Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], the distinguished chair of the Hispanic Caucus. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a leader in the fight against AIDS.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Angenette ``Angie'' Martin who died August 31 after a courageous battle with cancer. This past Saturday, September 6, in San Anselmo, CA, her family and friends gathered together to celebrate her life. She was remembered with tears and laughter, and I was honored to speak at this memorial on behalf of many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate who knew Angie. Angie Martin's entire professional career was reflected in her profound commitment to citizen action and participation in advocating for progressive social issues and candidates. Her incredible energy and passion for her work are what set her apart and made Angie the best of the best. My thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Gene Eidenberg, and daughters, Danielle and Elizabeth. I know my colleagues join with me in tribute to this remarkable woman who showed so many of us how to live well and with dignity. The obituary which follows describes many of Angie's achievements and her important contributions on behalf of social issues confronting our society. [From the San Franciso Chronicle, Sept. 2, 1997] Angenette Martin Angenette ``Angie'' Martin, a founding partner in the Mill Valley-based Martin & Glantz, a social issues organizing and media strategies firm, died Sunday in Sausalito. Ms. Martin, 50, had been battling breast cancer for more than five years. She pioneered grass-roots organizing techniques in the early 1970s when she ran field operations for the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, Ralph Nader's first statewide organizing effort. There she created the first ever ``citizens lobby.'' The CCAG, which influenced many environmental and consumer issues, quickly became a model for grass-roots and political campaigns nationwide. During the 1970s and early '80s, she was in tremendous demand as a political organizer, strategist and campaign manager. She worked to improve conditions for migrant workers in New York state and ran several successful congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. She ran several states for Senator Edward Kennedy's 1980 presidential campaign, as well as the campaign's convention activities. In 1981, she was named director of candidate services for the Democratic National Committee. In 1982, she became political director for Walter Mondale's political action committee and a year later, field director for his presidential campaign. With a reputation as one of the nation's most innovative and sophisticated organizers, in 1985 she founded Martin & Glantz with Gina Glantz. In addition to their Mill Valley headquarters, the firm also has an office in Arlington, Va. As a partner at Martin & Glantz, she shaped campaigns on a variety of social issues, including organizing the highly successful 1986 ``Hands Across America'' event that raised national consciousness of hunger and homelessness. She created effective grass-roots communications programs for the National Cable Television Association, managed California- based child safety and educational reform campaigns and ran a multiyear attempt to strengthen community leadership for the American Association of Retired Persons. She was born Nov. 8, 1946, in Hartford, Conn. In 1968, she graduated from Wells College in Aurora, N.Y., with a bachelor's degree in sociology. After college, she spent two years as a VISTA volunteer. Ms. Martin is survived by her husband, Eugene Eidenberg; her mother, Angenette Vail Martin, of Hartford, Conn.; brothers Erie Martin, Jr., of Albany, Ga., and Steve T. Martin of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.; and her stepchildren, Elizabeth Eidenberg of Los Angeles and Danielle Eidenberg Noppe of Seattle. A memorial service will be conducted at 3 p.m. Saturday at the home of Gina Glantz.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, call upon our colleagues to once again reject this attempt on the part of the Republican majority to continue its assault on American workers by hiding behind their children. Every day that I serve in this House I will say that we can talk all we want about the well-being of our children and their education, but the economic security of their families is absolutely essential to that. The Hayworth amendment undercuts that economic security. I urge our colleagues to vote no.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hayworth amendment and urge our colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, with all the respect in the world for the previous speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], I would like to address some of the statements that the gentleman made as well. Certainly the gentleman laid out a magnificent justification for funding for Impact Aid, and I agree with the gentleman completely. As one who had three bases in her district up until the Base Closure Commission closed all three of them, I certainly identify with the concerns and the values that the gentleman put forth and the need for us to have this Impact Aid. That is why I congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for increasing the funding in this bill to $796 million, an increase of $66 million from last year, for Impact Aid. Indeed, Impact Aid is a high priority for our subcommittee, as is reflected in this amount of money, in the $66 million increase, that was given. The gentleman referenced that he does not like the idea of questioning the motives of other Members of Congress, and neither do I. But I will, when I think that the Republican