Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me the time and to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for putting forth this resolution today. I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for her courage in putting this forth, also in terms of pointing out the need for hate crimes legislation. Let us focus on Matthew Shepard. Matthew Shepard was a lovely young man. He was willing to be open about who he was. That took courage. Clearly, it took a great deal of courage. I cannot help but think if Matthew would not still be alive had people not known that he was a gay person. I think the tragedy of his death points out the need for hate crimes legislation. But as we consider this issue, I am going to submit my statement for the record, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak as one who has the privilege of representing a district with a large number of gay and lesbian people. They are part of the success of our community. They help build our community. When I hear people talk about tolerance for gay and lesbian people, it is interesting to me, because in our community tolerance is an issue of long ago. Certainly we tolerate. That is not even the issue. We respect our gay and lesbian community. More than that, we take great pride in them, in each and every one of them and collectively in the contribution that they make to our community in San Francisco, indeed, to our great country. So it is such a tragedy when a young man has the courage to be open about who he is and his life is taken for it. What more needs to happen? How many more deaths, how many assaults on the personal integrity of people physically and otherwise need to happen before this Congress will see the need for the hate crimes legislation? There are those who say that we should not be talking about that today. Of course, we should. If this young man had the courage to be open about who he is, cannot this Congress be courageous enough to honor his memory by passing the hate crimes legislation? Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in remembering the life of Matthew Shepard and deploring his tragic death. Matthew was willing to be open about who he was, and we should celebrate the courage and the dignity that he embodied during his too short life. I send my condolences to his family and loved ones. Matthew's brutal murder was a tragedy, but, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. Harassment of gays, lesbians and bisexuals is not limited to one period in our history, or one region of the country. We read today in the paper yesterday that in a study of community college students in the San Francisco Bay Area, 32% of male respondents said they had verbally threatened gays, and 18% said they have physically threatened or assaulted them. According to statistics kept by the National Coalition of Anti- Violence programs, at least 18 Americans were murdered in 1997 because they were gay or lesbian. Also last year, there were over 2400 reports of anti-gay or lesbian incidents in the United States. Hate crimes take many forms and affect many different kinds of victims. The horrible murder of James Byrd, Jr., an African-American man in Texas, is still fresh in our memories. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1996 there were over 8700 reported incidents of hate crimes because of race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. And reported incidents of hate crimes on college campuses are increasing at a disturbing rate. It is because of these hard realities, and the circumstances of the murder of Matthew Shepard, that his eulogy should be accompanied by action. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would not end all violence against people because they are gay, or African-American, or Jewish, or come from another country. But it would allow the federal government to investigate and punish crimes motivated by hate. Matthew's murder is the manifestation of enduring bigotry still all too prevalent in our society. These attacks demand a national response that enables federal law enforcement officials to fight these crimes and punish their perpetrators. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will provide needed tools to law enforcement, and it will serve as a lasting tribute to the life of Matthew Shepard. Before we take the final vote of the 105th Congress, I urge my colleagues to remember Matthew by passing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership in explaining the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in the priorities that we set for our great country. Madam Speaker, this is a Congress of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to modernize education for our children, missed opportunities to reform HMOs for the health care for all Americans, missed opportunities to save Social Security as a top priority, and a missed opportunity to protect the environment after we look at some of the proposals that have been put before us. We send this very mixed message from this Congress to the children of America. We tell them that education is important, it is for their self-enrichment, for their economic security and for the competitiveness of our country. Yet we send them to schools that are below par, that are leaking, that are asbestos-laden, are lead-filled, that are not wired for the future. How can we tell children that education is important and yet not value it by having small classes, adequate facilities and have them be in places where children can learn and teachers can teach and parents can participate? We tell children that their health is important, they should not smoke because it is harmful to their health. Yet we do not provide them with access to quality education. Children are smart. They get the mixed message. Reforming HMOs would have been one clear message to the people of America that health is important to us. Then as far as work, the work ethic, how important that is, we tell that to young people and yet we do not value work adequately. That is one of the missed opportunities of this Congress, to have us have a living wage in this country. Also, we threaten the pension security of America's children. Their health, their education, the economic security of their families are very, very important to our children and to the future of our country. How sad for us that this Congress has missed the opportunity to send a clear message and take the action necessary to make their future brighter.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend President Clinton for his strong commitment to the education of America's children. This issue has been central to his public service, and it is central to the lives of America's children. It is important for our children to receive a clear message from us, and I am afraid that our Republican colleagues are sending a mixed message to America's children. Children are smart. When we tell them that education is important for their own self fulfillment, for the competitiveness of our country, indeed for our national defense, they get one message. They get another message when we say it is important, but we are going to send you to a school that is crumbling, leaking, not equipped with the wiring for modernization, and we are not going to support, the Republicans are not going to support, school construction so that they can be in smaller classes. Smaller classes net more teachers. That is why President Clinton's proposal for 100,000 new teachers is so important. It is not for administrative cost, and it is not about local control. It is about saying to local governments this money is for teachers, it is not for administration. Stop insulting the intelligence of America's children. Support President Clinton's school construction plan and 100,000 new teachers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The statistics on breast cancer present an alarming picture. In 1998, in the state of California alone, there were 17,600 new cases of breast cancer among women and 4,300 deaths from breast cancer. Nationwide, approximately 180,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year and more then 43,000 women will die from the disease. One out of nine