Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to rip the foundation out of our public school system. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to block grant Federal education funds. This is an assault on the Federal Government's important role in education, and a serious threat to the future of our students. The Federal role in education is critical to maintaining a nationwide effort to improve our schools. To shift virtually all funding for elementary and secondary education programs to the title VI education block grant would drastically alter the Federal, State, and local partnerships that prepare our children for the future. The Hoekstra amendment will eliminate 26 Federal education programs, including the bilingual and immigrant education program--which provides funding to school districts throughout the country to help more than 3 million limited English proficiency students to become proficient in English and achieve high standards. The amendment would remove all requirements that local education agencies provide services for limited-English proficient students, economically disadvantaged students, Native American students, immigrant students, or gifted and talented students. Funding will be eliminated for education technology, school-to-work programs, professional development, and teacher training. Funds normally targeted for these activities could be used for any purpose, even noneducational purposes. This block grant provides no guarantee that the maximum amount of funds will reach the classroom. The title VI grants guarantees that only 85 percent of block grant funding must go to local school districts. Under the current title I program, States can retain only 1 percent of funding for administration. The block grant allows up to 15 percent. While there is talk that each State will receive the same amount it does currently through these programs, we know historically that block grants do not sustain these funding levels. We have not yet received sufficient data to know the precise impact on schools in our districts and in our States. We do know that States with the neediest populations will be hardest hit, because targeting Federal funds to the neediest students and districts through title I formulas will be eliminated. The progress that has been made in school districts under these priority programs will be completely disrupted. This amendment thoroughly devastates the Federal Government's commitment to strengthen accountability, raise academic standards, and ensure that all children posses the specific skills they need to meet the challenges that lie ahead. We worked diligently in this subcommittee with our chairman and ranking member in an attempt to keep this bill free of controversial riders. The President will veto this bill with this provision included. This is not the bill or the forum in which to debate an issue that will be so wholly disruptive to our education system. Drastic revisions of our Nation's education policy should be considered carefully through the authorization process, not haphazardly tacked on to an appropriations bill. This amendment is a thinly veiled first step to completely dismantle the Department of Education. It rips the heart out of the priorities for our children's education that we have taken great pains to address in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful amendment.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford].

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday on rollcall 398, I was detained in traffic and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his most generous remarks. I do not accept his characterization of what name would be preferred in order to have this accepted by the administration. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to say that the Clinton administration indeed has a strong interest and places a high priority on child survival. We think this is the better way to go about it, but we look forward to working with them as, again, the only remaining superpower in the world to assume and maintain our leadership in this humanitarian cause. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, maybe it should be the Clinton amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to our chairman for his support for this motion, for what some of us call the Callahan child survival account. I just want to remind our colleagues there is nothing new in what this motion to instruct calls for. Members have already voted for this dollar amount and this separate account. The purpose of this motion to instruct is to make this a priority in the conference and support the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] on this.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to make the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund the subject of my motion to instruct on the foreign operations appropriations bill because of its vital importance and to reinforce a top priority of the House with respect to this bill. The House, under the leadership of Chairman Callahan, included $650 million for the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund in order to emphasize that child survival and its programs to reduce infant mortality and to improve the health and nutrition of children in the poorest nations of the world should be our highest priority in our foreign assistance programs. This year's bill contains an increase of $50 million over the amounts provided last year specifically to combat infectious diseases around the world. These funds will add to the funds already planned to combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, polio, yellow fever, malaria, and measles. The Senate bill does not segregate these funds in a separate account, and provides for only $30 million to combat infectious diseases. The passage of this motion, which I am confident the Chairman will support, will strengthen the position of the House as we go into conference. I look forward to working with Chairman Callahan in securing conference approval for this funding in a separate account, and at a full amount of $650 million. In addition, I look forward to working cooperatively with Chairman Callahan, as we have so far, in achieving a conference agreement on foreign operations which funds all the programs in the bill at a level which will allow for sufficient resources to preserve the U.S. role of the world's only remaining superpower. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment, with the highest regard for the maker of this motion and for his commitment for education, the education of our children. However, I part company with him on this testing issue. Mr. Chairman, it seems like yesterday when we were all gathered, celebrating the proposal, was it called America 2000, that included this national testing. There was bipartisan support in the Congress of the United States, including some of the people who are speaking out against the testing this evening. The President of the United States, President Bush, gathered the Governors in a bipartisan fashion. They worked with the business community to develop a proposal that would meet the needs of our children, first and foremost, to prepare them for the work force, as well as to meet the needs of our country. Mr. Chairman, that is why it seems so strange to me this evening to hear people who were so bullish, if I may borrow a word from the business community, on that proposal, which included testing, which the business community was emphatic about, national voluntary testing to be part of the proposal that was put forth. President Clinton was at the time a Governor, and he was one of the cochairs of the education task force. I think that the credentials of President Clinton in education are unsurpassed. It has been one of the priorities of his public life, the education of our children. He was committed to it in the statehouse, and he brought that value and that priority to the White House, and with it, a focus on what is best for our children. That includes this national voluntary testing, and I repeat voluntary. The test that is being proposed by the administration will not impose a national curriculum. It will help States and local communities to tailor a curriculum to the needs of their students. It will provide parents and educators with information that will be helpful to assess the needs, as well as the progress, of their children. The voluntary national test, based on national assessment of educational progress, are tools to give parents and educators information on how students are performing academically. Others have mentioned, and I will, too, voluntary testing for fourth- graders in reading and eighth-graders in math sets up a challenge, a standard of excellence. We need to invest in the education of our children through funding of programs like title I, but this is imperative, and national standards enhance that effort by allowing us to determine what tools are most effective in preparing our children most successfully for their futures. Setting challenges and higher standards leads to greater efforts to reach those standards. I am proud to say that after a concentrated effort to meet the individual needs of students, and I repeat, a concentrated effort to meet the individual needs of students, test scores in my district, the district I represent in San Francisco, are up in reading and math for the fifth straight year. It is my hope that over time, the voluntary testing program will be developed to include limited English-proficient students in testing our efforts to provide these students with equal access to quality education. That is a must. Parents want to know that their children are learning. Educators want to know how to better reach students. Students need and want to live up to standards and challenges. Without an attempt at accountability in education, our children will not be as well prepared to compete in the 21st century. I was interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island, who spoke from his experience as a professor and as a father, and I as a mother recall taking one of my five children to college when she was looking at colleges in her senior year in high school. And I remember the comment that she made when she was aspiring to one college or another about what was expected and what standards had to be met to be admitted to certain colleges. She said, ``I really wish I knew this when I was a freshman in high school, because I would have spent my time a little differently.'' Well, she did well and she got in, but I do think that children should know what is expected of them, and I think that this balanced approach that the administration is taking of voluntary national testing helps students to know the challenges so they can meet the challenges.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday began Hispanic heritage month. And for that reason and many others, I am very privileged to read a letter from Familias Latinas to the President and Mrs. Clinton. The following letter is the product of a radio program called Buenos Dias California on KIQI AM in San Francisco. The hosts of the show, Carlos de Marty and Marcos Gutierrez, asked, ``What would you say in a letter to the Clinton family?'' The suggestions from the Spanish listening audience were recorded and a letter written as follows: Dear President and Mrs. Clinton: Congratulations to you and your daughter on selecting Stanford University for her formal education. This means you will be in our State more often since you will want to keep your family together. And that, Mr. President, is the reason for this letter, family unity. The people who have signed this letter believe that the Latino family in the United States lives in an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, frustration, uncertainty and despair which is detrimental to our community and may eventually have negative effects on the community at large. We want to communicate our feelings and request action now. Our family unit is under a great deal of pressure from propositions and laws which have flourished under your presidency. Among these are Propositions 187, 209 and the latest, a proposition to do away with bilingual classes. We are having a difficult time understanding why you have not been as supportive of us, as we were of you during the last two presidential elections. Let us look at the specific elements which