Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization. Today, there are nearly 8 million people who are unemployed and seeking work in this country. There are an additional 5 million workers who want a job but have given up their job search out of frustration. And about one in every five unemployed people--1.7 million Americans-- has been jobless for more than 26 weeks. These sad statistics make a clear point--access to job training services is critical for Americans across the country. Job training should be a bipartisan priority of this Congress, but this is the second Congress in a row that Republicans have brought to the floor a partisan bill that undermines our job training initiatives. This Republican bill puts the funding for job training services at risk by consolidating them into a block grant. This is at a time Republicans have already cut funding for job training initiatives under WIA by $750 million since 2002. The Republican bill eliminates targeted job training for workers who need it the most--those who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and the downturn in our economy. It allows the states to rob from Adult Education, Veterans' Reemployment, and job training programs for individuals with disabilities to fund more bureaucracy. This would severely jeopardize services to our most vulnerable populations. Most troubling, this bill sends the message that discrimination will be condoned in federal, taxpayer-funded job training programs. We all recognize and appreciate the work of faith-based organizations in their service to communities in need. But there is absolutely no evidence that the current law protections have hampered the full participation of faith-based organizations in providing job training services. This bill, however, would allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for federally-funded job training initiatives. It would permit those seeking jobs funded by the federal government to be judged solely on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, not on their qualifications or ability to do the job. Instead of promoting the good works of religious organizations, this bill unfairly tarnishes them with the specter of discrimination that they have nobly fought so hard against. The bill's constitutionally dubious provisions will introduce needless uncertainty and controversy. It will subject religious organizations to legally and morally untenable positions. That is why this bill is opposed by many religious and civil rights organizations. The Scott Amendment preserves current law, which permits these organizations to provide job training services with federal funds as long as they do not discriminate. We can support faith-based organizations without breaking faith with our fundamental American commitment to non-discrimination. And we can do so much more to support job training services for the millions of American workers who are struggling to find work. I urge my colleagues to support the Scott Amendment and oppose the Republican bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Today Republicans are bringing to the floor as their first major legislative action a payback to big business at the expense of consumers. The Republican agenda is to ensure that some Americans do not get their day in court. Make no mistake that this class action bill before us today is an extreme bill. It is not a compromise bill as some have claimed. It is an extreme bill that is an injustice to consumers and a windfall for irresponsible corporations. Consumers will be hit hard by this bill, Mr. Speaker. It lumps together individual personal injury cases such as those involving Vioxx, which are not class action under current procedures, and forces them into the Federal courts. Doing so will greatly increase the likelihood that such cases will never be heard. When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex or discriminated against by WalMart, they may never get their day in court. Those cases that do go forward will take significantly longer because the Federal courts are overburdened and unequipped for this caseload. That is why the bill is opposed by Federal judges, including The Judicial Conference of the United States. Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the Federal courts and, therefore, stop the cases. To irresponsible corporations, however, the class action bill is a belated Valentine. It is exactly what they have asked for. Powerful corporations will largely be immune from the accountability that currently comes from meritorious State class action cases. For example, this bill would help shield large corporations from any accountability for Enron-style shareholder fraud, for activities that violate employee rights under State law, and for telemarketing fraud targeted at the elderly. It should come as no surprise, however, that Republicans are seeking yet another way to protect irresponsible corporations. The Washington Post reported that last year's Republican medical malpractice bill contained special liability protections that would have precluded consumers from suing to recover punitive damages arising for the types of injuries caused by Vioxx and Celebrex. Protecting big drug companies is always at the top of the Republican agenda. We saw that in the prescription drug bill under Medicare. This is yet again another example of Republicans being the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry. This bill also runs counter to the principles of federalism that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to support. It throws thousands of State cases into Federal courts that are not equipped to adjudicate State laws. For instance, lawsuits involving the enforcement of the State hourly wage laws, which often have greater protections than Federal wage laws, would be forced into Federal courts. In fact, 46 State Attorneys General on a bipartisan basis have requested an exemption so that they can continue to protect their citizens under the State consumer protection laws in State courts. The Republicans have rejected that request while Democrats have incorporated it into our substitute. Democrats in our substitute support sensible approaches that weed out frivolous lawsuits but not meritorious claims. Our Democratic substitute says that certain kinds of cases must always have their day in court. Physical injury cases, civil rights cases, wage and hour cases, State Attorneys General cases, and others must be heard if we are to remain a Nation that strives for justice for all. President Harry Truman said it so well. ``The Democratic party stands for the people. The Republican party stands, and has always stood, for special interest.'' I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests, to support the Democratic substitute, to listen, to listen to the recommendation of the Federal judges and the Judicial Conference of the United States and oppose this extreme legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true heroine, Jessica Govea Thorbourne, who passed away on January 23 after a 12-year battle with breast cancer. Throughout her 58 years, Jessica worked tirelessly to improve the lives of immigrant farm workers and to strengthen the labor movement in California, nationally, and in Central America. She was a courageous, effective, and visionary leader, and a wonderful person. She will be sorely missed. Born in Porterville, California, Jessica began working in the cotton fields at the age of 4. By the age of 9 she was distributing leaflets alongside her father, Juan Govea, a respected leader of the Mexican American community of Bakersfield. He had been recruited by Fred Ross Sr. and Cesar Chavez to help organize local workers for the Community Service Organization, CSO. Her mother Margaret also became a very effective advocate of CSO. At the age of 12, as the president of the Junior CSO, Jessica led other child farm workers in a successful petition campaign for a neighborhood park. After graduating valedictorian from Bakersfield High School, Jessica completed one year of college. She made the sacrifice of foregoing college to begin working closely with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, UFW. It was there as a caseworker that Jessica first called attention to the adverse effects of pesticide exposure on farm workers. While most believed that the rashes, headaches and dizziness were from heat exposure, Jessica having suffered the same symptoms herself, believed it to be pesticide poisoning. Her persistence gave fuel to union boycotts and eventually gained national attention when it became the focus of the 1969 Senate hearing on migrant workers. When she was 21, she was sent to Canada to enlist supporters in the union's fight against grape growers. Her passion and eloquent speaking ability won broad support from students, laborers, and church groups and drew millions of Canadians into the boycott. The success of the boycott gave the UFW the critical leverage it needed to win contracts with the entire California grape industry. Because of her warnings, these contracts contained clauses banning the use of dangerous pesticides. Later, Jessica served as the National Director of Organizing for the UFW and was elected to the national executive board. Jessica spent countless hours registering voters and turning out the vote for numerous elected officials, including Jerry Brown in his successful bid for governor of California in 1974, and Robert Kennedy in his bid for the California Democratic 1968 presidential primary. As Chair of the California Democratic Party, I worked closely with Jessica in 1982. She demonstrated extraordinary leadership, energy, and commitment as the head of a crucial state-wide voter registration and get-out-the-vote drive. In 1992, she worked with Fred Ross Jr., at Neighbor to Neighbor, training leaders of SICAFE, the coffee workers' union of El Salvador, and with workers targeted by Salvadoran death squads. For the last two decades, she continued her work as labor educator at Rutgers and Cornell Universities. At Cornell she directed the Labor In- House Programs in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. There she trained and inspired many organizers including Chinese-speaking health care workers, who with her assistance became activists and leaders in Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union. Despite her poor health from her battle with cancer, which she believed was caused by exposure to pesticides in the fields, she continued to be an invaluable colleague in the labor movement fighting for economic and social justice. We thank Jessica for her leadership, her courage, and her dedication to the labor movement and to our nation. Her work will continue in the laborers she empowered and the students she inspired. Our thoughts and prayers are with Jessica's husband, Kenneth Thorbourne Jr., her mother, Margaret Govea, and her siblings. