Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Do you anticipate that being next week or the week after?

Ms. PELOSI. Again, seeking further clarification, H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Approval Act, can the gentleman be more specific about which day that will be coming up?

Ms. PELOSI. Does the gentleman have any idea when the supplemental will be brought to the floor?

Ms. PELOSI. And the resolution disapproving the actions taken by the President under 203 of the Trade Act?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend Congresswoman DeGette for bringing this motion to the floor and I thank her, Congresswoman Slaughter, and Congresswoman Baldwin for their leadership on this issue. The Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice was created in 1995 to implement the Violence Against Women Act. The creation of this office greatly strengthened the efforts of states to fight domestic violence, because for the first time, they had strong leadership and funding support from the federal government. Under President Clinton, the Violence Against Women Office was a powerful voice within the Administration. The Director had strong support from the White House, and was a recognized leader in the fight to end domestic violence. It was clear that the safety of women and children was a top priority for the federal government. Under the leadership of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, the Violence Against Women Office has been systematically weakened. Just within the last two months, the policy department of the Violence Against Women Office disappeared, and the Director of the office has no access to the Attorney General or the President and no seat at the table to affect the policies of this Administration with concern to violence against women. This is one of a series of actions by this Administration to diminish the importance of women's issues. In one of his first actions, in January 2001, President Bush closed down the White House Office on Women's Initiatives and Outreach. The purpose of this office was to advance policies such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and to serve as a liaison between the White House and advocates for women. Next, President Bush tried to eliminate funding for the regional Women's Bureau offices in the Department of Labor. The Women's Bureau had a mission of promoting the welfare of working women, improving their working conditions, and advancing their opportunities for profitable employment. This was further evidence of the Administration moving backwards on progress for women. Violence against women doesn't rate highly in the Bush budget either. The President's budget falls $111.3 million short of fully funding critical programs such as transitional housing for victims of domestic violence, shelter services, and rape education and prevention. Obviously, President Bush does not support full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. Today we have the chance to send a clear message to the conferees, that ending violence against women is a top priority. To do that, we need to restore a strong, independent Violence Against Women Office with the authority to impact critical public policy decisions. This is not a time to backtrack on our commitment to ending domestic violence against women. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick and Congresswoman Deborah Pryce for their leadership and thank them for organizing today's statements in recognition of Sexual Assault Awareness Month. An estimated 302,100 women and 92,700 men are forcibly raped each year in the United States. There were 9,443 reported forcible rapes in California in 1999 alone. This number is undoubtedly low, since a majority of rapes and sexual assaults are never reported. Sexual assault is a problem of sweeping proportions across the nation. One way that we can combat sexual assault is by raising public awareness, both here in Congress and in our local communities. California officially recognized Sexual Assault Awareness Month by resolution in 1987. Sexual assault is a problem for us all. As legislators, we are responsible for letting women and families know that we take the problem of sexual assault seriously. The Violence Against Women Act provides funding to battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, a hotline for domestic violence community programs on domestic violence, and rape education and prevention. With the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2000, Congress reaffirmed this nation's commitment to ending domestic and sexual violence. Full funding of the Violence Against Women Act will allow communities across the country to carry this legacy forward. Unfortunately, President Bush's budget falls $111.3 million short of fully funding critically important programs such as transitional housing for victims of domestic violence, shelter services, and rape education and prevention. As we recognize Sexual Assault Awareness Month, I urge my colleagues to dedicate the necessary resources to fulfill the mission of the Violence Against Women Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for the information and for his courtesy.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for that information. One further question, if the gentleman could tell us if he knows or is able to report on when the supplemental is expected to come to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman shed some light on what day the Nevada nuclear waste bill would be considered, and will it be considered under suspension or under a rule?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, I wanted to know if the gentleman could be more specific about which days these four bills will come up. I know the gentleman said on Wednesday and Thursday, does the gentleman have any more specific information about which days each of these bills might be taken up?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week, and I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) with those inquiries.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for informing us of the days for the INS restructuring bill and the Committee on Financial Services accounting bill. While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the distinguished majority leader, I wish to register a point of deep concern to our side of the aisle. There seems to be a recurring pattern this year where there are no substitutes or alternatives allowed on major, major bills. Today, the procedure did not even permit a motion to recommit to protect Social Security. Despite repeated promises to always guarantee the motion to Democrats, today it was denied on one of the most important votes in this Congress. I want to register objection and disappointment to this and ask the leader if he wishes to comment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule of next week.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, there were those among us who would have tried to, by procedure, hold up the proceedings of the House; but we wanted, such as it was, to have as much of a debate as we could on an issue of major concern to the American people. I think that we all recognize that we come to this floor with differences of opinion, or range of opinion, on issues. Sometimes we can act in a bipartisan way, and that is great for the American people. They expect and deserve us to try and seek a common ground. Where we do not have it, though, we must stand our ground; and I do not see why we could not have an opportunity to have a fuller debate on the subject. I do not understand why the Republicans would be afraid of a motion to recommit to save Social Security; and I hope that this does not proceed, because I think it could be very damaging to our relationships in this House; and I know that we want to proceed in as much of a bipartisan fashion as possible. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican raid on Social Security that is being made on the floor of the House today. If we support Social Security as we know it today, which are benefits for America's retiring citizens, Members must vote no on this plan to make these tax breaks permanent. Earlier today our body had the opportunity to vote for a resolution put forth by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps). It said that these tax cuts could go forward and be made permanent if the Congressional Budget Office certified that no Social Security funds will be used to cover them. Every Republican voted against that. Every Democrat voted for it. One has to wonder where all of the Republican deficit hawks have gone. It seems that they have become an endangered species. I think it is very, very important to note that the only way to reconcile what the Republicans are doing is that they want the surplus to be reduced, and they want to change Social Security. They want to exact the huge cuts in benefits that President Bush's commission calls for that. That is the only way it would add up. