign of a new isolationism that would have America bury its head in the sand at the height of our power and our prosperity.'' The President goes on to say that, ``By denying America a decent investment in diplomacy, this bill suggests we should meet threats to our security with our military might alone. That is a dangerous proposition,'' and an expensive one, I might add. ``The overall funding provided in this bill is inadequate. It is about half the amount available in real terms to President Reagan,'' which this Congress supported; half the amount available in real terms to President Reagan. There are many concerns that I will just briefly address about it, that the President mentions. He mentions that, ``This bill would provide neither the $800 million requested this year as a supplemental appropriation,'' for the Wye River agreement, ``nor the $500 million requested in FY 2000 funding to support the Wye River agreement. ``Just when Prime Minister Barak has helped give the peace process a jump start, this sends the worst possible message to Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians about America's commitment to the peace process.'' In addition, the bill is short in funding for economic support to the multilateral development banks, providing the lowest level of financing since 1987, with cuts of 37 percent from the President's request. This would virtually double the arrears. We are trying to have debt forgiveness. We are trying to go into the next century, the next millennium, giving these countries a chance, working with them, cooperating with them. This is not about a handout. This is about a hand-up, and it is something that our country says that we profess. It will cost us less in the end if we can obtain markets for our products and promote peace and Democratic institutions in these countries. Ridding them of their debt will help do that. This bill also seriously undermines our capacity to promote economic reform and growth in Latin America, Asia, and especially Africa. If for no other reason, if we have no pragmatic sense or practical sense about what this means to us as a country, we do know that these markets, when developed, are critical to American jobs and opportunities. That is so much for what the President had said. I would like to now talk about what Mr. Hastert said. The Speaker, in criticizing the President's veto, made these comments. He called this a responsible foreign aid package that funded our Nation's foreign aid programs at last year's level. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No matter how many times our colleagues on this floor in the majority say that this bill is funded at last year's level, it is not. Our spending last year, when we combine the bill with our supplemental, and the supplemental does not include Kosovo and the Hurricane Mitch supplemental, we are below last year's funding significantly. But then the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) goes on to say that we want to take Social Security money and give this money to foreign nations, and he does it in a very offhand way. He says the Republicans will play no part in this scheme. The Congress will not use Social Security as a pot of gold to fund foreign aid. This is such an act of desperation. I feel so sorry for this pathetic initiative that is being taken by my colleagues. They have all the big guns rolled out: The Speaker's statement. The whip spoke before I even had a chance to put our statement on the Record, and that was fine. I see the distinguished Majority Leader here, and of course the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, coming all out full force to make this statement. This is an act of desperation by a majority party that does not have a case to take to the American people. The economy domestically is doing great. Unemployment is down. The stock market is up. Inflation is practically negligible, and they have to go find an issue and, how convenient, one with the neoisolationism of their caucus giving them impetus to do this. This is a very sad day because, frankly, the arguments that my colleagues make about this argue to eliminate all the funding in the bill completely. Why have any foreign aid if this is such a bad idea as we review it? Mr. Speaker, others will, and I do not have time right now to go into the illusion that my colleagues are trying to present about their not spending Social Security and other aspects of these spending bills. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will go into that and, if I have time, I will later. But I want to reiterate that this bill is $12.7 billion. Last year, the bill and the supplemental that went with it were $1.1 billion higher. Let us not play a shell game. Let us be honest with the American people about what we are spending, and let us not have a $1.1 billion cut from last year, again not including the Kosovo supplemental or the supplemental on Hurricane Mitch. Let us not have a $1.1 billion cut, which we call a freeze. In conclusion, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart. This is the total budget of the United States, $1.739 trillion. The foreign aid, as a percentage of the total budget of the United States, is less than 1 percent. In fact, it is .68 percent. With the President's request, it will be brought up to about 8 percent. It is less than 1 percent. Within that 1 percent is the Export-Import Bank, which finances our exports overseas, creating jobs in the U.S., OPIC, Trade Development Administration, all of those initiatives that promote U.S. trade which have nothing to do with bilateral and multilateral assistance to any other country except the United States. It is all in our national interest. It is less than 1 percent.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, a gentleman who served 10 years as the chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I rise to recall that 1 year ago, Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, was murdered. We should all deplore his tragic death. He was a lovely young man and was courageously willing to be open about who he was. He suffered because of who he was. This is simply wrong. It is a tragedy when a young man has the courage to be open about who he is, and his life is taken for it. Unfortunately, Mathew is not alone. His tragic death and violence toward others point out the need for hate crimes legislation. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence programs, in 1998, 33 Americans were murdered because they were gay or lesbian. In the United States last year, there were at least 2,552 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents. The number of serious assaults in which victims sustained major injuries grew by 12 percent. How many more deaths, how many assaults on the personal integrity of people, need to happen before this Congress will see the need for hate crimes legislation? The statistics and Matthew's individual personal story demonstrate that these incidents are not isolated. Harassment of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is not isolated to one geographic area nor to any one factor. As our country knows all to well, hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of victims. We all remember the 1996 horrible murder of James Byrd, Jr., an African-American man in Texas. We all remember earlier this year, when a gunman opened fire at a Jewish Community Center and then singled out an Asian-American and shot him. These harsh stories are troubling and unfortunately, recent shootings are a constant reminder of the hate that still exists in our society. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would provide law enforcement officials with needed tools, and would serve as a lasting tribute to the lives of Matthew Sheppard, James Byrd, Jr., and the others who have been victimimized by hate crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would not end all violence against people because they are gay, or African- American, or Jewish, or come from another country. Nonetheless, this legislation would allow the Federal Government to investigate and punish crimes motivated by hate. The murder of Matthew Shepard is the manifestation of the enduring bigotry that still prevails in our society. Our Nation should take action and pass this responsible legislation which would enable Federal law enforcement officials to fight these crimes and punish the perpetrators.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the VA-HUD conference report. I commend the conferees for the improvements they made to the House passed bill. However, I continue to be concerned that these improvements do not adequately fund America's housing needs. The conferees provided 60,000 new Section 8 vouchers; increased the funding for operating subsidies for public housing to $3.1 billion, increased the funding for Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) to $232 million, and increased the funding by $45 million for programs to prevent homelessness and assist homeless individuals. While these increases will prove useful, we all recognize that the need for Section 8, public housing, HOPWA, and homelessness are significantly greater. For example, the Administration's budget requested 100,000 Section vouchers, and this bill falls far short. In many cities, the waiting lists for Section 8 and public housing apartments are many years long and in some cases closed. Individuals living with AIDS need supportive housing services and despite this bill's increased funding, it falls short of President Clinton's request. I was disappointed that the Republican House leadership initially had cut housing assistance to low-income Americans. It does not make sense to cut funding to assist homeless persons, the working poor, and persons with AIDS. We should not cut community development programs that revitalize impoverished neighborhoods and produce new affordable housing. I remain disappointed, but support this revised legislation. It is significant that the conference decided to fund $20 million for the Clinton-Gore America's Private Investment Companies Initiative (APIC). I hope my colleagues will take the next step and pass legislation as soon as possible to authorize this needed initiative. APIC will leverage this $20 million and stimulate investments of approximately $550 million in private issued, government guaranteed loans and an additional $275 million in private equity capital. The Community Builders program has provided HUD and America's communities with capable public servants responsive to local needs. These community builders have successfully staffed many locally driven projects and helped streamline HUD services. Their work should be commended. Despite the accomplishments of this bill, millions of Americans still pay more than half their income for rent and too many Americans remain homeless. This improved bill is a step in the proper direction and will address some of these problems. Nonetheless, more steps are needed. I commend Secretary Cuomo for his leadership on these important housing issues. I hope future budgets will provide more funding to help low- income Americans obtain affordable housing.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the second Conference Agreement on the District of Columbia Appropriations bill. This legislation is dangerous to the residents of the District--it prevents the use of federal or local funds for life saving needle exchange programs; prohibits the use of funds to provide medicinal marijuana; and forbids implementation of a Domestic Partners program that would extend health insurance coverage in the District. Needle exchange must be part of the District's response to the growing AIDS epidemic. AIDS is the third leading cause of death in Washington, and last year more than a third of all AIDS cases where related to intravenous drug use. One half of all AIDS cases in children are the result of injection drug use by one or both parents. In the district I represent, we have eliminated cases of perinatal HIV transmission through needle exchange programs and outreach to pregnant women. The leading scientists in our country have concluded that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not encourage drug use. We must allow public health officials in the District of Columbia to follow the advice of leading government scientists in order to save the lives of children. Congress should also not prohibit the medicinal use of marijuana. The Institute of Medicine has issued a report commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The IOM study found that marijuana is, ``potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms.'' the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association all support access to marijuana for medicinal purposes. The District has prepared a balanced budget which cuts taxes and meets the needs of its citizens. It has a new management-oriented administration and is making progress on education and other local priorities. Congress must stop trampling on the rights of District voters, residents, and tax payers. Congress must stop preventing the District from saving lives and fighting the devastating AIDS epidemic by following the guidance of leading government scientists. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of the special order I am about to give.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for participating in this special order this evening. But more important, I thank her for her leadership on this issue and the voice that she gives to the concerns that she expressed this evening. They are concerns that she has used every forum at her disposal to espouse this debt relief and poverty alleviation throughout the world. I did want to reference the gentlewoman's comment about her chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and his cooperation on this and also recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who introduced a bill to provide debt relief to ensure that funds released go to anti-poverty programs, including education in the beneficiary nations. So while we have been talking about some level of debt forgiveness all along, and in June the G-7 agreed to cancel up to 90 percent of bilateral debt, President Clinton upped the ante on the poor-country debt relief the end of September when he announced in his speech at the World Bank-IMF annual meeting that the U.S. would forgive 100 percent of the debts owed to the United States. Of course, we have to have an act of Congress in order to do that. And, hopefully, this Congress will support the bipartisan efforts that have proceeded largely because of the efforts of the gentlewoman from California. I wanted to just focus, because the gentlewoman brought up the excitement and the enthusiasm that the gentlewoman has for Jubilee 2000, and give a little background on it. We are part of the USA platform for the Jubilee 2000. But before I go into that, the religious community, as the gentlewoman mentioned, is very, very involved in this. In fact, on the subject of debt forgiveness, Pope John Paul, when he met with the President earlier this year, raised the issue when he met with President Clinton in St. Louis. The Christian Science Monitor has editorialized about this by beginning, ``and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.'' And they go on to say that, ``The rich predominantly christian industrial nations have had a hard time putting into practice the latter part of the Lord's prayer phrase in regard to the world's poorest countries.'' They said that at the end of April. But since that time, with the action of the G-7 and the President's statement the other day, I think we are well on our way to a recognition that the only way that we are going to help these countries reach their fulfillment for their own people and their countries and in our own interest is to forgive the debt. Jubilee 2000 springs from a biblical tradition. It calls for a jubilee year, and now we have one coming up, the Year 2000. In a jubilee year, slaves were set free and debts were cancelled. As a new millennium approaches, we are faced with a particularly significant time for such a jubilee. Many impoverished countries carry such high levels of debt that economic development is stifled and scarce resources are diverted from health care, from education, and all other socially beneficial programs to make debt service payments. Imagine having to pay interest on the debt. They are not even paying down the principal; they are just paying interest on the debt instead of educating the children and giving them health care and, as the gentlewoman said, providing some of the infrastructure necessary to even bring water into their villages much less their homes. Much of the debt they carry is the result of ill-conceived development, flawed policies that creditors required of recipient countries in exchange for assistance, and shortsighted decisions by their own leaders. Many times these leaders were from previous regimes. So we have Democratic reform in some of these countries, and these new leaders and these fragile democracies are weighted down by debts incurred and funds used up by a previous regime, in many cases that they have ousted. Much of the borrowing benefited only the elites in the receiving countries. Whereas, the burden of paying the debt is falling upon the most impoverished members of society. Recognizing that these debts are unpayable and exact a great social and environmental toll, the Jubilee 2000 USA Campaign calls for a time of jubilee and cancellation of the debts, and that would be definitive forgiveness of the crushing international debt in situations where countries burdened with high levels of human needs and environmental distress are unable to meet the basic needs of their people; definitive debt cancellation that benefits ordinary people and facilitates their participation in the process of determining the scope, timing, and conditions of debt relief, as well as future direction and priorities for a decent quality of life, definitive debt cancellation that is not conditioned on policy reforms perpetuate or deepen poverty or environmental degradation and acknowledge the responsibility of both lenders and borrowers and action to recover resources that were diverted to corrupt regimes, institutions and individuals. And finally, establishment of a transparent and participatory process to develop mechanisms to monitor international monetary flows and prevent recurring destructive cycles of indebtedness. So there is a vision about where these debt forgiveness can take these countries. There is knowledge about how we got to where we were and what we can do to make a difference. There is a plan of action well planned out. And there is an excitement about this that is building consensus in our country and throughout the world, developing a grassroots network, conducting this advocacy campaign. This Jubilee 2000 Campaign is about leadership.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.