Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gift horse of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], his tax cut plan, looks good now, but in the long-term only the rich will benefit. Those are not my words, but the words of the Philadelphia Inquirer, which pointed out the bogus nature of the Republican tax plan. As this chart clearly points out, 57.9 percent of the benefits of the Republican plan will go to the top 5 percent, those making over $247,000 a year. Average Americans would be the biggest winners, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says. I do not think so. Again, sounds nice, but it is bogus. What the Republicans unveiled this week ought to be called Tax Relief for the Monied Class Act. Its focus on people trying to make ends meet lasts only for a few years. Over the long term, most of the tax savings flow to taxpayers whose incomes are much higher than the national average. If the Republican Party wants to stand or fall on that ground, waxing eloquent about a tax code that rewards risk taking, so be it. The elections in 1998 and 2000 could be a referendum on tax efficiency and fairness. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to look carefully at who benefits from this tax proposal. Let us have tax fairness. Support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Send It Clean. This is not a complicated message: Send It Clean, Mr. Speaker. It's been 85 days since the President asked the Congress for a disaster relief bill, and for 85 days the Republican leadership has played politics with the lives of suffering Americans. These people have asked for only one thing: Relief. What has the GOP responded with? More pain and suffering. This is not a complicated message: Send It Clean, Mr. Speaker. This is what the President has been saying; This is what the American people have been saying; This is what House Democrats have been saying; This is what Republicans have been ignoring for 85 days. Disaster Relief was never the place for the Republican agenda to be advanced. Extraneous bills should be argued on their own merits, and be allowed to stand or fall on those merits. The folks trying to rebuild their lives in California, North Dakota, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Louisiana are waiting for word that the Democrats are not the only ones listening.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in 1989, northern California was struck by the Loma Prieta earthquake. Families lost their houses, their homes, their personal possessions, their family photographs. It was a terrible disaster and a tragedy. Before we could even ask, Chairman Jamie Whitten, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, came earlier to work than usual and started to prepare the Federal response. He knew that the American people and the American Government have a compact between them that, when disaster strikes, the Federal Government is there to provide comfort and meet the needs of the people. The Republican leadership in this House of Representatives have broken that compact with the American people, they have violated it. For their own political agenda, they are holding hostage the families of the disaster stricken areas of our country. These families have suffered tremendous losses. They have serious doubt about how they will be made whole. Instead of having the comfort and the embrace of the Congress of the United States, they are ignored. Despite the best efforts of President Clinton and indeed even the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the radical Republican leadership refuses to help the families of America. I hope our colleagues will join the 20 brave Republicans and our Democratic leadership in supporting the emergency disaster relief bill today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 54, a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration. Mr. Speaker, I respect and revere our flag, all Americans do. It is a most treasured symbol of our country's freedom. But a constitutional amendment would diminish the freedom of expression that we hold so dear. Those brave people who struggle for human rights around the world look to the United States and its flag as symbols of freedom and tolerance. We have seen the tragic cost in other countries of placing greater importance upon a nation's symbols then on the freedom of each person to speak freely. We recognize that it is not the flag itself, but the treasured principles of democracy behind it that we must protect at all costs. Our flag is a piece of cloth that represents freedom and tolerance. But the flag itself must not be mistaken for what it represents. The freedoms of the first amendment are too valuable and cherished, too hard-fought and hard-won to be restricted by this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, on the first point the gentleman brings up about what is the law regarding Indonesia, yes, sir, I am very well aware of it as ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. We spend a great deal of time, of our committee's time and indeed the floor time, on the issue of military weapons to Indonesia as well as on whether we should have expanded IMET or IMET to Indonesia. My problem with the expanded IMET to Indonesia is that it simply does not seem to be working or taken seriously by the Indonesian military. Certainly it would be appropriate, if properly employed, for us to train the Indonesian military in the importance of human rights in dealing with civilian populations. We just have not seen that happen. The case of East Timor I think is a tragedy for the world. Around here, and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] knows the respect, the esteem, in which I hold him, Roshomon lives, people go to meetings, they hear different things, they carry away a more optimistic or less optimistic view of a conversation. I respect the gentleman's view of that conversation as a Member of Congress on this floor. I would hope that the gentleman would give Mr. Ramos Horta the ability to respond back to the gentleman to say this is why I drew those conclusions, because I know him to be an honorable man, and I think that the Nobel committee chose well in honoring Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment and also further in support of the Bereuter amendment to the Kennedy amendment. Most certainly we should take every opportunity we can on the floor of the House to renounce violence, especially when there is collateral damage involved affecting the lives of civilians. However, I do take issue with the characterization of what is happening in East Timor. I think our Members should understand that East Timor is a very small place and a large percentage of its population has been killed by the Indonesian Government. Some of that has happened with U.S. weapons. That is most unfortunate. That is why I support so strongly the Kennedy amendment as well as the gentleman's leadership for fighting this fight with such knowledge and such commitment. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] shared a story of his visit with Mr. Ramos Horta. I will convey mine. Last night in our community over 5,000 people turned out for a conference on nonviolence entitled the Power of Nonviolence. They all gave a standing ovation to Jose Ramos Horta for his appeal for nonviolence in East Timor and throughout the world. Certainly there are those within a situation who may lose patience, and I think that is the biggest challenge to those who are involved in the nonviolent crusade for change, whether it is in Tibet, and His Holiness was there last night and spoke as well, whether it is in Tibet, Indonesia, or in any other country, that while the leadership of the issue, its initiatives may be based on a commitment to nonviolence, that there are those who have lost their family members, their community people to violence in Indonesia and they may take action. We reject it, we denounce it, but we do not paint every leader of the East Timor movement with the same brush.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the new code of conduct for weapons sales, and I commend the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] for exceptional leadership on this, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for his, as well.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment as amended by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise respectfully in disagreement with the Smith amendment and support of the Greenwood-Campbell-Lowey amendment and thank them for their leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. It seems repetitive to say what some of my colleagues have already said on the floor on this issue, but obviously the issue needs repetition because it does not seem to be clear that this provision, the Smith amendment, is unnecessary. No United States funds can be used by UNFPA in China. Current appropriations law, and I speak as ranking member of the subcommittee on appropriations for foreign operations, so I know intimately the details of our legislation. Current appropriations law already denies foreign aid funding to any organization or program that, quotes, supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization in any country, and this is under the so-called Kemp- Kasten amendment. Further, current appropriations law also ensures that none of the United States contribution to UNFPA may be used in China, and United States funds are maintained in a segregated account and may not be commingled with other UNFPA funds. I understand and appreciate the concern that my colleague has spoken out on in terms of China and their forced abortion program. But the United States Government should not as a matter of principle hold family planning and UNFPA hostage to a legitimate concern that my colleagues and I share about the conduct of the Chinese Government. There is a well-founded concern about China's family planning program but not UNFPA's. UNFPA is already subject to more restrictions that are more punitive than those imposed on other multilateral organizations working in countries considered to be rogue nations or guilty of human rights abuses. We must not hold our policy hostage to the politics of the House of Representatives. We must not hold the poor families and the poor women of the world hostage to the politics of the House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we remember the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre and those brave souls who so valiantly fought for human rights in China. Eight years ago today the world was shocked to witness the brutal suppression of individual freedom and liberty in Tiananmen Square. A massacre which is still not acknowledged by the authoritarian leaders of China seared their memory. The images of that massacre are imprinted on our consciousness. Who can forget the image of the lone man before the tank? We must not forget those who lost their lives for the cause of freedom. We must not forget those still imprisoned who have lost their liberty in pursuit of this basic human right. It is said that the most excruciating form of punishment that captors can inflict on their political prisoners is to tell them that no one remembers or cares about them or their cause, that they are forgotten. Every time we raise our voices, we give strength to the brave men and women, we keep hope and freedom alive. The spirit of Tiananmen Square lives on. We remember the martyrs of the spring of 1989. We remember the advocates of democracy who languish in China's prison and labor camps. We remember Wei Jingsheng. We remember the lone man before the tank. We are here today to show the world that the seeds of democracy sown in 1989 are still alive and that they will inevitably burst forth in a full flowering. One day soon, the goddess of democracy will reign again in Tiananmen Square. But today we must all say to the rulers in Beijing, we shall never forget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, as we mark the eighth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues a moving memorial statement by Ding Zilin, the mother of one of the young men killed by Chinese soldiers. This statement, which is being read at Tiananmen Square memorials in the United States, is an eloquent testament to the courage of Jiang Jielian, a 17-year-old high school student, and his mother, who has struggled to make sense of his tragic loss. I urge my colleagues to read this statement and to remember those who have given their lives and those who continue the struggle