majority is, once again, for about the fifth day in a row, hiding behind the children of America, to make an assault, to continue its assault, on the American worker, and that is what this amendment is about. That is what this amendment is about. If we want to have bigger increases in our education programs, and I fully support that, then we have to take a look at our entire budget and how we allocate the 602(b) allocation so that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] does not once again in this lamb-eat-lamb subcommittee bill, because everything in here we can make a strong case for and a strong justification for, that is where I would like to see our Republican colleagues weigh in for more funding for education, instead of tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country and increased funding on the defense side without question. I agree with our colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], that this, indeed, should be a line item in the defense budget, and I commend a member of the Impact Aid Task Force, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Construction, for the leadership he has demonstrated in funding and building schools out of that budget for children of the military. The gentleman from Texas, our colleague [Mr. Edwards], is a cochair of the Impact Aid Task Force, and a champion in that regard, and he spoke eloquently in opposition to the Hayworth amendment. But I do question the motives of the Republican majority to day in and day out hide behind children. The first day it was children with disabilities, the next day it was vocational education, it was the education of our Nation's children, and then alternating back and forth, children with special needs, voc-ed, et cetera, in order to take money that is there to promote tranquility in the workplace. The National Labor Relations Board has a freeze in this budget which represents a 5 percent cut in staffing because the freeze does not enable them to keep up with inflation. This amendment, in addition to that, guts enforcement of the Nation's labor laws that protect workers. The amendment not only guts protections for workers against unfair firings, it reduces protection for companies. This is about workers and about companies. Both benefit from the work of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hayworth amendment would reduce protection for companies against unfair picketing and violence in strikes. The amendment would reduce staffing levels by 14 percent over and above the reductions that our freeze already impacts, investigations would double or triple, and election cases would be delayed up to 3 months. The bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is a bipartisan product. It balances the needs, the competing needs, of the very worthy competing needs that our subcommittee's jurisdiction of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education presents. I believe that in our national budget should be a statement of our national values. It is an honor to serve on this subcommittee, because we address the heart of the matter, jobs, job training, health and the well-being of the American people, and the education, the education of our children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Souder amendment. Protect American workers. Keep funding priorities in balance. Support the bipartisan committee bill and reject once again, for the fifth time since Friday, this attempt on the part of the Republican majority to gut enforcement of safety in the workplace.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to associate myself with his remarks about the fine work of the subcommittee under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to increase the funding for the ADAP program by $132 million. These funds for drugs for people with HIV and AIDS is very, very important. The gentleman's attempt to put in an amendment to increase that number, while taking money from other areas that affect people with AIDS, I think is not well-founded. Had the gentleman offered the amendment, I would have opposed it. As one who has had over 13,000 people die of AIDS in my district, I believe I have some standing on this issue. I certainly want the highest figure, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] worked for the highest figure, and will continue to work with the administration for an even higher figure by the end of the day, but not at the expense, for example, of the Office of Civil Rights, which works to end discrimination against people with HIV-AIDS and against a number of other functions within our bill. Mr. Chairman, I have frequently said this bill is lamb-eats-lamb. That is to say, everything in it is good; there is no place to go get an offset. Unfortunately, the gentleman's offsets are not productive, and, indeed, work counter to the interests of people with HIV-AIDS. Mr. Chairman, once again I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his courage on this issue.