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to name the Federal building in Dayton, Ohio after my friend and former colleague, Tony Hall. Tony Hall took great pride in representing his hometown of Dayton in Congress for nearly 24 years. His father had served as Mayor of Dayton, and the strong values he learned growing up in that community were reflected in everything that he did. Tony fought hard for the people of Dayton. But Tony Hall is also a citizen of the world. His first job out of college was as Peace Corps volunteer, teaching English in Thailand from 1966 to 1968. He has visited more than 100 countries in his effort to see, understand, and improve the lives of the world's least fortunate. He has fought to end the importation of conflict-diamonds from Africa. And he was a leader in Congress in asking that the U.S. pay its dues to the United Nations. Perhaps the issue we most associate with Tony Hall is his heroic and tireless work to end hunger. Tony understands that it is by virtue of our humanity--not our citizenship in one country or another--that we have certain inalienable rights. And Tony knows in his heart that it is wrong, in this age of abundance, to let anyone go hungry--whether they live across town in Dayton or across the world in North Korea. In 1993, when the Select Committee on Hunger, which he chaired, was eliminated, Tony fasted for 22 days in protest. I was honored to work with Tony Hall on a number of human rights issues in Congress, particularly on issues involving the repressive regime in China. He brought to these causes a seriousness of purpose and a generosity of spirit that were a constant source of inspiration, on issues where inspiration is in short supply. Since he left the Congress, we have followed his work with pride as he has served with distinction as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. Throughout his career, Tony has never shied away from suffering, but he has refused to accept it as inevitable. As Tony says over and over: ``Hunger has a cure.'' As a member of Congress, and now as an Ambassador, Tony Hall has always been part of that cure. I urge my colleagues to support this fitting tribute to a good and great man who has lifted the lives of so many here and around the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, my colleague from California, and also for his distinguished service and for bringing this to the floor today. I am pleased to join our Republican colleagues. It is one area where we can work together to make the world freer, people freer, the world safer, and, hopefully, trade fairer one of these days. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution urging the European Union to maintain its arms embargo in the People's Republic of China. I commend the Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for bringing this resolution to the floor. They are tremendous leaders on behalf of human rights in China and, indeed, all over the world. Almost 16 years ago, the Chinese regime shocked the world as it unleashed its army on its own defenseless people and crushed the peaceful pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square. We know that the human rights situation in China has not significantly improved since the arms embargo was imposed. At the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, it was seared into our conscience. One of the most enduring images of the 20th century was a picture of a lone man standing before a long line of military tanks. We remember how millions of ordinary students, workers, and citizens marched in peace; how they raised the goddess of democracy, an image of our own Statue of Liberty; and how they quoted our own Founding Fathers. The United States and the European Union imposed complementary arms embargoes as a direct response to the Tiananmen Square massacre. Civilized governments were outraged at the brutality of the Chinese regime and took a course of action to ensure our weapons would not be used to harm innocent people in China, Tibet, East Turkistan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. For a billion Chinese and Tibetans, freedom remains a dream deferred. Journalists, activists, academics, workers, and religious believers are still persecuted and tortured. Beijing is still harassing and arresting dissidents and families of the Tiananmen victims. The most recent State Department ``Country Report on Human Rights'' states that the Chinese Government's ``Human rights record remains poor, and the government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses. There was backsliding on key human rights issues.'' The recent passing of Zhao Ziyang, the former Secretary General of China, reminds the world of the courage of the heroes of Tiananmen. Zhao dared to resist the Chinese Communist Party's decision to crush the pro-democracy movement. And I remind my colleagues that at the time he was the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. He very courageously, just weeks before the massacre, made a very crucial appeal to the students to leave Tiananmen Square to prevent bloodshed. With tears in his eyes and bullhorn in his hands, he apologized to them for having come too late. His courage in opposing military force resulted in his dismissal from the government, his name erased from Chinese history books, and almost 16 years under house arrest, until his recent death. The Chinese Government has tried to erase the history of Tiananmen and Zhao's legacy, but the world will remember. For all their power, the regime is afraid of Zhao. They were afraid of him in life; they are afraid of him in death. But the more they try to suppress his message and his courage, the stronger they make him. Today, we are once again calling on Beijing to release thousands of Tiananmen activists held to this day and all the prisoners of conscience, whose only crime was to demand their basic human rights. I commend the Bush administration for reiterating its support of the U.S. arms embargo. The European Union has showed leadership in fighting for human rights all over the world. Now is not the time for them to abandon those principles. I just would like to make this point, because I mentioned trade in the beginning. Since the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, for many years we have had debate on the floor as to whether we could use economic leverage to improve the human rights situation in China; that we could use economic leverage to improve the performance of the Chinese regime in regard to fairness and in trade with our country and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by the regime to unsafeguarded countries. That idea was rejected by the Congress, and I may say in a bipartisan way: President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush all shared the same view. But it was wrong, and it is still wrong. The fact is that we did not use the leverage, and everyone said economic reform is going to lead to political reform; this trade is going to enable the Chinese people to be freer. The fact is that has not worked. And the trade deficit, which we thought was giving us leverage in 1989 of $2 billion, $2 billion, this enormous amount of money we thought was going to give us leverage for human rights, improve trade relations, as well as stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, well, the trade deficit today, thanks to this policy, is now $2 billion a week, not a year, a week. Over $2 billion a week. The point I want to make in relationship to the European Union, though, is the following: for a long time over that time the Chinese Government was very clever. They took advantage of the U.S. because we welcomed them with open arms. Just flood our markets with your products, maintain your barriers to our products going into China, and you have this. China has a huge trade surplus. And where did they spend that surplus? They spent it in Europe, and they spent it in other parts of the world using economic leverage for a political purpose: just exactly what they argued against when we wanted to do it to improve human rights, to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to improve the trade situation. So it is no wonder the European Union does not have the kind of trade deficit with China that we have, because China buys from the European Union, or they did for at least long enough to get them with the program. And what the program is is a giant economic power using its economic power to suppress initiatives that make the world safer, that make people freer, and make trade fairer. So I applaud again the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida for her remarks and the leadership of the committee for their initiative in bringing this to the floor; and I would hope, I would hope that the Bush administration's statements will now be met with firmness in dealing with the EU that this is important to us. Because the trade embargo is there for a reason, and now that it is lifted, if it is lifted, the world will be a less safe place.