women in the U.S. will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. This risk has increased from one out of 14 in 1960. While the statistics are staggering, we can be encouraged by the progress in the areas of research, technology and early detection which have increased survival rates to about two million breast cancer survivors in America today. With over 43,000 women dying from breast cancer each year, early diagnosis and patient education are critical in the battle against this deadly disease. Mammogram testing can reveal breast cancer at its earliest stage--up to two years before it is obvious in a breast exam. Recently, both the House and Senate passed a measure to reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act to ensure that national quality control standards are met for mammography. Women can rest assured that under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, national quality control standards are enforced by regular inspection and that every facility performing mammographies will be held to the standards for safety, well trained technicians and accurate readings. More than one million breast biopsies are performed each year in the U.S. and approximately 80% of these biopsies are proven benign. A recent non-surgical biopsy procedure called the mammotome allows women to choose a less invasive alternative to surgical biopsies with minimal scarring and no general anesthesia. This ground breaking procedure will provide women with an alternative to surgery and should ultimately result in better care and treatment for women. While early detection is saving lives, we must not become complacent about local cancer rates and the potential link between environmental factors and breast cancer and other cancers. In a recent review, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has concluded that the incidence of invasive breast cancer in San Francisco has been determined to be comparable to other areas in the nation. However, I believe it is essential that the CDC continue to monitor local cancer rates and further national research on the link between cancer and the environment, particularly in light of questions about an increased incidence of breast cancer in the Bayview Hunters Point area. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, I have requested that the National Academy of Sciences study the status of scientific knowledge of the environmental causes of breast cancer and identify research needs and establish research priorities in this area. In addition, I am joined by several of my colleagues, to request that the General Accounting Office conduct a comprehensive review of federal environmental health research activities. Mr. Speaker, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, let us renew our commitment to fighting breast cancer by increasing funding levels for research and for breast and cervical screening programs. We must also continue to educate and inform women about regular self-examination, physician examination, and to ensure access to low-cost, effective mammograms. If we continue our national commitment to research and prevention efforts in the fight against breast cancer, the discovery of causes and cures for a disease that has no apparent cause or cure may soon become a long awaited reality.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important issue, not only on this bill, but the ongoing work of his office to protect people of faith throughout the world. I want to commend the original author of this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for his outstanding leadership on religious freedom, and indeed, human rights throughout the world. I would say to the gentleman, I think it is clear to all of us that he is the conscience of this Congress, and in the case of religious freedom he has fought against persecution throughout the world and seen it firsthand, whether it is nuns and monks, Buddhist nuns and monks in Tibet, the oppression of Christians in the Sudan, antisemitism throughout the world, other persecution that he has fought against. I want to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his leadership in bringing the original legislation, which I frankly prefer, but it clearly did not share the support that this final product has; and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) once again for his outstanding leadership on human rights. The gentleman said in his statement the examples that he had seen come before his committee of religious oppression, and he too has traveled throughout the world to hear firsthand of those deprived of practicing the gift of faith that God has given them. I want to also commend Senator Specter in the Senate who, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), started this process going. It was the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that first shone the bright light of this Congress and of this country on religious persecution throughout the world. Though it is not the original bill that we are passing today, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for starting the process and at least giving us a bill that we can use as a standard to see, perhaps, if we can go further in the future, if that is necessary. Hopefully, it will not be, that this bill will be sufficient. Others have talked about the provisions of the bill. I just want to mention a couple that I am particularly pleased are contained in it. The bill establishes a bipartisan independent commission to review the state of religious freedom and make policy recommendations to the President. It establishes an ambassador for international religious freedom under the direction of the Secretary of State, and the ambassador will help the Secretary review and report on the state of religious freedom and to make recommendations to the President regarding U.S. action in support of religious freedom. It strengthens our assistance, refugee and counselor laws and calls for a business code of conduct to promote religious freedom. The bill requires the President to determine violators, and particularly severe violators, of religious freedom. As was mentioned, the bill passed by 98-to-zero. I assume it has the support of the administration. It certainly gives the President a great deal of flexibility. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, faith is a gift. What people believe is so much a part of them, it is impossible for them to change that. How, and then why, does it require courage for people to practice their religion? It should not have to be that way. And in this enlightened world that we live in, because of the leadership of the likes of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and Senator Specter and so many others who worked on this, life will be easier for those who want to practice the gift of faith that God has given them.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I think this is a Congress of missed opportunities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Carney Campion, General Manager, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Mr. Campion will retire from his position on November 30, after 23 years of dedicated work to the Bridge District. During Mr. Campion's tenure, the Golden Gate Bridge and associated transportation services have undergone numerous service and safety improvements. Achieving these improvements has required a combination of vision and commitment. Through his effective leadership, Mr. Campion has ensured that the Golden Gate Bridge remains one of San Francisco's most lauded landmarks. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Campion has worked with the San Francisco Bay Delegation to secure $51.8 million in federal funding for the seismic retrofitting of the Golden Gate Bridge, received approval for a median barrier to eliminate two-way accidents, redecked the Bridge, instituted public safety patrols and placed crises phones in key locations to deter suicides, and developed specifications for an electronic toll system. In addition, under Mr. Campion, the Bridge District became the first public transit system in the Bay Area to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, these significant accomplishments are only a part of Mr. Campion's overall commitment to continuing and strengthening the Bridge District's mission of providing safe and efficient transportation. The successful operation of the Golden Gate Bridge and its bus and ferry units are vital to the San Francisco Bay Area economy. By improving overall transportation efficiency and pursuing alternative modes of transportation, such as adding a high-speed catamaran to the ferry fleet, Mr. Campion has played an important role in ensuring that Bay Area residents can conveniently and safely commute between San Francisco and outlying areas. In addition to these contributions, Mr. Campion has accomplished many personal achievements. He is a member of numerous community organizations and serves as director for a YMCA, a theater company and the Marin Forum. Furthermore, Mr. Campion has served on or chaired Presidential task forces and international associations throughout his career. Mr. Speaker, San Francisco has been the fortunate beneficiary of Carney Campion's steadfast and thoughtful leadership. His presence will be greatly missed. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership. I rise in opposition to the rule on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. This is a bill that should attend to the urgent human needs and lay the building blocks for our children's and our Nation's future. But this Republican-designed bill fails on both counts. The rule proposed today is an example of the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership. In an effort again to appease their radical right wing, the Republican leadership is proposing a rule that caters to those who would undermine family planning and ignores all of the critical priorities contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, when on earth will we be awakened to what should be our priorities in this legislation and in this Congress? When we get a report that over 1 in 5 children in America lives in poverty, when we know that tens of millions of individuals cannot afford health insurance, when we see that class sizes are too large and children are struggling to learn in schools that are in need of repair, workers deserve adequate safeguards to protect them from needless injury, and what are we talking about once again on this floor? Stopping funding for family planning. It should be the mission of this House to attend to the urgent needs of the American people and to answer the call to address inequities in education, health care and worker safety. And it is through the Labor- HHS bill that we can do this to share the benefits of prosperity with those in need. This bill abandons our children by slashing the administration's education initiatives, including education for the disadvantaged, Head Start, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. It abandons workers by cutting OSHA workplace safety enforcement and mine safety. It deserts young people by eliminating or severely cutting the Summer Jobs Program and Out of School Youth Opportunities. It disregards the needs of the poor by eliminating or slashing home energy assistance, LIHEAP. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill is bad policy and fails to attend to today's priorities. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hyde resolution, and in doing so point out the inconsistency of the Republican majority. At the start of this Congress, the Republican majority gave you, Mr. Speaker, the highest honor this House can bestow: The speakership. For the freshman Republicans, this was the first vote that they cast in this House. The Republican majority did this after you, Mr. Speaker, were charged with and admitted to lying under oath to the Ethics Committee about the conduct of your political affairs. How inconsistent then, Mr. Speaker, for this same Republican majority to move to an impeachment inquiry of the President for lying about his personal life. Our Republican majority have said lying under oath is a dagger in the heart of the legal system. We all agree that lying is wrong, but why the double standard? I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican double standard which exalts the Speaker and moves to impeach the President. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hyde resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his kind words and for the time that he has yielded me, and I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is good to see you here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I wanted to address in my remarks today is about the issue of whistle blowers. One of the major issues of contention indeed between the House and Senate committees over the past 2 years has been how to address the issue of employees of the executive branch who face reprisals or threats of reprisals for bringing information to the intelligence committees concerning serious violations of law in intelligence activities of the United States. I myself personally supported the Senate amendment which was very clear about those employees who brought to the attention of Congress issues of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority and specific danger to public health and safety. I thought that that amendment should have been passed, but we did not prevail in conference. But our chairman has made a valiant effort to protect those who come forth with information. While I would have liked to have seen the broader language, I am pleased that we have the report language that specifically says that those who come forward with information who have a right to have that information will not have reprisals against them. While it is not disputed that the Congress is entitled by law to receive prompt reports of any illegal intelligence activities, officials of the executive branch have asserted that the Constitution does not permit Congress to vest in lower-level employees the right to disclose classified information, even to Members of Congress. These officials have asserted that any attempt to do so by Congress would lead them to recommend the President veto such legislation. The better constitutional view, of course, is that national security is a shared responsibility of the legislative and executive branches and that the Constitution does not deny Congress the power to direct executive activities and gain access to information needed for the performance of legislative duties. The conferees have made very clear in the findings and the legislative history of the legislation the following: First, Congress, as a coequal branch of government, has a need to know of allegations of wrongdoing within the intelligence community; Second, no basis in law exists for requiring prior authorization of disclosures to the intelligence committees of Congress by employees of the executive branch of classified information about wrongdoing within the intelligence community; Third, the nondisclosure agreements signed by employees of the Central Intelligence Agency stipulate that nothing contained in the agreement prohibits the employee from reporting intelligence activities the employee considers to be unlawful or improper directly to the select committees on intelligence of the Congress; and, Finally, separate and apart from the process established by the legislation through the inspector general, as proposed by our distinguished chairman, an intelligence community employee should not be subject to reprisals or threats of reprisals for making a report to appropriate members or staff of the intelligence committees about wrongdoing within the intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, the conferees have thus agreed to legislation that establishes a new and additional procedure for employees of intelligence agencies to bring issues of urgent concern to the attention of Congress through the offices of their inspector general. This procedure provides the employee who uses it the protections of confidentiality now found in the CIA and 1978 inspector general acts and discourages reprisals and threat of reprisals through a new reporting requirement on the heads of intelligence agencies. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these findings and admonitions will guide the Director of the CIA and the heads of intelligence agencies in the treatment of intelligence community employees who seek to bring important information to the attention of Congress. Again I repeat my support for the report language that says even if you do not go this route, no reprisals.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding this time to me and thank him also for giving me this opportunity to speak about our mutual friend and colleague, Mr. Solomon of New York. Mr. Solomon and I have nothing in common politically; is that not correct? However I have enjoyed following his leadership on human rights issues throughout the world where he has been an unsurpassed champion. It speaks, I think, to how the House used to be that people so far a part on the political spectrum could come together and work on an issue. I first became acquainted with Mr. Solomon and his magnificent wife, Frieda, in the North Atlantic Assembly proceedings and saw his leadership on behalf of our country there, and, yes, his patriotism there. When he became Chair of the Committee on Rules, although that meant the Democrats were no longer in power, he always with a smile either granted an amendment on those rare occasions or with a smile turned down an amendment or even admonished us, but always with a smile. But the one overriding observation I would like to make is how devoted Mr. Solomon was and is to the district he represents. Every time he spoke on the floor he spoke from the perspective of his constituents and certainly his conscience and the Constitution, but never forgetting his constituents. How many times you took off that jacket and showed us that shirt that used to be made in his district demonstrating his concern for the workers in his district, and in that way workers throughout America who are caught up in this change of globalization. So on behalf of my own constituents, Mr. Solomon, I want to thank you for your leadership on human rights issues throughout the world, I want to thank you for your leadership on behalf of American workers, I want to thank you for your cooperation from time to time, but even when not cooperating, always with a smile. And I want to wish you and Frieda all the best as you go forward. Thank you for your service. Congratulations on your decision. We will miss you. It is hard to imagine the House of Representatives here without Mr. Solomon and without the famous Solomon folder.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding me time and for his leadership on this bill. As anyone knows who has ever served on this committee, it is indeed a privilege that we share with the distinguished Speaker, Mr. Dickey, because this is a bill about the strength of our country. The health, the education and the well-being of the American people should certainly be a measure of the strength of our country. It is a privilege to serve with our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and with our ranking member, Mr. Obey. I want to focus on our ranking member for a moment though, because tomorrow is his birthday, I want to thank him for being born because of his extraordinary leadership in this House of Representatives. Of course, I am getting no credit for saying this about him right now because he is not paying attention to me, but I did want to wish him happy birthday, which is tomorrow. Again I thank him for being born and for his extraordinary leadership, especially in this committee. I know this committee best because this is one of my primary committees of service in this Congress. What I am afraid of about this bill, despite the valiant efforts of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), I am afraid this is a bill about missed opportunities. It is about sending a mixed message to America's children. My colleagues have spoken to the specifics of this bill and what it is lacking. In addition the overall message of this bill is that we say to children that education is very, very important to them and that it is central to their success in life and our competitiveness as a country, and yet this bill misses opportunities to include the Clinton administration agenda for smaller classes with well prepared teachers where children can learn, teachers can teach and parents can participate. This bill, instead of modernizing schools for the 21st century, helping local communities modernize and build 5,000 schools nationwide, enough though this bill can not do the interest-free bonds, it could help in modernizing schools. Instead, the Republican Labor-HHS bill chops $2 billion out of the administration request, cuts the safe school and drug-free schools by $50 million, slashes investments in education technology, and eliminates funding for America Reads. It sends a mixed message to American children that education is important, but that we do not value it in this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4578. Social Security is a sacred trust between working Americans and the Federal government. It is the last program that should be used as a political tool in an election year. This bill, which claims to save Social Security, would undermine the financial strength of the program, siphoning off the Social Security surplus into tax cuts. Ninety-eight percent of what we call the budget surplus over the next decade comes from the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds must be protected until we have shored up the long term strength of the program. This bill is a companion to an $80 billion tax cut bill. The Republicans temporarily have dropped their longtime commitment to tax breaks for the very wealthy and adopted Democratic tax relief proposals. Unfortunately, they pay for them by violating the Social Security Trust Fund. This Republican tax cut robs our seniors of their peace of mind and under-mines the future fiscal stability of Social Security. The Republicans are not proposing these tax cuts because they believe in them. This is an attempt to co-opt Democrats into helping the Republicans slowly dismantle Social Security. They have made the tax cuts as attractive as possible to Democrats in order to provide a mountain of sugar to disguise the taste of the poison. But the truth is that undermining Social Security will not help America's working families. There can no longer be any doubt about the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Democrats want to protect the Social Security surplus. Republicans want a tax cut at the expense of America's seniors. Democrats want to ensure that for generations to come, Social Security will continue to be a constant in the lives of our elderly citizens. Democrats have always supported responsible tax cuts paid for out of the budget. But to take money from the Social Security surplus is fiscally irresponsible and jeopardizes the future of the program. Those funds must be protected for today's retirees and for today's workers. We must save the surplus, strengthen the system, and secure the future for America's seniors. That's the Democratic way. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4578.