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this very, very important issue to this Congress and to this country. Mr. Speaker, every day our country is blessed by the coming to our great country of many, many immigrants. We are constantly, as a society, reinvigorated by their courage, by their determination, by their family values, by their commitment to community and to a brighter future in America. Every day from the day they arrive and throughout the contributions they make to our country it is a blessing to us. Indeed, I think just about every person in this House and in this room certainly at this time is a product of those aspirations and dreams. Then it is sad to see how those immigrants to our country before they become citizens, but while they are legal immigrants, are not valued by our country. Many of them work, and I have good news for our colleague. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Baca) motion to instruct does allow children to be eligible for food stamps regardless of when they enter the country. So the concern that the gentleman raised that the gentleman from California's (Mr. Baca) motion does not address children and their needs is incorrect, and I know that that will be good news to him; and his amendment and his motion to instruct does address work and does have a worker requirement in it, and it does allow refugees to be eligible for food stamps without a time limit. So the concerns that he raised, saying that his motion did not address it, I am happy to inform my colleague that he does because he is asking us to agree to the Senate language. This is really unfortunate because it is the third incident in less than 2 months where the Republicans have brought to the floor amendments or motions which are unfriendly to newcomers to our country. We saw this first during the campaign finance reform bill where one Republican Member even referred to legal permanent residents in the United States who were not citizens as potential enemies of the State. We saw it in the debate on 245(i), which is a very important correction in our immigration bill where we only won that vote by one vote, and some Republicans did vote for it, but many voted against it and voted with the Republicans who wanted to squelch that important initiative to the immigrant community. What we are talking about today is really about fairness, fairness to our newcomers as our ancestors had anticipated and hoped for fairness when they came here. We talk about family values. Nowhere are those family values stronger than the immigrant community. We talk about living the American dream and aspiring for a better life. Those people bring courage to our country. They are a constant source of invigoration to our society, and I hope that my colleagues will support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). A family of four with two wage earners making the minimum wage are still eligible for Food Stamps because the minimum wage is so low.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a great San Francisco talent, Ray ``Scotty'' Morris on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Scotty Morris is a brilliant photographer, and San Francisco has been enriched by the fine work he has done in our City. Scotty's work in the fields of photography and photojournalism has earned him widespread recognition. He has won 28 national, state, and local awards for his photographs, including the well-recognized Associated Press News and Feature Award and the San Francisco Press Club Award for the best news picture of the year. His works have appeared in the New York Times, the London Times, Newsweek, Life, Esquire, Forbes, and many other prestigious publications. Scotty Morris' photographs of international political leaders include every American President from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton, as well as Charles De Gaulle and Nikita Khruschev. His portfolio includes well- known images of film stars Elizabeth Taylor, Sophia Loren, and Robert Redford; world icons Queen Elizabeth, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama; and sports heroes Pele, Peggy Flemming, and Joe Montana. During Mayor Frank Jordan's administration, Scotty was the official photographer for San Francisco. His photograph of the Royal Yacht Britannia entering San Francisco Bay was presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as an official gift from the city of San Francisco and.now resides in Buckingham Palace. Mr. Speaker, Scotty Morris' artistic gifts have enriched our City and our nation. It is my pleasure to commend him for his marvelous career and to wish him the best on his 70th birthday.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and work of a remarkable man, Father Peter Sammon, who died peacefully on March 21, 2002 in San Francisco surrounded by loved ones. Father Sammon was an inspiration and a friend to so many people, and we are all forever grateful for his work. We will miss him terribly. The following are my remarks from his funeral on March 25th at St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco: It is with great personal sadness and official recognition of their loss that I extend my deepest sympathy to Tom Sammon and his entire family. All who loved Peter thank you for sharing him with us and for giving him so much happiness. To Sister Kathleen and Sister Lucia I extend condolences and appreciation to you for helping Father Sammon reach his fulfillment on earth and giving him the joy of a happy death. We can all hear him say: ``Here I am Lord.'' It should be a source of comfort to you at this very, very sad time that so many people mourn your loss and are praying for you. So many people were blessed by knowing Father Sammon. I want to express my appreciation for being allowed to bear witness to the life of Peter Sammon. Throughout his life Father Sammon carried on the legacy established by his namesake the Apostle Peter whose mission was bestowed upon him by Christ himself when he said ``Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.'' Peter Sammon was our rock and in his 50 years as a priest he continued to build Christ's Church. In doing so he touched so many lives. Whether as the Archdiocesan Director of Family Life counseling young couples, as the Chaplain of Newman Center at San Francisco State, or by forming the parish ministry with Presentation Sisters Kathleen and Lucia, he built the Church to do the Lord's work. This was pioneering work, a priest working with the sisters to form a parish ministry and training leadership among the laity; this was groundbreaking. Peter Sammon was a pioneer who broke new ground but never left the ground broken. He made the church the center of movements. Early on, he and Saint Teresa's Parish took up the cause of the Farm Workers and then the Salvadoran refugees. Four years and one day before his death, his friend and comrade in arms Jimmy Herman passed away. They were partners in many pursuits. We will all long remember their work together to turn back the ships carrying Salvadoran coffee, their refusal to unload the coffee. Fred Ross just reminded me this morning as we were crying of the sight of Father Sammon and Jimmy Herman on the docks refusing to unload the coffee from El Salvador. We take pride, but we must remember, those actions took courage. Father Sammon was our leader; he not only preached justice, he lived it. Injustice had an impact on Father Sammon that was palpable and he acted upon it. Whether in his leadership in the Sanctuary movement or working for immigrant rights or working for a living wage, Father Sammon always lived justice. Father Sammon considered himself lucky to be the son of Irish immigrants. It was through his understanding of the courage and determination of his parents, who came to America as teenagers, met here and raised their wonderful family, that he understood the magnificent contribution that Immigrants make to our country. Where some saw people in need, Father Sammon saw newcomers who constantly invigorate America with their courage, their hopes and their dreams. He saw their commitment to family values, to work and community. And he saw a spark of divinity worthy of respect in every one of them. Peter brought to his struggles the vision, the knowledge, a plan of action and the ability to attract supporters to his causes. He was a true leader and a great politician. All who were blessed to know him learned from him--not only what to do but how to do it. I certainly did and I know I speak for others who were so blessed. Father Sammon challenged the conscience of our society. We look at his work with pride but must remember that it took tremendous courage. The Bible tells 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 all. By that measure Father Sammon's entire life is an act of worship. In his life Father Sammon worked on the side of the angels. Now he is with them. Thanks be to God.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the information. I would just like to inquire if the gentleman knows which day the tax bill will be scheduled?