to promote democratic reform and basic human rights in China. If My Son Were Alive . . . On the 8th Anniversary of the June 4th (By Ding Zilin) ``If my son were alive . . .'' For eight years I have been preoccupied with this thought, which cut deeper whenever I saw youths of his age. I would be struck with an empty feeling, a sensation that I was falling into an abyss. If he were alive, he would be 25 years old. At that time he was only 17, yet he stood more than six feet. Now, he would be taller. On the evening eight years ago, that most sinister moment, he left home, determined. He went to a most dangerous place. He never came home again. ``If you fall, we will take your place!'' This was the slogan they held up while marching in support of the college students on the hunger strike. The date was May 17, 1989. Those characters were written in black ink on a white background and were eye-catching. He was marching in the front row, holding the banner of ``People's University High School'' and followed by all his schoolmates. He did fall, fulfilling his promise with his young life. I often think: what is a person living for after all? If my son were still alive, I would give him all my love. I would do everything to support him to put him through college, get degrees, and go abroad for further studies, just like many other mothers of my generation. He died, however, taking with him all my love and hope. Does life truly end up in ``nothingness''? But I cannot forget what he said to me on that evening before leaving home: ``If all the parents in the world were as selfish as you are now, would our country and our nation have any hope?'' Indeed, what we adults dared not or would not take responsibility for was placed on the shoulders of our young children. Perhaps his was only a momentary passion generated by idealism. However, why don't we adults give something for ideals? A friend once tried to comfort me. She said: if a person lives just to be alive, his life would be meaningless even if he reached seventies. Although your son lived for only 17 years, he achieved a life full of value. I am not sure if my son's death was meaningful, because so-called meaning can only mean something to the living; some day the living might be talking about the ``June 4th'' and make only small talk about those who died on that day! But I still believe that people should not sustain a meager life, for such a life can only be sustained by compromising one's dignity. I know my son. If he had not died during that massacre, if he were alive today, I believe he would not give up his pursuit for liberty. He would be fulfilling his duties to this era by plunging himself into the surging tide of democratization. Here it suddenly occurs to me: what would I be if my son were still alive? After the ``June 4th'' disaster, perhaps I would be like a scared hen, to be more careful in protecting my son, to constrain his freedom in both thought and action with all the instinctive love of a mother, ``making'' him an obedient citizen. It is almost certain that such an attitude would give rise to conflict between mother and son, because he would not tolerate selfishness and cowardice. He would not despise me or sever the ties with me, because he loves his mother deeply, but he would take the road chosen by himself. In the end, I would have to go along. It is often said that children are the continuation of parents' lives, which has been reversed in our family. I am still alive today. Moreover, I have awakened from ignorance and slumber, and have regained my dignity, but this rebirth has been achieved at the expense of my son's life. My breath, my voice, and my whole being are the continuation of my son's life, forever . . .

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago this week, the world was shocked as people witnessed the brutal suppression of individual freedom and liberty in Tiananmen Square, a massacre which is still not acknowledged by the authoritarian leaders in China. The images of that massacre were seared into our consciousness. We have not forgotten those who lost their lives for the cause of freedom, and we must not forget those still in prison who have lost their liberty in pursuit of this basic right. Indeed, who can forget the image of the lone man before the tank, portrayed here in this photograph of that courageous act. I am proud to say that signing this particular poster on this particular poster are the signatures of most of the leading dissidents at the time of the democracy movement in China who have since escaped from China. It is without question, Mr. Speaker, that we expect to have a brilliant future for the people of China, diplomatically, culturally, economically, and politically. Our problem is not with the people of China, but with the actions of the repressive Chinese Government, a Government that continues to stifle dissent, to imprison those who dare to speak out, to worship as they please, to organize or to disagree. Eight years ago, the brave men and women who demonstrated for democracy did so in the spirit and the footsteps of our Founding Fathers. They quoted Thomas Jefferson. They built a monument fashioned after our Statue of Liberty. They looked to the United States as a beacon of hope and of freedom. We looked and still look to them for their courage, their idealism, and their dedication to the establishment of basic human rights and respect for basic human rights. Tonight in Washington, DC, there will be a demonstration outside the Chinese Embassy. It will be a coming together of many of the groups who have worked in solidarity, human rights groups, labor rights groups, workers rights groups, religious rights groups who have worked together since the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre to call attention to the severe repression that continues in China still today. As I said earlier, we will gather to honor the pro-democracy activists as we recognize their legacy and the legacy that they obtained from our Founding Fathers. We cannot and must not abandon them in their cause of freedom, both where it is missing and where it currently exists. Where it currently exists, of course, is in Hong Kong, and I will move on to that in a moment. It is quite clear that by imprisoning those that speak out for