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Elizabeth Synder, a long time civic leader who helped pave the way for women to assume positions of leadership in California, who died in Los Angeles on August 26, 1998 of complications related to emphysema. She was 84. Elizabeth first came to national attention in 1954, when she was elected Chair of the California Democratic Party, becoming the first woman in the United States to be elected chair of a major political party in any state. In a career that spanned more than half a century, Elizabeth worked prominently in the California presidential campaigns of Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson and served as the California Co-Chair of President Jimmy Carter's 1976 Presidential campaign. As one who benefited from Liz's leadership, her advice when I served as Chair of the California Democratic Party and her friendship for many years, I am pleased to call Liz's accomplishments to the attention of my colleagues. Born on April 8, 1914, in Minnesota of immigrant parents, Elizabeth and her family moved to San Diego in the early 1920's. Following the collapse of her father's business at the outset of the Great Depression, Elizabeth, her mother and two brothers relocated to East Los Angeles where life was, in her words, ``lean, precarious and hard.'' Elizabeth graduated with honors from Garfield High School in 1931. She studied at Los Angeles City College and in 1933, matriculated as a political science major at UCLA, where she went on to become one of the first two doctoral candidates in UCLA's political science department. In 1939, her mother's failing health required Elizabeth to leave her post-graduate studies to go to work. Elizabeth became a substitute high school teacher in Los Angeles. Already active in Young Democrats, Elizabeth became involved in the workings of government as she became a volunteer lobbyist speaking out on behalf of substitute teachers in Sacramento. In 1940, she was elected to serve at the Democratic National Convention as the alternative delegate for her first political mentor, Congressman Jerry Voorhis, who was later defeated by Richard M. Nixon in his first bid for public office. In that same year, she married attorney Nathan H. Snyder, her husband of fifty-eight years. During WW II, Elizabeth worked for the Canadian government in Washington, D.C. and returned to California where she became involved in the first of many Congressional campaigns on behalf of her lifelong friend and mentor, Chet Holifield. None of her political activities was more important to Elizabeth than her life long effort to bring about greater participation by women in the political arena. During the 1970's, Elizabeth devoted herself to the mentoring of Los Angeles women in politics, holding weekly luncheon meetings of the Thursday Group at her Bunker Hill apartment. Her dedication to improving our society extended beyond the realm of politics. Among the many issues to which Liz gave much time and effort in her final years, she was especially proud of her work on the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome, which culminated in ordinances requiring the posting in restaurants and bars of warnings to women regarding the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. In addition to all of her varied civic activities, Elizabeth will be remembered fondly by the literally thousands of men and women in all walks of life to whom she provided comfort and assistance in overcoming the adversities of alcoholism and substance abuse. In 1994, she received the prestigious CORO Public Affairs Award in recognition of her life long commitment to the reform of the American system of government in which she so deeply believed. As Elizabeth herself once wrote: ``In the last analysis, the most significant single political activity is not winning elections and defeating opponents: It is improving, expanding and correcting government structure, so that democracy works.'' Her life is profiled in the University of California Bancroft Library, ``Women in Politics Oral History Project'' and in her autobiography, ``A Ride On the Political Merry-Go-Round.'' Sadly, I send my condolences and those of my fellow California Congressional Democrats to Liz's dear husband, Nathan and her daughter, Christina A. Snyder and her son-in-law, Marc M. Seltzer.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the National Commission. Your work will have a profound impact on the health care of millions of Americans, and I encourage you to seek broad input from Medicare beneficiaries and providers around the country. Medicare is one of our great success stories; it provides quality health insurance to 38 million Americans at a low administrative cost. Today Medicare is serving as a model provider of consumer protections. In the future, it can be the foundation for increased access to health care for all Americans. Three months ago, I sponsored two town hall meetings on the future of Medicare in my home district of San Francisco. Hundreds of individuals came to share their thoughts and concerns about Medicare, and to talk about the important role the program plays in their lives. The consensus in the San Francisco Bay Area was clearly for Medicare for all. Medicare must be preserved, improved and expanded for future generations. People who came to these meetings urged elected officials to protect the long term financial health of the program. But they also shared their visions of what Medicare can be--a more comprehensive program that better meets the needs of beneficiaries, and provides health insurance to many of those who have difficulty purchasing private insurance. To design a Medicare program that improves services as well as meets the financial bottom line, we need to listen to people who are benefiting from Medicare now, and to those who provide needed medical care through the program. So today I am submitting to the Commission the written comments we received at our town hall meetings. Let me briefly summarize these comments for you. Testimony at Two Town Hall Meetings The point made most frequently in written comments was that Medicare should not impose stringent limits on home health care services. The logic of providing home health services is clear: seniors are happier and healthier if they can remain in their own homes, with some assistance, and sustain a level of independence. And increased institutionalization obviously means increased long term costs for the program. Other frequent comments included the need to provide prescription drug coverage and long term care services through Medicare. One woman noted that, ``Sometimes I have to do without a prescribed medication until I receive my Social Security check at the first of the month.'' Others voiced their support for an expanded Medicare program in which millions more Americans are eligible for services. It is no secret that if younger and healthier individuals sign up for Medicare and pay premiums, the average cost per beneficiary will fall. Several people who filled out comment forms warned against efforts to privatize Medicare or compromise the program through Medicare savings accounts. Others argued for including providing prevention, dental and vision services. The importance of these services requires no explanation. In an era when we are insisting all health care providers deliver more comprehensive prevention services, we should demand the same from Medicare. One woman suggested that Medicare require all HMOs to provide a toll free hotline to consumers. Comments from Medicare Providers Medicare providers in my district also spoke at the town hall meetings about the challenges they face in providing care. The interim payment system for home health agencies has imposed a heavy financial burden on providers. Medicare providers have also supported legislative efforts to carve out disproportionate share hospital payments from payments to HMOs, eliminate the 100 bed requirement for qualification as a disproportionate share hospital, and repeal of the financial penalty for hospitals that transfer patients to other care settings before the DRG period has expired. Concerns of People with AIDS The AIDS epidemic has taken a devastating toll in my district, and Medicare plays a significant role in provision of health care to individuals affected by this epidemic. It is estimated that between 6% and 20% of people with HIV/AIDS rely on Medicare for some or all of their health care services. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that between 10,565 and 22,927 Medicare beneficiaries are diagnosed with AIDS. A recent report published by the Academy for Educational Development documents several concerns about HIV-related health care services under Medicare. First, because the program does not cover the costs of prescription drugs, beneficiaries are forced to find other means of acquiring the expensive but promising new drug treatments for HIV infection. These drugs can cost $12,000 per year or more. The report notes several other problems for people with HIV including, ``the lack of guaranteed availability of individual supplemental insurance for the disabled under the age of 65, the lack of guaranteed availability of HIV specialists in Medicare managed care plans, the inadequacy of community-based and home care services to address the ongoing chronic nature of the HIV disease process, and the limitations of the hospice benefit for addressing the acute treatment needs of people in the terminal stage of HIV disease.'' I am submitting a copy of this report with the town hall meeting testimony noted above. Recommendations A number of recommendations for reform of Medicare follow from the testimony and policy research presented above. Below is a list of recommendations. In some cases, I have noted legislation I have cosponsored that is consistent with these recommendations. Expand sevices available in Medicare Medicare should provide comprehensive and cost effective care to those who are eligible for the program. The program should provide reimbursement for needed drug therapies, long term care services, dental and vision care, and prevention services. The Medically Necessary Dental Care Act (H.R. 1288) would provide coverage for outpatient dental procedures. Expand eligibility for Medicare Medicare can serve as the foundation for increased access to health care for all Americans. I urge the Commission to identify ways in which eligibility for the program can be expanded. The Medicare Early Access Act (H.R. 3470) is consistent with this proposal. The bill would allow many of the ``near elderly'' to buy in to Medicare. We need to build upon this legislation to ensure that any buy in is affordable for all those who need health insurance coverage. Address legitimate concerns of Medicare providers The interim payment system for home health agencies threatens to put many providers out of business. Congress and the Commission must urgently address the need to develop a more equitable payment system for home health care. The Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Protection Act (H.R. 4339) places a moratorium on the interim payment system for home health care. The Commission should also take steps to protect reimbursement to disproportionate share hospitals. H.R. 2701 would ``carve out'' disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments from the payment we give HMOs. In addition, the 100 bed requirement for qualification as a DSH should be repealed. The disincentive for early hospital discharge should be eliminated. The Common Sense Hospital Payment Act (H.R. 2908) repeals the financial penalty for hospitals that transfer patients to other care settings before the DRG payment period has expired. Address concerns of People with AIDS and other disabilities As people with AIDS live longer lives, more will become eligible for Medicare. The Commission should make several changes in the program to address the needs of this growing population, including: guaranteed availability of supplemental Medicare insurance for disabled individuals; guaranteed access to an HIV expert as a primary care provider and for specialist services; and elimination of the limitation on hospice benefits that bars people from receiving some needed acute care treatments while in hospice care. In addition, I encourage the Commission to study the interaction between Medicare, Medicaid, and Ryan White CARE program services, particularly in the provision of community based support services. I look forward to working with the Commission to build a fiscally sound and expanded Medicare program. Thank you again for the opportunity to present these perspectives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, fast track authority will establish the framework for our trade relationship for the next 10 years. As such, it is critical to the importance that this accord places on the environment. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose this bill, because it limits the administration's ability to address concerns regarding protection of the environment and bilateral regional and other trade agreements. To the extent that the environment is mentioned at all in the pending legislation, it is in a restrictive way. San Francisco, the city which I represent, is a city which is built on trade and continues to thrive on it. We appreciate the value of free trade. We also understand that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. We believe that the environment must be central to any fast track legislation. My colleagues have mentioned that other presidents have had this authority. Indeed, I have voted for it in the past. Under previous fast track authority, the President had the discretion both to negotiate and to include in trade bills that were brought to Congress under fact track environmental, labor and human rights terms that the President deemed appropriate. That the President deemed appropriate. This bill removes the ``appropriate'' standard. The legislation passed by the House Committee on Ways and Means also limits the discretion of the negotiators to achieve results only on matters that are directly related to trade. One important aspect of addressing global environmental degradation is through attention to production process methods. If we are to slow environmental damage, we must deal with the way items are produced as well as with consumption. Will production process methods be included under the administration's interpretation of ``directly related to trade"? In addition, there are many other reasons why, and I will submit that with my full statement, but, in addition, unless we give the environment more value by including it in fast track, we are squandering the comparative value U.S. business has in leading the world in the development of production environmental technologies. To ignore the connection between the environment and the economy is to be on the wrong side of the future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2621, the Fast Track legislation before the House today. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to bring before the House a failed fast track proposal which does not address pressing issues in the global economy. Fast track authority will establish the framework of our trade relations for the next ten years. As such, it is a defining moment for the importance we accord the environment. This fast track bill would relegate this important issue to secondary status in trade agreements and would only ensure that it remains of secondary status as we move into the next century. Not one of the concerns raised about this fast track proposal last year has been remedied in the bill before us today. This fast track bill limits the Administration's ability to address concerns regarding protection of the environment in bilateral, regional, and other trade agreements. To the extent that the environment is mentioned in the pending legislation, it is in a restrictive way. San Francisco, which I represent, is a city which was built on trade and continues to thrive on it. We appreciate the value of free trade. We also understand that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. We believe that the environment must be central to any fast track legislation. Under previous fast track authority, the President had the discretion both to negotiate and to include in trade bills that were brought to Congress under fast track environmental, labor or human rights terms that the President deemed ``appropriate.'' H.R. 2621 removes the ``appropriate'' standard and the Administration's discretion is limited to making the language necessary only for the operation or implementation of the trade agreement. The Administration would now be precluded from achieving more than allowed under the legislation and prevented from having those provisions considered under fast track. The legislation passed by the House Ways and Means Committee also limits the discretion of the negotiators to achieve results only on matters that are ``directly related to trade.'' Serious questions are already being raised about how ``directly related to trade'' will be defined. It is my understanding that there is no legislative history to define this phrase. One important aspect of addressing global environmental degradation is through attention to production process methods. If we are to slow environmental damage, we must deal with the way items are produced, as well as with consumption. Will production process