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of sorrow to speak against this amendment because despite the perhaps good intentions of our colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for offering it, it smacks of so much cynicism that I oppose it very, very sadly. It seems that for the first half of the week, or beginning last Friday, the Republican majority decided to exploit the good intentions of the American people and the attitude of the American people toward disabled children in order to have a political advantage for the Republicans. And now they are trying to exploit the appropriate sentiment that the American people have for people with AIDS by introducing this most unproductive amendment. As I say, perhaps the maker of the motion and those who support it come to the table with good intentions, but the appearance of this amendment is one that really does violence to all of the hard work that has been done by our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], by our ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and so many people who have worked so very hard to increase the funding for AIDS prevention, research and care and nondiscrimination against people with HIV/AIDS. As has been indicated by our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has increased the funding in this bill for AIDS and ADAP, ADAP is AIDS Drugs Assistance Program, by over $132 million. Is that enough? No. Do we need more? Yes. But that is an issue that should have been taken up in the budget talks, when we were giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America and funding defense programs without question, instead of going into what I call our lamb-eat-lamb bill of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. So that instead of trying to grandstand on the misery of people with HIV and AIDS, we could be increasing the funding without having it come at the expense of women's health, which is cut in this amendment. Women's health which saw a significant increase in fiscal year 1997 funding could suffer reductions in programs encouraged by the subcommittee, including National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health, implementation of the National Women's Health Information Center and the Missiles to Mammogram program. Or reductions in minority health, which would adversely impact a variety of programs aimed at improving the health status of disadvantaged populations. And the list goes on and on. As we cut the administration of the Secretary's office, we decrease the ability of the Department to meet the needs of the people of our country. But do not only take my word for it. Those people who are in the trenches every single day, helping to meet the needs of people with HIV/AIDS, for example, AIDS Action, on behalf of 2,000 community-based organizations which they represent, urge opposition to the amendment. And they say, ``Although additional funds for ADAP is needed, the majority of the offsets for this amendment come at the expense of other important public health programs. Chairman Porter has carefully crafted a bill that addresses the entire AIDS portfolio. In the broadest context of AIDS health care services, this amendment would upset that delicate balance.'' Or then we have a message from NAPWA. NAPWA is the National Association of People With AIDS. It does not represent groups, it represents individuals, and it opposes the amendment by saying, ``While new resources are desperately needed for the ADAP program, we should not have it at the expense of the needs of refugees or even the needs of the Federal agency that has to administer these funds.'' Or the National Organization Responding to AIDS, NORA. NORA is a coalition of over 175 health, labor, religious, professional, and advocacy groups which collectively represent the broadest possible consensus of issues concerning HIV and AIDS policy legislation and funding. NORA opposes the amendment by saying, again, ``Although additional funding for ADAP is certainly needed, the offsets would come from other public health programs, such as health care for the homeless, migrant health centers and other health programs which serve vulnerable populations. The additional offsets from administrative and policy research accounts help ensure that scarce Federal resources are spent effectively, and they should not be kept back.'' The organizations that day-to-day work with people with HIV/AIDS urge prevention programs advocate for more research and certainly advocate for more funding for the ADAP program, and all oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma. I certainly welcome the opportunity to put forth on this floor at any chance we get, the fact that there is need for more funds or for ADAP, and certainly in conference and certainly at the end of the day we should have more funding, but not at the expense of women's health and not at the expense of minority health. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook-Manzullo amendment and in strong support for the Castle-Porter amendment, and commend them for their leadership in bringing this very important amendment to the floor. Listening to the debate, it is clear that an amendment of this kind and a discussion of this kind of issue goes right to the heart of American families. It strikes fear into our hearts, we who are parents, and I am the proud mother of five children. The very idea that our children may be sexually active before they are married is something that is not anything that we would support, so we all promote abstinence and support building families and truth in relationships; and where there is truth in relationships, where parents have engendered that truth, there probably is not a problem. But where there is a problem, title X is an answer. Listening to the debate and listening to my colleagues sincerely put forth their ideas, it is clear to me that it is time for this House of Representatives to have a discussion of the facts of life, because they are being ignored in this debate. The facts in relationship to this issue are these: There are effective methods to reduce adolescent sexual activity and pregnancy, but sticking our heads in the sand is not one of them. The restrictive amendment proposed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] will deny many teenagers contraceptive services. It will not cause them to be less sexually active. The fact is, it will cause them to be less responsible in their sexual activity. Certainly we promote abstinence, but certainly we recognize that not all young people follow that lead, and they need more advice and counseling. Studies show that if restrictive parental involvement of this kind, and not of the kind very smartly put forth by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], studies show if the restrictive parental involvement were mandated, 80 percent of teens who do seek contraceptive care now would no longer seek that care, and less than 1 in 100 would stop sexual activity. The National Center for Health Statistics recently reported that the birth rate among teenagers has fallen since 1991, due both to fewer teenagers having sex and better contraceptive use among those who are. There are reasons why the medical community is firm in its opposition to the Istook amendment. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all oppose mandatory parental consent. The substitute, the Castle-Porter substitute offered today, encourages parental involvement which is appropriate and helpful for many teens. It recognizes that mandatory notification or consent does nothing to prevent either sexual activity or unintended pregnancies. I call the Istook amendment the classic law of unintended consequences, the consequences of more sexually transmitted diseases, more teen pregnancies, and more abortions, unfortunately. And of course, the other services that are provided at title X clinics would not be provided, as well. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Porter substitute and oppose the Istook amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. I did want the gentleman to also know that again, reiterating what the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] said, that it was a blow to us when the gentleman voted for the across-the-board cut, over $50 million cut. Actually it adds up to $52 million. The exact amount of this amendment, he cut in an across-the-board cut last year. So when an amendment of this kind comes along proposed by someone who supported a cut of exactly this amount of money in prevention, research and care at the expense of minority health, women's health and other worthy programs within this piece of legislation, it raises questions. Those questions can easily be answered when we go into conference or negotiate with the Senate about what our 602(b) allocation will be and the opportunity of funding coming from the defense budget to the 602(b) for this Labor-HHS bill. I would hope that the recognition of need will not go away. It will still be there. May I just say another thing. The gentleman said there is no help for people with HIV. ADAP drugs are administered to people with HIV, and, in fact, the best prospects are when people take these drugs earlier, because the immune system has not been as devastated as it would be in a person who has a more veteran case of AIDS or HIV. So, in any event, I hope the gentleman will be with us to take money from defense to meet this very important need that he calls to the attention of the body.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, whatever the good intention of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] to have this legitimate discussion about how funds are spent at OSHA, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] made it very clear that once again we see this within the context of the Republican majority trying to gut the ability to have safety in the workplace. Mr. Chairman, while hiding behind children in America, disabled children at that, the Republican majority is trying to say: Give us a few crumbs for these children, while we jeopardize the economic security and the safety of their parents in the workplace. Mr. Chairman, the argument made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and others on the Republican side, ignore completely the reforms of the Clinton administration as far as OSHA is concerned. I put some on the Record yesterday, and would just only like to add a few more to say that compliance assistance is a major emphasis of the new OSHA under the Clinton administration. The new OSHA uses commonsense enforcement to emphasize results, not redtape. The old OSHA practice of setting standard priorities was haphazard. The new OSHA instituted a priority planning process to focus on the most important issues. Why, then, does the Republican majority want to gut the ability to promote safety in the workplace? This amendment slashes Federal funding for workplace safety and health by 16.5 percent. It would lead to a cut in about 300 FTE's in OSHA's enforcement efforts. OSHA's staff of compliance officers could be cut by 25 percent. I repeat, despite the good intentions of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], OSHA's compliance staff would be cut by about 25 percent. Mr. Chairman, experience shows that without credible OSHA enforcement presence, fewer employers will request consultation assistance and be willing to engage in a cooperative effort to partner with OSHA. In fact, the National Association of Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Programs, which as the Chairman knows represents the State agencies to help private business with consultation, they have said that firm, fair, and effective enforcement of workplace safety and health standards is essential to reducing occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. That is why they oppose this amendment. They also say enforcement and consultation are complementary approaches to the same end. Any effective strategy for achieving overall safety and health compliance must include both approaches in balance. Mr. Chairman, that is what the bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] strives to do, and I rise in defense of the committee bill. The Souder amendment would transfer $25 million from the OSHA Federal enforcement account. Enforcement and compliance assistance are both important. The committee bill strikes an appropriate balance. Since fiscal year 1995, compliance assistance funding has increased by 79 percent. At the same time, funding for enforcement has decreased by 5 percent. Removing the careful balance between compliance assistance and enforcement has consequences in terms of protecting American workers from death and injury.