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his very generous remarks and commend him in turn for his leadership and the determination and dedication that he has given to human rights throughout the world and freedom throughout the world. Having just visited Auschwitz and having his own personal sad experience in the deprivation of freedom, he is an inspiration to all of us. I hope that the trip was not too painful for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), but again his courage and his determination are a lesson to all of us, and I thank him. Mr. Speaker, Sunday was a historic day for the people of Iraq. In the face of violence and threats, millions of Iraqis made it clear that they want the future of their own country decided by the ballot, not by the bomb or the bullet. Their willingness to risk their lives to vote is compelling evidence of the depth of their aspiration for self- determination. Their courage commands our admiration and our respect. The bravery of our military personnel cannot be praised highly enough. Without their selflessness in the face of great danger, the election could not have been held. Every American is inspired by their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. Iraqis have demonstrated their desire to take responsibility for their country's future. Our effort now should be to use the momentum created by the election to help them realize that goal. Iraq needs to be made more secure. Let us intensify our efforts to train the Iraqi Army that can provide that security. The sooner we transfer the responsibility for security of Iraq over to the Iraqis, the better. Iraq's future depends on improvements to its economic infrastructure. Let us accelerate the reconstruction efforts that have lagged so badly and give Iraqis a larger stake in having those efforts succeed. Iraq's political future depends on the involvement of all Iraqis in the political process. Let us redouble our diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors to help create an environment in which Iraq includes those who have thus far felt excluded. We know that Sunday's election was but a step on the road to a stable and secure Iraq. The American people, who have sacrificed so much for Iraq, are owed a clear explanation by the President of his plan to end our presence in Iraq and of the standards by which they can judge that plan. I hope that we will hear that plan tonight in the President's State of the Union address. In congratulating the Iraqi people on their achievement, we also need to acknowledge that the election should signal the beginning of a change in our relationship with Iraq.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as Paul Boden prepares to step down as Executive Director of the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, I would like to thank him for his service to San Francisco's homeless and mentally ill. Paul has been a tireless and thoughtful advocate, ensuring that city, State and national policies on homelessness reflect the diverse needs of our population. In 1987, Paul founded the Coalition on Homelessness as an organization run by and for the homeless. By hiring homeless and formerly homeless people, the Coalition both ensured homeless people had a voice in setting policies and empowered them with skills they could use to help others. The Coalition's accomplishments include the creation of the Community Housing Partnership, the Treatment on Demand Program, the Shelter Grievance Project, and the Continuum of Care Plan. In addition, the Coalition created The Street Sheet, a community newspaper highlighting the work of homeless and formerly homeless people through writing, artwork, and poetry. In addition to his work at the Coalition, Paul helped strengthen many community organizations by serving as a board member at the Community Housing Partnership, the Central City Hospitality House, and the National Coalition on Homelessness. With the National Coalition on Homelessness, he helped draft the Bringing America Home Act, which was introduced in the 108th Congress and aims to end homelessness in the United States. As he departs the Coalition on Homelessness, Paul is expanding his focus to the national policy debate on homelessness. We will miss his leadership greatly at the Coalition, but it is heartening to know that the network of homeless people, service providers, and advocates he built will continue to act as a voice of conscience for the City of San Francisco. And I am certain that he will continue to make enormous contributions to lifting the lives of the homeless.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend the distinguished Chair of the committee and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, for bringing this very important resolution to the floor today. I am proud to rise to recognize the vital contributions of America's Catholic schools in our country, and I want to say right off from the start what my bias is in this area. My husband and I and our five children have attended over 100 years of Catholic school education, over 100 years of Catholic school education. There are about 6 years of Episcopal in there over and above, but 100 years of Catholic school education. So, needless to say, we worship at the shrine of the Catholic educational system in our country. There are nearly 8,000 Catholic schools in America, and they educate nearly 2.5 million students every year. We solute Catholic schools for their dedication to educating the next generation of Americans and for their success in doing so. The education Catholic schools provide is exceptional and a true asset to our educational system. Catholic schools contribute not only to a student's intellectual development, and they do that very well, but also to a student's ethical and spiritual development. In short, they have a value-added component, values. The theme of this year's Catholic Schools Week says it well: ``Faith in every student.'' That means faith in the promise of every child and the promise to deepen every child's faith. As a devout Roman Catholic and a product of Catholic schools, as I said, 100 years my husband and I and our five children, this resolution is personal to me. I rely every day on the values, the confidence, and the sense of responsibility that were deepened for me by a Catholic education and being raised in a family that was the product of Catholic education as well. I know that many Members can make that statement. My Catholic education helped me appreciate the gift of faith and the conviction that we all contain a spark of divinity and to recognize that spark of divinity in every person we encounter. It nurtured in me a commitment to community and to public service. The Bible teaches us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. That lesson should inform every debate we have here in Congress, whether it is education, health care, job creation, or the budget, which should be a statement of our national values. As President Kennedy said so eloquently in his inaugural address, ``With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help but knowing that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.'' Our Catholic schools prepare generation after generation for that critical task, and they deserve our national gratitude. I join my colleagues in thanking all of the teachers, parents, and students at Catholic schools who make our country better.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing democracy at work. This is not, as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy. The representatives of the American people in this House are standing up for three fundamental American beliefs: that the right to vote is sacred; that a Representative has a duty to represent his or her constituents; and that the rule of law is the hallmark of our Nation. Under the rule of law, today this House will accept the election of President Bush and Vice President Cheney as President and Vice President of the United States. There is absolutely no question about that. This is not in any way about rejecting that outcome. So, please, let us be respectful of each other and understand what it is about. Today's electoral challenge is not intended to overturn the results of the election. It is instead to discuss the real problems with our electoral system and the failings of the process in Ohio and elsewhere. It is about election reform, not about the election result. The Members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do so. If there were other venues of this caliber, we would have taken that opportunity. But this is the opportunity. We have a responsibility to take advantage of it. The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. A discussion of that foundation, again, should not be considered frivolous. As the Supreme Court noted: ``No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which as good citizens we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.'' I repeat: ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.'' The principle of one person-one vote is sacred in our country, and we must do everything to uphold it. Yet more than 225 years since our founding, there are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections and of ensuring the principle of one person-one vote, that every person has access to voting and that every vote will be counted. Twenty years ago, I was chair of the California Democratic Party. It was our function, it was our purpose to remove obstacles of participation to voting. The greater responsibility, of course, was with the Secretary of State in our State and in States across the country who controlled the elections in the State. But we all, in all of our capacities, had a responsibility to remove, not throw up, obstacles to participation. I know that this issue is not just about counting votes, but what happens in all three phases, before, during and after the election; and in all three phases, there were problems in this election in Ohio and elsewhere. Before the election, there were complaints about absentee ballots that were requested, but did not arrive. There were reports of registration problems and of improper purging of the voting rolls. The Ohio Secretary of State made decisions about provisional ballots, partisan poll watchers and paper requirements for registration forms that some found questionable, leading to widespread confusion and possible disenfranchisement. During the election we know that there were not enough voting machines in poorer and minority areas. This is a fact. Yet there were sufficient machines in wealthier areas. This led to appallingly long waiting times of up to 10 hours in certain places. You can deny it all you want, but it is a matter of public record that this is a fact, and this is wrong. There were credible reports of voter suppression on election day through intimidation and misinformation and the patchwork use of provisional ballots led to unequal treatment under the law; unequal treatment under the law, undermining the principles of one person-one vote and equal protection. As for after the election, the American people must have every confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted. But constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines which may not have paper receipts have led to additional loss of confidence by the public. As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our election system and its administration. We cannot be here again 4 years from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election. We must work with the Elections Assistance Commission to further reform the election process, and we must pass legislation to improve the Help America Vote Act, including universal standards for provisional ballot and strong verification measures and paper trails. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the distinguish chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his leadership in helping to pass the HAVA Act, which is really where we are pinning our hopes, and to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who served in that capacity with the gentleman, and now in the Senate others, a broader array of people who are weighing in on that. Congress must seize the opportunity this year to reauthorize the act and to make the needed reforms and improvements. Our very democracy depends again on the confidence of the American people and the integrity of our electoral system. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, please do not talk about this as a ``conspiracy theory.'' It is not about that. It is not about conspiracy; it is about the Constitution of the United States. George Bush and Dick Cheney are the elected President and Vice President of the United States, and I think the objection will be overruled today in that regard. It has never been about that. It has always been about the fundamental principle of the legitimacy of our electoral process. Congress will resolve this dispute today, and we will all abide by the results because we are a Nation of laws. America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must never forget the power of our own example to those who aspire to freedom throughout the world. So let us respect this debate today for what it is, about ensuring the foundation of our very own democracy, and by sending a message to the world that we are truly, truly protective of our Constitution and that we honor the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues all to join together in a bipartisan way for electoral reform to follow on the good work that I mentioned of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) earlier and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and to make sure that 4 years from now we will come together not having to have this kind of debate, but that today's debate will serve the purpose that it is intended to have for our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, first may I thank my Democratic colleagues. What an honor it is to have my name placed in nomination as your leader to be Speaker of the House as the first woman and as the first Italian-American. I was honored by the kind remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). It is a privilege, as the gentleman from New Jersey knows and as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) knows for us to represent this magnificently diverse caucus. Thank you for the honor of being your leader. It is a privilege to represent one of the greatest forces, in my view, for idealism, integrity and innovation in our country. My thanks to the members of the Democratic Caucus. I want to thank and acknowledge my husband, Paul. Thank you, Paul. In acknowledging Paul, I want to acknowledge all of the spouses who are here today for the contributions they make. I know Members all share my view when I say our husbands and wives, our spouses, and in my case my five children and five grandchildren, represented by Ryan and Madelaine here today, are the source of our strength and inspiration. Our children and grandchildren are the future. Many children are here today. We want them to know that we know and think it is our responsibility to make the future better for them. To my constituents, I am grateful for the privilege of representing them. I know Members all want to join me and the Speaker in acknowledging our courageous men and women in uniform. As we end this holiday season, we know it is their service that makes it possible for us to strive for peace on earth and good will to mankind every day of the year. A special congratulations and welcome to the Capitol to our newest Members of Congress, to our freshmen Members. You as freshmen are the fresh recruits. You are here to reinvigorate the Congress with your fresh ideas, straight from campaigns. We are all straight from campaigns. Our Founding Fathers planned it so that every 2 years Congress would be reinvigorated with new membership to bring new ideas and new energy to the debate. As you take your oath of office today, you not only enter the Congress, you enter the annals of history. You are colleagues not only with each other, you are colleagues with all those who have served before you. Sadly, this weekend, we lost two of our most pioneering and courageous colleagues. Shirley Chisholm was the first African-American woman elected to Congress. Imagine the courage. She said of her service that it demonstrated the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo. We must make that legacy part of ours. When Shirley Chisholm came to Congress as the first African-American woman, it was not only a breakthrough for African Americans, it was not only a breakthrough for women, it was a breakthrough for America. And we mourn the passing of someone who was a dear friend to so many of us here. Bob Matsui would have been sworn in today. Bob was the living combination of intellect and passion, someone who understood the complexities, for example, of the Social Security system but never forgot what it meant simply to the lives of America's seniors. President Bush rightly called Bob a dedicated public servant and a good and decent man who served with distinction and integrity. Thank you, President Bush, for that acknowledgment. As a small child, Bob Matsui was in a Japanese internment camp. He was a third-generation American but nonetheless he was in an internment camp. But that never dampened his spirit about America or his family's spirit. He went on in his words and his deeds with a commitment to guide us to the better America that was his dream. Let that be our legacy as well. And we cannot gather here today without talking about the unspeakable devastation the world has witnessed in South Asia. It presents a special challenge to us, not only for the millions of people who are struggling to recover and rebuild but for all of us who are called by our faith and by our common humanity to help those in need. When the victims of disasters in Asia see our soldiers bringing food and supplies, they see the best of America, an America that is compassionate. We need to work even harder, not only to present that America to the world but also to create that America here at home by staying true to our core American values. We do that by widening the circle of prosperity, because it is unacceptable that one in five children in America live in poverty. Our sense of fairness demands that we expand access to health care because health care is a right, not a privilege. We must promote opportunity with a vibrant public education system and by making college education affordable to all Americans. We need to strengthen community, working to build safe communities free of crime and drugs and with a clean and healthy environment. And we must do this in a fiscally sound way by promoting accountability, by restoring fiscal discipline and paying as we go. Above all, we must guarantee our national security with a military that is second to none, a strong commitment to homeland security, and a resolve to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. How we respond to times of difficulty is what will define us as leaders and the ability to draw hope from times of challenge is what defines us as Americans. Each generation of Americans has made our country stronger and better for the next. I do not want anyone because we are talking about losing our colleagues and our former colleagues and the devastation in South Asia, to have any of that diminish the cause for celebration here today for our new Members, their families, their friends, indeed for all of us. The lives of Shirley Chisholm and Bob Matsui should be cause for celebration and they give us hope and proof that each one of us can make a difference. A better America is our inheritance. I believe that for all of us serving in the 109th Congress, it can also be our legacy. Though we are divided by party and this aisle, we are joined by our common oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to form a more perfect union. To our freshmen, again welcome to Congress. On this day of celebration, I join the Speaker and all of our colleagues in congratulating you and your families. Again I will say that our Founding Fathers made special provision for this House to be constantly reinvigorated and every person here must be elected. We cannot let again the sadness in the past weeks diminish this cause for celebration. The lives of Shirley and Bob offer us hope and proof, as I said. The tragedy in South Asia and its ramifications raises the expectations for leadership. How we respond to times of difficulty will define us. When I was a young girl, a college student here in Washington, D.C., I had the privilege of hearing President Kennedy's inaugural address. In his inaugural address, he ended his remarks in the following way, and I think it was appropriate then and it is appropriate now. He said, ``With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.'' Again I have the privilege to present the gavel, this is getting tiresome, Mr. Speaker. And it is not about you. Two years ago when I had the privilege of presenting the gavel, I said of the Speaker that all of us are called honorable because of the title we hold as Members of Congress. But Dennis Hastert is honorable because he is a man of great character and dignity and he deserves the title. It is now my privilege to present the gavel to a man, a gentleman of character, integrity and skill who brings the values of heartland America to this highest position in the Congress of the United States, and I speak on behalf of all of our House Democrats, Mr. Speaker, in saying we look forward to working with you in the days ahead to create a better America, the gentleman from Illinois, the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 7), and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee for his kind words and for his great leadership. And I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the two of them, for bringing this very important resolution both to the floor. They both have been champions for humanitarian causes and human rights throughout the world. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), especially for his work on the Human Rights Caucus. And, in fact, the definition of human rights and our attention to the condition of mankind extends to the issue that is before us today. As the world knows, 9 days ago we witnessed on television the most destructive power of nature, a powerful earthquake and subsequent tsunami that took more than 150,000 lives and seriously injured hundreds of thousands more across Asia. The unspeakable devastation the world has witnessed in these areas presents a challenge not only for the millions of people who are struggling to recover and rebuild but also for all of us who are called by our faith and our common humanity to help those in need. Nothing can give back all that has been lost, but the actions we take today and in the days ahead help to keep the epic disaster from becoming even more far reaching. In a tragedy such as this one, there is only the smallest measure of inspiration that can be taken from the devastation. But if there is anything hopeful to be found in the aftermath of the tragedy, it is that the worst of Mother Nature has brought out the best in human nature. Americans have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations. The coordinated efforts by USAID, the International Red Cross, UNICEF, OXFAM and Care and many others are providing quick and vital resources. Relief workers are struggling 24 hours a day to distribute supplies and medical care to the injured and homeless. The United States Government has pledged $350 million in emergency assistance for the region. And when the victims of the disaster in Asia see our soldiers and ships and helicopters bringing food, supplies, and medical care, they see the compassion that is the best of America. The chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations and I in my capacity as ranking member on the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, we have traveled the world to see our assistance at work, and we know that when the U.S. military becomes involved in humanitarian assistance, they are the best. They are well organized. They get the job done in record time. We are very proud of them and all that they do and certainly in the case of the tsunami. All of these things are critical, but much more needs to be done. It is estimated by the United Nations that 1.8 million people will need food aid, 1.8 million people. Roads and bridges will need to be rebuilt to get that aid to the people who need it. Millions of people are homeless and in need of shelter. The statistics are daunting, but we must not lose sight of the power of the United States to soften nature's blow. The statistics are staggering, but we remember every single individual as a person who is affected by this. A compassionate and generous response from the United States is essential to save these individual lives and to stabilize the entire region. While there has been a strong initial response to the crisis, there must be initiative to assist in the longer-term reconstruction process. The United States must take the lead by providing a multi-year assistance package that does not come at the expense of other disaster relief efforts around the world. I hope that a package of aid and assistance for the victims of last week's tsunamis will be the first significant bipartisan accomplishment of this 109th Congress, and I know under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and our distinguished Speaker in his beautiful words today about the disaster that we have a good chance that that will be possible. There is a passage in the Bible that speaks to the power of the spirit at times such as this: ``The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars.'' As one who kind of likes victories, I understand the strength of cedars, but we will replace and rebuild. I kind of think another passage from the Bible is appropriate here. It is appropriate on many occasions, but I thought of it the minute I saw the tsunami, and that is in the Old Testament they tell us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship, to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us and them. So we can have an act of worship by ministering to the needs of these people. I especially want to mention the country of Indonesia that has been devastated by the crisis. Indonesian health authorities reported Sunday that the tsunami may have killed 100,000 people in the Aceh province alone. This natural disaster comes after the Indonesian Government has performed massive military operations and frankly brutal acts of violence against the civilian population of Aceh in recent years. The international response presents an opportunity for the government of Indonesia to form a new partnership, a fresh start, with the people of Aceh. It is critical that the Indonesian Government continue to open the region to relief organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the media. It will take a long time. It will require a great deal of help. The scars may never heal entirely, and the memories of loved ones lost will linger forever. But with the help of people of the world, the people of the affected countries will recover and rebuild. Already we see people who were strangers to each other before the disaster standing together, some of them right in this very room, and today with this resolution and with the actions that will be necessary in the coming days to give substance to our words, we say to them the people of the United States stand with them. We can say that with great assurance because of the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and those kind words, again, of the Speaker this morning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of our California Democratic Delegation for her wonderful words about Bob Matsui. Anyone who did not know Bob Matsui and just turned on the television tonight would have to be impressed by the array of comments from so many different Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle about this exceptional person. There is no way to exaggerate how wonderful he was. He was a person of great intellect and great passion. He was a person of great gentility and of great strength when it came to debating his points. Ever since Members and colleagues and staff on the Hill and reporters and the media learned of his death, they have come and said, Bob Matsui would go out of his way to come by and say hello. He always smiled, he always asked about people's well-being and how they were doing and could he be helpful. He was a gentle man. But again, he had a strength about him that if he thought on a matter of public policy someone was abandoning the children of America or the seniors of America or America's working families, he made it quite clear to them that in his eyes he was losing respect for them because he thought that is what we came here to do. So many Members have talked about his talent, his personality, his love of family which was preeminent because at the end of the day that is, of course, what matters most. I visited Doris Matsui on Sunday evening to extend the condolences of Bob's colleagues to her, and to say how magnificently received Bob was after the election; that even though we did not win, every time his name was mentioned or he was introduced, he would receive a standing ovation from the members of the Democratic Caucus because he dealt with them honestly. He worked so hard and so smartly for our success, it just was not to be; but they appreciated the leadership he provided. Just to talk about a few things, we had the occasion the last night that we were here, December 8, to have a dinner in appreciation of those who helped us in our efforts. We surprised Bob because it was turned on him, and we expressed our appreciation to him. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, was so eloquent and spoke from the heart about Bob Matsui. It really was stunning to Bob. It was a gift that God gave us that we would have that opportunity to express appreciation to him. This is a very, very modest man and all of that attention was stunning to him. So when I said to Doris, remember the dinner and it was so wonderful, she said he talked about it so much and he talked about the toast of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and how the Members expressed their appreciation and how surprised he was and how much it meant to him. So to my Democratic colleagues, thank you for the generosity that you extended to Bob Matsui. I hope it is a comfort to those of us who loved him and all of us in our caucus that we did have an opportunity to say thank you to him in a very special way. It was quite remarkable. I think all of my colleagues will agree that my colleagues were clamoring for Bob to be reappointed to the DCCC. Indeed, he had that opportunity, and he was willing to serve, except God had other plans. It is important to note that in the summer of this year one of Bob's very closest friends, Steve Thompson, exactly Bob's age, was diagnosed just a few weeks before he died, and it was a complete and total surprise. He, like Bob, was a very respected member in the Sacramento, California, community. They were very dear friends since seventh grade. When Bob came to his new school, not a very athletic appearance anyway, Steve was a big man on campus and he said he just wrapped his arm around Bob Matsui and that made it okay for everybody, and they were friends for life. Nobody would have ever expected 6 months ago that death would mean this summer for Steve and now for Bob. In any case, Steve's death took a lot out of Bob. He seemed so saddened by it, as we are saddened by his passing. In any event, Doris told us that Bob left us peacefully, just the way he lived, surrounded by people who loved him. Again, Anna saying Da-da. He took her to his office on December 23, had their pictures taken in front of the Capitol. Well, when you have been here 26 years, a picture in front of the Capitol is a picture at your desk because he had a special office. It was his plan, and he was bragging about it that he was going to take Anna to be here today with him because she was born since the last swearing-in. Again that was not to be. In any event, when Anna is old enough to read about her