Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership in providing access to quality health care for all Americans. I rise in strong opposition to the Republican bill and in strong support of the Ganske-Dingell bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Patients' Bill of Rights, the substitute to the fatally flawed Republican HMO protection bill. The manner in which this legislation is being rushed through by the leadership should tell us clearly that they want to avoid real scrutiny, and given their bill, that is understandable. With the health care system transforming around us, the most important decision we have to make in writing health care reform legislation is: What interests are we going to protect? Do we stand with patients trying to access quality care and needed specialty services? Or do we craft legislation which gives cover to the industry and considers patients second? The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights is true patient protection that will make a difference in the lives of every American. The contrasts between the Republican and Democratic plan are many and stark. I want to focus on three issues which are very important to constituents in my district. First, OB/GYN services are among the most personal, and important, health care services. This area of health care goes to the heart of the treasured doctor-patient relationship. When that relationship is full of trust and honesty, it can lead to better diagnosis, treatment, and comfort in the medical care setting. The Democratic plan gives women direct access to OB/GYN services, without limitations that can stand in the way of receiving services, such as limits on the number of visits to the doctor. The Republican plan does not guarantee this coverage for all health insurance consumers. Second, I am often approached by people in my district who depend on access to clinical trials. People with AIDS, breast cancer, and other health problems know that the cure for their diseases has not been found yet. Their hope is their ability to participate with others in the search for medical answers. The Democratic plan promotes access to clinical trials that may provide people access to new, life-saving therapies. The Republican plan fails to do this. Third, the Dingell-Ganske substitute, but not the Republican bill, permits individuals to sue the health plans under State law for personal injury or wrongful death. We need health care legislation that puts patients, not HMOs, first. And we need enforcement mechanisms that make those protections real. The Republican plan falls far short on both counts. It is cover for the health industry and for Republicans, not tangible protection for consumers. I urge my colleagues to support real protection for patients by voting for the Democratic substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, although I have only had the privilege of serving with Mr. Stokes for the past 11 years, our families go way back. And so it is a personal as well as congressional privilege to rise and pay homage to him. Since the time has been shortened, I will have to associate myself with the remarks of our colleagues who have gone before and just to say that the Stokes name is legendary in my family. My brother, Thomas D'Alesandro, III, served with Carl Stokes as mayors in the late 1960s and 1970s, those difficult urban years. Carl Stokes was one of the first black mayors of a big American city, mayor of Cleveland. And Lou Stokes, there are some people who are just born with a special grace and those of us who are fortunate to work with them know who they are. Every day that we come to work we learn from you. Every day that we come to work we are inspired by your fight for people with AIDS in the minority community, your fight for economic and social justice, the lessons you teach us on how to resolve conflict in a gracious manner. I always say that the greatest tribute to Mrs. Stokes, your mother, is the wonderful public life and private lives of Carl and Lou Stokes. Carl went on to be ambassador to the Seychelles. And now my daughter is a friend of young Carl Stokes in California, so the tradition goes on. Mr. Stokes, you will be sorely missed. It was a privilege to call you colleague.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the override of H.R. 1122, the ``late term'' abortion ban and I ask my colleagues to sustain the President's veto. Madam Speaker, this bill has been vetoed twice by the President because it fails to protect a woman's health and fertility. Once again, conservative Members of this body are encroaching on a very private, personal matter by infringing on a woman's constitutionally protected right to make a personal decision regarding her personal health. Madam Speaker, the issue isn't about how many women undergo this procedure, but how many women have no other alternative but this procedure to save their life and reproductive health. This bill challenges the Roe versus Wade decision to protect a woman's right to choose. It supersedes safeguards in the Constitution which protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy of a viable fetus if an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. The Roe decisions says that a state may ``regulate, and even proscribe, abortion'' except when a woman's life or health is threatened. Mr. Speaker, the authors of this legislation failed to incorporate the need to protect a mother's health into this legislation. The terms of this bill are so loose that 18 courts have struck down or severely limited enforcement of the ``late term'' abortion ban. Respected judges from around the county have rule that the definition in the ban is both vague and overly broad which has resulted in the ban of some of the most safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy. An undue burden is placed on a woman's right to choose and on a doctor's ability to practice safe medicine. All of these restrictions on abortion will only make abortions more dangerous. Let us protect not only the privacy and personal choice between a woman and her doctor, but also the rights outlined in the Supreme Court's decision, Roe versus Wade. I ask my colleagues to support and maintain the right of a doctor to determine which is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure based on a woman's individual circumstance within the protection of Roe versus Wade. Madam Speaker, Congress has no business coming between a woman and her doctor. When making a medical decision, doctors should not be faced with the threat of imprisonment for having to perform a procedure to save a mother's life or protect her reproductive health. The tragedy behind this unfortunate situation is that most women who undergo this difficult procedure desperately want a successful pregnancy. Listen to the women who have been faced with this tragic situation. Recently, I learned of a sad story about Kim and Barrett Koster of Iowa who enthusiastically awaited the birth of their son. In addition to Kim being diabetic which makes healing more difficult, the couple was faced with the devastating diagnosis that their son would be born without a brain stem. The dilation and extraction method was their only option. Kim and Barrett and their failed pregnancy are a perfect example of the need for access to safe medical procedures. Madam Speaker, let us refrain from legislating the work of a medical professional and refrain from jeopardizing the lives of mothers. I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain this veto.