Ms. PELOSI. Will the legislation on pensions from the Committee on Financial Services come to the floor next week?

Ms. PELOSI. Is there any other legislation that is expected to come to the floor, apart from the two bills that the gentleman mentioned?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership and kind words. Mr. Speaker, an extremely important matter is before the House today. Nothing short of pension security of America's working families is at risk. We all agree that this is a very, very complicated issue; and we also agree that we want to maintain confidence in our financial systems in the decisions we make today. That is why it is so very regrettable that the Republicans have brought an irresponsible proposal to the floor. Every day it seems Republicans are dragging another Trojan horse on to the House floor, a horse that has some nice features but covers up the dangers within. I tell my colleagues, beware of Republicans bearing gifts. A vote for their bill is a vote to weaken existing law by giving employees biased and conflicted advice without access to an independent alternative. A vote for the Democratic substitute empowers workers; and it means giving them control of their investment, accurate investment advice, representation on pension boards to protect their interests, and notification when executives are dumping company stock. It also means holding plans accountable through tougher criminal penalties for misconduct and the ability of employees to collect damages when they are misled. The Republican bill fails on all of these counts. A comparison of these two bills makes it very clear that President Bush was right when he said, What is good for the captain is good for the crew. Let us follow that advice of President Bush and give employees control of investments of their nest egg and a voice on their pension boards; give employees the opportunity to be notified when executives dump company stock; give employees the right to be protected from conflicts of interest when receiving investment advice. And on that score, the Republican proposal not only fails, it is regressive. It is regressive. It makes matters worse for American workers and their pension funds. It gives employee and executive plans exactly the same treatment, employees and executives exactly the same treatment. And it gives tougher penalties for company misconduct. The Republican bill, on the other hand, gives no control, no voice for employees over their own nest egg. It allows for conflicts of interest in investment advice of employees, a very important point because this is where it makes matters worse. No notification to employees when executives dump company stock. We know how many were victimized by that. It gives preferential treatment for executive pension funds. We want success to be awarded both at the executive and the employee level. Why cannot Republicans recognize that? There are no new penalties for pension plan abuse. The contrast is stark. The decision is important. We have a responsibility on this day to restore confidence in pension plans and investments of workers and executives. We have a responsibility today to maintain confidence in our financial systems. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute to do just that. Vote ``no'' on the Republican proposal, a bill that makes matters worse for workers investing in their retirement pensions. I urge my colleagues to do just that.