grandfather, she will know he was one of the most dedicated public servants in our country. He was a true patriot, he was a decent man, he loved his family, and he was a best friend to almost everybody in the Congress of the United States. There is so much to say, but everybody knows that our thoughts and prayers are with Doris, Brian, Amy and Anna who shared Bobby with us and inspired his commitment for a brighter future for America. Imagine that his family and he as a small child were in a Japanese internment camp. Again, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said, it only heightened his love for America because he knew that we could do better and he would be a part of that. I will close by saying that one of the pleasures we had at this dinner on December 8, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) reminds me, I always said during the campaign that Bob Matsui was a maestro, that he was orchestrating all of this activity all over the country. This man who unbeknownst to us had this diagnosis, and it was not supposed to be fatal, but the pneumonia was. In any event, he would be working so hard for senior citizens all day on a Social Security issue and orchestrating hundreds, thousands of young people throughout the country to be involved in campaigns to make the future better. He had a way of channeling the enthusiasm that he had for issues into the activism that was necessary to make a difference. At this party we gave him a baton recognizing the maestro that he was and is. We will just miss him terribly. The poet Longfellow wrote: ``Were a star quenched on high, For ages would its light, Still traveling downward from the sky, Shine on our mortal sight. So when a great man dies, For years beyond our ken, The life he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men.'' Bob Matsui's light will always shine, one that will guide us to a better America, and that was his dream.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) for taking out this special order on our dear friend Bob Matsui and to all of our colleagues who participated in it. I hope it is a comfort to the Matsui family, to Doris, Brian, Amy and Anna, that so many people in this Chamber and I know throughout the country share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I consider a shameless rules package which will undermine the ethical standards held by this House. After the elections in November, the first thing the Republican majority did was to lower the House's ethical standard. In an act of unprecedented shamelessness, they changed the rule of their party to permit an indicted member of their party to remain in a leadership position. Yesterday, in the face of an overwhelming bipartisan and public condemnation they changed their rules back. This is not shocking. What is shocking is that they ever considered it in the first place. Even more shocking, just if you think you have seen it all, is that the majority considered deleting the most fundamental of ethics rules which says that Members of the House should be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct. It says a Member shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that should reflect creditably on the House of Representatives. Dropping this rule is unthinkable. Yet Republicans only decided to keep it last night when the issue became too hot for them to handle. Thank heavens it became too hot for them to handle, but what is completely apparent to the public and those who follow the Congress is that the Republicans did not leave it at that. They went on to make new mistakes, to undermine the ethical standard of the House. Instead of a bipartisan effort to strengthen the ethical process, the Republicans have engaged in a completely partisan exercise that should be an affront to every Member on either side of the aisle who has served in this body. The proposed changes which are still in this rules package are destructive, and they are unethical. Mr. Speaker, I know of what I speak. I served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years, and then for a seventh year I served as a part of the bipartisan committee to rewrite the ethics rules. It is bipartisan, evenly divided, and we came up with new ethics rules, some of which survived the floor that year in 1997. The package that was put together was meant to be fair to Members as well as uphold the high ethical standards. It says that Members should be judged by their actions and by the rules of the House and the law. So it was only about what took place, the facts and the law. It was not about rumor. It was not about hearsay. It was about the facts, the rules of the House and the law. There was a process which was fair to Members because, as I say, as someone who has 7 years on the ethical process, that it is very hard to make judgments about our peers. It is a very, very difficult task, and we want to be fair, but we have a higher responsibility to uphold that ethical standard. So it was put forth and has been the rules of the House and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that in order to cease or dismiss a case, we had to have a majority of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. That would be eliminated today. That would be eliminated today. So, on a partisan basis, there could be no cases that go forward. Either party with half the votes in the committee, evenly split, could cease and desist any complaints from going forward. That is simply not right. The point of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to have a process in which to deal with ethics complaints against Members. The point of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is not to whitewash or to have a system that says nothing will ever move forward. What could the Republicans be afraid of that they would so fundamentally undermine the ethical process of the House to say we are going to establish a system where nothing will ever go forward? This simply is wrong. We owe it to the public, we owe it to each other to uphold that ethical standard. So, as I say, on the first day of this new Congress, the Republican majority is publicly demonstrating what has been evident for some time, and that is its arrogance, its pettiness, its shortsighted focus on their political life rather than to decide how we are each of us fit to govern. Here is the thing. We have this rules package before us. They did some flash last night so that the press is saying, oh, they blinked. They did blink on a couple of different scores, but the fundamental challenge to the ethical standard of the House being enforced is still in this rules package, and it should be rejected. Democrats have made two proposals. One of them is to remove this change, and that would be a vote on the previous question, and then on the motion to recommit we address two other abuses of power that should be addressed in this bill. One is what I will call the Tauzin rule, and the Democratic motion to commit would forbid a Member of Congress to negotiate with an outside entity that has business before his or her committee and before the Congress, in the current Congress or in a previous Congress, called the Tauzin rule because Mr. Tauzin, who managed the Medicare bill, was at the time being courted by the pharmaceutical industry which was to benefit from provisions in the prescription drug bill, a rumored $2 million a year salary for selling America's seniors down the river. That is simply wrong. Has this become an auction house? The public has to think and believe that when we are here and we are on the public payroll and we are Members of Congress that our accountability is to them and not to our next job. I call that the revolving door, shorthand for the Tauzin rule, and the impact of that is a very, very bad prescription drug bill that put pharmaceutical companies first, seniors last. In our motion to commit we also address the 3-day rule. As many of my colleagues recall in recent memory, there was occasion on the floor when a huge bill of many thousands of pages, containing nine appropriations bills, seven of which never appeared on the floor of the United States Senate, came before this House where the matter was overnight passed in the Committee on Rules, came to the floor the next morning without any chance of Members being able to read the bill. It came under the martial law rule the Republicans use by which they say we waive the 3-day rule by a simple majority. It should take two- thirds, but by a simple majority we waive the 3-day rule. Well, why was it important? It was important that day because there was a great deal in that bill that Members did not know about that they were voting on and should not they know that, but very specifically in that bill and it was not found out until the bill went to the Senate, who had more time to read the bill because it went over there several hours after it was heard here, and in that bill it said that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the House and the Senate or his or her designee could look at the tax returns of American taxpayers. Where did that come in? It is a total orphan. It is a total orphan. No one was going to take responsibility for that. Because of the egregiousness of that and the violation of privacy of the American people, I insisted that the Members come back to vote on that rather than just have it be done by unanimous consent to remove that provision from the law. Why did I call Members back? So that the American people will know because of the abuse of power in this House, ignoring of the 3-day rule, that Members cannot even see what they are voting on before they vote on it, and something like looking at your tax returns could be sneaked into the bill, without any safeguards to protect people from that. That is just one example. Another example is the Medicare prescription drug bill which came to the floor without proper time for review as well. The list goes on and on. In our motion to commit, we address the abuse of power of a powerful chairman, negotiating for a job while he was a Member of Congress, who had control of the bill over the industry, which was offering him $2 million a year. That is how much it cost to sell the American seniors down the river, and I hope that even if you separate yourself from any of the examples and just say I sent you to Congress to represent me, you do that in what you say there and how you vote, and I expect that you know what you are voting on. The