democracy, China's leaders have imprisoned part of all who speak out for democratic freedoms. These men and women are the past. The rulers of Beijing are the past. The brave men and women of 1989 and of 1978 and of all the outbursts of freedom, big and small, over the decades in China are the future. In a few short weeks the world will watch as freedom where it exists now in China, in Hong Kong, is tested. We must maintain our commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to their civil liberties and basic human rights. In yesterday's paper, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that in Hong Kong there was a huge protest demanding the freeing of the prisoners arrested at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Thousands of people in Hong Kong rallied as the turnover approaches and makes such demonstrations illegal. This rally was first a response to a statement made by a leader in Hong Kong, who said ``Forget about Tiananmen Square,'' and these young people turned out to say we will not forget about Tiananmen Square. So, again, thousands of people turned out with posters that said ``Forget Tiananmen Square? Never.'' Mr. Speaker, in observation of the 8-year anniversary. I once again want to call to the attention of our colleagues a book called ``The Courage to Stand Alone'', written by Wei Jingsheng. Wei Jingsheng has been called the Sakharov of China, and this book was written in a prison cell by him. It is a moving book by the paramount leader and symbol of the ongoing struggle for democracy and human rights in China. They say the most painful part of being a political prisoner, a prisoner of conscience anyplace, is that your imprisoners tell you that nobody cares about you, that nobody knows you are in prison or cares about why you are there. And one thing I want to make certain is that those political prisoners arrested for their peaceful demonstration of their rights at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre know that they have not been forgotten, all of them, including Wei Jingsheng, indeed a champion of democracy throughout the world. I would like to read more from the book but my time has expired. More on the subject later. But let us all come together, regardless of what we think about our policy to China, to commemorate the courage of those who gave their personal freedom and indeed their lives for the cause of democratic freedom in China.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. H.R. 408 is a deeply flawed bill that threatens marine mammal populations to the benefit of foreign trading partners. This bill is bad for trade, bad for the environment, and bad for consumers. In 1990, environmental, animal and consumer activists won a victory with the advent of the dolphin-safe label for commercially sold tuna. From that time, no product could be labeled dolphin-safe if the tuna were caught by chasing, harassing, or netting dolphins. The dolphin- safe label has worked to preserve dolphin populations. After Congress adopted its ban of imported tuna caught using enclosure nets in 1992, the dolphin mortality rate dropped from 100,000 per year to 2,754 last year. The bill before us would change the meaning of dolphin-safe to allow activities that would include highspeed chases with boats and helicopters, the separation of mothers from their calves, the withholding of food from trapped schools and the deliberate injury of dolphins to prevent the school from escape. In fact, almost any fishing activity would be termed dolphin-safe provided that no dolphins were observed to die during the catch. Prior to the dolphin-safe label, dolphin populations had been depleted by as much as 80 percent. The dolphin-safe label stopped this trend and proved to be one of the most successful consumer initiatives in U.S. history. Americans care about what is left of our natural environment and the threatened creatures who inhabit it. Dolphin-safe must mean that dolphins are safe and not unnecessarily injured or killed in the hunt for tuna. H.R. 408 allows an increase in dolphin deaths and unlimited injury and harassment of dolphins. That is by no means dolphin-safe. Proponents of H.R. 408 would have foreign trading partners define our domestic markets without congressional oversight and without public scrutiny. H.R. 408 is designed to solve a trade problem defined by foreign fisheries--not an environmental problem defined by the American public. If enacted, this law would establish a precedent for other labeling laws designed to protect and inform American consumers. Americans rely on labeling information. We cannot allow foreign interests to determine our domestic priorities and relax our higher environmental standards. If foreign corporations are successful in relaxing our labeling laws, American consumers will not have information about the safety or origin of the products they buy. The dolphin label works and consumers have overwhelmingly supported dolphin-safe tuna at the market. H.R. 408 is an attempt by foreign interests to compete unfairly with American higher standards. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote against H.R. 408 which would enable us to keep the promise made to the American people. Trade agreements should not result in the weakening of U.S. environmental laws. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for leading this effort to say no to this budget. With the greatest respect for all those who have worked so hard to bring this budget to the floor, on balance I think the appropriate vote for me, representing my constituents, is no. I frankly can understand why my Republican colleagues would support a budget that gives a tax break to the highest end individuals while putting the burden of this budget on the less fortunate in our country. I am concerned why it is appealing to my Democratic colleagues. However, I respect their decision . I do not think either vote is a good or bad vote on this. I do think, though, that we should make a statement about who wins and who losses in this budget bill. First, let me say that I believe we are here today because of actions taken on two previous occasions by this Congress. One was in 1993, when the Democrats and only the Democrats voted to support President Clinton's bill that year for deficit