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her very eloquent statement about the difficult choice that is presented. I do want to say though to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] that the issue between the House and the Senate on the amount of funding in the bill for the ADAP program is not resolved between the House and Senate. The Senate conference may present an opportunity for there to be more funding available from the defense budget to put into the ADAP program and I would hope, listening to his eloquent presentation about the need for more ADAP funds, that he would be an advocate with us for receiving that funding from transferring it from the defense budget for domestic priorities as is possibly suggested.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, defend his bill and the appropriation in it for OSHA. Indeed, the new OSHA, under the leadership of Joe Dear, the former administrator, and under the leadership of the Clinton administration, is a new agency. Mr. Chairman, the old OSHA was often seen as adversarial, as some of our colleagues have pointed out, because it relied heavily on regulatory enforcement. But the new OSHA offers employers the choice between partnership and traditional enforcement. The new OSHA, under the leadership of President Clinton, focuses on serious hazards rather than technical violations. While the old OSHA frequently cited employers for paperwork violations, the new OSHA has seen an 82 percent decline in paperwork violations from fiscal year 1992 to 1996. And under the old OSHA, employers and workers may have had to hire consultants to comply with complex OSHA rules, but the new OSHA created interactive computer programs, called Expert Advisors, which have been commended by employers, and the media, for providing them with expert compliance advice in an easy, step-by-step process. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because some of our colleagues have addressed the old OSHA as a justification for the cut that they are proposing. It is refreshing, frankly, to hear our Republican colleagues talk about the importance of funding vocational education. We all support that, and most of the Republicans who were here at the time voted for a large cut in vocational education, so hearing their defense of it this evening is a change and a refreshing one. But I fear that it may just be an excuse for them to do, once again, on this amendment what they attempted to do on the previous amendment, where they find a benign program which we all stipulate is important and that we support, vocational education, and we agree with all the merits and benefits of supporting vocational education and wish that our Republican colleagues were with us when the major cut was proposed and passed in vocational education. They take a program like vocational education and then take money and say, OK, we all support that and then go to take the money to make the increase in vocational education from enforcement of workplace safety rules and regulations. Last week they took the money from the Wage and Hour administration, again, saying it was for the children, but, indeed, the economic security, the work safety of the workplace for the families of America in this amendment would be threatened and, in that amendment, family and medical leave, wages and hours, all of those other considerations were under assault. This is about a pattern that we see here in this legislation where our Republican colleagues are trying to hide behind the children of America or people who are in need of education in America and do so by nipping away at worker protections, whether it is in OSHA or in other parts of the Department of Labor which are there to advance wages and benefits for the American worker. That is why I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment. Do not be misled by where the money goes. We all agree more money should be there, but that was a fight that was fought at the Committee on the Budget. Again, we should be putting our hand in the pocket of the defense budget or not giving big tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country who do not need them, if we want to talk about finding more money for vocational education but not taking it from safety in the workplace. Another argument that is used in the argument against OSHA is about ergonomics. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues this recent GAO report that just came out, August 1997, worker protection, private sector ergonomics programs yield positive results. Simple ergonomic programs can reduce worker compensation costs and injuries, improving employee health and morale and boosting productivity and product quality, this report says, and I quote, Most importantly, we found these efforts do not necessarily have to involve costly or complicated processes or controls, says the report. So the issue of ergonomics is not any justification for cutting OSHA. Indeed, it is a justification for increasing the OSHA budget. Freezing OSHA at the 1997 level, which is what this budget does, means significant cuts in the new OSHA's partnership and compliance assistance efforts aimed at helping businesses, especially small businesses, to achieve compliance results in the workplace. I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment because the funding for OSHA in this bill is still less than the appropriation for OSHA in 1988, 10 years ago, and there are fewer OSHA employees in 1998 than 10 years ago, thanks to the Clinton administration. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is like a stream of consciousness. Whatever we think, we can attribute it to anything. It certainly is not a choice between children and labor. This is not about that. This is about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle taking a poll and finding out what everybody in America knows: That education is important to the American people. Mr. Chairman, for most people in America, it is the opportunity for their children. And what is also important for their children is the economic security of their families. This $4 million, or whatever the cut is, is a small amount of money, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, in comparison to the needs that are there. Let us put our hand in the pocket where the money is, if we really want to get down to helping children in our country. So that the people listening know what is going on here, the Republicans took a poll. They found out that the American people care about education. Welcome to the world of the living. Everybody knows that. We have to establish our credentials around here. I have five children. I have grandchildren. I have two children, one daughter, and one son-in-law, who are special education teachers. I know of what I speak here about the needs that are there. If you really want to help special ed teachers, what are you coming around for with this chump change, cheap shot $4 million on a $4.3 billion budget, taking the money out of what the American people want? And I am surprised your pollsters did not tell you that. That is family and medical leave. They want it enforced. That is what this department protects, family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage, slave labor, child labor, enforces the law against employers illegally employing immigrants which apparently is a big priority for all of you except when it comes time to pay for it. Perhaps you were misled in our opening remarks yesterday when we praised the chairman of the committee for the bipartisan nature of the presentation of the bill and the cooperation with which we were able to come to this floor. Perhaps you were misled into thinking that because we complimented the chairman, it was the bill that each of us would have written on this side of the aisle. It most certainly is not. But it was a compliment to the chairman that he met the challenges before him and was able to reach some compromises. It is certainly not a list of the priorities as I would write the bill, but I respect his priorities. He is the chairman, and he did the best he could with what the Committee on the Budget gave him and the immunity that is given to the defense budget. So do not mistake our compliments to the chairman as saying this is the bill we would have written, because the priorities would have been quite different if we could have approached this from a saner standpoint, from the standpoint of the budget. It is important, I think, for Members to know that this is a few million dollars, $4 million on a budget of $4.3 billion. There are 6 million children in special education, so we are going to give them under a dollar each, under this cheap-shot amendment, under a dollar each so that you can all go out there and say in Washington, DC, they do not think $3 million is a lot of money. It is not compared to the need. But it is on the worker protection wage and hour line item that this money is coming out of. So if you want to talk about children, certainly their education is a most critical issue. We must fund it appropriately and wisely, but not at the expense of the economic security of their parents and of their families. That is why you see an exploitation of this Labor-HHS bill. Last night we had an amendment on homeless vets and all night we spoke about education. It was not germane to the issue at hand. It was germane to the politics of the Republican majority trying to pose as the champions of education. So I lose patience after the committee has worked so hard under the leadership of our chairman to produce a bipartisan product that we can associate ourselves with, but as I say, it would not be the bill that I would have written, but one that I am proud to support the chairman's leadership under the circumstances.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has had enough time. If he wants more, he can get it from his own side of the aisle. As you can see, I have lost patience with this exploitation of our bill. If you want to help the children of America, let us move this bill along, remove all doubt that we can engage in a civil debate with each other. Establish priorities. Make the compromises. Come forward with a bipartisan package that will be signed by the President and get on with the business of the House instead of this political exploitation of a bill that is very, very important to the future of our country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] said that the choice is between money for the children and money for labor. Quite frankly, with all due respect to the gentleman, and he knows that I do respect him and consider him my friend and colleague from California, this debate here today is weird. Maybe my colleagues should all go to their offices and watch themselves on television.

Ms. PELOSI

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