are hurting our family unit starting from the elderly and working down to our children. Our non-citizen grandparents live in fear of losing their benefits even though they spent a lifetime contributing to the collective wealth of our country, not only in taxes paid, but in hard work done for little pay which allowed the country to flourish. Some of our parents are being deported, even though they have established roots in this country. You will be leaving your daughter at Stanford for four years in a friendly atmosphere. Imagine having to destroy your family because of immigration rules. Imagine having to leave your children in this country because you are being deported. We must remember that a lot of the men and women being deported now to Central America, came to the United States in defense of democracy, under the hardship of civil war. Citizenship should not be used as a wedge between family members. Many of us in the Latino family live in a cycle of poverty which forces both parents to work more than eight hours a day. This results in long hours of loneliness for our children. A lot of times we cannot afford to get good care for them. We are sure that because of your busy schedule there were times when you left your daughter alone, but never under inadequate care. On the educational front, many non-Latino students get preferential treatment because of their parents' connections to educational institutions. Our children don't. In the recent past our students had affirmative action. Now they don't. On the drug front, it is hard to imagine that the Nation which can focus on little rocks in far away planets, cannot see the enormous amount of drugs coming into our communities. Instead of sensible help, your government has allowed the construction of a sophisticated, profit-oriented prison system which sits waiting for our children. All these elements, working steadily and daily, have taken their toll on our family unit. We are sure, Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, this is not what you want. With these signatures, we are declaring our collectively dissatisfaction with the racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Latino atmosphere which has been allowed to prevail for too long. We need your administration's support for our tradition of family unity. We come to this land, as your ancestors did, to find a better way of life, to build community and loyalty to a wonderful country like the United States. As far as our past, we believe that the Latino community has contributed to the progress of the United States in times of peace, and specifically with our blood in times of war. We know the length of the list of the Latinos who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. These contributions should have earned for us a more active participation in our country's internal affairs and specifically in the future negotiations and plans between the United States and Latin America. We recommend that you accommodate more Latinos within your sphere of power so that perhaps you could see our plight under a different light. Many of us feel that as descendants of the original inhabitants of parts of the United States, specifically as described in the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty, we deserve better treatment. We feel that your role as a leader is to strengthen the Nation's points of agreement, not its differences. We believe that you, Mr. President, have a responsibility to act as a catalyst to rid the xenophobic attitudes which have been allowed to enter our Nation's mainstream. We ask that you undertake a rigorous campaign to establish yourself as a leader who will not tolerate anti-immigrant and anti-affirmative action attitudes. We also ask for our Government's support for a Latino U.S.A. summit in Washington, D.C. to discuss the issues which concern our families in this country. We also want full participation in the President's Initiative on Race. We are sure that the items which we have outlined can be addressed through communication and mutual respect. Signed, Familias Latinas en los Estados Unidos. Mr. Speaker, may I add that a letter has gone from members of the Hispanic Caucus in the House of Representatives to the President asking him to receive the enclosed letter, and with it there will be over 30,000 signatures.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who is a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and former chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], who has been a leader in the field of preventing the spread of AIDS internationally. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde amendment. While my colleague Mrs. Lowey worked diligently with Mr. Hyde to clarify the scope of his amendment, it is still not language that we can accept. The Medicaid Program provides for the use of Federal and State funds for medical care for low-income individuals, including necessary health care related to pregnancy. As the Supreme Court decided in Roe versus Wade, abortion is a legal medical procedure. By forcing poor women to carry possibly health threatening pregnancies to term, the Hyde amendment is contrary to the goals of Medicaid itself, which is designed to protect the health of indigent women by enabling them to obtain needed medical services they are unable to afford. I believe it is the hope of all in this body that we can increase biomedical research and contraceptive care in order to provide better health choices for women so the number of abortions performed each year will be reduced. But to deny poor women access to a legal medical procedure is to segregate by class or financial resources. To limit the right to choose only to those who can afford to choose is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Before I close, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the civility and the tone of this debate. I think it is an important one for us to have, and I always enjoy working with the gentleman from Illinois and want to thank him for his courtesy during this debate. Having said that, I rise in very, very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First, I would like to say what a privilege it is to defend the