reduction and balancing the budget. That took us down a path of deficit reduction, stimulated our economy, and took us down a path toward success, and that puts us in position to have a balanced budget in the very near future. We do not have a balanced budget now, though, because of a vote that was taken many years ago, in 1981, the Reagan tax cut bill. Because of that tax cut bill, which produced huge deficits and increased our national debt enormously, we have to pay so much of our national budget for service on that debt. In fact, absent the service on that debt, the interest that we have to pay on our national debt, we would have a Federal budget and a Federal Government that would be operating in surplus, Mr. Chairman. In surplus. In think it is a real tribute to the Clinton administration that ever since the President has been in office he has had an operating surplus, except for the interest on the debt, which came to us courtesy of the Reagan tax bill of 1981. So, Mr. Chairman, in my remaining seconds I wish to say I oppose this budget because I believe that a budget should be a statement of our national values. I do not see that here. I see, when we talk about providing health care for poor children in America, that we are paying for it out of Medicaid, cuts in Medicaid, and yet, and yet, without any pain, this package will give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country without any cost to them. So I see the losers being the usual, the people who need more opportunity in our society, and the winners being the usual, the wealthiest people in our society with the loudest and the largest voices to impact the actions of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield back the balance of my time because of the small amount of time given to the ``no'' side, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and I again thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Richard W. Carlson, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Carlson resigned last week from his position at CPB after 5 years of exemplary work for the public broadcasting industry. During Mr. Carlson's tenure, public broadcasting faced a great challenge of consistently reduced federal funding. He responded to this challenge by calmly and effectively leading CPB through changes to make public broadcasting more effective. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Carlson has reduced CPB overhead expenses, protected program content from government editing, instituted a moratorium on adding new stations to TV and radio grant programs, devised a new TV station overlap policy and created a new grant program, the Future Fund. However, these significant accomplishments take a backseat to his commitment to continuing and strengthening public broadcasting's mission of education. Education is at the heart of public broadcasting. Mr. Carlson has played an important role in making certain learning resources are available through public broadcasting and reach almost every home, school, and business in this nation. In addition to the contributions he has made to public broadcasting, Mr. Carlson has accomplished many personal achievements. He has received several major awards for journalism, including the prestigious George Foster Peabody Award and the 1997 American Broadcast Pioneer Award, which is presented to those who have contributed in a legendary fashion to the broadcast industry. Mr. Speaker, public broadcasting has benefitted substantially from Richard Carlson's stalwart and thoughtful leadership. His presence will be greatly missed. I know my colleagues will join with me in wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Owens- Martinez amendment to H.R. 1385 to separate the summer youth employment program from the disadvantaged youth block grant contained in this legislation. Summer youth employment is a critical program in my district in San Francisco and in communities across the Nation. This program is often the first opportunity at-risk youth have to gain exposure to the ethic, the structure and the value of work. Currently, only 50 percent of the youth eligible for this program participate. If this program is included in the consolidated block grant, it is most likely less than that number would be reached by this successful program. This is a program that works and that teaches. The welfare law makes it imperative for us to help people find and maintain work with a living wage. It is critical for young people to learn the skills necessary to be successfully employed. The Summer Youth Program reaches out to at-risk young people to teach them this and more. For these reasons, it is essential that the Summer Youth Employment Program be maintained as a separate program, maintained as a required rather than allowable activity and receive a separate appropriation consistent with current funding. I urge my colleagues to support the Owens-Martinez amendment and show your commitment to a successful job training opportunity for at-risk youth.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and our ranking member for their hard work to bring this legislation to the floor. When natural disaster strikes, the people of our country have a right to have a response from us, and a response that is quick and appropriate. That is why I hope that we can do that with this legislation, and why it is hard to understand why anyone would want to throw up an obstacle to the very quickest response to the needs of the American people. That obstacle is in the form, in this legislation, of having in order the Gekas amendment. President Clinton has rightfully said that if the Gekas amendment is included in this bill, that he would veto the bill. So I urge my colleagues, when it comes time to vote on the Gekas amendment, to vote against it. Who wins under the Gekas amendment? I think just the House Republicans, because this month's balanced budget agreement includes several new investments in education and other priorities for American families, but Republicans are hoping they can ignore those bipartisan commitments by ramming through this amendment, which would allow them to impose automatic $25 billion cuts in education and other priorities. If the Gekas amendment passes today, here is what could happen: 86,000 fewer children would be enrolled in Head Start, 360,000 fewer students would receive Pell grants for college or job training, 31,000 fewer students would get college work study jobs. If you are a veteran you should be concerned, because 60,000 veterans could be denied medical care, 66,000 people would lose job training and job placement. The list goes on and on. If you are concerned about the environment, the cleanup of 900 toxic waste sites could be delayed, 500,000 fewer at-risk pregnant women and children would get milk, cereal, and other foods. We will be debating that under the WIC provision that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], is proposing. It is hard to understand how the Republican majority rejected the WIC funding. It is hard to understand why they would allow the Gekas amendment to stand in the way of the quickest possible aid to people suffering from disaster in America.