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment to reduce funding for the federal timber sales program and to reallocate the funds for better use within the U.S. Forest Service. There is a very basic fact associated with our federal timber sales program: It is intended to produce revenue and it does not. It not only fails to fulfill this promise to the taxpayer, timber sales actually result in added costs to the taxpayer. Why would we engage in such a financial relationship when we know that it is a big loser? Who pays? Not the private corporations doing the logging. The taxpayer pays. It simply does not make good management sense to conduct a federal program in such a financially inefficient manner. Look at the numbers: According to the General Accounting Office, the Forest Service's federal timber program cost taxpayers almost $1 billion from 1992-94--more than $330 million on average for each year. Last year, the loss was $88.6 million, by Forest Service reports. The cry for government reform should include reforming the way the U.S. Forest Service loses hundreds of millions of tax dollars in logging and unnecessary logging road construction in our national forests. The proposed elimination of the Purchaser Road Credit Program is a good first step toward bringing an end to subsidies for the timber companies at the trough of the federal timber program. The Furse amendment transfers funds from the timber sales program and puts them where all Americans can reap the benefits--in environmental restoration and improved recreational management. In the words of the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service: If we are to redeem our claim to be the world's foremost conservation leader, our job is to maintain and restore ecological and socially important environmental values . . . Values such as wilderness and roadless areas, clean water, protection of rare species, old growth forest, naturalness--these are the reasons most Americans cherish their public lands. Now is the time to build on that concept and the momentum of eliminating the Purchaser Road Credit Program by eliminating all subsidies for the federal timber program. Let's put an end to this corporate handout. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Furse amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to Sid Yates, the patriot, thank you for protecting our culture, our Constitution, and our countryside. It has been the greatest privilege of my political career to call you colleague. Thank you, Mr. Yates.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I thank the Chairman for the recognition to me as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. As the night is wearing on and these very important amendments are being debated, I want to speak out of turn. As my colleagues may know, this appropriations bill of the Subcommittee on Interior is the last one that our distinguished ranking member from Illinois (Mr. Yates), will be participating in. I wanted to take the opportunity to just interrupt the debate for a moment before the evening goes on too long to pay tribute to the gentleman. In the course of the development of this legislation in the subcommittee and the full committee and the rest, I think many members of the Committee on Appropriations have sung his praises, have talked about his great leadership, and I know that I can speak for every person in this body on this one subject, that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) is indeed a gentleman. People have praised the fact that he is a legislative virtuoso. He has taught us all a great deal and we have commended him not only as a teacher and a legislator and a gentleman and a person who has been a mentor to so many of us, but I want to comment on him as a great American patriot. As chairman for a long time of this subcommittee, and as ranking member, he has protected the beautiful natural resources of our great country. Thank you for your patriotism, Sid. As the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, he has spoken out so eloquently about protecting freedom of expression in this country. Thank you very much for doing that, Sid, and for protecting the freest of expression in the arts and the rest. So he is not only a great leader, teacher, mentor, legislator, gentleman, but a great patriot. I am reminded of what was said about Pericles when I think of the great Sid Yates when it was said of Pericles, ``He was a lover of the beautiful and he cultivated the spirit without a loss of manliness.'' I cannot think of anyone that applies to more than the distinguished, the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, Mr. Yates, for your leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who comes closest in my mind to being the conscience of this Congress. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the very distinguished ranking member of the Resources Committee of the Congress, former chair of the Natural Resources Committee. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show the rate of piracy of software in China is 95 percent. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to yield one minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is a nationally recognized leader on human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield, I want to comment on the gentleman's statement about agriculture. I think it is absolutely true that our agricultural products should have access to China. Unfortunately, they do not. Just over 2 percent of U.S. agricultural exports are allowed into China. A witness before the committee on Ways and Means in favor of MFN for China, nonetheless his testimony, Mr. Micek's testimony said: Our ability to participate in some of China's agricultural markets remains restricted. The Chinese central government controls grain production, pricing and distribution. The government also controls how much fertilizer and agricultural chemicals are imported, what prices will be paid for grain and cotton, and how much of these commodities can be exported. The government maintains monopolies on grain and fiber purchases, as well as on the main distribution channels for agricultural inputs. We have had difficulty collecting on contract obligations, even from branches of the government. I do not understand why the agricultural community in this country is not demanding more in terms of access to Chinese markets instead of following down this path of just keep waiting another 10 years and maybe we will be able to increase our exports to China above 2 percent. Mr. Speaker, I also want to quote Senator Kent Conrad from the Senate Finance Committee hearing on July 9, 1998 when he said China has reduced imports of American wheat from 3 million tons a year to 400,000 tons in the past 4 years while wheat farmers in North Dakota were facing disaster. In agriculture as in other trade sectors, and these are my words, the administration's policy is not working. Let us change that. Let us change the status quo. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a champion of human rights in this Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair discuss the order of closing for us?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), a real powerhouse for American workers. (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). While only a freshman, it is impossible to believe he is only a freshman, with all the work that he has done on this issue so successfully.

Ms. PELOSI. So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will ultimately close, and we go in this order?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that it is wonderful to have this debate because we have big problems with China, and they are the result of this policy, of which MFN for China has been the centerpiece. All this quoting from letters of former Presidents and Secretaries of State, et cetera, they are the people that got us in the spot we are in right now. It is no wonder they support their own position. But we are here today to change that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), one of the agents of change.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, what is the status of the time?

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been an active participant in the fight for human rights and workers' rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). We should have more discussion about this issue until we address the problems that have been caused by the current policy, of which MFN for China is the centerpiece. Madam Speaker, could you tell us the time remaining?