message to the American people here this afternoon is a vote for the motion to commit, is a vote for Members to be able to read a bill before they vote on it. Is that asking too much? The Republicans say it is. So a yes vote on the motion to commit gives Members the 3 days which under the rules of the House they are entitled to. A vote for the motion to commit stops the unethical process of Members negotiating with people outside, whose bills they are managing inside this Congress, in this Congress or in the previous Congress. The previous question vote would say no to the Republicans in their evisceration of the ethical process of this House by saying that you do not need a majority to dismiss a case; you can just do it if all the Members of your party on the committee decide to stick with you on it. It is simply not right, and this should not be partisan. That is really what is really sad about it. Everything that we have done in the ethics process has had some level of respect to the extent that it has because it has been bipartisan, bipartisan in writing the rules, evenly divided committee, cooperation between the chair and ranking member. Today is a major departure from that, and I guess maybe I have just spent too many long hours for too many long years in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct room trying to respect the rights of Members and our higher responsibility to uphold an ethical standard. To see the Republicans today run roughshod, rigging the rules, negotiating for jobs, no reading of the bill, it is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on the motion to commit, and by all means, however you vote on those, no on this very shameful rules package.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the distinguished career of Dolly Seelmeyer. Dolly will retire at the end of this year, having served the United States House of Representatives for 32 years. Dolly started in the House in 1970 working for Congressman Joe Addabbo of New York. In 1972, she became the first woman photographer with the Office of Photography. Over the years Dolly has been a tremendous asset to Members of the House. Her body of work--literally thousands of memorable photographs-- is greatly appreciated by the Members and their constituents. Dolly has served as photographer, supervisory photographer and in recent years as the manager of the Office of Photography. We are grateful to Dolly for her many years of hard work to the U.S. House of Representatives. On behalf of the House Democratic Caucus, I extend our gratitude for your dedication and best wishes to you and your family on your well-deserved retirement.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and commend her for her tremendous leadership, outstanding leadership as our ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for his leadership, as well as chair of the conference and as chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). I know firsthand of her great work, and we are all very proud of it. Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months ago, the 9/11 Commission created by Congress to examine the intelligence failures of 9/11 made a critical judgment. It concluded that the United States intelligence community was not structured properly to counter the threats, including terrorism, that our Nation was likely to face in the years to come. In response to that judgment, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission unanimously issued 41 recommendations to make America safer. The most critical of these was the creation of a powerful manager for the intelligence community, one with the authority to establish budgets and to move money and people between agencies as dictated by changing needs. The commission's conclusion and this recommendation mirrored a similar judgment made 2 years ago by a congressional joint inquiry that neither the President nor the Republican Congress acted upon. Thank heavens we are acting today. Fortunately, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and the tireless advocacy of the 9/11 Commission and the victims' families gave us the opportunity to produce a better result today. We are greatly in their debt. Another significant recommendation was the establishment of a civil liberties board. As we protect and defend the American people from terrorism, we must also protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. Again, I wish the conferees would have agreed to a stronger board, as was contained in the Senate bill. Instead, we have to rely on the dedication and stature of those appointed to the board to overcome any weaknesses in its power. Thankfully, the worst of the egregious provisions on immigration and law enforcement that were in the House bill have been removed due to the firm resolve of a majority of the members of the conference committee. I, too, would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy. It was not my intention until I heard the colloquy of the previous speaker. I would just like to know what it means that in the next Congress my colleagues will take up the immigration provisions that are not in this bill and will have the cooperation of the President. What does that mean? Does that mean we will be revisiting the same provisions that were removed from this bill in order to obtain passage of it this evening?

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, so my colleagues removed them. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. The egregious, considered by some of us, extraneous provisions that were in this bill that were removed in order to get the compromise legislation that we have here today will be taken up in the next Congress and be moved quickly to what? Pass into law?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's candor. I have concerns about his statement, however, because there was a oneness, an integrity to this bill which contained many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan, and unanimously, and the support of the United States Senate in a very bipartisan way; and I had hoped that what we were introducing today as a compromise was a bill that had, again, this oneness and this integrity. I am concerned that a piece of it is taken off with a commitment that it may be passed.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Again, I have serious concerns. I hope that, again, the Republican leadership will not tarnish this achievement today with commitments to vote on ill-advised changes to our immigration laws in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that today we must move forward. There is one recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that we are not considering today, and that is, congressional oversight; that the commission also recommended changes in the intelligence oversight process in the Congress in addition to the changes in the executive branch. Without effective congressional oversight, the reforms put in place by this bill will be less successful in protecting the American people. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) in a bipartisan way to institute more effective congressional oversight. Today, again, we must move forward. This bill, although not perfect, strengthens the process by which we manage the collection, processing, and dissemination of intelligence. In doing so, it reduces the risk to the American people. It honors the work of the 9/11 Commission, and I hope it will bring some comfort to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Actually, passage of this bill is a tribute to the 9/11 families. They have constantly been an inspiration to us because they turned their grief into action. The American people are safer, and we are deeply in their debt. We will never forget their loss, and we thank them for their courage. We owe them at least that much, and that is to make the American people safer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding me this time and once again commend him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman, for their service and leadership to our country and this Congress. Mr. Speaker, 16 days have come and gone since this House passed the omnibus appropriations bill. Yet not one Member of Congress is willing to take responsibility for jeopardizing the privacy of more than 180 million American taxpayers. Instead, a Republican staff member came forward late last week stating that he inserted the provision without mentioning it to the Republican Member of Congress who employed him. Success, it is said, has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Let us be clear, this assault on the privacy of America's taxpayers has failed because it is an outrage to the American people and to most of the Members of this body. From the Constitution's protections of freedom of association and political expression to its protection against unlawful searches and self-incrimination, our citizens expect and deserve a government that respects their privacy and does not discriminate against them on the basis of political beliefs. Yet the provision we are repealing today would have granted sweeping authority to the appropriations committee chairmen and their staffs to review individual tax returns without the restrictions in current law that make it a crime to use private tax information improperly. As a result, private taxpayer information would be vulnerable to unwarranted scrutiny, and taxpayers would have no resource or assurance against the improper use of their private financial information. This sweeping disregard for the protection of taxpayer privacy is deeply troubling and all too familiar. Just 30 years ago, the Judiciary Committee of this House, on a bipartisan basis, voted to impeach President Nixon for violating the Constitution, including using the Internal Revenue Service to persecute those on his enemies list. Article two of the Articles of Impeachment specifically stated that President Nixon endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns. This disgraceful episode is a sad part of our history, but it was not all that long ago. Many of us remember. In fact, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), were both serving on the Judiciary Committee in 1974, and they continue to serve here, obviously, today. We are grateful for their steadfast courage and determination in defending our Constitution. They know that it is our constant duty to protect and defend our civil liberties, our freedoms, and