[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   OPPOSITION TO THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON FISCAL YEAR 2000 COMMERCE-
                JUSTICE-STATE APPROPRIATIONS, H.R. 2670

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. NANCY PELOSI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, November 1, 1999

  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.

                          ____________________