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations. I am proud to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] as a member of the subcommittee. As our colleagues know, our chairman is a leader in advancing biomedical research and is the champion of the National Institutes of Health. His support for biomedical research has brought hope to millions of Americans with illnesses in their families. His ability to build bipartisan support for the NIH is a defining characteristic of his chairmanship. As the chairman knows, our investment in AIDS research through the NIH has produced dramatic results. Just this week, new research findings demonstrated that triple therapy seems to kill HIV more rapidly than previously believed. HHS will soon be releasing new practice guidelines for treating HIV infection based on this important medical research. The goal of the new combination therapies is to bring an individual's level of HIV infection down to undetectable levels. The treatments ward off further deterioration of the immune system. After 15 years of the AIDS epidemic, the new treatments bring us hope. Would the gentleman agree that these advances in AIDS treatment are a remarkable tribute to the importance of investing in the NIH?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Diaz- Balart/Meek amendment to postpone the cutoff of SSI payments to legal immigrants until the end of fiscal year 1997. The budget agreement makes good on President Clinton's promise to restore some benefits to disabled legal immigrants. However, this restoration will not occur soon enough for nearly 800,000 elderly and disabled legal immigrants who rely to SSI benefits for basic survival needs such as food and shelter, who have received notice that they may lose their benefits beginning in August. This amendment would delay that cutoff so that we may get serious about the business of restoring benefits for these people in such desperate need. Scores of frail and faltering immigrants have been driven to panic. A desperate few, at least five at last count, have been driven to suicide because of impending starvation and helplessness. It is shameful that a country like ours allows vulnerable people to live with that kind of fear. Legal residents who have played by the rules to get to our country, who have worked and paid taxes and who are making a good faith effort to become citizens, do not deserve the punishment this cutoff metes out. The Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment is not a permanent solution, but it will allow these vulnerable residents to continue to survive while the President and this body work to rectify the egregious and inhumane mistake that was made in first eliminating the eligibility for these people in need. I urge my colleagues to support the Diaz-Balart/Meek amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman for his response and his continued leadership in responding to the many challenges posed by the AIDS epidemic.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman. The chairman is to be commended for his strong support of the Ryan White program and for providing important resources to make these new drugs available for people with HIV. This is an emergency. Due to the great success of and demand for the new drugs, State AIDS directors are predicting a shortfall of $68 million for the remainder of this fiscal year. It is my understanding that this shortfall has also been documented by HHS. Nationally the ADAP programs have reported a 77 percent increase in clients since January of 1996. These programs are collectively averaging approximately 1,000 new clients each month. Program costs are increasing to accommodate the reimbursement of combination drug therapies which are becoming the standard of care. Mr. Chairman, without an additional $68 million for the remainder of this fiscal year, the AIDS drug program will not be able to respond to the immediate health threat to thousands of HIV-infected Americans. In the State of Mississippi, for example, 660 people will be cut off the program in the next week because of increased demands and the costs of providing new drugs. California is projecting a need of $6 million to continue the drug assistance program uninterrupted through the end of the fiscal year. Florida and several other States also face major problems. Unfortunately, the rules available under the supplemental bill before us today do not provide the opportunity to respond to this emergency. However, it is my understanding that the President may seek emergency supplemental funding for this program in the very near future. In the event that the President seeks emergency supplemental funding for this program, would the chairman be willing to work with the administration to find a timely solution to this urgent situation?

Ms. PELOSI. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] knows, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, also known as ADAP, provides funding to States to reimburse the cost of drugs used to treat HIV infection. These new drugs are expensive, but result in decreased costs associated with treating opportunistic infections and expensive hospital stays common when uncontrolled infection results in severe damage to the immune system.

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

Ms. PELOSI

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