the Constitution of the United States. That is the oath of office that we take, and we must never let our guard down. Lacking the support of a majority of this body, this assault on taxpayer privacy was possible only because of the Republicans' repeated willingness to abuse their power. My colleagues, as we all know, the rules of this House mandate that Members be given a minimum of 3 days to review legislation. That is a rule of the House. Yet the Republican leadership frequently resorts to the use of martial law to push through legislation by requiring a same-day vote. In the 108th Congress alone, the Republican leadership proposed same-day votes nearly 30 times. This excessive use of martial law rules subverts the will of Congress by denying Members the opportunity to examine critical legislation, thus allowing egregious measures such as the taxpayer privacy persecution provision to pass. It was only caught in the Senate because they had more time to review the legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court noted in an 1886 forfeiture case that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. Before us today is a glaring example of what can happen when slight deviations from legal modes of procedure are allowed to go forward. To prevent future instances of hasty and dangerous decision-making, the House of Representatives must obey its own current rules that require Members of Congress be given at least 3 days to read legislation before voting on it. That is a rule of the House for all legislation. Why would it not be even more important for a 3,000-page bill containing nine appropriations bills, the omnibus bill, that had other extraneous matter in it as we can see? Before us today is again what can happen when slight deviations from legal modes of procedure are allowed to go forward. I urge my colleagues to remove this taxpayer privacy persecution provision and to demand an end to the irresponsible use of martial law rules. Only if we determine to obey the rules of the House can we truly expect the American people to think that we realized what happened in this bill was wrong and we are determined that it will not happen again. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the provision that is before us today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the distinguished and colorful career of Dr. Robert E. Palmer. At the end of this Congress, Bob will retire, having served on the Committee on Science for 25 years. He is retiring as the Democratic Staff Director of the Committee on Science--having served in that position for longer than any other person in the history of the Committee. Bob began his career with the Committee in the late 1970s as a Congressional Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Rather than return to academia as a research marine biologist--his field of training--Bob elected to stay on the Science Committee staff. For a quarter century, Bob has been a central participant in science and technology policy. Though he has worked largely in the background, he has made significant contributions to our Nation's well-being. Bob was not a typical scientist. As an undergraduate, he studied psychology at Harvard and served as a Vista Volunteer. He supported himself in such varied ways as moving furniture, playing music and even working as a private detective. He left Massachusetts for the University of Delaware, where he earned a Ph.D. in marine biology. It was after he had completed his graduate work that he started on the Committee as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) expert. Among his first critical assignments was to help negotiate the transition of LANDSAT from a government program to an operational satellite system in the private sector. This was followed by a leadership role on the Global Change Research Act. That initiative has led to the research that underpins much of our knowledge of global climate change today. He also set up a key hearing on the Search and Rescue Satellite Program that prevented that important international program from being canceled. In the mid-1980s Dr. Palmer was promoted to Committee management. He first served as the staff Director of the Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation and then the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. He played a major role in the staff investigation of the Challenger accident, including studying issues around the fatal decision to launch. On the I & O Subcommittee he led the investigation into problems with the NOAA-NASA weather satellite program. Without his work, it is likely that the country would have suffered some break in the gathering of real-time, high-quality data regarding emerging dangerous weather patterns. Such a break in coverage would have meant lost lives and increased property damage. Subsequent investigative work by Bob led to the resignation and later indictment and conviction of an Inspector General at an agency in the Committee's jurisdiction. His early work as a private detective ended up serving him well in his role on the Committee. These are just a few specific examples of Bob's role in the work of the Committee. But he has helped draft numerous pieces of legislation, worked to investigate misconduct, served in many conferences with the Senate as the lead Democratic staffer and worked with Administration figures--regardless of party-to try to insure that policies and programs reflected the intent of Congress. His intelligence, energy, experience and humor have allowed him to accomplish much. When Dr. Radford Byerly moved to Colorado in 1993, then Science Committee Chairman George Brown choose Dr. Palmer as the natural person to replace Byerly as the staff director of the full Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Bob has continued as the Democratic staff director of the committee for over a decade, serving under three senior Democratic Members from across the political spectrum. Bob has served each with talent and professionalism and all the Members of the Committee hold him in the highest regard. Unfortunately for the Committee and the Congress, Bob's wife Mary, an accomplished researcher and teacher, has received an academic appointment from the University of Florida. So she is leaving the University of Maryland for Gainesville and Bob will follow her there. In his typically good-natured way, he says that she followed him to Washington 25 years ago and has stayed here for his career advantage; it is his turn to relocate to support her career. We wish you both well in the future. You have served the Committee, the Congress and the country with great distinction.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time and for his leadership. He has brought many rules to the floor over the course of many sessions of Congress. Our country, this Congress, and the American people have all been well served, especially the people of Texas who took great pride in his leadership, the dean of the Texas delegation, a diligent and, when it comes to the Committee on Rules, that is part of what one has to be, a diligent and very astute and wise leader for the House Democrats on that committee. The gentleman's service here will be long remembered. We will all be positively impacted for a long time to come, and I want to thank the gentleman and congratulate him for his service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health. This amendment is a radical change in policy that the House has not passed this session and that the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on. Republicans slipped it into the appropriations in the dark of night when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside the scope of this omnibus spending bill, yet it is part of a must-pass bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders. This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored or where it will be denied. This was first advertised to me as an expansion of the conscience clause which we all respect, as a person who served under the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the Labor-HHS committee and with our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I knew full well the importance of the conscience clause to Catholic doctors or other faith doctors, but particular mention was always made of Catholic doctors. It was said to me that this was merely an expansion of that from the doctors to the hospitals, Catholic hospitals. But, I say to my colleagues, it is so very much more than that. We all respect a conscience clause, but this goes well beyond that. If a hospital, a health insurance company, or a doctor opposes Roe v. Wade, they could simply ignore it. They could simply ignore it. This is the law of the land; a constitutional right could simply be ignored. The Weldon amendment is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral, and information. Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information. This language, again, makes a mockery of existing State and local laws, including many State constitutions. Under the Weldon amendment, any law or regulation currently on the books to protect access to reproductive health services is at risk. The term ``discrimination'' in this amendment is so vague that it could be used against any Federal, State, or local government effort to provide reproductive health services. This language makes a mockery of title X. The title X family planning program provides much-needed reproductive health services that reach millions of low-income, uninsured individuals; and it really is sad because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country. That is a goal that we all share, and reproductive family planning is one way to do that. But under this amendment, clinics could participate in title X programs without providing a full range of reproductive health services. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally protected right to choose. Let me repeat that. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally protected right to choose. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it step by step. The Weldon amendment will have a major and harmful impact on women's health. This sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations should not be the law of the land, and it certainly should not be a part of the omnibus appropriations bill. The Republican assault on women's rights must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment.