Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Riggs amendment to H.R. 6, which would prohibit public institutions of higher education from receiving federal funding if they use race or gender in making admissions decisions. The status of admissions in California in the wake of Proposition 209 illustrates the harmful way in which the Riggs amendment would impact the nation. Statistics already show a drop of over 50% in undergraduate admissions at UC Berkeley for African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans. Acceptance by students is not the only place where the elimination of affirmative action has had a crushing impact. It has an impact on acceptances by students as well. Many of the highest-scoring African American students are turning down the University of California in favor of private universities. African American faculty at the university are discouraging prospective African American students from enrolling because the faculty regard Berkeley as a divisive areas and a national laboratory for the dismantling of affirmative action programs in higher education. Enrollment of African Americans at UC Berkeley has dropped 66 percent this year, and enrollment of Latinos has dropped 53 percent at that university. At the UC Berkeley Boalt Hall law school, none of the African-American students accepted into the class of 1997 chose to enroll. Affirmative action programs are part of a larger commitment to student diversity which enriches the educational experience, strengthens communities, enhances economic competitiveness, and teaches our students how to be good leaders. This amendment is another opportunity to erode decades of progress in ensuring that diversity in higher education for all Americans. It is just another extreme effort, as we saw in the transportation bill, to eliminate federal programs that provide opportunity for women and minorities. This bipartisan Higher Education bill has many benefits for our nation's students. The Riggs amendment most certainly is not one of them. It will have a crushing effect on diversity in higher education. I urge my colleagues to support educational opportunity for all Americans and oppose the Riggs amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and to express serious concerns about this bill before us today. The conference report on H.R. 3579 is a flawed product, calling non-emergency spending and riders emergencies, while ignoring real emergencies. It is flawed both because of what is in it, and because of what is not in it. I understand the real needs of people in this country who have suffered from natural disasters and believe that we must provide funding for this disaster assistance. We all support pitching in to help families and communities rebuild after forces beyond their control have wreaked havoc on their lives. I also join many of my colleagues in supporting the needed funding to maintain our troops in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. I object, however, to the unfair and capricious way in which decisions about what spending to off-set were made. It is no small mystery how the majority could decide that defense spending in this bill, including over $200 million in non-emergency projects, would not be offset, but that domestic disaster assistance would be. This means that important social or domestic programs are cut, but defense programs are not. I am particularly troubled by the actions of this Congress to ransack the Section 8 housing reserves once again, in order to provide the off- set funding. This bill rescinds $2.347 billion in Section 8 reserves, placing 450,000 households in serious jeopardy of losing their homes. For my colleagues who may not be fully aware of the Section 8 program, they should know that almost one-third of Section 8-assisted households are elderly, another twelve percent are disabled, and most of the rest are families with children. The median income of Section 8-assisted households is just over $7,500. In order to prevent these people from becoming homeless, Congress will have to come up with the funding which we are now using for other purposes. We are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul and the bill will come due soon. The inequity in funding issues is not the only troubling aspect of this supplemental appropriations bill. The bill contains several controversial legislative riders which are opposed by many in this Congress. They represent the majority's bad habit of putting anti- environmental, special interest and anti-consumer legislation on appropriations bills in order to get them signed into law by the President. My colleagues should be aware that the supplemental appropriations bill before us provides an on-going windfall for major oil companies by prohibiting the Department of the Interior from publishing a final rule to ensure that the American taxpayer receives market value for oil resources on national lands. Each year, these major oil companies underpay royalties to the Federal Treasury by $100 million for oil they produce on federal public lands. Much of this money goes directly for funding public schools, so, because of a non-emergency legislative provision included in this bill, we are feeding oil companies vast profits at the expense of our children. In addition, delaying the implementation of this rule could jeopardize a legal case brought by the Department of Justice against the very same oil companies which are pushing for the delay. The companies have been charged with shortchanging the government on oil revenues--in other words, cheating the taxpayer out of billions of dollars in royalties. This legislative rider is not right--and it certainly does not belong in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill--unless you buy the argument that the emergency is one experienced by the oil companies and that Congress should be helping them out. I am also opposed to the legislative provision in this spending bill which would allow for the construction of a six-lane highway through Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico. The purpose of National Monuments is to preserve for future generations sites of national significance and interest. In this particular case, Petroglyph National Monument is not only important for its historical significance, preserving important examples of Native American rock art, but also for its religious and cultural significance for Indian communities in the Southwest. The controversy over Petroglyph Park has been on-going in the Albuquerque area, where the Mayor does not want the road, and Congress should not intrude. It certainly does not rise to the level of an emergency which Congress must include in this bill. I join my colleagues, too, in expressing my concern that this bill does not address several real emergencies--the need for funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and for our unpaid debt to the United Nations. Both of these matters have reached the urgent stage and Congressional inaction on them in hindering the Administration's ability to conduct the nation's foreign policy. We are undermining our own economic stability by not providing needed funding for the IMF. I would be one of the first to argue that the IMF needs reforms. The House Banking Committee passed, by a vote of 40 to 9, a framework for those reforms. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not include that framework or the funding, taking real risks with our economic future and undermining the Administration's ability to negotiate much-needed reforms. Our national security interests are also undermined by the continuing dead-beat status of the U.S. at the United Nations. Congressional inaction on funding U.N. arrears--what we owe to the U.N.--is undermining the very reforms which some in this body advocate so vociferously. It is ironic that while we are considering emergency spending legislation today, we are not considering funding for two very real emergencies with consequences for all Americans--IMF funding and U.N. arrears. This Congress can and must do better. We should be able to work together to develop legislation to meet true emergencies--including alleviating the suffering of Americans who have been the victims of natural disasters--without harming the most vulnerable in our society. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of Columbia school voucher legislation. This is not the way to improve public education. Not one of us is going to contest the assertion that the D.C. public schools need help. but the way to do this is through comprehensive school reform, by engaging parents, teachers and the community in creating and maintaining high performance centers of learning with challenging academic standards. Diverting public money to private schools is not a way to improve education. It is, however, an experiment that is doomed to fail leaving this city's school children as the casualties. This legislation may benefit 2,000 D.C. students but abandon 76,000 others. Quality education for all students, not for a select few, should be our priority. Creating a voucher system does not solve the problem, it shifts the responsibility elsewhere. It also does not guarantee that students from low-performing schools will meet the admission standards of private institutions, or that the voucher would even cover the expense of many private schools. Public school choice, magnet schools, charter schools and comprehensive school reform efforts provide effective alternatives to passing our problems off on private schools. Our federal responsibility in education is to support States and local school districts in their efforts to make better public schools and better learners. It is not an acceptable solution to engage in misguided social engineering in the District by draining funds that would be used to improve the public schools. The Democrats of this House have a plan, a good plan that raises the prospects for all of America's public school children, not just a select few at the expense of all the rest.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) one of the deputy whips of the House and a great leader in this Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green) who is a health professional as well as being a Member of Congress. (Ms. Christian-Green asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton) who has fought in the trenches against substance abuse in the District and is a leader on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Hispanic Caucus.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a champion in this House in the effort to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS and an expert on the issue of substance abuse.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an expert on the subject of reducing substance abuse in our country and stopping the spread of HIV. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of the newest Members of the House of Representatives, a champion in the State legislature in the fight against substance abuse and now in the Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the program that he described is not one that fits the standards set by the Committee on Appropriations which is a needle exchange program, not as described by him. I would agree with him that that is not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a very strong advocate against substance abuse in our country. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who came to Congress to challenge each of our Members to lead their constituents not down the easy path, but the real path to reduce substance abuse in our communities.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who has been a leader on this issue in the State Legislature of Maryland and in the Congress of the United States and he is an authority on the needle exchange programs as a means of reducing substance abuse.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the Committee on Commerce and a strong leader in this House with unquestioned credentials in the fight against drugs. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a leader on this issue of needle exchange, not needle giveaway, needle exchange, to reduce the number of contaminated needles in circulation. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I wanted to make a statement following the gentleman who just spoke and welcome him to the Congress, our new Member, as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who talked about the experiences in their own communities. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues a motion to recommit which I intend to offer which says that there would be a ban on Federal funds on needle exchange unless the governor, State health officer, or local municipal health authority determines that the use of Federal funds for such a program would reduce the rate of transmission of HIV and would not encourage the use of illegal drugs and is acceptable to the State, city or other unit of local government or community. I think this fits well within the objections that my colleagues have put forth, and I hope they could support the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who has been a leader in the fight against drug abuse in that country. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire about the time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and a fighter for increased funding at the NIH for all of the diseases that challenge the health of American people. (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include therein extraneous material.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a champion in the fight against substance abuse and funding for diabetes.

Ms. PELOSI. I object to the gentleman saying that we do not fight for funding for diabetes. He does not know what he is talking about.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) who has been a leader in this House and also in the assembly before he came to the State legislature as the chairman of the Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman cares to know, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, as is the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and all of us fight for funding for diabetes. So it may be good news to the gentleman from Washington, or maybe he chooses not to know.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman, if he really believes what he says, and I trust that he does, that he ought not to support the next appropriations for the National Institutes of Health, which has scientifically conclusive evidence that needle exchange programs work. I do have a needle exchange program right next to my office. In answering the gentleman's question about his own constituents and their tax dollar, this syringe costs 10 cents. Taking care of a person for HIV/AIDS costs $130,000. I do not understand why our colleagues do not want to spend a dime to save a life. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a former prosecutor and a fighter against substance abuse in our country. (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader of the House who has made fighting substance abuse a hallmark of his service in the Congress. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)