methods be included under the Administration's interpretation of ``directly related to trade?'' Serious questions have also been raised about the implications of language in H.R. 2621 purportedly designed to ensure that foreign governments do not waive their existing domestic environmental, health, safety or labor measures in order to give themselves a competitive edge. The language in the bill unfortunately precludes action to encourage strengthening such standards. Perhaps of even more immediate harm, however, is that it does not address a government's failure to enforce existing standards. In addition, H.R. 2621 only addresses foreign governmental policies and practices. Private sector actions to limit environmental protection are not addressed. Finally, countries with no existing environmental standards fall completely outside this provision. My constituents and I are also concerned with the consequences of a provision in the fast track bill which would essentially allow derogation or waiver of existing domestic laws if such actions are ``consistent with sound macroeconomic development.'' Under this provision, it appears that countries could indeed lower their environmental standards to gain a competitive edge, as long as this action is consistent with their macroeconomic development. As many of our Republican colleagues have recently expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I believe they should be supportive of promoting transparency in the functioning of the World Trade Organization (WTO). While ``transparency'' is appropriately one of the negotiating objectives outlined in the legislation, it is essential that procedural transparency be expanded to the WTO both in the trade negotiation process and in the dispute settlement process. Benchmarks must be established by which transparency can be gauged. There must be expanded access to documents by those who are interested in the dispute settlement process. And, we must insist on ensuring the ability of non- governmental groups to participate. I would also note my concern that while we are promoting transparency in other countries, the fast track legislation takes a step back from transparency in this country by granting the President new authority to allow for the classification of trade reports when deemed appropriate, rather than employing previous language allowing classification only when necessary to protect national security or trade secrets. Environmental issues in the global economy have very real consequences not only for people in the developing world, but also for people here in the United States. Concerns about the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink have now been compounded in the public eye by concerns about the safety of the food which we eat. As international trade is increasingly the norm, we must ensure the right to safeguard American consumers in international trade agreements. Standards worldwide should be elevated; we cannot encourage a ``race to the bottom''. In addition, unless we give the environment more value by including it in fast track, we are squandering the comparative value U.S. business has in leading the world in the development and production of environmental technology. H.R. 2621 is not the appropriate tool which to enter trade negotiations for the Twenty-First Century. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this flawed bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as a friend and admirer of the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to congratulate him and wish him much success in what lies ahead for him and for Judy Fazio, but with some sadness and disappointment, of course, for this body because his departure is a tremendous loss to our Congress and to our country. Others have talked about the gentleman's record in California, and I certainly, as former chair of the California Democratic Party many years ago, am well aware of that. I remember the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) in the 1970s as a top-notch administrator to the California State Assembly, and then as a member of the Assembly himself, and then very quickly rising to become a Member of this body, all along the way gaining respect for his values and his principles. It is just something one says in California about any issue: ``Have you spoken to Vic?'' No last name, just, ``Have you spoken to Vic?'', and that meant that that was the touchstone, that was the place we went, that he was the compass, he could give direction to us. And others have talked about what a great party leader he has been as a Democrat, really with a large ``D'' and a small ``d.'' Certainly we are proud of him as a political leader of our party, but a small ``d'' of bringing people into participation and into leadership, Choral Foundation, talent scouting from the very young people and into his leadership in this body as chair of our caucus. The sky is the limit for the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). He has chosen to leave us now, but, of course, we all wish him much success. But I want to talk about just one other phase, and that is the pride I take in the gentleman's service in Congress personally as a member of the Italian-American community. In his service here and in his service to our country he has always represented the values of our community, family values, a commitment to family, to education, to hard work, to commitment, to religion and to making the future brighter for our children. And it was this respect that he had for his own, this pride he had for his own heritage, that led him to respect the diversity in our country and the pride that all of those people took. So he is our all-American, Italian-American, great Democratic leader. We will miss him. Paul and I give our best regards to Judy for her contribution as well and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for much success in the future. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) on behalf of my constituents and personally.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ingrid Acevedo, the Director of Public Relations for the U.S. Committee for UNICEF, who was among those who perished in the crash of Swissair Flight 111 on September 2, 1998. My colleagues and I are well acquainted with UNICEF's fifty-two years of service for the children of the world. The U.S. Committee for UNICEF builds support in the United States for UNICEF's work through fundraising, education, and advocacy. Ingrid Acevedo, as Director of Public Relations, worked tirelessly to increase public awareness of UNICEF's initiatives and to bring home to the American people the needs of vulnerable children around the world. In the three years that Ingrid worked at the U.S. Committee for UNICEF, she helped to raise the visibility of UNICEF in the United States. She served as the primary media liaison during the 1996 Summer Olympics Aid Atlanta, a project that raised money for children suffering the impact of conflicts around the globe. This year, Ingrid was playing a catalytic role in the revival of ``Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF.'' She was in the process of implementing a campaign to renew media interest in this popular American children's tradition when her life was so tragically cut short. Ingrid Acevedo worked to educate the American public about the plight of millions of children around the world who need our help and support, and did so with creativity and enthusiasm. She was using her talents to encourage all of us to do more to save and to improve the lives of needy children. Ingrid Acevedo was a young woman who cared about the less fortunate and who dedicated her life to making a difference. Prior to working for the U.S. Committee for UNICEF, Ingrid spent two years in Washington as Manager of National Media Relations for Bread for the World, as organization that has done so much to fight hunger and poverty both here and overseas. Ingrid Acevedo was only 32 years old when she died, but she made those years count. Hers is a record of service for everyone to emulate. Those of us in the Congress who support UNICEF's work for children are deeply saddened by the loss of this young woman who worked so hard for UNICEF and who had both the talent and the potential to have done even more. We extend our condolences to her mother, Dinorah Acevedo, and to her surviving relatives. The loss of such a dedicated, outstanding individual is difficult for the human heart to comprehend. Rather than focusing on what we have lost, let us celebrate Ingrid Acevedo's work for children and for the poor and hungry, by renewing our own commitment to those in need. That is the most appropriate tribute to Ingrid Acevedo.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 15th anniversary of the San Francisco Conservation Corps. In 1983, the San Francisco Conservation Corps was one of the first urban youth corps ever established to combine job skills training and academic enhancement. Fifteen years later, over 200 million hours of community service have been performed by the San Francisco Conservation Corps and 130 youth corps groups have been created nationwide. In San Francisco, Corpsmembers who range in age from 12 to 24 years provide a range of public benefit services while engaged in academic enrichment programs. Corpsmembers perform community outreach in schools, seismic retrofit and lead dust reduction in homes for low- income residents, install play structures for children, preserve and restore native habitats in the Presidio and coordinate neighborhood projects based on needs assessments conducted by high school aged Corpsmembers--to list just a few of their community contributions. Through the San Francisco Conservation Corps Center's Environment- Community-Outreach Center (ECO), The Learning Center, and the Community Service and Training Center, urban youth learn the importance of teamwork, leadership, community service, and academic achievement. Most importantly, Corpsmembers develop a ``can-do'' attitude building self confidence. The ECO Center provides job training, environmental education, and academic programs to adolescents and young adults in the Corps. This specialized training engages participants in technological and multi- media skills and activities necessary to prepare for today's job market. The Learning Center focuses on challenging Corpsmembers to reach their highest level of educational achievement and aids in successful job placement. As a result, Corpsmembers are encouraged toward a commitment to life-long learning. The Community Service and Training Center prepares young adults for a career and higher education. It serves to provide participants with confidence, strong work ethics, and responsibility to become effective community leaders. On Saturday, September 26, 1998, the San Francisco Conservation Corps will host their 15th anniversary celebration. I salute the San Francisco Conservation Corps, its youth, staff and supporters for the important contribution to empowering urban youth to improve their lives while also working to improve San Francisco neighborhood communities. Congratulations to the Corps on its 15th Anniversary. Our community appreciates and celebrates the Corps' leadership in support of youth, education and training, and community service. I extend special thanks and congratulations to Corpsmembers, Staff, Board Members, Executive Director Ann Cochrane, and Justice J. Anthony Kline on this special occasion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3248, the ``Dollars to the Classroom'' legislation. This legislation repeals many small arts programs that have met with great success, stood the test of time, and benefited children, young people and adults all across this country. Each year, Very Special Arts brings the transforming power of the arts into the lives of over 3.5 million people. Founded 25 years ago by Jean Kennedy Smith, Very Special Arts is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing educational opportunities through the arts for children and adults with disabilities. Both Very Special Arts and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts receive funding each year through the Department of Education's Arts in Education program. Very Special Arts' federal dollars are matched with state, local, corporate and foundation support in all 50 states. Each VSA state affiliate develops programs to match unique community needs and interests, further strengthening the program by guaranteeing local involvement. Whether programs take place in classrooms, nursing homes, day care facilities, fine arts centers, libraries, VA facilities, or children's hospitals, they are built on the premise that art is a universal language that strengthens communities and connects us to each other. In May of 1999, Los Angeles will be the host city for Art & Soul, an international celebration of the arts, disability and culture sponsored by Very Special Arts. Held in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Cultural Affairs and the Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau, the five day festival will take place at the Los Angeles Convention Center, and will bring together more than 3,000 artists with disabilities from around the world. The festival will feature performances, exhibits, workshops, art demonstrations and an educational symposia--all in an effort to provide an international exchange of information on the arts, education, disability and technology among educators, artists, parents, arts organizations, and the general public. The festival will also offer a learning opportunity for the more than 600,000 Los Angeles school children. These students, 8,000 of whom have disabilities, will be invited to participate in all aspects of the festival--broadening their awareness of the endless possibilities the arts provide in education, business and technology. Another highly effective program in my state, the VA/VSA Artist-in- Residence Program, builds independence and self-confidence in veterans across the country by using artistic outlets to enhance the rehabilitation process. The program provides veterans who receive care at VA medical centers with quality arts experiences through artist-in- residence programs and community-based activities. VSA California provides ten-week residency programs at the Palo Alto VA Day Care & Homeless Center in the Mission district of San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, the programs I have mentioned today are just two examples of the wonderful work Very Special Arts accomplishes each year in California and on behalf of all people with disabilities across our great nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3248, and continue to support programs, like Very Special Arts, that provide important and valuable services for all of our constituents.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a couple of points, following up on what I have heard in the recent debate here. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the position of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and in support of the amendment on the floor to restore the 907 provision to this bill. But I do agree with the chairman on a few points. One is that this region, the Armenia-Azerbaijan region, is a very important region of the world and policies there have serious ramifications. I agree that we must be, in making our policy decisions, acting in the interest of the United States of America. And I believe that the makers of this motion are doing just that. I understand that the chairman was dismayed when there was question of the motivation for the action taken in full committee, where 907 was repealed, and the motivation was attributed to the interest of the oil companies. I do not like questioning the motivation of our colleagues, and I understand the chairman's dismay. But I take issue also in the chairman's attributing motivation to those of us responding to the Armenian Americans in our country. I will have to get time later to continue my point, but I support the amendment on the floor.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a nationally recognized leader on international relations.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, now the gentleman is speaking the truth. Nobody was intending to honor the agreement in the first place, I guess, but the agreement was not honored.