subcommittee's position, to defend the bill; and I would like to read to my colleagues what the bill says on this issue. The bill says, No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drugs unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. What this amendment will do will remove the discretion from the Secretary of HHS and say that if the Secretary determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do discourage the use of illegal drugs, that she does not have the discretion to have funds used on those needle exchange programs. I just do not see how that makes sense from a humanitarian standpoint, from a scientific standpoint, or from a fiscal standpoint. Starting at the fiscal end, if I did not think it would frighten my colleagues so much, I would have brought a hypodermic needle to the floor. The exchange of clean needles is very important in many ways including the fact that one hypodermic needle costs 10 cents. The medical cost alone, lifetime medical cost alone of a person with HIV/AIDS is $120,000, not counting loss of productive years, taxes that person would pay, and just the human concerns we would have about that person's health. So in the interest of balancing the budget and cutting costs, the prevention a 10-cent hypodermic needle, a clean one, seems to me very cost effective. We are talking, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, about needle exchange, not needle giveaway. The needle exchange programs do not increase the number of hypodermic needles in circulation because it is an exchange. To get a needle, one must bring a needle in. What these exchange programs do is decrease the number of contaminated needles that are in circulation, and in that way help stop the spread of AIDS. The needle exchange programs are helping our young people because, in some instances, it is the only way they are drawn into a system of care. That is why on the scientific level there is so much support for lifting this ban or for sticking with the language in our bill. In February of this year the National Institutes of Health sponsored a consensus development conference on interventions to prevent HIV risk behaviors. The group recommended lifting the current restrictions on the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs, and that means also supporting groups which use funds for needle exchange programs. Their key findings were a 30 percent, or greater, reduction in HIV and other disease transmission and a preponderance of evidence which shows no change or indeed even decreased drug use. During the NIH overview hearings that our subcommittee held, Dr. Varmus, the director of the National Institutes of Health, testified that in his view the ban on the use of Federal funds should be lifted and that science supported the findings outlined in section 505 of the appropriations bill. His findings were supported by Dr. Leshner of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Hyman of the National Institutes of Mental Health. Support the scientists that Congress has asked to give us their opinions. Vote against the Hastert amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. [Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman about the attitudes of the American people. The gentleman from Texas, my friend, knows that I hold him in high regard, but I question the poll data that he might be citing. Indeed, in March 1996, the Kaiser Foundation found that 66 percent of Americans favored, ``having clinics make clean needles available to IV drug users to help stop the spread of AIDS.'' And this year, in April 1997, a recent poll by the Tarrance Group found 53 percent of respondents approved needle exchange to help prevent HIV transmission. And that is the response that the American people give when they are asked if they want to support needle exchange programs to stop the spread of HIV-AIDS, especially among IV drug users. The Family Research Council poll that has been cited by some of our colleagues today presented a scenario, the Swiss experience, which is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a needle exchange. We are not talking about making drugs available. I do not know anybody who supports that formulation that was presented in the poll. The facts are clear by the poll. Needle exchange to prevent AIDS plan is supported by overwhelming numbers of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendments to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Since 1994, when our committee began cutting appropriations for CPB, which dropped 15 million from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997 and will drop 10 million more next year, the corporation has been aggressive in implementing policies to distribute its Federal funds in more efficient ways. Through administrative cuts, the phaseout of multiple base grants, a moratorium on adding new stations to grant programs, and increased fundraising effort, the CPB is making strong efforts to address the committee's concerns and make the most frugal use of its tax dollars while still carrying out its mission to provide excellence in programming. For 30 years, the corporation has provided educational, cultural, and informational programming to the American public. Public television is available to every child and adult, regardless of family income, or geographical location. CPB is dedicated to helping learners of all ages. It provides responsible programming with a reputation for excellence, nonviolent, educational programming which teaches our children and prepares them for the classroom. Federal support is the foundation used to leverage state, local, university, and viewer support. It is a public/private partnership that serves to benefit the widest array of Americans. It is an investment that reaps enormous benefit for us all. I urge my colleagues to oppose all cuts in funding to this important program.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for the purpose of responding to the gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the former chair of the Select Committee on Narcotics. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], a great leader in the fight against AIDS, especially women with AIDS.